X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([75.180.132.121] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTP id 4941004 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 18:30:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=75.180.132.121; envelope-from=eanderson@carolina.rr.com Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=r4yJ8ACLDmU9N8MfnU6qGSvboKzSN9UnPAeXToqJDNE= c=1 sm=0 a=_1ZFFvzTFPkA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:17 a=arxwEM4EAAAA:8 a=r1ClD_H3AAAA:8 a=HZJGGiqLAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=EdnM0kA20aPzJR7EeakA:9 a=IIi2kxuKXPhe2W_wxc0A:7 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=HeoGohOdMD0A:10 a=WkR0zEOivPteHH0r:21 a=jGQYL7nFasFkokRu:21 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=5GT52KRfH6QuYbcfzLMA:7 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=rPkcCx1H5rrOSfN0dPC7kw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 174.110.167.5 Received: from [174.110.167.5] ([174.110.167.5:51881] helo=EdPC) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id B0/43-09483-36C8F9D4; Fri, 08 Apr 2011 22:29:56 +0000 Message-ID: <7B381D62F4C24EA5A818FAB113B74262@EdPC> From: "Ed Anderson" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2011 18:29:40 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01CBF61A.EC9DD3A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8117.416 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8117.416 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CBF61A.EC9DD3A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I agree, William, that Mazda will likely hold the rpm down a bit = compared to the older 13Bs. But, with the torque doubled at every rpm = due to the twice longer throw of the eccentric shaft combined with 300 = cc of additional displacement - I expect considerable improvement in = power/torque at lower rpm than the older iron - and that is where it is = most useful for our application. Few (if any) current aircraft = applications exceed 7500 rpm and most are operating at less than 7000 = rpm. =20 I'm not certain the 30% fuel economy figure mentioned will translate to = anything like that in the aircraft application. In the Renesis the 20% = improvement mentioned was found in the lower rpm ranges - but the = improve configuration of the combustion chamber offers some promise of = improved efficiency at our rpm ranges. We can only wait and see how it turns out. FWIW Ed Edward L. Anderson Anderson Electronic Enterprises LLC 305 Reefton Road Weddington, NC 28104 http://www.andersonee.com http://www.eicommander.com From: William Wilson=20 Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:20 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft=20 Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X 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 = 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. =20 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 ------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CBF61A.EC9DD3A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I agree, William, that Mazda will likely hold = the rpm down=20 a bit compared to the older 13Bs.  But, with the torque doubled at = every=20 rpm due to the twice longer throw of the eccentric shaft combined with = 300 cc of=20 additional displacement - I expect considerable improvement in = power/torque at=20 lower rpm than the older iron - and that is where it is most useful for = our=20 application.  Few (if any) current aircraft applications exceed = 7500 rpm=20 and most are operating at less than 7000 rpm. 
 
I'm not certain the 30% fuel economy figure = mentioned will=20 translate to anything like that in the aircraft application.  In = the=20 Renesis the 20% improvement mentioned was found in the lower rpm ranges = - but=20 the improve configuration of the combustion chamber offers some promise = of=20 improved efficiency at our rpm ranges.
 
We can only wait and see how it turns = out.
 
FWIW
 
Ed
 
Edward L. Anderson
Anderson Electronic = Enterprises=20 LLC
305 Reefton Road
Weddington, NC 28104
http://www.andersonee.com
http://www.eicommander.com

Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X

One of Mazda's goals with the 16X is to not rev quite so = high,=20 for better drivability.  Increased displacement will keep overall = power=20 about the same compared to the 1.3L Renesis.  I am not expecting = the 16X to=20 be any better for anything except fuel economy in the auto application = and=20 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=20 engine scene.
 Some articles speculated that the 16X might = produce=20 300 Hp.  Based on my calculations that would take around 8500 = rpm to=20 make it - perhaps a bit less with the increased combustion = efficiency they=20 claim due to the resized/shaped rotor and housing.
 A three = rotor=20 equivalent could produce (based on displacement) around 315 HP at = 6000 rpm -=20 now that would be great for larger=20 aircraft.
 

With the lighter weight, = it=20 would also be great with smaller aircraft...if you could keep the = plane=20 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.htm= l

------=_NextPart_000_0007_01CBF61A.EC9DD3A0--