Hello All, I can't attest to LOP operation at high altitude but comparing low altitude operation of Rotary Vs Lycoming the Lycoming wins hands down.
Here are my data points: Lycoming cruising at 2300 rpm and 25 inch MAP at 3500 ASL is burning 6.5-7.0 gph Vs Rotary cruising at 5600 rpm (1965 at prop) and 22 in MAP is burning 7.5-8.0 gph. If I push my rotary up to 25 in MAP it will drink 10.5-11.0 gph.

However, I didn't choose the Rotary for its fuel consumption rating, I chose it for Cost of Operation. The Rotary here wins hands down. No way can you purchase, install, operate and maintain a Lycoming at less cost than a Rotary.
Of course the type of fuel you burn plays a huge part in operating cost ... mogas is < 1/2 the cost of 100LL where I come from.

Jeff
13B NA, RC-1C, 267 hrs


So, for those of us who know better, what is to be expected lop or ? on a XC at certain DALT? This Paul guy disputes the ability of the rotary to compete with Lyc fuel burns?
Marc
------------------------------------------------
Hi Marc!

Glad to hear Dennis is flying happily... but I'd be interested in his fuel specifics. The rotary engines are fuel hogs... with about double the fuel consumption of a Lycoming and LOP... At least, that was Lionel Madore's experience on his twin-rotary (!) 180 homebuilt clone. The CAFÉ literature seems to support that as well... is Dennis experience any different?

Paul

Subject: FW: [FlyRotary] 1,000 hrs on the Hobbs!

Paul,
I think you may have a few misconception on a 'good' rotary engine installation. Lots of 'bad' ones out there, but it works.
Marc