> Hello Paul,
>
> If you look at fuel consumption charts... I would really
> prefere to
> cruise about 4500 rpm, and with only a ground adjustable prop
> for LSA
> isn't 9000 rpm climb unattainable?
>
> I will also question TBO after hearing back from Marc J.
>
> Dan
>
> Rotaries are not at all like piston engines.
>
> Why do you want to Cruise at 4500 RPM? Get a flight in a rotary
> poweredairplane. Contact Tracy Crook in Bell Florida and go up
> there and get
> a ride. I don't know where you live.
>
> They cruise fine at 6500 RPM. The bearing loads are a minimum at 6000
> RPM. My monster engine (compared to an Aixro) RX8 cruises great
> at 6000 RPM
> 120 MPH for awhile and then I am in the next town :) I run 4000
> (80 MPH) all day
> long on LA Freeways.
>
> Mazda runs the engines at 7500 to 8000 full power for 24 hours
> with no
> wear. In an airplane if you take off at 9000 RPM full power you will
> be way down on power at 6500 RPM. So too will your fuel burn if
> the engine
> is properly leaned. Especially at 7500 feet and above.
>
> Do you have a way to manually lean the mixture?
>
> My guess is the power will be down to around 30 HP at 6500 RPM.
> If you can lean it
> to .5 BSFC that is 15 pounds of fuel per hour or 2.5 gallons an hour.
>
> Send me the fuel consumption charts so I can analyze them.
>
>
> Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Hi Dan and Paul,

One point I wish to make.  A Mazda engine and Aixro engine are not the
same.  Paul is doing his best to bring you the most up to date
information on two different brand of rotaries.

This link from the Aixro compagny
http://www.woelfle-engineering.com/ tells you that they are working on
an aviation engine in the future.  Now with the help of everyone
concerned.  An aircraft engine is in the works from
Aixro/Woelfle-Engineering.

Dan one point that I would make here.  Create one rotor rotary engine
with a bigger rotor then the 16X.  Run at the best BSFC/RPM to allow the
prop to be bolted directly to the e-shaft (no psru) add short blades ( 3
or 4 if need be) (avoiding sonic boom and maximising RPM)  Then use the
exhaust for componding electricity to run  power for the
supercharger  and everything else that requiries electricity.  At
????RPM you would have lots of power, best fuel economy, very light
weight engine at 100HP ?

Any way guys just my two cents.  Hey I'm just a train conductor :))  Sorry.

Marc J.
NexusMustang

Marc you would be defeating the rotary RPM advantage. RPM translates to high
power to weight ratio. One rotors have monstrous torque pulses. That is very hard
on a prop.

The second rotor largely balances the first so the non working counter weight
do not have to be quite so heavy.