>Al Gietzen wrote:
 >
 >
 >>Lynn;
 >>I think you're right on with your comments about cooling.  I was a
 >>little surprised by the first part of this:
 >>
 >>" Keep in mind that temperatures above 160
 >>
 >>
 >>>degrees is cutting into power output on NA engines and continuous
 >>>
 >>>
 >>operation
 >>
 >>
 >>>above 220 is begging for engine damage.""
 >>>
 >>>
 >>Typically piston engines run a tad more efficiently with a higher
 >>coolant temperature as there is less energy lost to the cooling jacket;
 >>so we might like 180 thermostat as long as there aren't any overheating
 >>problems.  Is the rotary different?
 >>
 >>Al
 >>
 >>
 >
 >Running a thermostat is a waste of aerodynamic drag. You should run cowl
 >flaps instead. Unlike a car the aircraft engine is running at power
levels
 >where too cool is never a problem.

I have (I think) the same question as Al, unrelated to thermostats vs
cowl flaps.

I remember research into using ceramics to build complete piston
engines. The stated premise was that cooling systems could be eliminated
and that the engine would be more efficient when operated at elevated
temperatures.

If I understood Al's question correctly, the question is, will a rotary
be more efficient if it can be safely operated at somewhat elevated
temperatures.  With Paul's 'indestructible' O-rings, synthetic oil,  and
the rotary's ability to loosen at high temps instead of seizing, could
it gain any efficiency?

Charlie England

The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2002 All world wide rights reserved.