Peter Cowan/Lexi Cameron wrote:

Do you feel equally strong about not getting 250 out of the 3.3 dual
overhead cam engine?

In a word. Yes!
A few more cubic inches is not going to make that much difference.
3.3 L is 201 cubic inches. About the same as an O-200.

Picture this a pumped up 250 HP econ box Subaru engine in my 182 
climbing over the Rockies with a head wind at a gross weight of 3000
pounds. 
Why not? The 182 only has 230 HP and the displacement is ONLY 470
cubic inches. No where near the "equavalent" 540 cubic inches
of the Lycoming O-540 mentioned in that blurb.  

In a broader vein, I'd appreciate input (especially from folks currently
flying Mazdas) on the issue I'm wrestling with. My 170-like homebuilt has
been flying well for 16 years with a 180 lyc and cs prop. I want an honest
200+hp with the same weight (using fixed pitch prop), less money than the
lyc is worth and equivelant reliability.
I've been "listening" to you folks for a couple of weeks now and must say
the Mazda sounds good. Can a Mazda give reality to my dream?

Yes! I think so. Either with a peripheral port engine and a 3:1 PSRU or
a turbo side port two rotor and a 2.17:1 PSRU.

Paul Lamar
 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org