Vance and Emily Jaqua wrote:

I will try to lump a bunch of answers to keep the 
letter chain from  getting too large.

The picture of the 3 rotor is neat I have printed it
 and pu in my file

I did look at swept wing (they look neat and the
pylons react against twist) but they dont help
in our speeed range, and put the spar too far
forward in the cabin.

I will try to finish a scale side view so we can
look at CG better

My model does use induced drag and airfoil data
the computed flat plate decreases as induced drag
is reduced. At one time it had cooling drag but
I think it has fallen out. It is based on tractor
prop (single) and adds fuselage drag for the
accelerated prop wash based on power and diameter
(I have to fool it for a twin)

Rich's E Mail is flykis@aol.com - but you did not
hear it from me - It would be too big a task for
a small company like his - we need that airplane
Daddy Warbucks we have all been looking for.

My Co Conspirater wants to do a composite 6 place
in that same envelope with the now cheap LOM
turbine - but the [Kis] company probably needs a removable
or folding wing version of the two place.

My view of the Wankel is that each rotor is a 

 > three cylinder 4 stroke engine of relatively large

displacement running at a relatively low speed.
Since all three faces complete all four "strokes"
in one turn the equivalent rpm is twice rotor speed
and this puts seal sliding velocities and local
acceleration forces in about that same ball park.

You cannot fairly race it without an arbitrary
handicap in one way or another depending on which
view you make of displacement. To reverse an old
saying "I am preaching against the choir" so I guess

I will drop it at that unless further goaded (all in
good spirits - I have often said " If two Engineers
always agree - one must be the other one's boss")
Vance

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

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