light twins?

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