From: "Marvin Kaye" <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: True Displacement of the 13B rotary Egnine
 Take 2
To: flyrotary
Date: Wed, 08 Oct 2003 18:00:37 -0400
Message-ID: <web-2629162@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <002e01c38dd7$5f4a5d60$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Posted for "Ed Anderson" <eanderson@carolina.rr.com>:

Your right of course, Leon.

     A per revolution comparison is a valid comparison, but there is just
something that bothers me about getting to count the volume of all the
cylinders in a reciprocating engine toward its displacement - yet, we dont'
with the rotary.  I certainly agree and have no issue with the equivalence
comparison with a 2 or 4 stroke - but with them we do count all the volume
displace in an engine cycle toward the total displacement.  We simple don't
with the rotary.

But, as you said - does it make a difference?  And of course it does not.
You get what you get out of the engine.

  Hadn't heard or see you on the list in such a while I was a bit concerned.
I had just forward JJ Johnson's interest in a 20B your way when you came on
the list.

I've been busy getting my Dynamic Effect Intake Presentation ready for a
flyin in late October.  It turns out there is a lot more to it than manifold
length, RPM and the speed of sound {:>)  Its going to open some eyes and
prove some folks dead wrong - fortunately it has nothing to do with
displacement {:>).

Best Regards

Ed Anderson
RV-6A N494BW Rotary Powered
Matthews, NC
eanderson@carolina.rr.com

> I sorta KNEW this would create contovesy.  As I alluded to last
> time,  this whole capacity question is a can of worms, and it tends
> to just keep going around and aound and back and forth }:>) .
>
> I can appreciate the point you make that all three rotor faces each
> going though a Wankel Cycle,  and needing 3 revs of the eccentric
> shaft to do so..