Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> (Marvin Kaye)
To: flyrotary
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:03:26 -0500
Message-ID: <redirect-1855655@logan.com>
From: "Martin" <wankel@telia.com>
References: <list-1853864@logan.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 12A vs. 13B
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

>    Gee whiz Martin,
>    Read it again. I would rather see any Mazda carry on life, even with a
> different
>    engine than go to the shredder, because I love Mazdas. So unless you
build
> your
>    engine from all new parts, (very expensive) that means that a Mazda of
> some kind
>    bit the dust. In some cases just because the engine was removed. What
> better
>    fate for these hulks than to be reengined with a 32 Valve Cadillac V-8
or
> a small
>    block Chevy? Conversion kits are available for this. More Mazdas on the
> road for
>    longer is better for us, yes?

I think there are enough reckless drivers around, to make it possible for
the rest of us to find a engine at the scrapyard....
>
>     Most sanctioning organizations (including the Sports Car Club of
America)
> refer to
>     the 12A displacement as 2292 CCs and the 13B as 2600 CCs. The rational
is
> that
>     to compare the rotary engine to a conventional 4 stroke you must
rotate
> the crank
>     through 720 degrees of rotation. This is to allow all of the cylinders
of
> a 4 stroke to
>     cycle. If you do that to a rotary, what do you get?

Im shure you and I have gone thru different schools....
You cant get more displacement out of a engine by just turning the e-shaft
beyond 360 degrees......


> The data plate on the
> 12A
>     powered cars says that the engine displaces 1147 CCs I suspect that
this
> is
>     rounded off a bit to get a whole number.

Rounded off ??? Why ?? In what way ???


> Otherwise the answer is 2294
> CCs. So
>     for the sake of determining what cars the Mazda has to compete
against,
> the
>     engine is 2292 CCs. Or 2600 CCs for the 13B powered cars.
>
>     In comparing the 12A and 13B the comment "there is no substitute for
> cubic
>     inches, or CCs" refers to the larger displacement 13B having the
> potential for
>     making more power. This is a general truism and is not really true.
The
> heavier
>     rotors and longer crank of the 13B limit maximum RPM to less than
9,500.
>     The 12A can go to 10,000 RPM. This with unlightened rotors in both
cases.
>     If you add the super lite rotors maybe 9,700 for the 13B and 10,700
for
> the 12A.
>     You have to turn it faster but you can equal the power of a 13B.
>          This data is of no value for the aircraft installation. But just
for
> Oshkosh a turbo
>     13B with lite rotors could put on one heck of an airshow. For the long
> haul, the
>     engines will be turning between 5,000 and 6,500 RPM. In this RPM
range,
> the
>     13B is king.

Soo...what happend to the 20B....????

>
>      The 13B rotor housing is about 1/2 inch wider than the 12A.     And
so
> it is,
>      Just About.

The Mazda rotary engine are made in mm, not inches...so its 10 mm...notingh
else......;-)

>
>      Being old and wise (I think) the automatic trans is such a cool idea
> that young
>     guys miss it every time. The rear end gears in a Mazda look like toys.
> The rotary
>     has little torque just off idle (notice the 45 pound flywheels) and
can
> barely get the
>     car rolling. With a big V-8 up front, you would need a spare diff in
the
> trunk to get
>     anywhe
> The less obvious problem is your wife will not stand for this
> new toy
>     unless she can drive it too. Years ago a stranger rang my doorbell. He
> had a new
>     Fiat Brava with under 100 miles on it sitting in my driveway. He also
had
> a trunk
>     full of racing parts he wanted installed on his new car. His wife
waited
> in another
>     fiat (white 72 Sport Coupe). I did the whole 9 yards (an aircraft
term).
> Wild cams,
>     dual 42 DCNFs headers, lite flywheel, MSD ignition, adjustable cam
> pulleys etc. It
>     was on hell of a fun car to drive fast. Well, in a straight line
anyway.
> It was not at
>     all fun for his wife to drive, and she was stuck away from home a
couple
> of times
>     with fouled plugs (even with the MSD). So we backed off on the cam
choice
> and
>     the car became a delight to drive. He is now the CEO of Collier-Seeley
> corp. in
>     Los Angeles, and still has a Fiat sport.
>           So with a V-8 and an automatic trans you could have one real
nice
> car. You
>     could eat BMWs with it. Your wife would love it, and the original rear
> end would
>     last forever. And you could used the rotary engine in your airplane.
>
>     My friend Tom Pomeroy has no right arm and no feet. He is also two
time
> national
>     champion in formula continental, using the same manual trans as
everybody
> else
>     in the class. He drove my Lola Can Am car one time and I had to weld a
> washer
>     to a nut and jam nut that onto the top of the shift lever. He would
stick
> his hook
>     through the washer and wrap a heavy rubber band around it to keep his
> hook from
>     jumping out. He can out drive me and everybody else he competes
against.
> He is
>     also the most incredible mechanic you ever saw. He is a computer whiz
and
>     does 3D cad for a living. He and his wife as a team won the Chrysler
> national
>     trouble shooting competition while in high school. (best mechanics in
the
> USA).
>     So relatively speaking, it is I who is disabled.

I do won't comment on that last part, as you failed to se the irony in the
statement I did regarding auto-gearboxes for disabled....


/Martin