![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 27 Jul 2005 10:08:35 -0500, "Bellsouth News Server"
wrote: How can you say that Mazda hasn't made this successful? Sure, the initial introduction had it's share of problems, but since the RX-7 made the re-introduction of the rotary here in the US, the engine has been as troublefree as any engine produced. Emissions was one of the biggest problems, but the newly redesigned Renesis engine cleaned that up, as well as taming a bit of the bark, and overly hot exhaust. Fuel consumption in aircraft use does not seem to be any worse than any other engine of the same power range. The truth is that other manufacturers tried the rotary, but didn't feel like it was worth developing, since they were perfectly happy to churn out piston engines. Only Mazda seems to have had the willingness to stick with it, and make it successful. Now now Bellsouth, let's not get too worked up over this. I agree on most aspects of the rotory but a raging success in the automotive world it has not ever been. Sure you can get it in old RX-7's and new RX-8's, but that's it. If it were such a great alternative, everyone would be trying to build one. I don't quite understand how Tracy manages to get the kind of fuel burn he claims but I suspect he isn't running it very hard because the amount of surface area the rotors are exposed to as they rotate is much greater than that in a piston type engine. This much greater combustion chamber exposed surface area means much more fuel can condense on the surface. It means it's going to get poorer gas milage inherently, unless you unleash the electronics engineers to do their magic with fuel injection and all the other gadgets that are used to emeliorate the situation. The problem is, you don't get that stuff when you put it in a homebuilt airplane unless you rip out all the sensors and the entire wiring harness to go along with it. So yes, it's a very very solid engine but like so many things in aviation, it has it's compromises. Corky Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Diesel aircraft engines and are the light jets pushing out the twins? | Dude | Owning | 5 | October 7th 04 03:14 AM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |
Light Twins - Again - Why is the insurance so high? | Doodybutch | Owning | 7 | February 11th 04 08:13 PM |
Light Twins. How soft??? | Montblack | Owning | 19 | December 3rd 03 10:38 PM |
Light Twins. How soft??? | Montblack | Piloting | 19 | December 3rd 03 10:38 PM |