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.

 sniped politics


 Paul Lamar

 Hi Paul......... love the information..... got a question for you..... is there
 anyway to have the most recent comments appear at the beginning of the message,
 instead of adding it onto the bottom of each message?
 William V. Hill Jr.
 FAA Safety Team-Lead Representative
 www.faasafety.gov
 2010 FAA Western Pacific Region Representative of the Year
 19009 Freda Lane
 Redding, CA 96003
 wvhill@sbcglobal.net
 530-410-9525


 We have been doing it this way for 12 years. The reason is a chronological
 record of the discussion is available to me when the subject
 arises again.  Question answer... rather than answer.... question :)
 We have taken votes over the years and people like
 it like this once they get used to it.

 Paul Lamar

 ok....... majority rules....... thanks
 William V. Hill Jr.


        Paul,
 Greetings.
 As I was reading the article,I was looking forward to the mention of
 your name,the newsletter,and the pioneering work that you have con-
 tributed toward the development of the rotary as an aircraft powerplant.

 When I didn't see any mention of your work,I was shocked,for this
 very serious lapse in informing the readership, of the  work being
 done by yourself ,and the rest of our community ,to advance and po-
 pularize the acceptance of the rotary as an aircraft power plant.

 As you mentioned,it says a lot about the the mindset of the powers that be at
 EAA ,and their attitude regarding experimentation and true innovation.

                                                                Regards,
                                                                Dave Young

 I think we are TOO experimental for the Experimental Aircraft Association :)

 Paul Lamar


         Paul et al,

Thanks for the feedback on the EAA rotary engine article. You
confirm my suspicion that the weight comparison between rotaries
and conventional engines was not addressed appropriately. Also,
there probably is a great deal of truth to the fact that
'rotaries are too experimental' for the majority of the EAA's
members as the organization is composed largely of folks flying
certified aircraft who have interests in general aviation that
aren't met elsewhere with smatterings of homebuilders and
antique aircraft enthusiasts thrown in for good measure. Therein
lies the challenge which rotary community can either accept or
decline.

FYI, my first exposure to rotaries in aircraft was at EAA's Air
Venture in 2008. Shortly afterwards, I stumbled onto the rotary
web site, http://www.rotaryeng.net/. Regrettably, if there were
rotary related booths at Air Venture 2010, I missed them.
As pointed out on the web site and elsewhere, rotaries have
numerous potential advantages over conventional aircraft
engines. The major disadvantage is there is no place to buy one
that can be used in certified aircraft or even easily in home
built 'experimental' aircraft.

Rotaries could be an answer to the need for a solution to the
gargantuan leaded gasoline problem that the general aviation
community is facing. There has to be a huge market for someone
who could build a reasonably priced, FAA certified, rotary
engine and put it in firewall forward packages (FFPs) tailored
(with STCs) to the thousands of FAA certified aircraft that will
need a solution the leaded gas problem. A 200 HP, fuel injected,
dry sump FFP for the hundreds of RVs under construction would be
a fantastic first step toward entry to the billion dollar market
certified replacement market that is begging for someone to grab
from lethargic U.S. behemoths like Textron (Lycoming,

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/)  and Teledyne (Continental,
http://www.genuinecontinental.aero/) or the more entrepreneurial

Austrian division of Bombardier, Rotax
(http://www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com/default.htm).
Thanks for providing a forum for my this kind of brain storming.
Cheers, JL               


The big aircraft engine builders are hampered by the certification
rules. It is very expensive to make improvements in an aircraft
engine due to the certification requirements. Mistral went bankrupt
after ten years of trying to certify the rotary.

The big mistake was biting off more than the FAA could chew.
If Mistral had used an aircraft carb and magnetos instead of EFI/FADEC
it would have breezed through certification.

The rotary is potentially the most efficient internal combustion
engine of all time in turbo compound form due to the lack of exhaust
valves. The exhaust valves remove  a huge portion of the exhaust
energy. Because of this energy absorption they are also the weakest
link in the aircraft engine. Most of the R&D money Curtis Wright spent
developing the turbo compound CW R3350 was spent on trying to
get the exhaust valves to live. If it were not for the exhaust
valves the CW R3350 TC instead of being 20% more efficient
would have been 40% more efficient.

http://www.rotaryeng.net/turbo-compound.html

Paul Lamar