> >Hi,, Paul:
> >
> >My interrest is in a rotary engine replacement for the Garrett
> >TPE-331-10 (1,000 shp).  Reading your website, I see that
> Racing Beat in
> >Aneheim built and tested a 900 hp, 3 rotor turbo aircraft
> engine.  Do
> >you know if they are still developing this engine?  I
> wonder what a 4
> >rotor version would produce?
> >
> >The engine would be installed in the (still under development)
> CompAir>CA11, single engine pressurized experimental
> aircraft.  Depending on
> >engine selection, cruise speeds will be anywhere from 260-360
> ktas at
> >altitude.  The engine of choice for the CA11 is the TPE-
> 331-14 with a
> >fuel burn of 71 gph (ouch).  Purchase of the engine is
> around $300k (0
> >time rebuilt) and overhaul is close to that price, as
> well.  TBO is at
> >least a respectible 5000 hrs.  A rotary engine would be
> less than all of
> >that, I'm sure, and I look forward to the day that hydrogen is
> available>as a fuel source.
> >
> >Thanks in advance and looking forward to your newsletter.
> >
> >Greg Fleming
> >London, Ontario, Canada
> >
> >
> >The 71 gallons an hour for the turbo prop would be roughly
> >at the 680 HP cruise level.
> >
> >Sounds like a perfect application for a turbo four rotor.
> >Fuel burn at 680 HP level would be about 50 gallons an hour.
> >
> >The engine can be built up from two rotor parts.
> >I would contact Jim Mederer at Racing Beat directly.
> >
> >Jim Mederer <jimmederer@yahoo.com <mailto:jimmederer@yahoo.com>
> ><mailto:jimmederer@yahoo.com <mailto:jimmederer@yahoo.com>>>
> >
> >Jim has a lot of experience building rotary engines for aircraft.
> >Here is one example. He built his first couple of 12A turbo's
> in 1973.
> >
> >Also contact Francois at Mistral. They may be interested in
> building a turbo
> >four rotor. François Badoux <f.badoux@mistral-engines.com
> ><mailto:f.badoux@mistral-engines.com>
> ><mailto:f.badoux@mistral-engines.com
> <mailto:f.badoux@mistral-engines.com>>>
> >They have a constant speed prop gear box that might be adapted
> to a four
> >rotor.
> >
> >
> >Paul Lamar
> >
> >I'm absolutely stunned.  Every day I'm learning more and
> more.  The
> >Wankel rotary engine continues to drop my jaw (I have to make
> sure it
> >doesn't keep hitting the space bar on my laptop).  No
> wonder you are
> >fascinated with this design and the promise for an improved aircraft
> >powerplant.
> >
> >
> >
> >Here's my questions / observations so far.  I hope you can
> answer or
> >comment:
> >
> >
> >
> >     * According to Jim at Racing Beat,
> they had a lot of problems with
> >       the 3 rotor 900 hp
> aircraft engine from 1999.  Too much heat
> >       warped the housing shape
> which led to apex seal spring failures.
> >       They didn't dowl the
> housing back then which might be a cure, but
> >       with using a 13G, 3 rotor
> model they would still run into
> >       durability problems.
> I asked him if he could go with a 4 rotor
> >       engine, he said it's not
> available to the public but 4 rotors
> >       would certainly make
> things more do-able.  With aluminum side
> >       housings and a few other
> tricks, the weight would not be a big
> >       factor.  He also said
> the BSFC was 0.6.  Ouch!!  I was hoping for
> >       less than 0.4.  I
> have since asked him about going with 2 blocks
> >       of 2 rotor to make up a 4
> rotor engine, but will have to wait till
> >       Monday for an answer.
> >     * What do you know about the Mazda
> Renesis II engines?  Are they
> >       available to the public in
> the 2 block so I could put 2 together
> >       to make a 4 rotor??
> I see that Guru Racer makes a 4 lobe e-shaft,
> >       but who is selling 4 rotor
> engines?  I'm confused.  Can engine
> >       shops mix and match to use
> the best parts available, or is there
> >       some proprietary thing
> going on where Mazda only lets the public
> >       use certain components?
