Hi Bill,
There may be a potential pitfall to your idea. The axial flow blade
shape (twist, airfoil shape, length) would have to be optimized for a
particular gas flow. That would mean a bell curve for efficiency. (There
would be down slopes either side of a particular point.) As you go to
altitude, less and less gas would be produced so a design optimizing the
bell curve high point that works well at sea level will not be the
optimum at altitude. Some compromise would have to be allowed for. The
most logical scenario would be to design for 8000 feet at whatever gas
pressure is available from the engine at that altitude. Above 8000
you're WOT and nature will decrease gas flow as you go higher , and
below that level the pilot can maintain gas flow if
the additional performance is required. The downside here is that to
receive 'compound' fuel efficiency benefits at say 3000 ft the aircraft
has to be operated at WOT which may not always fit the flight
mission. Dave M

Dave,
All points well taken. Optomizing for 6-8k feet would probably be best
for testing.
My point here isn't that we would make super extra power. Rather it
would be a
way to easily set up and show the technology. If you could show a real
measureable
improvement it could promote other experiments which is the entire point
of the
exercise.
Bill Jepson



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