Paul

Let me introduce myself.. My name is Jeff Doddridge and live down here
Southern (financially collapsing) California. Escondido to be
specific..
I have started an engine project building from a clean slate the Mazda
13b including the rotors..The only thing left from Mazda is the rotor
housings and the stationary gears and rotor gears,maybe some bearings.
I have a CNC machine shop and can build just about anything I can
think
of. I also have the appropriate software for modeling and assembly
design. I make  all sorts of parts for many companies  in the
Biotechnology, weapons, and aircraft  world.....

I now have Cirrus VK30 project I have been building for several years
and originally purchased a Zehbach 650ci dual turbo inverted duel EFI
engine with planetary reduction . This was installed and all
components
for the installation were designed and machine by me....Mr Zerhbach
spent some time with the feds and the support for the very complicated
and heavy engine stopped. I have always been interested in the rotary
going back to The BEC rotary designed and build by a guy named Maurice
Brockington(he live here locally). He is over 80 now but put this
engine
together in the early 90's with the assistance of Engine Beat and Jim
Mebber. It ran and produced 200 hp non turbo on their dyno. It was a
very clean and aircraft looking with a frontal diam of only 18" the
full
length of the engine. It never got off the ground although he had many
opportunities to get this to market but failed to do so because of
control and ownership issues the greedy capitalist that wanted to fund
this. I think he had patents on some specific attributes of the
engine,
however not sure and it's been way to long to matter now. The
prototype
engine sits mothballed in his hanger.....

I approached Mr. Brockington about my concept and he is very
interested
and excited about my design concepts. I also talked To Jim Mebber at
Racing Beat and he was very cool to anything that did not come off the
self. However he is considered the master and expert on this engine
for
many different applications, he should be listened to, no dought.  He
did not reject it's design altogether but had a hard time
understanding
why you would alter a reliable and well designed engine....I had
answers
for that but he kept shaking his head....

My concept simply comes from the need to build the engine as an
aircraft
engine specific, light, small, powerful. Looking at all the components
with the idea of optimizing and integrating these components modularly
for easy manufacturing and  cost  control.....200hp plus to fit
something like a RV.

I have been working on this for some time and now am starting to make
parts. I would like to share some of  this with you knowing that you
are
a real rotary enthusiast and disseminate bunches of knowledge for the
like minded.

If you would like to see some of the work I have done to this point I
would be happy to show you this with the idea of steering me away from
what would be engineering flaws that could cause expense and delay. I
am
not an engineer and make no claim to that. Like many in this endeavor,
not to call this a dream but certainly is lofty......there is a lot of
explaining here and I thought I would leave it for another E-mail if
you
wish to continue.

thanks

jeff

David Leonard lives in Ocean Side and keeps his turbo Mazda RV6 at the
Palomar
airport. You may talk him into giving you a ride.

It is Jim Mederer and not Jim Mebber. I agree with Jim. You would be
reinventing the wheel. Mazda has sold 2.4 million and they are still
learning.
A Mazda 3 rotor would be ideal for your airplane.

If you want a challenging project build us a turbo compound gear box
for a rotary.
That will drop the fuel consumption of any engine %20. I wrote an
article
for Augast Kitplanes about it. If you can't find a copy let me know.

Also check out UTUBPLEASE on youtube for turbo compound.

I subcontract parts for intake manifold now and then to NC shops so I
will add you
to my list for quotes.

PaulLamar
_________________________________________
Jim,
Many have tried, and to date none have been successful.  (DARN)...
I am also wanting to build a light rotary for an LSA plane.  If the
only part that you intend to use from Mazda is the rotor housing and
misc parts, what do you have planned for the rest of the engine???
I was intending to start with the 109 lb short block that Paul had
shown previously.  Mazdatrix built this engine for a (eventually
military) customer with alum end housings, Renesis e-shaft,
stock '89 - '92 non turbo rotors,and Renesis front housing and
light weight water pump. ( did the photo that Paul showed have
the front cover?? , which would include the front counterweight??)!!

The alum end housings save ??? lbs (about 50 lbs Paul??) The
Renesis e-shaft is 6 lb lighter (source Street Rotary - Mark
Warner) .Possible additional weight savings using commercially
available parts include:  milling the '89 - '92 rotors
from 9.6 to 8.7 lb ((Renesis 9.3 to 9.0) - Mark W)), and
perhaps using ceramic apex seals for another few ounces.
Add reductions for the counterweights, and everything else
we can think of... so what do we have for a finished long
block weight??

Possible additional weight reductions include a hydro
formed e-shaft ,many $$$, some titanium bolts, more $$$, -
how about replacing the tension bolts with rolled thread
tubing?? - (MORE $$$!!!).  Your ideas???...
Paul already has the mechanical intake system parts in hand.
(lightest weight)...  The electronics for intake and ignition
are in progress.  Now we are discussing PSRU parts, mostly for
George Grimmes [??? Jean Prudhomme ?] twin pusher project.
Paul has posted ideas for
a lighter in-line PSRU. I discussed a lighter weight PSRU with
Tracy Crook some years ago and he thought 30 lbs was achievable
for LSA hp range.  If we really engineer a PSRU for lightest
weight I would expect 22 - 24 lbs.
Ideas??
Dan F

Also Jim. I forgot to mention. We have a 3 rotor powered Velocity
hangared at Ramona owned by Al Gietzen.

