It looks like mistral has a very good shot at successful entry into the
aviation field.
Look at the specs of this latest Rolls-Royce entry.

http://www.rolls-royce.com/defence/products/helicopters/rr_300.jsp

A P-Ported turbo compound (with LW end and center plates) would beat this
hands down, for
installed weight, fuel consumption, power to weight, and probably initial
cost if the
turbo compound existed. Even with out the TC, the numbers are very close.
So
where are the
investors? If RR can justify this entry, one would think the rotary TC
could
be developed
for less than half the cost of a turbine.
C. Smith


I'll say. A Mazda two rotor p-port powered helicopter would have almost
twice the range. In other words half the fuel burn. This is a no brainer.

Apparently there are no entrepreneurs left in Europe :)

Paul Lamar

Two different (while slightly overlapping) markets. In the private and
experimental market where planes (and heli's) barely chalk-up any
hours, all the talk is about fuel burn and acquisition cost. Whence
you dive into the commercial spectrum, TBO, overhaul costs, parts
availability, etc. come into play.

Is the Mistral engine PP and use Al plates? Last I checked (and it has
been a while) they were side port and Fe. I'm not saying that Mistral
isn't going to be successful, but I don't predict any ripples in the
commercial area.

Regarding entrepreneurs, there be plenty. Now investors..... that's
another story.

Vlad

It has been reported on Speed TV during the 2010 Daytona RX8 win that the
cost of overhauling a 3 rotor is only $8000. Try $100,000 for a
competitive racing piston engine and a lot more than that for a turbine.

Paul Lamar

No doubt that rebuild costs for a turbine are astronomical, but that
is only one part of the grand problem. What about TBO? People who use
their aircraft for personal and/or pleasure purposes rarely reach
hourly TBO or rebuild (unless something breaks) but when you look at
flight schools, transport companies, etc. that regularly reach hourly
TBO before yearly, then the rebuild costs are slightly offset.

This isn't to say that a turbine having an x times longer TBO time
will pay for itself when compared to rebuild costs but rebuilds take
time, and for many companies time is worth more than higher rebuild
costs.

To put in perspective, take a MedEvac helicopter. When somebody needs
to be airlifted to the nearest hospital for life threatening injuries,
that person will not enjoy the fact that his ride (the helicopter) is
being overhauled so that the hospital (or lease company) can save
money.

Also factor in the premium for reliability. As far as the common
perception, turbines trump all other means of propulsion. This doesn't
mean that the rotary is unreliable or anything of that sort just that
when you buy a aviation product, reliability and quality tends to
scale well relative to price.

Vlad

There is lots of evidence that the TBO of the rotary
is close to 3000 hours. That is 1000 hours MORE than
the hot section of the RR turbine. Did you read the spec
sheet. Here it is again.

Paul Lamar

--


Paul,

A well thought out turbo normalized all aluminum P-ported 13B with heat exchangers underneath and accessories behind, will be more compact in all dimensions than the Rolls Royce 300,   In addition it will have  the same power characteristics and probably a better ceiling well over 18K'  The installation won't be as lightweight but  the plane will  carry less weight in fuel.   As for reliability we can't say at this point because turbines applications have so many hours of commercial use on them.
The Wankle will be more accepted when they spring from  a white sheet design (OMC?) instead of modified automobile engines.   This shouldn't stop the homebuilder from rolling his own but frankly guys like us that make their airplane AND the engine are in a very small minority.

Doug in Japan