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

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