Ramón Fonseca wrote:

Hi, Paul. Did you see this? If you do not know the fuel burning rate of the RX8 new engine, then, do you know how much fuel a current two rotor engine burns at cruise rpm? Tks ! Ramon

Paul: Tks. What is the fuel burning rate in gallons per hour of a RX8 at cruise RPM? Does rotaries burn more fuel that reciprocating engines? and turbines? Kind rgds, Ramon

My guesss is it won't be a whole lot better than the current 13B at .47.

I would is .44 at best and maybe only .45 pounds per HP hour.

Small turbo props engines run .65.

Paul Lamar

Ramón Fonseca wrote:

Hi, Paul.

It will be right to conclude after studying this figures and comparing 
the weight of piston and rotary engines that there are no fuel burning 
rate nor weight advantages with the rotary vs. the piston engine? 

That is true for a normally aspirated stock Mazda  two rotor with a 2.17:1 
gear box. When mated to a 2.85:1 gear box the power to weight ratio is 
slightly superior. Especially when a peripheral intake port or RX8 porting
configuration is used.

The jury is still out on the 3 rotor. It may have a lower installed 
weight than your typical Lyc O-540.

If aluminum end housings are developed it will then  have
a decided  power to weight ratio advantage at the expense of higher cost.

For a turbo rotary on the other hand it has far better structural tolerance of high
boost levels (up to 800 HP) and therefore it has significant power to weight 
ratio advantages over a piston engine.  We are just beginning to realize 
this advantage as such airplanes as Tom Parkes turbo 3 rotor Lancair 
ES come on line.

And that the weight advantage of the turbine vs. rotary is eaten away 
by the high fuel burning rate of the turbine?

Absolutely.


Paul Lamar
 
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.