X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <fluffysheap@gmail.com>
Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c2)
  with ESMTPS id 4936031 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 19:20:59 -0400
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=fluffysheap@gmail.com
Received: by iwn6 with SMTP id 6so6093271iwn.25
        for <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>; Thu, 07 Apr 2011 16:20:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=H9fI89gv/hBT1zAmyUIJHEDBEmOieBQxHQBClAWjWN0=;
        b=HCt7FroJABH+qmKH6d4rnRX+Xz+OFTOP2hwp072Sve5+eR647642Yc4srKjiIzCVK+
         zjYDEnc6wl8T2aIShRwGlH3XYZgs2unCFUpq0XQAHJbY1qMiyeIrhVrrsYJ+/G6vUKuf
         wkr4GJurrjV/k/7QZCdYwgFF9v5z9aMD2p/Vk=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=PJXqEntecxjUfIM2VfN+qn1YyPRhE04ZjVIfYW/yKDPcxEux5YO7EKMWZ2BqRFLBZW
         Q9SPHQRRu5oxAyYz1JNE1Ol/fmRuLRJTCGKFIKrdM6bmK1zKUk5WXryS1sgWSlg2uFZJ
         kinAxBe2xkbJVHYyxDKkSmKHLnfEqyNbt1Dc0=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.168.7 with SMTP id u7mr2258773icy.518.1302218423130; Thu,
 07 Apr 2011 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.167.74 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Apr 2011 16:20:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <list-4935603@logan.com>
References: <list-4935603@logan.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 17:20:22 -0600
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=KccAGFoa8E38Kjk_nLmw0XLNrDA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X
From: William Wilson <fluffysheap@gmail.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8d2c87dc5b04a05c5aa0

--90e6ba6e8d2c87dc5b04a05c5aa0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

One of Mazda's goals with the 16X is to not rev quite so high, for better
drivability.  Increased displacement will keep overall power about the same
compared to the 1.3L Renesis.  I am not expecting the 16X to be any better
for anything except fuel economy in the auto application and puttering
around with an automatic transmission.

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net> wrote:

> 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.
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>

--90e6ba6e8d2c87dc5b04a05c5aa0
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

One of Mazda&#39;s goals with the 16X is to not rev quite so high, for bett=
er drivability.=A0 Increased displacement will keep overall power about the=
 same compared to the 1.3L Renesis.=A0 I am not expecting the 16X to be any=
 better for anything except fuel economy in the auto application and putter=
ing around with an automatic transmission.<br>
<br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ernest Chris=
tley <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:echristley@att.net">echristley=
@att.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=
=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); p=
adding-left: 1ex;">
<div class=3D"im">Ed Anderson wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; borde=
r-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
I agree Al, that =A0would really change the alternative engine scene.<br>
 =A0Some articles speculated that the 16X might produce 300 Hp. =A0Based 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 resize=
d/shaped rotor and housing.<br>

=A0A three rotor equivalent could produce (based on displacement) around 31=
5 HP at 6000 rpm - now that would be great for larger aircraft.<br>
=A0<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
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 p=
ower in that is.<br><font color=3D"#888888">
<br>
--<br>
Homepage: =A0<a href=3D"http://www.flyrotary.com/" target=3D"_blank">http:/=
/www.flyrotary.com/</a><br>
Archive and UnSub: =A0 <a href=3D"http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/fl=
yrotary/List.html" target=3D"_blank">http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists=
/flyrotary/List.html</a><br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>

--90e6ba6e8d2c87dc5b04a05c5aa0--