(snip)


Hi You Guys

Greg Richter of Blue Mountain Avionics told that he had run his then 13B
powered ( can't remember if it was a cozy or Long) but I remember the
conversation about the Midwest/Norton running on Jet1 which I had seen
running and staring on Jet1 it used the same configuration as Avgas, Greg
said he had also ran his 13B on Kerosene and that as long as you could
spin
it fast enough it would start. A couple of years ago I was talking to an
engineer who had been working on the Rotary project at Midwest he said
exactly the same thing about the Midwest, that as long as it could be spin
fast enough on the starter then it would run.  So two separate sources
seem
to be in agreement, however the curious thing is no one has marketed one
since.  So I can only guess there is some other problem???? The German

Wankel firm have touted heavy oil spark ignited for years but never
replied
when I expressed an interest?  In cold whether starting on petrol,
wouldn't
be too much of a hardship to have a quart of petrol and an Essex primer.
But I'm fairly sure that advantage in BSFC is not going to be very much
better than a Lycontinental on Avgas.  BUT for a lot of people the ability
to run on a freely available fuel ie Jet1 as apposed to the increasingly
high priced likely to be soon fazed out Avgas would be enough in its self?

Clive UK


During the '98 Bensen Day gyroplane flyin, I was approached by an English
fellow who told me he was using two fuel tanks with a valve on his 12a.
The
first was filled with auto petrol to start the beast... then when it was
hot, he'd switch the valve to auto diesel from the other tank.  He was
using
a Dellorto carb with RB intakes.  He had not been introduced to 2 stroke
oil
in the gas until he met up with me... and he seemed quite pleased with the
find. He was using Marvel Mystery oil at the time.

Today, I would ask him if he needed to change his spark timing to get the
best power... and if he would have stayed with his 2.17 or HAVE to go to
the
2.85 or even 3.17 to keep the rpm's up high enough to sustain the diesel
combustion power.  and obviously, I'd steer him away from the Marvel!

Sadly, he didn't have a business card, and I haven't heard from him or
 seen
him at any of the fly-ins since.

Gary Buster
East Texas



 Might be an added benefit of an MSD ignition.  With multiple strikes at
 45kv
 each, you could probably burn whale blubber.  ;-)

 Mark S. Texas

 ROFL  Good point Mark.


 Paul Lamar



Paul,  I don't know about whale blubber, but I have used caster oil in a
McKoy deisel model airplane engine. It had a venturi carburetor and the
usual crankcase charging of a 2 stroke. It was started by turning in a
threaded shaft in the cylinder head reducung combustion chamber volume to
raise the compression. after warm up the shaft was turnrd out lowering the
compression which alters the ignition timing BTDC until it wouldn't turn any
faster. I found adding  some 40% nitro model engine fuel made more RPM but
the caster oil was still used as the lubrication.

  I suppose if someone wanted a diesel wankel that a new rotor with
reduced combustion pocket  depressions would be manditory to get the
compression up to 17.5 or so to 1  At that point they could be made still
smaller and a variable displacement  chamber added to the side housing to
control the compression and therefore  the flash over timing of the
compression ignition.

   I suspect that a spark ignition heavy fuel engine would be held back
by slow flamefront propegation until enough of the charge has burned to
raise the pressure in the chamber to achieve compression ignition of the
remainder. This would seem to create some shaft rotation without significant
pressure being applied to the E-shaft and lost power production. As Mark
mentioned you might use multiple sparks and multiple spark plugs. In the end
it would only make sense to people who haul around 1200 pounds of run down
batteries in a hybrid car with a 40 mile range.

george grimes


Paul, others

Heavy fuels require heavy compression. High boost is pretty much the
ticket for maximizing turbo-compounding as well. That and high altitude.
Using very low compression rotors is going to need a large turbo and one
that pretty much has to be dedicated to the job full time.  No turbo -
no power, and probably little left over for turbocompounding.

Diesel or other heavy fuels sound attractive until we look into the
system needed to burn it or contain the combustion pressures. Depending
on a turbo or boost for maintaining flight is not the best alternative.
As an enhancer of flight profile a turbo is great.  I am a big fan of
turbo normalizing and IF at altitude the remaining exhaust energy is
sufficient to drive a turbo-compound device then so much the better.
Keeping the engine breathing 35 pounds of cool air a minute while
normalizing the engine at  18K critical is no small job or lightweight
turbocharger either.

Dave,  what is the highest you have flown your RV to with its hybrid TC?


Doug in Japan