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.

Mistral 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


Paul I have to respectfully disagree with you about the alum
engine idea.  Jeff, if you make a quality engine you will be
able to sell hundreds per year, maybe thousands...  I commit to
at least 10 per month when we get plane production going, AND to
certify to ASTM standards. Paul would you send Jeff my e-mail
address please?  I did read somewhere that Mazda tried alum
rotors with inserts but the authors opinion was that the cost
must have been too high for mass production.

I come up with these potential engine numbers because of what is
being done in LSA today.  People think nothing of spending $16 -
18,000 for a Rotax 912 ULS or a 3300 Jabaru, and some $35,000
for a 914 turbo.  An alum rotary will weigh about the same and
be more reliable. Just run slower to get the required, greatly
reduced, hp. Added benefits are: increased BSFC in the mid range
of rpm range, and short field ability and climb. Um - how about
3,000 fpm?

I am also interested in turbocompound.  I was saving this to try
myself or at least get a better idea of the potential.  But this
should be talked about to hopefully find other people with
experience.  I had brought up the use of a Tesla turbine in
discussion of water pumps.  A Telsa will also work in the
exhaust stream...

See more @ http://www.teslaengine.org/main.html  I will be
getting a subscription and all the back issues so I can talk
more intelligently about this.  I feel that a 9 - 10" diameter
runner operating at 15 - 18,000 rpm would work and speed
reduction could be handled by a poly-v belt to the front of the
e-shaft.  Then no muffler needed!


Dan F

Last year less than 1000 LSA aircraft were sold of all kinds.
Austro Engines has a certified all aluminum 2 rotor 100 HP engine
they refuse to sell to the light sport market. Why?

Paul Lamar

Paul,
I almost begged Austro to sell us engines and committed to the
previous figures.  They are not interested because of the percieved
liability (and they also have a very lucrative militaqry contract).
Dan F

That is news to me about the Austro Engines  Government contract. Where
did you read that? I know Rotax supplies engines to General Atomics for
the Predator UAV.

If you cut the RPM of an all aluminum two rotor Mazda sized engine
with PSRU to around 100 HP you will have about the same weight as
a Rotax 914 while the fuel burn will be higher by 5% or more.
The cost would also be higher than a one rotor Mazda based engine.

Paul Lamar