X-Junk-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 [] X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=2.3 cv=G+5i7Os5 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=BdkDsko8xamLYHJRmVh3Ig==:117 a=SXe6KEZRqW/OhGxRd5lZyw==:17 a=jpOVt7BSZ2e4Z31A5e1TngXxSK0=:19 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=J70Eh1EUuV4A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=YT3Yr15HAAAA:8 a=_6GpL_ENAAAA:8 a=7g1VtSJxAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=s7NESN3W3fiRXDwMFAgA:9 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=Qa1je4BO31QA:10 a=gvSQh4r-fQ0A:10 a=wTiroRwonzHjqvaCcHYi:22 a=grOzbf7U_OpcSX4AJOnl:22 a=Urk15JJjZg1Xo0ryW_k8:22 a=pHzHmUro8NiASowvMSCR:22 a=Ew2E2A-JSTLzCXPT_086:22 From: "Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au" Received: from nsstlmta03p.bpe.bigpond.com ([203.38.21.3] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.2.14) with ESMTPS id 12921286 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 21:11:48 -0400 Received-SPF: softfail receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.38.21.3; envelope-from=kbedford@alphalink.com.au Received: from smtp.telstra.com ([10.10.24.4]) by nsstlfep03p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au with ESMTP id <20190904011127.HCCW11604.nsstlfep03p-svc.bpe.nexus.telstra.com.au@smtp.telstra.com> for ; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:11:27 +1000 X-RG-Spam: Unknown X-RazorGate-Vade: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduvddrudejgedggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotffvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuuffpveftpgfvgffnuffvtfetpdfqfgfvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucegtddtnecunecujfgurhepuffvfhfhkffffgggjggtgfesthekredttdefjeenucfhrhhomhepmfgvnhhtuceuvggufhhorhguuceokhgsvggufhhorhgusegrlhhphhgrlhhinhhkrdgtohhmrdgruheqnecuffhomhgrihhnpegrvhgrshhtrdgtohhmpdhlrghntggrihhrohhnlhhinhgvrdhnvghtpdhflhihrhhothgrrhihrdgtohhmnecukfhppedurddufeeirddugeejrdeivdenucfrrghrrghmpehhvghloheplgduledvrdduieekrdegvddrudekvdgnpdhinhgvthepuddrudefiedrudegjedriedvpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepoehksggvughfohhrugesrghlphhhrghlihhnkhdrtghomhdrrghuqecuuefqffgjpeekuefkvffokffogfdprhgtphhtthhopeeofhhlhihrohhtrghrhieslhgrnhgtrghirhhonhhlihhnvgdrnhgvtheqnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd X-RazorGate-Vade-Verdict: clean 0 X-RazorGate-Vade-Classification: clean X-RG-VS-CLASS: clean X-Authentication-Info: Submitted using ID kent.bedford@bigpond.com Received: from [192.168.42.182] (1.136.147.62) by smtp.telstra.com (5.8.335) (authenticated as kent.bedford@bigpond.com) id 5D2D1175139F1D88 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:11:27 +1000 Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Re: The ultimate question... To: Rotary motors in aircraft References: Message-ID: <352267cd-08a1-e230-dffb-33e201f9e3e7@alphalink.com.au> Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2019 11:11:29 +1000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-AU I must admit that because I'm not the "engine guy" on this project that I can't be sure of the answers but I think that lower revs needed for the same horsepower in cruise (450hp rotory vs 350hp piston) might be why he is thinking that it will use less fuel than the piston engine in cruise. On 4/09/2019 6:01 am, Charlie England ceengland7@gmail.com wrote: > On 9/3/2019 8:37 AM, Kent Bedford kbedford@alphalink.com.au wrote: >> A 450hp all aluminium 4 rotor + turbo with cooling etc should come in >> at about same weight as the 350hp Lycoming IE2 or Continental IOF-550 >> but the rotary will have 100hp more and burn less fuel during cruise. > Welll.....only if you've found a way to re-write the laws of physics. :-) > > Rotaries are slightly less efficient, from a BSFC standpoint, than > properly leaned piston engines. There's just no way around it. Now, > they can *cost less* to purchase, and *cost less* in what you pay for > fuel (cheapest regular mogas you can find vs avgas for the a/c > engine), but even that advantage can go away if you're truly boosting > the engine instead of turbo-normalizing. > > Charlie > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > -- > Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/ > Archive and UnSub: > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html > >