> >     * I sent an e-mail to Mistral asking
> about developing a 900 hp 4
> >       rotor turbo engine.
> No answer back yet from Francois.  I like
> >       their PSRU on the website
> for a couple of reasons.  Constant speed
> >       hydraulic prop (as you had
> mentioned) and a better, slimmer cowl
> >       shape.  Does Mistral
> manufacture their own parts/design or are
> >       they using Mazda
> technology?  They seem to have a nice package in
> >       the 360 turbo version, but
> I can't tell if they're using the
> >       Renesis design or their own.
> >     * I also enjoy your discussions on
> turbo-compound.  How would you
> >       set it up on a rotary
> engine??  I'm thinking the exhaust would
> >       first pass thru the
> turbocharger for induction air, then the
> >       exhaust would travel a bit
> further back and thru another
> >       turbocharger housing
> mounted on one of the back accessory pads,
> >       with appropriate gear
> reduction to optimize the turbo speed
> >       efficiency, and augment
> the mechanical power output.  From a 900
> >       hp engine, would there be
> an extra 50+ hp added to the driveshaft??
> >     * Does ceramic coating peak you
> interest or do you think the
> >       potential gain in
> efficiency is too little?
> >     * The Mazda gas/hydrogen hybrid is
> interesting.  My ultimate goal is
> >       a hydrogen airplane but,
> with today's technology, there would be
> >       no range due to limited
> storage.  However, with a hybrid at the
> >       "flick of a switch"
> (according to Mazda), you could take-off and
> >       climb on gas, then once in
> cruise, you could switch to H2.  Mazda
> >       claims that the power
> drops by about 50% when using H2, but that
> >       would work for long range
> cruise setting.  Sounds too simple but
> >       maybe there's room for
> development.  I have a few contacts working
> >       on H2 on demand in development.
> >     * After reading the discussions on
> engine cooling/radiator
> >       placement, I couldn't find
> any info on how to get the P-51
> >       efficiencies from the
> radiator.  You know, the hot air exiting
> >       with a force equal to the
> incoming cool air??  Zero net drag??
> >     * So, how does all this fit together
> for a guy like me trying to buy
> >       a kit plane that calls for
> a turboprop, and I want to replace it
> >       with a monster rotary
> engine?  I will have no problems buying the
> >       plane, but I will need to
> get everything developed, built, tested
> >       and in place within 5
> years to have the engine ready to mount.
> >       Where do I start?
> >     * I would trust Mistral to build the 4
> rotor engine, with the PSRU,
> >       the ECUs, the turbos,
> etc.  but would need someone like Jim at
> >       Racing Beat to modify,
> enhance, lighten, add the turbo-compound,
> >       etc.  Then I would
> need a company up to the task of developing the
> >       firewall forward
> installation with all the hoses, lines, ducting,
> >       wires, mounts,
> controls.  Wow!!  Maybe 5 years in not enough time.
> >
> >Thanks for your thoughts
> >
> >Greg
> >
> >
> >I know this is going to come as somewhat a shock but Jim is somewhat
> >behind the
> >the times on this. Both Tracy Crook, Mistral, Mazda and others
> have seen
> >..47
> >BSFC by judicious leaning at cruise HP numbers over the past
> five years
> >or so.
> >Jim is perhaps being a bit conservative by suggesting .6 BSFC
> as he is
> >worried
> >about detonation fracturing the apex seals. I 'll discuss this
> with him
> >at Seven
> >Stock around the 27th of Septemper if I can find him. The only way
> >anybody is
> >going to see less than .4 BSFC in an aircraft engine will be by turbo
> >compounding.
> >
> >Yes engine shops can mix and match parts all the way from 1974
> or 1975 13B
> >engines right up to 2008 RX8 engines. At this point in time it
> is hard
> >to say
> >what is the best exact mix. 1993 to 2004 3rd gen parts appear
> to be the
> >best
> >choice right at the moment IMHO.
> >
> >Mistral can build and have built non certified engines out of
> Mazda parts.
