Vladimir,
If I understand your inquiry correctly, You are intending to make
complete engine packages for sale. Â If so - then it depends on
what market you wish to target. Â Many on this forum are after
high performance 2 or 3 rotor packages. Â Others want less hp and
weight, so the single rotor information. For the LSA market
100 - 150 hp and wet weight under 160 lbs would be perfect.
The 555 fuel injection being developed here and a no external
source ignition (also being discussed here) are good.

To the mechanical side of a revised (Mazda) design I would investigate
hydroformed e-shaft to reduce weight (if can be done without oiling
problems), lighter rotors that have less combustion heat transfere
than cast iron, aluminum end and center housings, and Pauls favorite
- turbocompounding to get bsfc to .35 or less.

If you have a clean sheet for rotor development please investigate
where the pocket should be for best torque. An inventor I correspond
with believes that a trailing edge pocket would make more power due
to the position of the rotor and e-shaft. He also believes that gearing
the rotor to the e-shaft would harness more torque by using the inertia
of the rotor(s) as well as the "push" from combustion. He also has an
idea to eliminate unburned fuel at the leading edge.
Dan F

Got any drawings on this "gearing the rotor to the e-shaft" Dan?

Paul Lamar

As always, thank you for your input, Mr. Lamar. I must admit that with
infinite
number of configurations and possibilities, determining what type of set-up
to run for the aviation RE is becoming the hardest task I have ever
undertaken.
I understand that for the LSA market, a single rotor would be ideal,
however,
the lack of redundancy in the design makes me question whether or not it
would
be appropriate for aviation use. This is the reason my partner and I were
leaning toward developing smaller two and three rotor engines. Still, if the
demand for a single rotor is high enough, I suppose I will have to go
against
my better judgment and offer it anyway. As far as fuel injection for
aviation,
my belief goes back to simplicity and redundancy. The 555 fuel injection you
mentioned sounds very interesting and will most definitely do some research
on
the matter. In the beginning, we were thinking about designing a rotary that
can run on heavy fuel. Do you
 believe that many aviators would see the change from avgas/mogas to Jet A
as
beneficial? I am happy to see you bring up aluminum side plates and such as
those elements will definitely be Incorporated into the final design. As far
as the turbo compound, my partner loves the idea, it's as though he has
become
a turbo compound junky. Also, very interesting to see you mention the
location
of the rotor recess a as Toyo Kogyo already did testing on the matter and
concluded that a recess toward the leading side favored performance while
one closer to the trailing end was beneficial to emission. Also, from
Mazda's
earlier technical paper, it seems that most of the unburnt hydrocarbons are
in the vicinity of the trailing end due to the flame propagation being
faster
on the leading edge because of squish flow. As with all things, I understand
that Mazda's findings and research must be taken with a grain of salt, but
it is very interesting and satisfying to see
 the ideas and opinions of others go against the grain, so to speak.

Thank you for your insight,
Vladimir

Wankels are harder to build than they look. Half a dozen companies have
gone belly up trying. If I were you I would stick to Mazda parts.

If what you are purposing is not a Wankel you have a snowballs chance
in hell of pulling it off. Billions have been spent so far on the Wankel.

Running on heavy fuel is not economically viable. Heavy fuel
is more expensive than gasoline. Three companies have given up so far.

Paul Lamar


Multiple rotors (cylinders) offer only a limited amount of redundancy.
Similar to a multi-engine airplane, adding components (rotors)
increases chances of a failure on any given operation.  Also similar
to twin-engine airplanes, failure of one rotor may so badly impact the
horsepower produced that the airplane might not have adequate
horsepower to remain aloft.  Loss of one rotor in a twin means loss of
well more than 50% power because the drag of the dead rotor can't be
reduced.

Keep in mind that in many cases, multi-engine (or multi-anything) is
marketing spin for the fact that the single engine machine didn't have
enough power, and there weren't enough resources to fix that problem
(making a larger single engine)..

At the same time, I like engines with lots of cylinders, but mostly
because they tend to have less vibration and a more pleasant sound.
Fortunately, the Wankel already has very low vibration.


Matt-