So, please let's stop using the word "diesel" for a heavy-fuel powered
engine that is NOT compression ignited.
Dave Arbogast wrote:
This is the best thing I've heard on the subject... Although I am an avid diesel
fanatic, I think we need to approach this from an engineering perspective:
Define the project requirements:
1) aviation power plant that's affordable. - some mass production parts like
Mazda.
2) uses a fuel that is readily available long term. - diesel / jet-A
3) is reliable. - rotary
4) improved BSFC - higher compression, maybe.
if we meet these, do we care what the ignition method is? I don't.
Best Regards /Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
-dave
mailto dave ( at ) arb.net
http://arb.net
I would not get my hopes up for higher compression ratio or for better
BSFC unless the turbo compound rotary is developed (better BSFC).
Lets be brutally realistic about all this. With a rotary TC at 20% better BSFC...
checking the BS detector (BSFC equation) the fuel burn at 150 HP cruise will
potentially go down from 11.7 to 9.4 gallons per hour. At $3 a gallon that is
a $2.30 US dollar per hour savings. Hardly earth shaking. That is assuming you
start with a BSFC of .47 and it goes down to .38. Note this is
exactly what you would get with a true diesel piston engine. I say diesel
piston engine because a true diesel rotary is totally out of the question.
Now in a car where there is wide spread political hysteria over MPG numbers this
is far more significant. An RX8 with TC rotary would go from 25 MPG to 30 MPG
EPA highway driving cycle. This could make or break the rotary in the future.
Also I might add 100LL (or the equivalent) is not going away anytime soon
(despite all the hysteria over that) as there are 400,000 or so 100LL
burning airplanes out there. Sure the price might go up. Right now
Aquafina is well over $4 a gallon. AKA water for you aus landers.
Paul Lamar
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.