Thanks you Gentlemen,

   I will get the CAD drawing done from one these CAD freelancers on the net and post back the results. . Just one question - which of the three SAE 1,2,3 will go with the FORD transmission parts from slausons ?

   Regards Zahid Rahman

   ​

   I saw this photo o various Ford planetary gears on the website, how does each one effect the reduction ratios

   The planet carriere with the square theet is 3.12 and the other is 2.85.
   Hold the ring gear in both cases. The flange # goes with any gear box.
   The big flanges are for wood props.

   Paul Lamar hold off on the email. I'll be back in a few days.




   You said the planet carrier with teeth is 3.12 and the other is 2.85.
   I was looking at this gear box
   http://www.aeromomentum.com/gearbox.html <http://www.aeromomentum.com/gearbox.html> he described the ratio of his gearbox 2:5:1  Designed for 4 cylinder engine up to 210LB horse power.
   In terms of horse power if that is the correct way to view the ratios what horsepower should be used with 2.85 and 3.12


   Zahid Rahman

   Any HP number.

   Here is a little quiz. If I have an engine that generates 200 HP at
   6000 RPM what is the torque?

   Paul Lamar




   Paul,

   What stands between the status quo and a certified engine, if it is crystal clear that rotary is the way to go?

   Gordon Gao

   In order to stay in business a company must make a profit. Lycoming stated that when the vast majority of customers demand a Wankel engine Lycoming would build it.  Lycoming would have to build a factory to make Wankel engines because the FAA demands a paper trail from the mine to the air. This FAA policy hampers innovation. Mazda estimates over a billion dollars to build a new Wankel engine factory so they keep the one they have.

   Lycoming would then be out of the experimental market which is about 20 to 30% of the total market for light aircraft engines. Since a used Mazda rotary engine is near free Lycoming probably could not make money for years to come. Your tax dollars at work.

   I think Mazda should get in the aircraft engine business to better utilize their assets but it would be a drop in the bucket to 100,000 car engines per year. I would do it for PR reasons.

   Paul Lamar

   I Get 228.48 Ft/Lbs
   Andrew. CampBell

   How? :-)


   Paul Lamar


   I used the calculation Torque = Hp X RPM divided 5252. However I have had a different answer from an on line calculator, If I use Hp X 33000 Divided by 2pi then I get 171.15.
   With the Rotax 503 now out of production the need for a rotary of between 45-65 Hp would fill the needs for many microlight aircraft, especially if the cost can be kept at a reasonable level.
   Andrew.  Campbell

Torque is the measured value and the HP calculated from that.
HP=(torque x RPM)/5252. When the power is known as Paul gave, you need to get the torque in the formula by itself. To do that, multiply both sides by 5252 and divide by the RPM. That leaves the torque by itself.
Torque =(200HP x 5252)/6000.= 175.066666lb-ft. That is the torque at 6000RPM. Change the RPM and things can change. The 1973 engines had different port timing than later engines. The torque "curve" went up at about a 45 degree angle to 3500RPM and then went flat level to like 9000RPM. If you just let the clutch out to get moving and then floored it, a VW Beetle would out accelerate you until you got to 3500RPM. Then it was like a two smoke coming on the ports or a turbo kicking in. Paul should confirm this as his RX2 would have performed the same as my RX3.Torque above 5252 RPM will always be lower than the HP, and higher below the 5252RPM. It is just how the math works.

Dale Davies


   The Rotary Engine News Letter. Powered by Linux. ACRE NL web site.
   http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas Copyright
   1998-2015 All world wide rights reserved.