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-



In response to Mr. Lamar,

You are correct, building a Wankel is no simple feat, however, it is not
impossible. Using oem Mazda parts would reduce both manufacturing costs
and delays and is a very good decision from a business point of view,
alas, not all oem Mazda parts are sufficient for performance and reliability
by way of either design or construction. As far as your other comments,
I wish to retract my previous comment about being being interested and
satisfied about members decisions to go against the grain and step out
of the box, as that is clearly not the case. I hope that I am mistaken
about this fact, but as it currently stands, I have a strong feeling
that I am not.

In response to Mr. Matt,
Your opinions has brought me much joy and laughter to say the least.
I look forward to speaking to you again and feel that I will start
to like you for the comical factor. In regards to "failure of one
rotor may so badly impact the horsepower produced that the airplane
might not have adequate horsepower to remain aloft" in a twin rotor
engine, I agree. On the flip side, while a twin rotor MIGHT (emphasis
added) not have adequate horsepower to remain aloft in the case that
one of the rotors should fail, a failure in a single rotor WILL
(emphasis added) ensure that not enough power is available.
As always, I greatly appreciate any input that any member of the news
letter may have, whether critical or otherwise. I would however welcome
more comments regarding liquid vs air cooling and fuel choice preferences.
P.s. Would it be appropriate to conclude that the majority of the
LSA/experimental aircraft owners use mogas as opposed to avgas?

Vladimir

Well as long as you start with 50 million dollars building
your own Wankel should be no problem. You know what they say
about aviation. "If you want to make a small fortune start with a
large one" :)

Paul Lamar