|
I agree, William, that Mazda will likely hold the rpm down
a bit compared to the older 13Bs. But, with the torque doubled at every
rpm due to the twice longer throw of the eccentric shaft combined with 300 cc of
additional displacement - I expect considerable improvement in power/torque at
lower rpm than the older iron - and that is where it is most useful for our
application. Few (if any) current aircraft applications exceed 7500 rpm
and most are operating at less than 7000 rpm.
I'm not certain the 30% fuel economy figure mentioned will
translate to anything like that in the aircraft application. In the
Renesis the 20% improvement mentioned was found in the lower rpm ranges - but
the improve configuration of the combustion chamber offers some promise of
improved efficiency at our rpm ranges.
We can only wait and see how it turns out.
FWIW
Ed
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 7:20 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Engine 16X
One of Mazda's goals with the 16X is to not rev quite so high,
for better drivability. Increased displacement will keep overall power
about the same compared to the 1.3L Renesis. I am not expecting the 16X to
be any better for anything except fuel economy in the auto application and
puttering around with an automatic transmission.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Ernest Christley <echristley@att.net> wrote:
Ed Anderson wrote:
I agree Al, that would really change the alternative
engine scene.
Some articles speculated that the 16X might produce
300 Hp. Based on my calculations that would take around 8500 rpm to
make it - perhaps a bit less with the increased combustion efficiency they
claim due to the resized/shaped rotor and housing.
A three rotor
equivalent could produce (based on displacement) around 315 HP at 6000 rpm -
now that would be great for larger
aircraft.
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|