> >Generally and currently they are making all their own parts to
> meet the
> >required
> >FAA certification paper trail.
> >
> >The P51 style cooling system requires a custom designed
> aircraft as it
> >is not a
> >good idea to cut larger holes in the fuselage unless one knows
> exactly>what one
> >is doing.
> >
> >So far we have had bad results with ceramic coatings. Too risky for
> >aircraft
> >engines at this point in time IMHO.
> >
> >You are quite right. This project is a challenge and nobody has
> taken on
> >such a
> >project so far. I remain optimistic that someday somebody will.
> The cost
> >and
> >fuel burn of small turbo prop engines makes it not that far out of
> >sight. I will
> >help as much as I can. If you are located in a reasonable accessible
> >place I
> >could visit if necessary at crucial times.
> >
> >There is no doubt the potential is there.
> >
> >Paul Lamar
> >
> >
> >Paul:
> >
> >I live in London, Ontario, Canada.  Half way between
> Detroit and
> >Buffalo.  However, I would be fast-building the kit at
> CompAir near Cape
> >Kennedy, FL.  The engine, avionics and interior would
> ideally be done
> >back in Canada but, at present, the Cdn. FAA (Transport Canada)
> does not
> >allow an experimental aiircraft to exceed 4,000 lbs or 4
> seats.  I will
> >probably have to register the aircraft in the U.S. and fly it
> on my U.S.
> >licence.  Silly rules, but there you go.
> >
> >Still curious if you have any knowledge or info on hydrogen
> fuel in the
> >rotary engine.  All the discussion papers seem to think
> it's a natural.
> >
> >Thanks
> >
> >Greg
> >
> >
> >No problem running hydrogen. Better than a piston engine in
> fact.  HP is half
> >and range is ridiculous.
> >
> >Paul Lamar
>
> >engine selection, cruise speeds will be anywhere from 260-360
> ktas at
> >altitude.  The engine of choice for the CA11 is the TPE-
> 331-14 with a
> >fuel burn of 71 gph (ouch).  Purchase of the engine is
> around $300k (0
> >time rebuilt) and overhaul is close to that price, as
> well.  TBO is at
> >least a respectible 5000 hrs.  A rotary engine would be
> less than all of
> >that, I'm sure, and I look forward to the day that hydrogen is
> available>as a fuel source.
> >
> >Thanks in advance and looking forward to your newsletter.
> >
> >Greg Fleming
> >London, Ontario, Canada
> >
> >
> >The 71 gallons an hour for the turbo prop would be roughly
> >at the 680 HP cruise level.
> >
> >Sounds like a perfect application for a turbo four rotor.
> >Fuel burn at 680 HP level would be about 50 gallons an hour.
> >
> >The engine can be built up from two rotor parts.
> >I would contact Jim Mederer at Racing Beat directly.
> >
> >Jim Mederer <jimmederer@yahoo.com
> <mailto:jimmederer@yahoo.com>>>
> >Jim has a lot of experience building rotary engines for aircraft.
> >Here is one example. He built his first couple of 12A turbo's
> in 1973.
> >
> >Also contact Francois at Mistral. They may be interested in
> building a turbo
> >four rotor. François Badoux <f.badoux@mistral-engines.com
> ><mailto:f.badoux@mistral-engines.com>>
> >They have a constant speed prop gear box that might be adapted
> to a four
> >rotor.
> >
> >
> >Paul Lamar
> >
> >I'm absolutely stunned.  Every day I'm learning more and
> more.  The
> >Wankel rotary engine continues to drop my jaw (I have to make
> sure it
> >doesn't keep hitting the space bar on my laptop).
> No wonder you are
> >fascinated with this design and the promise for an improved aircraft
> >powerplant.
> >
> >
> >
> >Here's my questions / observations so far.  I hope you can
> answer or
> >comment:
> >
> >
> >
> >     * According to Jim at Racing Beat,
> they had a lot of problems with
> >       the 3 rotor 900 hp
> aircraft engine from 1999.  Too much heat
> >       warped the housing shape
> which led to apex seal spring failures.
