parts will no longer be machined, they will be grown.
Tony


http://www.arcam.com/index.aspx
Tony,  I followed the above link and found that titanium aluminide and
berylium are some of the materials fabricated. It looks like a way to
build rotors. There is one installation at NC state university. Anybody
have a relative in the engineering program there.
george grimes

I'm going to go see them in San Diego at the AAOS show, they are using these
machines to grow
titanium knees, and shoulders. I'm sure the cost of the machine is  exspensive.
I think it would be a good investment.
I'm more worried about the power requirements. I'm thinking 440v 3phase maybe?
Imagine you can grow a rotor and the gear teeth all in the same part. Pretty
damn cool if you ask me. I'm not sure if it's there yet for finishes it looks
you may
have to do some secondary machining to clean up the surfaces I'll know more in a
month.

Tony

I am all for you building a gear box but you need to focus on
what is important. You can use existing technology to get
15 to 20 pounds out of the current gear box with out pushing
the envelope.  Heck if you just went back 30 years and copied
the Ross you would get ten pounds out. I don't know how much money
you have but it will take many many hours in the air and years to prove
the advanced technology. We have been at this rotary engine in airplane
thing for 12 years now and changes happen very very slowly. Same
as the certified aircraft market. Pilot's ass's are on the line and
they are very reluctant to try something new and untried.

If you want to see some scary flights check out my Alaska
videos. I was young and stupid in those days. If we went
down in the water we would have had 15 minutes to live.

http://www.rotaryeng.net/yak-val.mp4
http://www.rotaryeng.net/val-anchor1.mp4

Paul Lamar



I wish to encourage everyone to investigate alternative and innovative methods
to facilitate a revolution in rotary engines.

But I also suggest that an examination of the economics be done as well.
The amount of capital and intellect that auto manufacturers (foriegn and
domestic) have for R&D is formidable. If Mazda (or anyone else for that matter)
cannot fathom the cost/justification for Be alloy rotors on the economics of a
mass produced scale, just how could it be done by an ad-hoc group of aviation
enthusiasts? These machines start around a quarter of a million dollars, with
not only 480VAC 3Ph requirements, but you need vacume pumps, air handling (just
try to tell a local municipality you intend to vent the out gasses of laser
fusing berylium alloys into the neighbor hood) toxic material handing
infrastructure and MORE.

Universities can have this kind of clout, and frequently are the clients of
advanced manufacturing techniques, but you will also bet that their boards and
administrations have a keen eyeball on what equipment os doing what and for
whom. They are run just like real businesses. If you can write a paper with a
proper thesis to justify the use of the equipment, I'm sure an enrolled post
grad can get the time on the machines to prove or disprove a theory.
On the other hand, If anyone out there can get a model made, and better yet
flown, my hat is off to you. THAT is a mans row to hoe.

I know this because I have licenses in my state to install the kinds of
equipment you are talking about.
C. Smith

There is no incentive for Mazda to build light weight rotors.
Mazda's largest technical problem for use of the rotary in cars is
low RPM torque. The way to address that is build higher displacement
rotaries that run at lower RPM's.  Hence the 3.2 liter 16X as
opposed to the 2.6 liter RX8 engine.

Paul Lamar