> snip
    >
    > That's an interesting question..  I suspect those
    > innovations are
    > allowed because nearly every major engine
    > manufacturer has been making
    > engines with those features since the 1930's (some
    > earlier, some
    > later)..  Eliminating them from racing would be
    > tough.  Of course,
    > NASCAR still runs carburetors...
    >
    >
    > Matt-
    >
    >
    > One has to see what the aim is behind all the
    > racing. It's selling cars!!!
    > Since there are no rotaries in production in the US
    > no promotion is
    > necessary.
    > If the rotaries win then what? embarrassment, red
    > faces, etc., even
    > worse, if customers ask for a rotary engine in their
    > next car.
    >
    > The racing is by no means an open contest for
    > advancements in engine
    > technology in general.
    > It is a sport to keep the audience drawn to what is
    > being sold and to
    > keep it all in the family.
    >
    > It’s probably of no use to complain about the
   car
    > guys and their racing
    > habits. It really is an uphill battle lost already
    > 30 years ago when the
    > big car companies dropped the Wankel.
    > That is for the automotive world.
    >
    > Flying is a whole different matter. In aircraft it
    > does have its
    > advantages, I think, mainly that of high endurance
    > at high power levels
    > and a lower failure rate. (No valves etc.)
    >
    > What would be needed for it to succeed would be that
    > Continental and/or
    > Lycoming offer the Wankel as an alternative. This is
    > however very
    > unlikely. (It might be that their core business
    > would suffer). I don't
    > think we actually want that either. It would take
    > all the fun out of
    > home build Wankels and Paul might be out of a job.
    > :)
    >
    > The best thing really, in my opinion, is to just
    > continue of what is
    > being done, making it better and tell the world what
    > a good engine the
    > Rotary really is for this purpose.
    > It is just a pity that we have to rely on Mazda's
    > road engine for
    > conversion.
    > Complete FWF packages are needed or at least
    > packages for various
    > components such as cooling, ignition, exhaust
    > systems, engine mounts
    > etc. People are already doing that like Tracy,
    > Mistral, Jerry and some
    > Europeans.
    >
    > Keep on plugging away and forget about car racing
    > for promoting the
    > Wankel. It has to come from within the enthusiast
    > groups and from the
    > users.
    >
    > Let's just push ahead and make as much noise as
    > possible about the rotary.
    >
    > Let’s use it in aerobatics, having two, two
   rotor
    > engines in tandem,
    > where the rear engines drives the shaft of the front
    > engine. Like a four
    > rotor split up in two, or use even two three rotor
    > units. That should do
    > it and provide the 600 hp or so required for Mr.
    > Tucker. The long nose
    > on his plane would provide the space.
    >
    >
    > Rolf Pfeiffer

   Rolf

   I like the long shaft idea to connect two

   10 foot carbon shaft might do it. Two duals or
   triples...might be a good way to power a number of
   APUs as well.

   The torque on the shaft would be reduced in the middle
   but it would have to be computer managed for maximum
   efficiency.

   David Mathes


I think the configuration of a Pitts (or other typical biplane) does not
preclude a "regular" 4 rotor arrangement.  Sean Tucker runs a hopped up
big bore 6 cylinder lycoming (AEIO-540-D4A5).  I suspect that a 4 rotor
could be built which would have very similar weight - Something around
450lbs FWF I'd guess.

As I mentioned in a previous email, I don't think your aerobatic
performer would need to be Sean Tucker to get enough attention, though
his brand of violent, extreme aerobatics would be impressive.  Making a
600hp 4 rotor and PSRU survive the Tucker gyroscopics would involve
additional challenges.  It might be a matter of diminishing returns.
Impressive, it would be, none the less.

If power to weight ratio could approach some of the lower horsepower PT6
Pratt's, an air show performance more like the old Turbine Raven could
be done...

Matt-


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.