Paul Lamar

Dan

I think you mean Jeff...I know Al, tried to rent my hanger awhile
back....He has a beautiful plane that flies well and is a very good
installation.

I am currently in the process of casting some aluminum housings  from a
back east source to be flame sprayed like the Racing Beat copies of the
original. The intermediate housing carries a mid bearing support
(12 lbs)and the E shaft is modified to work with this. I have Vulcan
Forge working on some forged aluminum rotors (I used to own a forging
house) with tool steel tip seal inserts. Rotors a little over 5 lbs.
each. The counter weights  can be less too. All the housings are
designed by me and the appropriate water jacketing  and internal support
features address the loads encountered. All unnecessary bosses and
features are machined off for additional savings.  A dry sump system
allows for the removal of the oil pan casted mount as well. There is a
lot going on here and I have no way to put all this into an E-mail.

Just to say, this is my idea, my time, my $$$ and if it does not work
than nobody gets hurt but me. I have always encountered a headwind with
most things I do and I am sure this will be no different.  Mazda has
made a great aircraft engine that they needed to make into a car engine
with all it's complexity. I just want to bring back to it's real
job..aircraft only!!!
Oh. you asked about the total wight, looks like well under 100 lbs.
2 rotor.

Mistral is asking about $50,000 for a non certified engine that carries
about  75%  off the shelf  Mazda parts.  WOW!Some body has got to do
better.......I have many ideas and can make them happen.
thanks for asking

jeff

Yes Jeff not Jim. Sorry.

The Mistral engine is not made from Mazda parts. It cannot be
certified with Mazda parts. Yes they are copies of Mazda parts
but they must be made by Mistral with a paper trail to satisfy
the FAA. That is not to say some of the engines Mistral displays
from time to time are not made with at least some Mazda parts.

There is very little incentive for an all aluminum engine. Most
rotary powered aircraft are kit planes designed with aircraft
engines in mind. The current iron Mazda is just about the same
weight as an IO-360 so there is no incentive to reduce the
weight as that would lead to aft CG problems. The world is not
beating a path to Racing Beat's door for aluminum end housings
for their Mazda rotary engines.

Based on running this newsletter for the last eleven years cost
is the primary driver in the adoption of the Mazda rotary. An
all aluminum engine would defeat that goal.

What is really needed is a reduction in fuel burn. If a 20%
reduction in fuel burn could be achieved than people would be
more likely to spend $25,000 on a rotary engine to replace their
aircraft engines. This is most easily achieved by turbo
compounding. To turbo compound all you need is a modified turbo
charger and a gear box to feed power back into the front of the
e-shaft.


Paul Lamar


Amen ...

Nick Jilek



Paul and Nick


So....are you saying that reducing the weight in an airplane is a bad
thing?....It also does great things for fuel burn.
Mazda seems to think aluminum is a good thing, there future gen 16x is
all aluminum...
Reducing frontal  and drag can do wonders for fuel burn as well....you
move the engine forward for CG. I can build a  production plug and
cowling for an RV8, 6, or7 etc. in 5 days.

If there was a rotary out there that weighed half of an IO360, reliable,
modern, affordable, simple, I think people would be interested. I
believe that, not to be disrespectful. It's my decision if I step in it.

Turbo compounding is a good thing but it should be applied to a modern
engine with the appropriate weight and drag considerations. Then what a
difference.  The current 13B engine paradigm is not, in my opinion
suitable for a future serious aircraft engine.

Mistal is trying, but I think they missed a great opportunity to really
innovate (something that is missing in the certified aircraft industry).
There are some very good things about that engine and I commend them for
that, but it will struggle in the very competitive market with the big
boys..
The quote for the intermediate housing just arrived, gotta go....theory
is a good thing, but somebody has got to start making stuff.

Thanks for your input and I do respect your experience and opinion....


jeff

No not a bad thing but there are higher priorities.

Pilots are very conservative. When I started this newsletter eleven
years ago I thought rotaries would take over completely in ten
years. The reality is progress has been very slow.

IMHO your investment in time and money would be better spent on reducing the
fuel consumption. High power to weight ratio is a bit too esoteric
for most people. Not to mention the technical risk. The 16X is not out
there yet let alone several hundred thousand of them.

BTW technically speaking frontal area is the maximum cross sectional area
of the airplane and it could occur anywhere along its length. It has
nothing directly to do with the shape of the nose. A blimp or teardrop
shapes do not have pointed noses and they are the lowest drag
shapes for a given frontal area.

No question about it. It is your money and you can spend it how you
wish. I will say you have a lot of company and many have failed.
Rotaries are a lot harder to make than they look. There is a lot hidden
technology in Mazda rotaries.

Paul Lamar