BTW H. Heisler in his book Advanced Engine Tech also disagrees
with you. He states it is equivalent to a two cylinder four cycle
engine of twice the displacement. Just like a two cycle is equivalent to
a four cycle of twice the displacement. You are out of sync with the world
on this point alone Vance :)

And SUMO SAN Paul belley butts SUMO SAN Vance back toward the
edge of the ring. Vance however, aided by the pact he made with
"old Scratch" is able to throw him off slightly. The referee lines them
up for round two!

Guys, While I tend to side with Paul on this one I really don't care what
displacement the rotary is as long as the power package is small. The
13b excells in power output for an engine of its' overall size reguardless
of which displacement you consider correct. If I recall correctly the
reason for the aircraft piston radial was to pack a huge displacement
in a smaller space. I remember it was the best HP per pound and package
size into the jet age. Bill Jepson

Nothing new Bill. This has been going on for as long as the newsletter (five years).
Vance has been on here from the beginning and is almost a hangar  neighbor.
I think he would be one of the first to agree with you on the rotary packaging.
The radial sure was.

Paul Lamar
 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2003 All world wide rights reserved.