Mailing List flyrotary@lancaironline.net Message #513
From: Martin <wankel@telia.com>
Sender: Marvin Kaye <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: 12A vs. 13B
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 19:03:26 -0500
To: <flyrotary>
   Gee whiz Martin,
   Read it again. I would rather see any Mazda carry on life, even with a
different
   engine than go to the shredder, because I love Mazdas. So unless you
build
your
   engine from all new parts, (very expensive) that means that a Mazda of
some kind
   bit the dust. In some cases just because the engine was removed. What
better
   fate for these hulks than to be reengined with a 32 Valve Cadillac V-8
or
a small
   block Chevy? Conversion kits are available for this. More Mazdas on the
road for
   longer is better for us, yes?

I think there are enough reckless drivers around, to make it possible for
the rest of us to find a engine at the scrapyard....

    Most sanctioning organizations (including the Sports Car Club of
America)
refer to
    the 12A displacement as 2292 CCs and the 13B as 2600 CCs. The rational
is
that
    to compare the rotary engine to a conventional 4 stroke you must
rotate
the crank
    through 720 degrees of rotation. This is to allow all of the cylinders
of
a 4 stroke to
    cycle. If you do that to a rotary, what do you get?

Im shure you and I have gone thru different schools....
You cant get more displacement out of a engine by just turning the e-shaft
beyond 360 degrees......


The data plate on the
12A
    powered cars says that the engine displaces 1147 CCs I suspect that
this
is
    rounded off a bit to get a whole number.

Rounded off ??? Why ?? In what way ???


Otherwise the answer is 2294
CCs. So
    for the sake of determining what cars the Mazda has to compete
against,
the
    engine is 2292 CCs. Or 2600 CCs for the 13B powered cars.

    In comparing the 12A and 13B the comment "there is no substitute for
cubic
    inches, or CCs" refers to the larger displacement 13B having the
potential for
    making more power. This is a general truism and is not really true.
The
heavier
    rotors and longer crank of the 13B limit maximum RPM to less than
9,500.
    The 12A can go to 10,000 RPM. This with unlightened rotors in both
cases.
    If you add the super lite rotors maybe 9,700 for the 13B and 10,700
for
the 12A.
    You have to turn it faster but you can equal the power of a 13B.
         This data is of no value for the aircraft installation. But just
for
Oshkosh a turbo
    13B with lite rotors could put on one heck of an airshow. For the long
haul, the
    engines will be turning between 5,000 and 6,500 RPM. In this RPM
range,
the
    13B is king.

Soo...what happend to the 20B....????


     The 13B rotor housing is about 1/2 inch wider than the 12A.     And
so
it is,
     Just About.

The Mazda rotary engine are made in mm, not inches...so its 10 mm...notingh
else......;-)


     Being old and wise (I think) the automatic trans is such a cool idea
that young
    guys miss it every time. The rear end gears in a Mazda look like toys.
The rotary
    has little torque just off idle (notice the 45 pound flywheels) and
can
barely get the
    car rolling. With a big V-8 up front, you would need a spare diff in
the
trunk to get
    anywhe
The less obvious problem is your wife will not stand for this
new toy
    unless she can drive it too. Years ago a stranger rang my doorbell. He
had a new
    Fiat Brava with under 100 miles on it sitting in my driveway. He also
had
a trunk
    full of racing parts he wanted installed on his new car. His wife
waited
in another
    fiat (white 72 Sport Coupe). I did the whole 9 yards (an aircraft
term).
Wild cams,
    dual 42 DCNFs headers, lite flywheel, MSD ignition, adjustable cam
pulleys etc. It
    was on hell of a fun car to drive fast. Well, in a straight line
anyway.
It was not at
    all fun for his wife to drive, and she was stuck away from home a
couple
of times
    with fouled plugs (even with the MSD). So we backed off on the cam
choice
and
    the car became a delight to drive. He is now the CEO of Collier-Seeley
corp. in
    Los Angeles, and still has a Fiat sport.
          So with a V-8 and an automatic trans you could have one real
nice
car. You
    could eat BMWs with it. Your wife would love it, and the original rear
end would
    last forever. And you could used the rotary engine in your airplane.

    My friend Tom Pomeroy has no right arm and no feet. He is also two
time
national
    champion in formula continental, using the same manual trans as
everybody
else
    in the class. He drove my Lola Can Am car one time and I had to weld a
washer
    to a nut and jam nut that onto the top of the shift lever. He would
stick
his hook
    through the washer and wrap a heavy rubber band around it to keep his
hook from
    jumping out. He can out drive me and everybody else he competes
against.
He is
    also the most incredible mechanic you ever saw. He is a computer whiz
and
    does 3D cad for a living. He and his wife as a team won the Chrysler
national
    trouble shooting competition while in high school. (best mechanics in
the
USA).
    So relatively speaking, it is I who is disabled.

I do won't comment on that last part, as you failed to se the irony in the
statement I did regarding auto-gearboxes for disabled....


/Martin



Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster