Here are a few pictures I managed to find.

 Paul Lamar


 Hi Paul, that first NASA picture looks like it could be a Cessna 337,
 push-me pull-me !


Steve Carlisle

It certainly looks like a Duncan installed in a huff and puff. I knew NASA
flew a Wankel Unfortunately they abandoned general aviation to focus on
space soon after that

Notice it does not have p-ports. The belt drive does not look like 3 to one.
My guess closer to 2 to one.

This means that it was handicapped. If Duncan and NASA did their home work
they would have a lot more HP. Some goes for Tracy to certain extent.

It took me years to convince Tracy to go to 2.85:1 let alone 3.12:1 which
was possible with the Ford parts. He never went with P-ports.

The Wankel road racers were running 11,000 RPM, p-ports  and 300 HP NA
at the time. Both NASA, Tracy and Duncan ignored those facts. NASA in particular as
they employed mechanical engineers that could have done a stress analysis on the rotors
and e-shaft and in the process determined it was capable  of very high
intake manifold pressure on the order of 85 to 100 inches of mercury.

The least they could have done was consult with some aircraft piston engine
engineers still around at the time.  It is kind of surprising Curtis Wright
did not explore the Wankel power producing capabilities at the higher
RPM's and turbo compound as they were the experts on the subject.
They must have fired all the piston  engineers when R&D was stopped on
the R3350 TC.  The greatest blunder in the history of the aircraft engine.

When RPI took over the CW  work after John Deere had it for awhile they
hired Sunstrand Corporation to do a mathematical analysis of a Mazda model
Wankel for turbo compound potential.  They explored almost all possible configurations.

Sunstrand came up with a potential 80 HP additional with little or
no additional fuel burn. Here is the pdf paper. It was attached as an
appendix to a much longer paper on a summary of all the R&D done to date by all the
participants.

This was ignored by everybody except me :-)

I did not bother to mention it at Oxford as I knew the FIA would never
allow  the Wankel.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF5PgQ4ZWfU

A turbo Wankel with the same displacement as an RX7 engine  would
generate F1 level power with an engine that was ONE ONE HUNDREDTH THE COST OF
ANY EXISTING F1 PISTON ENGINE AT THE TIME. Typical cost of a F1
engine is $100,000,000. That is one hundred million for the zero
challenged :-)

Probably with a better power to weight ratio. The FIA had already in effect
banned the Wankel  at Le Mans.

Imagine what would happen in the world if F1 engines were Wankels. :-)

Paul Lamar



Pretty interesting! I'm definitely keeping that NASA paper on
turbo-compounded rotary engines.
That will surely help me a lot.

Jacobo Guimer�ns



 The Rotary Engine free News Letter. Powered by Linux. If you want
 off the list PLEASE let me know and I will remove  you.  ACRE NL web
 site. http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
 Copyright 1998-2017 All world wide rights reserved.