>
> >> Eric,
> >> Is that fuel burn ratio's 13.1:1 to 13.4:1 at WOT?
> >> George (down under)
> >>
> >>
> >> George,
> >>
> >> 13-1 at WOT is pretty close number. We will have more
> dyno, test
> >> stand, and
> >> in flight data in the coming months.
> >>
> >> Eric Barger
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I know this is probably picking nits, but I'd like everyone
> to think
> >> about mixture (fuel-air) in terms %power (or best-power)
> instead of
> >> throttle position (re "WOT" in this message). Throttle
> position -
> >> especially on the rotary which runs well over a wide range of
> mixture>> settings, is only a portion of the description or
> power output.
> >>
> >> WOT should be thought of as "best volumetric efficiency" not "best
> >> power" - though best power generally happens at WOT.
> >>
> >> So, it sounds like Eric is saying that he sees his engines
> making best
> >> power at mixtures around 13:1.
> >>
> >> Side question Eric: Does your engine test setup allow easy
> inflight>> setting/adjustment/control of the fuel-air mixture?
> As has been
> >> discussed here in the past, this is critical for optimizing engine
> >> performance (efficiency) lacking some kind of really smart
> FADEC system.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Matt-
> >
> > Matt,
> > I agree, I asked the question as I thought best power for the
> rotary was
> > 12.65:1.
> > I intend running a carb with a wide band O2 sensor and a
> digital display
> > monitor/readout.
> > No good having a leaning knob, unless you can see what the
> fuel air ratio
> > is - my opinion only FWIW.
> > George (down under)
> >
> >
> > Matt,
> >
> > Good input as it relates to VE and WOT. We tune our ECU using
> VE
> > correction
> > with a desired lambda as a base map. Our ECU has an external
> Barometric> sensor allowing for altitude comp without having to
> do any in flight
> > adjustments. One note about A/F mixture in a charged cooled
> rotary engine
> > the incoming A/F is cooling the rotor so you use this to
> provide cooling
> > as
> > well as desired and or optimum power. This is one variable we
> have that is
> > not in the Mazda rotary due to the oil cooling.
> >
> > Eric Barger
>
> Eric,
> The charged cooled rotors may be a variable and I see it may be
> an advantage
> in cooling - however I can't see any advantage in heated fuel
> for best VE.
> In fact I would suspect VE to be down due to this design
> configuration.What can you tell us about the pros and cons of
> charge cooling the rotor
> specifically.
> George (down under)
>
>
> George, (down under)
>
> There are surely tradeoffs in charge cooling, the advantages are
> no oil
> cooling hardware, the VE goes up as load is applied due to the
> additional air fuel ratio passing thru the engine. The Charge
> cooled track and or
> intake length increases the torque and flattens the torque in
> this engine is
> flat from 3000-8000RPM. The path naturally atomizes fuel due to
> the passing
> thru the rotor. Some of the above benefits are opinions and
> speculation due
> to the inherent differences in our engine compared to the Mazda
> and the fact
> that these above stated characteristics show a major difference in
> performance characteristics out of a very similar sized engine
> 650cc/rotor.I hope this provides you some answers.
>
> Note: The engine loves cool air, full load, and alcohol as
> stated above the
> VE gets better as you introduce anything that cools the rotor
> and or the
> intake charge.
>
> Eric Barger
>
> Here is some early stuff I have on the engine.
> --
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Would the one rotor turbo model be a very choice of engine for ex.
Jerry Hey STOL ch701?

Marc J
NexusMustang thinking for CH 701 instead (much simpler to build)

It would be an expensive alternative for a short range, slow, non cross country
airplane like the CH 701. Fuel consumption and range is a not a real issue for
recreational airplanes. Fuel cost pale into insignificance if you are
only going to fly it for an hour or two every month. The main reason Eric needs
to do a turbo compound is for PR reasons. There is a whole group of rotary engine critics
out there that use excess fuel consumption as a reason to ban the rotary engine. In reality
and in the case of the Mazda it is only 5% worse than a Lycoming. In the case of a charged
cooled engine it will be about 20% worse.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

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