Mark,

Anything's possible, depending upon cost. I'm sure you could get a 3 rotor crank made when the 16X comes out, can't see a problem with length considering the rotors are thinner and would therefore make the 3 rotor shorter than the current 20B. The people making the 3 rotor cranks will soon make them available- just a matter of changing some sizes.

The overall height and width dimensions are the same as the 13B as they made the water passages thinner - don't know if that's a good thing. They must know what their doing.

George ( down under)

George,

 

I think there are a whole bunch of builders waiting in the wings for the 16X to become available.  For the first 5-10 years, they would be bringing a premium price-wise.  The one thing the 16X doesn't offer though is a third rotor.  I feel much better having an extra rotor, just in case one of the other two decide to stop producing power.  But that's just my personal preference.  What I would really like is a 3-rotor version of the 16X (24X).

 

Mark 

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 2:59 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:

Mark,

I'm wondering about the 16X or the 16X Mark 2, and what that will give in regard to hp.  May be impractical to go the 3 rotor with the 16X , although anything is doable,  but it sure would be a nice weight and may be your answer with boosted hp for TO and climb.

 

From memory ( and that's not a good thing) I believe their looking at the 70mm and 76mm rotor width - something to do how the flame front is affected in the narrow housing. I'm wondering how the HP stands up without a very complex  inlet manifold.

 

I have seen some photo's on the internet and if they are indeed 16X prototypes they look very similar to the 13B Renesis with a narrow rotor- something to do with increased thermal efficiency with the narrow rotor. My guess is that there is a reduced squish area with a narrow rotor as well. Personally I would have liked  a wider rotor, however emissions priorities have it over straight power in the current climate.

 

Just thinking out aloud!

Has anyone got any additional info on the new engine?

George ( down under)

George,

 

Yes, at 7500 max rpm, I probably won't see 375hp.  And at my normal cruise rpm of 5200, I'll be lucky to see 300hp.  But that is why I'm building the pport, for that little extra over the side port n/a engine.  I do have a ram-air system, but it only provides about 1/2" MAP boost.  So, I'll take what I get.  I anticipate the pport engine will be lighter due to a simplified intake and a new exhaust.  If I can shave 10-15#, then a turbo could also be in my future.  

 

In reality, I can hit VNE with the present motor, so any hp beyond what I have now is not good for much except higher climb rates. 

 

Mark

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 3:04 PM, George Lendich <lendich@aanet.com.au> wrote:

Mark,

I notice your Hp requirements for the 20B, which is 125hp per rotor. This exactly what I'm aiming for in a single rotor application, but would be happy enough with 115hp, if that's all I got.

 

Given that the motor can only gulp so much fuel and air and HP is dependent on RPM, which is restricted in our case. Are you considering any forced induction other than tuned inlet .

 

I've opted to use the RX8 high compression rotor to give me some addition HP and am using 44mm inlets to give higher inlet velocity, however my maths indicate even with this  arrangement, 125hp might be out of the question. Certainly higher RPM would solve the problem, but that's not available with reduction ratio I'm considering and many are using, might get to 7,500 but that's it.

George ( down under)

 

 

 

George,

 

Yes, my Fluidyne cooler should easily do the job of cooling my current engine.  But I am building a P-port 20B to replace this motor downstream, so I need to design for 375hp (375 x .8 = 300).  The Fluidyne cooler is 297 cu in (core size is 9 x 11 x 3).  Close enough for government work. 

 

Mark