For automobiles having basically two engines the systems become complicated
but is technical feasible. Is it appropriate?  I have my own bias on what is
appropriate for people transportation so to I'll avoid going that path. I
might be run over:)  Now for an airplane applications which this discussion
group is usually about, I would tend to follow Marc's and Rob's line of
thinking IF the  aircraft is normally using a 20B.

Marc wrote:

So, if I deactivated the center rotor in a 3 rotor engine while at
cruise will that be a cruise fuel efficency benefit? Disabling the
injectors for the center housing could do that.

Rob wrote:

.... an auxiliary valve on the compression side. Not super-feasible.

Sure  it is. My diesel tractor has one so I can start it easily.  So do a
lot of the older motorcycles. Rotary compressors using the same rotors and
housing designs as our engines have exhaust valves on both sides.

About this time someone is going think "put that lazy middle chamber to work
and make him into a compressor. Again technically feasible but IMHO the
turbocharger driven compressor is designed specifically for that purpose.

We are back to the question I raised a few weeks ago. Do you get better BSFC
at running a 20B at 3,000 rpms or a 13B at 4200 plus rpms?  Assume the HP
output is the same.

In the disabled rotor config. the rpms would have to be higher to overcome
the seal drag losses, though with compression losses eliminated I can't
imagine this friction loss requiring more than a 1/4 hp to overcome. Would
think oil and water pumping requirements are the same.

Doug in Japan

But wouldn't  you lose power because the middle rotor was compressing air 
that you're not using.
Clifton

 
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter.  Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            
Copyright 1998-2004 All world wide rights reserved.