Received-SPF: softfail
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=171.71.176.70; envelope-from=echristley@nc.rr.com
Message-ID: <484942BE.7060504@nc.rr.com>
Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 09:59:26 -0400
From: Ernest Christley <echristley@nc.rr.com>
Reply-To: echristley@nc.rr.com
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080227)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [FlyRotary] Big engines
References: <list-2955284@logan.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-2955284@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Lynn Hanover wrote:
>  In this case you could machine away one face or both faces and braze two
> rotors together. One end with the gear and the other without. You could have
> twice the bearing length, and nearly twice the displacement.
>
> Just the crank, rotors and housings would be special. Everything else could
> be stock pieces. Maybe double the torque, could be direct drive?
>   
Those voices keep talking to me.

Could you use two rotor housings, brazed then pinned on the compression 
side?  Then they wouldn't really need to be special either, and you'd 
get FOUR plugs per cylinder.

Side seals would be standard, but would the apex seals have to be 
special made...or could you use two of those side-by-side?

You would have to have either a monster bridge port or a peripheral port 
to feed the monster.

Renesis rotor housings probably wouldn't work.  The side exhaust would 
be to restrictive for twice the volume.

You'd need to build a new oil pan, or use a remote sump.  Simple.  
Special made compression bolts are also a cinch.

On a guess, you'd be adding about 15lbs per rotor (?).   It could 
possibly end up being a 400Hp engine with an installed weight under 
350lbs(?).