Page 1 of 1
13b Rotary twin turbo
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:37 am
by smallfly
wat's the general opinion on these motors in aircraft?
I see Jan Kemp from volksrust has one fitted in a polliwagen,
anyone know anything about it?
When fitted to a 3/1 redrive it should make awesome power !!
I remember back in the seventies, when rotaries where popular,
it could run on parafin, therefore i presume it should be quite happy
on a diet of Jet A1?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 11:53 am
by RV4ker (RIP)
I did plenty homework on it when i was shopping for an aerie. There is an RV4 in USA which has this installation and it goes like Sh.. of a Shovel.
http://www.rotaryaviation.com/rvotter.html
This is what caught my eve...
Cost $5800
Overhaul - $800
I had an option on 1 with the new renises (?) RX8 Rotary engine, but it needed some engineering work which was scared of so missed it. Reports were for in excess of 230hp.
There are a couple guys locally working on these for bearhawks. (bhawker on Avcom)
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:06 pm
by smallfly
To avoid expensive engineering and overall cost is it not a viable option
to buy a cheap import ( A-Class less than 40 000 kays) to "canabalise"?
How would Jet A-1 affect the durabillity of the engine ?
I would presume it would last longer because of lower combustion
pressure, and one should be able to live with the slightly less power ?
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:15 pm
by RV4ker (RIP)
No idea. Check Tracy's website.
http://www.rotaryaviation.com. He has a firewall forward solution for the engine and plenty links to others. Am sure there will be some other gems if you google rotary engines for aircraft use or something of that nature. I have canned all the research I did when I went for the lyconosuarass...
and it was 3+ years ago...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:16 pm
by RV4ker (RIP)
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:27 pm
by Nick
It's a Wankle! Mazda used to be into them big-time, very smooth, not very fuel efficient. Not good for 'starship' milage.
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:11 pm
by smallfly
Nick wrote:It's a Wankle! Mazda used to be into them big-time, very smooth, not very fuel efficient. Not good for 'starship' milage.
6.25GPH @ 175MPH in a RV4 ?
That equates to 11 kilos to a litre at more than 280 kph............
in my book.............starship!!
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 2:34 pm
by RV4ker (RIP)
Yip.
I get slightly more speed with my Lycon, but at 9+gph and the O/H cost is huge in comparison
I like, but CAA for some reason were not that excited when I suggested it...
Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:31 pm
by Nick
Not good for 'starship' milage
I meant that you didn't see many rotary mazdas with over half a bar of km.
Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:14 pm
by RudiGreyling
Did also do my homework on deciding my powerplant.
Everybody looks at the initial cost and overhaul cost and that is fair.
But that is just one side of the cost.
Most of the operating cost claims are only that, real world tests flying alongside reputable aircraft engines show little if any improvements. You can only get so much reliable power out a liter of fuel otherwise you are running lean!
Here is what I decided an my take on it, after months of soul searching:
If you want to be a TEST pilot all our life, fiddle and experiment with your airplane, fly behind an alternative power plant.
If you want to enjoy the flying, fly behind a reliable prooven power with 1000's of hours of history and backup in a proven installation.
It takes a special person & 'engineer' to ensure everything is done right on an alternative powerplant, you are on your own most of it, little backup, and will take you significant longer. Can it be done, Yes, can it be done easily, NO. There is no free lunch.
Are you an Experimenter or a Flyer?
My 2cents
Regards
Rudi
