Although I run a piston powered dragster, (and airplane), have
always thought of Wankel power for both. (I have four engines).
Spoke with Paul Yaw a couple of years ago, am a constant lurker here,
but have done nothing. (my O-290 only has 68hrs)
To the point: Abel Ibarra seems to have the handle on drag engines,
spoke to Mazdatrix via e-mail, and the drawback to a drag engine of
1000hp is that I can build a piston engine of that hp for less than half
the cost. Am I missing something in the translation?
Would still like to do it. Comments?
Archie

--------------------------------------------------------

No doubt about it Archie. The 3 rotors are not getting any cheaper.
A four rotor will cost you an arm and a leg. However a turbo 3 rotor
would probably weigh 150 pounds or so less than an aluminum block 1000 HP V8
and put out close to 1200 HP. 800 HP for a two rotor and 300 pounds.

If you have minimum car weight limit rules for the race car that becomes
a mote point.

Back in Can Am  days we had no minimum car weight limits.
Empty (no fuel or driver) a 800 HP small block NA Chev V8 Can Am racer
weighed about 1300 pounds. I would have killed for a NA p-port 4 rotor :)

A turbo four rotor, if the e-shaft lived for two hours, would have
been pushing 1600 HP while weighing roughly 375 pounds. That weight
advantage would have resulted in an unbeatable road racer.
Half the battle in those days was the brakes and cornering.
Lighter weight meant quicker stopping and faster cornering
for a given amount of aerodynamic down force (hence drag).

The Lemans winning NA 4 rotor not only had a minimum car weight
handicap it also had a fixed amount of fuel to run the race.
It still won because it outlasted the pistons.

In drag racing anything will live for four or eight seconds.
The durabilty advantage of the rotary is canceled.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2005 All world wide rights reserved.