> >       They didn't dowl the
> housing back then which might be a cure, but
> >       with using a 13G, 3 rotor
> model they would still run into
> >       durability problems.
> I asked him if he could go with a 4 rotor
> >       engine, he said it's not
> available to the public but 4 rotors
> >       would certainly make
> things more do-able.  With aluminum side
> >       housings and a few other
> tricks, the weight would not be a big
> >       factor.  He also said
> the BSFC was 0.6.  Ouch!!  I was hoping for
> >       less than 0.4.  I
> have since asked him about going with 2 blocks
> >       of 2 rotor to make up a 4
> rotor engine, but will have to wait till
> >       Monday for an answer.
> >     * What do you know about the Mazda
> Renesis II engines?  Are they
> >       available to the public in
> the 2 block so I could put 2 together
> >       to make a 4 rotor??
> I see that Guru Racer makes a 4 lobe e-shaft,
> >       but who is selling 4 rotor
> engines?  I'm confused.  Can engine
> >       shops mix and match to use
> the best parts available, or is there
> >       some proprietary thing
> going on where Mazda only lets the public
> >       use certain components?
> >     * I sent an e-mail to Mistral asking
> about developing a 900 hp 4
> >       rotor turbo engine.
> No answer back yet from Francois.  I like
> >       their PSRU on the website
> for a couple of reasons.  Constant speed
> >       hydraulic prop (as you had
> mentioned) and a better, slimmer cowl
> >       shape.  Does Mistral
> manufacture their own parts/design or are
> >       they using Mazda
> technology?  They seem to have a nice package in
> >       the 360 turbo version, but
> I can't tell if they're using the
> >       Renesis design or their own.
> >     * I also enjoy your discussions on
> turbo-compound.  How would you
> >       set it up on a rotary
> engine??  I'm thinking the exhaust would
> >       first pass thru the
> turbocharger for induction air, then the
> >       exhaust would travel a bit
> further back and thru another
> >       turbocharger housing
> mounted on one of the back accessory pads,
> >       with appropriate gear
> reduction to optimize the turbo speed
> >       efficiency, and augment
> the mechanical power output.  From a 900
> >       hp engine, would there be
> an extra 50+ hp added to the driveshaft??
> >     * Does ceramic coating peak you
> interest or do you think the
> >       potential gain in
> efficiency is too little?
> >     * The Mazda gas/hydrogen hybrid is
> interesting.  My ultimate goal is
> >       a hydrogen airplane but,
> with today's technology, there would be
> >       no range due to limited
> storage.  However, with a hybrid at the
> >       "flick of a switch"
> (according to Mazda), you could take-off and
> >       climb on gas, then once in
> cruise, you could switch to H2.  Mazda
> >       claims that the power
> drops by about 50% when using H2, but that
> >       would work for long range
> cruise setting.  Sounds too simple but
> >       maybe there's room for
> development.  I have a few contacts working
> >       on H2 on demand in development.
> >     * After reading the discussions on
> engine cooling/radiator
> >       placement, I couldn't find
> any info on how to get the P-51
> >       efficiencies from the
> radiator.  You know, the hot air exiting
> >       with a force equal to the
> incoming cool air??  Zero net drag??
> >     * So, how does all this fit together
> for a guy like me trying to buy
> >       a kit plane that calls for
> a turboprop, and I want to replace it
> >       with a monster rotary
> engine?  I will have no problems buying the
> >       plane, but I will need to
> get everything developed, built, tested
> >       and in place within 5
> years to have the engine ready to mount.
> >       Where do I start?
> >     * I would trust Mistral to build the 4
> rotor engine, with the PSRU,
> >       the ECUs, the turbos,
> etc.  but would need someone like Jim at
> >       Racing Beat to modify,
> enhance, lighten, add the turbo-compound,
> >       etc.  Then I would
> need a company up to the task of developing the
> >       firewall forward
> installation with all the hoses, lines, ducting,
> >       wires, mounts,
> controls.  Wow!!  Maybe 5 years in not enough time.
