In Chile there are only a few Rotaries. Mazda sell a lot of cars here, but not too many rotaries, and there are no enthusiasts of the wankel engine,  so for support and parts, I’ll have to go to the U.S. anyway.

 

If I chose and engine, a two rotor, which way do you think is better, the 2004 renesis for example (I saw one in eBay) or the 89-91 or 93-95 as you said? Can the “modern” renesis be use with a turbo?

 

Thanks

 

Gonzalo.

 

From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 1:29
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

 

With only a couple of exceptions the two- and three- rotor engines take the same parts.  Only the "big" center housing and the eccentric shaft are really special for the 3-rotor engine.  Luckily, these don't usually need to be replaced.  Of course, the manifolds, fuel injection and most of the electronics are unique but you won't use the stock parts anyway.  Most everything else is either the same as, or interchangeable with, the '89-'91 or '93-'95 13B turbo.

Which, of course, brings up the question of whether or not you can get *those* parts.  There is plenty of support in the U.S. for rotary engines, since Mazda sold lots of RX cars and tuners are used to bringing in Japan-market parts.  Is there such support in Chile?  It is tough enough to build a plane without having to build your own engine too.

2009/8/22 Gonzalo A. Giménez Celis <gonza@gimenez.cl>

Well, actually is not that bad. There are a couple of runways 3000 ft long,
and others 2000 ft. Altitudes varies from sea level up to 7500 ft, but I
don't plan to go there often, and if I do, the runway is very long. I want
to have a little more power just in case. I think the 200 HP is enough,
right?

Also, what about the parts, it seems that the two rotor parts are much more
available than for the 20B...

Thanks!!

Gonzalo

-----Original Message-----
From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On

Behalf Of Dave
Sent: Sábado, 22 de Agosto de 2009 17:08
To: Rotary motors in aircraft

Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Three or two?

While I am in favor of the rotary, it is worth saying that none of the
very few currently flying turbo rotaries have had trouble free
installations.

I know of John Slade and Dave Leonard, and both have had more than one
turbo failure in the process of finding what works.

I do not know if Mistral is currently selling its turbo version.

What sort of runway length and density altitude are we talking about,
where you intend to operate?
Dave

Thomas Mann wrote:
>
> A two rotor engine produce close to 200 hp at 291 LBS (132 KGS)
>
> A two rotor with turbo can produce 230 hp at 328 LBS (149 KGS)
>
> A three rotor engine can produce 300hp at 390 LBS (177 KGS)
>
> *From:* Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net]
> *On Behalf Of *Gonzalo A. Giménez Celis
> *Sent:* Saturday, August 22, 2009 3:05 PM
> *To:* Rotary motors in aircraft
> *Subject:* [FlyRotary] Three or two?
>
> Hi group. As I told in previous questions, I’m building a Cozy MK IV,
> and I like the Rotary idea. I would like to have between 200 and 250
> HP, since in Chile we don’t have such long runways like in the U.S.
> and is a pretty mountainous country. Regarding this, which way is
> better, a three or two rotor engine? Is the three rotor too heavy? Can
> I use a turbo in a two rotor engine without affecting reliability and
> weight? Etc…
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gonzalo
>
> Chile
>


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


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