Vladimir,
 If I understand your inquiry correctly, You are intending to make
 complete engine packages for sale.If so - then it depends on
 what market you wish to target.Many on this forum are after
 high performance 2 or 3 rotor packages.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

Vladimir,
 You may sense a bit of scepticism on our part, as many companies have
come and gone trying to make rotary engines (for a variety ofapplications).
As you may appreciate, it is a tough task, and only one company has done
it successfully to date over a multi-decade period.There are many
significant engineering challenges, and they have over come them one byone.
In addition, the low cost they achieve by producing thousands of unitsfor
automobile use will be difficult for any new manufacturer to match ifthey
just produce the relative handful needed by the aviation market.

Okay, with that said:I personally could use a 160-180 HP unit with an
all-up weight (engine, intake and exhaust manifolds, EFI or carb, PSRU,
coolant, radiators, starter, alternator) of 250lbs. Water cooling is
probably a necessary evil in order to reduce the dangers of schock
cooling while keeping clearances tight.This is close to, but a little
lighter and a little less HP than we can get with a normally aspirated PP
13B.

I think a small engine (90-100 HP with a weight of 175 lbs, allinclusive)
might also be popular.This could power many of the LSA acft, or even a
revived kit version of a mini-Cessna Skymaster.(Anyone remember the
Powers-Bashforth Mini-Master?)

Mark Waldron



 Re Liquid cooling:It's interesting to note that various models of
 motorcycles continue to transition from air/oil cooled to coolant/oil
 cooled.And, those same models continue to get lighter.That says to
 me that liquid cooling, while somewhat more complex in some ways
 (though less so in others), isn't heavier.Maybe someone knows of a
 counter example..


 Regards,

 Matt-

Matt,
much of going to liquid cooling isn't about the weight. It's about
combustion control. Liquid cooling controls the temperature of the cylinder
head much better than an air cooled head. This allows making more hp for the
same displacement. When an air cooled cylinder head gets hot, the combustion
chamber becomes very prone to detonation, with this being the hp limiting
factor on many air cooled applications.
Larry


Right..  For a given displacement, more horsepower can be had from a
liquid cooled engine..  Countering the added weight of the liquid
cooling system.

Also, people might point out that liquid cooling is for emissions.
While I agree with that, I would say that an engine that produces
fewer emissions often will run cleaner and fewer service difficulties.


Matt-