light twins?

Bill Daniels wrote:
I think there are theoetical factors against the Wankel-type rotary.

The combustion chamber shape is far from ideal and there isn't a straight
forward way to correct that. As a result, the engine leaks a lot of heat in
exhaust gasses as well as through the cooling system so there is less energy
going into producing power. All else equal (and it rarely is), the rotary
will have worse specific fuel consumption than a crank and piston.

Old pistons have one rarely discussed advantage. In the interval between
ignition and the beginning of the power stroke, piston motion is very low
and the volume of the combustion chamber is close to constant. This allows
combustion to run to completion under near ideal conditions of temperature
and pressure. That squeezes more heat calories, and therefore power, out of
the fuel-air mixture.

Bill Daniels
(I loved my RX-7)


Any loss of BSFC at speed is nearly all compensated for through extreme
leaning made possible by charge stratification (centrifugal force throws
gas fumes to the outside of the chamber, where the plugs just happen to
be). In real world airplane (vs. imaginary ones), there is no
difference in rotaries vs pistons. Furthermore, the BSFC Lycoming
et.al. publish is for a engine running on a test stand. In the real
world, most pilots run rich to protect valves.



--
This is by far the hardest lesson about freedom. It goes against
instinct, and morality, to just sit back and watch people make
mistakes. We want to help them, which means control them and their
decisions, but in doing so we actually hurt them (and ourselves)."