> >
> >Thanks for your thoughts
> >
> >Greg
> >
> >
> >I know this is going to come as somewhat a shock but Jim is
> somewhat behind the
> >the times on this. Both Tracy Crook, Mistral, Mazda and others
> have seen .47
> >BSFC by judicious leaning at cruise HP numbers over the past
> five years or so.
> >Jim is perhaps being a bit conservative by suggesting .6 BSFC
> as he is worried
> >about detonation fracturing the apex seals. I 'll discuss this
> with him at Seven
> >Stock around the 27th of Septemper if I can find him. The only
> way anybody is
> >going to see less than .4 BSFC in an aircraft engine will be by
> turbo compounding.
> >
> >Yes engine shops can mix and match parts all the way from 1974
> or 1975 13B
> >engines right up to 2008 RX8 engines. At this point in time it
> is hard to say
> >what is the best exact mix. 1993 to 2004 3rd gen parts appear
> to be the best
> >choice right at the moment IMHO.
> >
> >Mistral can build and have built non certified engines out of
> Mazda parts.
> >Generally and currently they are making all their own parts to
> meet the required
> >FAA certification paper trail.
> >
> >The P51 style cooling system requires a custom designed
> aircraft as it is not a
> >good idea to cut larger holes in the fuselage unless one knows
> exactly what one
> >is doing.
> >
> >So far we have had bad results with ceramic coatings. Too risky
> for aircraft
> >engines at this point in time IMHO.
> >
> >You are quite right. This project is a challenge and nobody has
> taken on such a
> >project so far. I remain optimistic that someday somebody will.
> The cost and
> >fuel burn of small turbo prop engines makes it not that far out
> of sight. I will
> >help as much as I can. If you are located in a reasonable
> accessible place I
> >could visit if necessary at crucial times.
> >
> >There is no doubt the potential is there.
> >
> >Paul Lamar
> >
>
> Paul, Greg.
>
>
> There will be at least four major hurtles IMHO in order of importance
> with this project.
>
> 1. Getting a RELIABLE 1000 hp from a 4 rotor,
>
> 2. Finding the space in the aircraft for heat exchangers to keep
> all of
> those ponies cool.
>
> 3. Designing a turbo-compound unit to catch the extra 100+ hp energy.
>
> 4. Development of, or finding a PSRU to handled the power at the
> prop rpm
> you want it at.
>
> If the desired max hp was 680Hp then we know it can be done and
> there is
> data that the four rotor engine can endure  75% to 85%
> cruise settings
> for at least 24 hours with close to zero wear.  That is not
> the same as
> saying it will endure it for three or even two thousand hours of
> intermediate use. There is a shop here in Japan that makes up an
> uniquee-shaft with the outer rotors sleeved-on that could make
> this engine.
> Other shops in other countries could do this as well.
>
> If you want to fly an aircraft using  only hydrogen for
> more than one
> hour, then that hydrogen had better be in a balloon supporting the
> craft:)  If on the other hand you plan to use H2  in
> the I.C.E. as an 1%
> additive to increase fuel burn efficiency, then I suggest
> Hydroxl gas.
> H-O-H-O. Mono atomic hydrogen and oxygen. It is much more effective,
> lighter, and safer to make on board than any other water to hydrogen
> electrolizer or alkaloid and water to hydrogen-on-demand system.
>
> Boosting the four rotor Lemans style I.C.E. with the high comp. (10:1)
> rotors is tricky and requires an accurate fuel map and
> boost control to
> prevent detonation.  With lower comp. rotors boosting to
> make 1000+hp is
> of course easier and again has been done by many people in the racing
> world.  That is near similar to saying a half size 13B can
> be boosted to
> make 500 hp.  Also done and then some.  However....
> these engines are
> used in race cars that routinely travel less distance than the CA11's
> proposed take-off roll:)
>
> To expect  680 Hp or perhaps a 780Hp with a small boost
> may  warrant the
> choice of a smaller  aircraft like the Lanceair or
> acceptance of  poorer
> time to climb performance with the CA-11. Boosted at altitude to
> recoverfull sea level performance is where the turbo-compound
> rotary really
> starts to shine. Greg, what is your average flight
> mission?   Three to
> four hour business trips with six passengers? pleasure jaunts
> with the
> family?  Knowing these facts  and understanding the
> amount of $$$ and
> time that will be required to develop the numerous system
> may influence
> your decision. The bird you picked is real  beauty though.
