> Mark,
> My single development is designed for the Vision aircraft, Steve
suggests
> best power is between 115 and 125 HP. Weight will be under the 300 lb
FF
> limit for the single.
> You could use a 2 rotor in a Vision and move the wings forward, Steve
> suggested some time ago a 400 FF limit would require 4" forward travel
of
> the spar ( approx). All design changes should be approved by the
designer.
> You could also use some weight in the tail of the plane, because of the
> fulcrum effect the weight would be much less than the extra FF weight.
> Some are planning 2 rotor installations.
> George ( down under)
George,
I'm glad you are still going with the Vision, and with the single rotor
development. I was thinking we could get the weight/balance in line by
going with radiators (oil and water) mounted aft of the CG. I had
thought the 300 lb FWF limit was a function of the limit of the
spar/fuselage shear web (?) design strength, not CG. I'm probably
misremembering it.
I want to be able to safely fly at the heavy side of the envelope
(approx 1800 lbs GW, with slotted flaps and the long wing).
Regarding moving the wing forward: Any variation from plans introduces
complexity/delay, but it might be worth it if the alternative is
insufficient nose-up trim ability. I'd do it if I couldn't get a
satisfactory result with battery/radiator placement. Plus, it will
give an excuse (since I'm already "off the reservation") to explore
removable wings. Thus the spiral of complexity widens . . .
What do you believe your single rotor engine will weigh?
Mark Waldron
Mark,
I'm unsure - perhaps as high as 270 lbs and a real heavy FF development
(literally everything included) - with the 2 rotor being about 340 lbs. I
know Richards is less, he has some weight savings with his part Al end
housings and his PSRU is light. It's really hard too predict as everything
is a little less, not just the missing rotor, rotor housing and intermediate
housing- there is literally less of everything.
If you had the money you could go the AL end housings your getting some
serious weight savings.
The new 16X parts being all Al would also be a great advantage- but I
envisage perhaps 5 to 6 years off. The drop-off in car sales doesn't help
these types of development.
Then there's the chrome molly end housings which are the same weight as the
AL housings - an ex-Powersport development. I wish I knew exactly how they
made those, I would be temped to try them.
George (down under)
The 16B is a larger engine so it weighs the same as the RX8 engine
despite the aluminum end housings. It will buy little for aircraft
use because airplanes fly on HP and not torque. IMHO Mazda is making
a mistake. They would be better off with a trap door p-port in the RX8 engine
and a better gear box IMHO.
http://www.rotaryeng.net/RX8-p-port.html
Paul Lamar
-
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Youtube key word UTUBPLEASE
Copyright 1998-2008 All world wide rights reserved.