X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Received: from mail-iw0-f180.google.com ([209.85.214.180] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.4c3j) with ESMTPS id 4947479 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 14:08:04 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.85.214.180; envelope-from=fluffysheap@gmail.com Received: by iwn6 with SMTP id 6so13708971iwn.25 for ; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:07:27 -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=CYrwyEenS36czeHWF6lWD/TNZ1CQmeQCkmWfV0CGr4w=; b=Kh42jnPMAnTPlvTBr2jQnNjvX+6dVQaBzyIEq3Fod6rFEHKAOErwNAtU04x1QCNhWZ TqYrkMRuXMFq8sZrp+JuI1OKBFIy5Vx4TbcqqleP0XQnIDa4Cd/27u2IoE7KxZWFtgRR r6Nppv60V9lCCNiRPsXug/ohSskJmbHpNIOOU= 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=uQnRHcWbZZ9mrmcVM6yqpZm/GaK8b1G7FLZxjJNDdxjTdBI/anJ0r47UtjN0+OieH7 SP+mylYOXqDGHYvMVW2YQv1m8aQhK7icoY93MA54fXFhWDRGz/c2Vt6CFYbsXO9OXqqi XYm3X4RQAu3JOtdSAqW5MKjhYFpNQqEKdutPE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.247.198 with SMTP id md6mr2935495icb.518.1302890847702; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:07:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.42.180.196 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Apr 2011 11:07:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 12:07:27 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] 16X Torque and Fuel Economy From: William Wilson To: Rotary motors in aircraft Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3005e072288f2f04a0f8ea44 --20cf3005e072288f2f04a0f8ea44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 The claimed fuel economy improvement in the Renesis was not really found at all. In fact, most RX-8's got worse fuel economy than non-turbo RX-7's (and quite a few of the turbo ones). Partly this is because the RX-8 is a heavier car than the RX-7, but basically the Renesis is just not all that efficient in real-world conditions. Maybe in the lab. Because of the generally disappointing performance of the Renesis engine - which was less efficient, less reliable, and less powerful than originally advertised, and on two of those three categories also compares unfavorably to the (then) 40 year old 13B design, I have somewhat of a skeptical attitude toward the 16X. Certainly I think the concept - increase the eccentricity for more torque and less revs - makes sense. The existing Renesis was limited in RPM more by the available transmissions than by its own capabilities, and thermodynamic efficiency (already the weak point of the rotary design) decreases at high RPM. Even with a "long stroke" design the 16X will still be a high revving, free wheeling engine and should retain most of the rotary character. But Mazda hasn't produced a genuinely good rotary engine in 20 years. I admire their dedication, but they really need to start getting it right. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Ed Anderson wrote: > Mazda claims that the 16X will have double the torque (at all rpm) and > better fuel economy at high engine speeds. The Renesis claimed a 20% fuel > improvement - but it appeared that was to be found at lower rpm than we > operate at. So hopefully the 16X will be kinder at our rpm range. > > > > --20cf3005e072288f2f04a0f8ea44 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The claimed fuel economy improvement in the Renesis was not really found at= all.=A0 In fact, most RX-8's got worse fuel economy than non-turbo RX-= 7's (and quite a few of the turbo ones).=A0 Partly this is because the = RX-8 is a heavier car than the RX-7, but basically the Renesis is just not = all that efficient in real-world conditions.=A0 Maybe in the lab.

Because of the generally disappointing performance of the Renesis engin= e - which was less efficient, less reliable, and less powerful than origina= lly advertised, and on two of those three categories also compares unfavora= bly to the (then) 40 year old 13B design, I have somewhat of a skeptical at= titude toward the 16X.

Certainly I think the concept - increase the eccentricity for more torq= ue and less revs - makes sense.=A0 The existing Renesis was limited in RPM = more by the available transmissions than by its own capabilities, and therm= odynamic efficiency (already the weak point of the rotary design) decreases= at high RPM.=A0 Even with a "long stroke" design the 16X will st= ill be a high revving, free wheeling engine and should retain most of the r= otary character.

But Mazda hasn't produced a genuinely good rotary engine in 20 year= s.=A0 I admire their dedication, but they really need to start getting it r= ight.

On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:13 AM, E= d Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
Mazda claims that the 16X will have double the to= rque (at=20 all rpm) and better fuel economy at high engine speeds.=A0 The Renesis=20 claimed a 20% fuel improvement - but it appeared that was to be found at lo= wer=20 rpm than we operate at.=A0 So hopefully the 16X will be kinder at our rpm= =20 range.
=A0
=A0
=A0
--20cf3005e072288f2f04a0f8ea44--