|
Well, not necessarily, Bill - if you improve the BSFC
by improving the combustion process through various means (direct injection,
different combustion chamber geometry, etc) you can theoretically get more HP
with less fuel used - NOT that we are likely to see that. But, I would
agree that for all practical purposes, if you want twice the HP, you had better
plan on twice the fuel burn.
Ed
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 10:39 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 16X Torque and Fuel
Economy
Twice the HP means
twice the fuel burned….Which addresses the 20% fuel improvement of the
Renesis.
The Renesis was
supposed to have a higher HP. That would burn more fuel, not less.
Also it is difficult to have a hairy raging monster engine that just demurely
sips fuel at highway speeds.
Bill B Still
working on cooling :<(
From:
Rotary motors in aircraft
[mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On
Behalf Of Lehanover@aol.com
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 7:32
PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: 16X Torque and
Fuel Economy
In a message dated
4/15/2011 1:14:28 P.M. Atlantic Daylight Time, eanderson@carolina.rr.com
writes:
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.
Would not "twice" the
torque mean twice the HP?
|