I don't know what you guys are smoking but I don't see how A is more compact
than B.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Paul,
Very good point!
A is more compact than a round opening sliding over  a round opening.

Although B is shorter than A is doesn't give sufficient room for the
bearings spread that I wanted - but more importantly the opening is far less
linier, in that it opens to the widest part (centre) in a linier fashion (
incrementally), but then the 'additional- after centre' area starts to
decrease ( incrementally) until it reaches the back of the opening.

This is more difficult to match fuel flow to, and is what I refer to as less
linier opening.

The half round slide over a round opening gives the shortest slide with the
most linier opening.  The only thing better than this is a square slide over
a square opening. Next best is a round hole over a round opening ( given it
will take up more room), because the round hole in the slide actually
reduces any surrounding space to zero as the opening is fully open (WOT).

That's the best I can explain it Paul.
George ( down under)


The last thing is what you want. A round hole in the slide with a round
opening. An aircraft engine spends over 90% to 95% of the time at WOT
and that gives the smoothest runner walls when WOT.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

You could also go with a vertical slide orientation or rotary motion
that might work better with a
low rpm cruise or endurance speed at say 60% or less WOT at low altitudes.
Cheers
Cary


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2007 All world wide rights reserved.