A link to the article follows:
 http://www.sportaviationonline.org/sportaviation/201010#pg94
 Potential viewers may need to be EAA members to view.
 I would be interested in the Rotary community's assessment of the
 article, particularly as it equates the weight of a rotary's firewall
 forward to be approximately equal to that of an equivalently powerful
 traditional setup.
 Cheers, JLM

 I thought it was a poorly done article. It is a reflection
 of the knowledge and experience of the Director of Publications
 & Editor who obviously does not know the difference between
 a rotor and a piston. Would the Air Force send a liberal arts
 major to test pilot school? Is this not the Experimental
 Aircraft Association or is it a wanabe AOPA?

 I submitted an article on aircraft turbo compounding years ago and
 the EAA mag rejected it. Anybody that knows what aircraft turbo
 compounding is and has been in the past should have been interested
 in that article. It played a significant role in post world war II
 military aircraft. I am not the best writer in the world but that is
 no excuse. It is the content of the article that counts and a good
 editor can fix anything. The KitPlanes editor was knowledgeable enough
 to published it and the World Motorsport Symposium held in Oxford
 England in 2008 invited me to give a talk on the subject.
 http://www.rotaryeng.net/Oxford-Race-Tech-art-Dec-08.pdf

 I have been advertising this newsletter in Sport Aviation mag
 classified section for 12 years and they failed to mention this news
 letter in the article. I tried to get my cooling book in the EAA book
store
 at OSH and the lady in charge refused to carry the book. Apparently
 she thought the title "How to Cool Your Wankel" had sexual connotations.
 That says a lot about how she thinks :)

 The article did not explain why the rotary is better than a piston
 engine. The rotary is equal to the weight of a Lycoming O-360 firewall
 forward but it can put out 250 HP instead of 180 HP. A 250 HP six cylinder
 Lycoming would be at least 100 pounds heavier. If expensive aluminum end
 housings are used the weight would be 100 pounds lighter than the
 Lycoming O-360.

 There is also weight to be saved in a better designed gear box and
 the substitution of aluminum rotors for cast iron.

 Paul Lamar
Paul,
I will read the EAA thing, but I already know what to expect. Years
ago when I suggested rotary at a local EAA chapter the members all but
laughed at me.

This may be a good time to ask my next big question:

What is available now (or soon) that can reduce the weight of a Mazda
engine?

I'm thinking seriously about a 1 rotor (Atkins has the e-shafts and
oil pan). Aluminum end housings are justified for me, then aluminum
rotor, Everything possible, practical and safe needs to be done to
have a serious weight reduction. What about the center section?

Atkins quotes 220 lbs for the single rotor engine complete. What would
such an engine weigh if all possible were done to reduce the weight?

Thanks,
John McEveret

Racing Beat in Santa Ana Ca. sells aluminum end housings which
would be necessary to make the Mazda one rotor competitive.

http://www.racingbeat.com/

The Atkins weight sounds like it includes the PSRU and a carb.
PSRU's are 40 to 50 pounds unfortunately because nobody has
attempted to optimize the weight. My guess is half that
with careful design. The Ford gear set alone is only 8 pounds.
This becomes more important when considering a one rotor
Mazda engine. Bare one rotor weight with alloy end housings
should be under 70 pounds.

Rotor housings are 13.5 pounds, Rotors 9 pounds.
Cast iron end housings are 30 to 40 pounds.
At least half of that can be saved with alloys.
A two rotor e-shaft is 15 pounds. Lots of other
stuff like phasing gears and oil and water pumps.

Paul Lamar


Paul,
I wonder if any of these people have ever seen the
SuperLite built by Steve and Everett
Their claimed weight was  166 pounds FWF! I have seen
the engine parts and I believe it.
Amazing work, too bad they stopped because they thought
people wouldn't buy it for 20K.
208 HP BTW. We lost a great pioneer in Everett.
Bill Jepson

I agree he and Steve Beckham where years ahead.
That is why I started this news letter.
I think the failure to recognize the advantages of
the p-port retarded the acceptance of the rotary.
I myself did not realize that point when I started.
Something Everett and Steve already knew.
The P-port is the key to the acceptance of
the rotary as it gives a clear power to weight
ratio advantage.

The new Power Support made a serious error in not selling
parts to the troops in the trenches despite building p-ports.
They went for the $30,000 pot of gold. Mistral made the same mistake.

I now know it takes dozens if not hundreds of rotaries
flying to convince the very conservative pilots out
there. The way to do that is have a network of suppliers.
Tracy Crook has done a lot but much more can be done.
We need a lighter gear box, a good low cost carb set up
with a stand alone ignition and a source of good motor mounts.

Right now things have come to a near stand still because
of the economy. Until that is fixed I see no turn around
on the horizon. The last two years have been an economic disaster
and set this country back 10 years. It started 15 or 20 years
ago when any fool walking in off the street could buy a half
a million dollar house with no money down and no proof of income.
The so-called government at the time was responsible for those
silly rules. The banks making the silly loans were the first to
go under of course. Prudent housing loans are not just a good idea,
they,... like Physics,... are a LAW of nature!!!!

Sorry I digress.


Paul Lamar


No Professor Lamar;

We digress

Roll up your sleeves for the election folks!

Ed Carver