>
> IMHO 1000 hp. figures put us into the realm of at least six
> rotors and
> even Mistral, I am sure, will scream foul and that I am being too
> optimistic.  If those rotors are all in row, then the
> engine gets very
> long and turbine-like but coolant flows and engine twist become
> speculative.  I have heard a six rotor was made before over
> in Japan but
> I have never seen it.  Consider it vapor ware. Since I am
> speaking of
> vapor ware here is another concept that has been kicked around before.
> Again it is in the realm of  'should work OK' consensus reality.
>
> Here goes:  Say we have two 20B P-ported engines both
> oriented plugs up,
> and the starboard engine is assembled backwards. Both are
> joined to a
> section that contains a very simple spur geared psru. with
> the  prop
> shaft on journal bearings. The geared feeds could come from both
> ends to
> the central shaft. If one rotor or even one engine goes south it
> is not
> a big deal. rotors can be disabled and the engine continues to
> run.  The
> PSRU is dirt is simple and the loads are balanced 90 degrees to the
> central shaft  with power input torque pulses  turbine
> smooth.  The
> exhaust is straight down and out to the turbines (plural) and
> then on to
> the remaining turbo compound axial turbine  opposite the
> prop side of
> the engine.  The axial turbine has its exhaust going where
> ever one
> desires and this turbine connects to the rear of the prop shaft
> with a
> hydraulic torque converter.  Most oil pathways can be
> contained within
> the engine,  fuel lines are  on the cool upper side
> and rammed air
> inlets to the turbochargers come in from the side scoops.
> The  engine
> could be as narrow as 30 inches.
>
> A prop governor can also be built into the central unit feeding the
> hollow propshaft. This set-up then becomes a very compact high
> performance reliable engine with many options as to where to
> drive the
> accessories.  But this is only an idea.  I could draw
> a picture but it
> would still remain only a concept, albeit one I would love to
> see made:)
> Such is the fate of inventors and architects. We still have to
> find ways
> to cool that puppy for those five minutes at take-off power, and
> twentyminutes at cruise climb settings.   That implies
> finding somewhere to
> put 3,000 cubic inches of  heat exchangers.  At 2
> inches thick and 15
> inches wide that would imply two units 50 inches long
> each.  TOO LONG.
> If four inch thick in the dual pass style, that would be 15
> by  25
> inches long. Possible.  Don't forget the area needed for
> the inlet and
> exit ducts. Perhaps the oil coolers could fit in the nose cheeks
> and the
> water coolers at 5 and 7 o'clock along side the engine thereby saving
> space by exiting straight out the sides.   Concerning
> Jim's stated 0.6
> SFC,  he most likely was using fuel to cool the engine.
>
> In closing I would say it is hard to beat a turbo prop climb to
> altitudeperformance, and its weight,  and size to hp
> merits.  Yes fuel burn is
> less than stellar.  The attraction is reliability and for
> people in a
> hurry, in which saving 15 minutes on a three hour flight is a big
> desire.  If $$$$ are driving your attraction for having a
> 1000 hp engine
> then I  would venture to say you could buy two  turbo
> prop engines for
> the money it would be required to develop the various rotary
> systems at
> your horsepower desires.
>
> However if you have the burning desire and $$$ to develop an unique
> engine that will absolutely smash any BSFC records, count me in
> as a
> technical supporter.  Many of the challenges you will face
> are similar
> to ones  people on this forum have solved in the past ten years.
>
> Doug in Japan


Hi All,

I wish that Greg wants the new 16X for his engine.  It would open the
path to a lot of people in the rotary A/C engine.

1600CC(16X) versus 1304CC(13B) with more HP, more torque less weight and
lower BFSC.

http://www.mazda.com/mazdaspirit/rotary/16x/

Marc Joseph