X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mx2.netapp.com ([216.240.18.37] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2) with ESMTPS id 4935591 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:11:22 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=216.240.18.37; envelope-from=echristley@att.net X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.63,317,1299484800"; d="scan'208";a="539648111" Received: from smtp1.corp.netapp.com ([10.57.156.124]) by mx2-out.netapp.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2011 08:10:31 -0700 Received: from [10.62.16.232] (ernestc-laptop.hq.netapp.com [10.62.16.232]) by smtp1.corp.netapp.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/NTAP-1.6) with ESMTP id p37FAU2D007227 for ; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 08:10:31 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4D9DD3E1.9080704@att.net> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:10:25 -0400 From: Ernest Christley Reply-To: echristley@att.net User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (X11/20100623) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Ed Anderson wrote: > I agree Al, that would really change the alternative engine scene. > > Some articles speculated that the 16X might produce 300 Hp. Based on > my calculations that would take around 8500 rpm to make it - perhaps a > bit less with the increased combustion efficiency they claim due to the > resized/shaped rotor and housing. > > A three rotor equivalent could produce (based on displacement) around > 315 HP at 6000 rpm - now that would be great for larger aircraft. > With the lighter weight, it would also be great with smaller aircraft...if you could keep the plane pointed in the right direction as you rolled the power in that is.