X-Mozilla-Keys:                                                                                 
Howard Wilkinson wrote:

I was interested to hear the BSFC of .65 for the 3 rotor..... is this
accurate?  

No Howard that was for the PT6. The three rotor is 0.5. 
Sorry that was not clear in my message. PL

One of the main complaints with rotary engines has always
been high fuel consumption for the power.  I've read claims of BSFCs
less than .5 which is pretty efficient 4 cycle pistion range.... There
are lots of claims on piston engines of .3 to .4 , but they are
achieved by lying about horsepower output, or playing fast and loose
with the numbers.  The .65 number sounds like fuel consumption close
to that of the typical 2 cycle.
 What numbers are people really turning in with Mazda conversions?
Is there such a thing as an honest man with a dyno?

Oh yes. Check with Paul Yaw. His web site link is on the ACRE NL
web site  http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/      

Tracy Crook is seeing about .47 at leaned out high altitude cruise.
One thing about a rotary! You can run it lean of peak without
worrying about burning the non-existing exhaust valve.

Don't those straight cut gears set up quite a howl?  My experience
with straight cut planetary or spur gears is that they make a lot of
noise.

H.W.

You may not hear it over the engine and prop noise.
Airplanes are noisey.

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

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