Well, I don't fly in the hot summer months. Do most of my flying in the fall
and spring.  You're right with $4.00+ gallon fuel, that makes a 2 hour
flight boring holes cost me 16*4.00 = $64.00.  After 400 hours in my Rotary,
boring holes at $32.00/hour fuel cost, that just doesn't appeal as it once
might have.  Now, give me a place to go and its a  different story.  I
usually make several 1000+ mile round trips in a year, but other than to fly
to check out a new idea, I simply don't get in the air like I use to {:>).

Ed

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark Steitle" <msteitle@gmail.com>
To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>

Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:53 AM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: [Bulk] 16x


> Wow Ed, you really need to get out more!  Of course, with current fuel
> prices I can't say that I blame you for sitting home playing on the
> computer.  I was just trying to get a feel for what to expect for
> engine life on my 20B.
>
> Mark
>
>
>
> On Nov 22, 2007 7:29 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>> Lets see, Mark,  that rebuilt was in 05 down in Louisiana.  I fly around
>> 50
>> hours a year so, I've probably put around 100 hours on the rebuilt
>> engine.
>>
>> Ed
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Steitle" <msteitle@gmail.com>
>> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 9:04 AM
>> Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Fw: [Bulk] 16x
>>
>>
>> > Ed,
>> > How many flight hours does your engine have on it since last rebuild?
>> >
>> > Mark
>> >
>> > On Nov 22, 2007 5:45 AM, Ed Anderson <eanderson@carolina.rr.com> wrote:
>> >> Thanks, George, that in indeed interesting information.  Long throw
>> >> should
>> >> mean more torque.  Be interesting to see how they have improved the
>> >> sealing.
>> >> Two years more development then all the production (assuming they go
>> >> forward
>> >> with it), so I should expect to see it for at least 5 years.  Well,
>> >> hopefully the old 13B will hold out for that long.
>> >>
>> >> Ed
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "George Lendich" <lendich@optusnet.com.au>
>> >> To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
>> >> Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 1:51 AM
>> >> Subject: [FlyRotary] Fw: [Bulk] 16x
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >> Ed, Lynn and Bill +
>> >> >>
>> >> >> This was posted to me privately and may help to clarify the
>> >> >> specifications of the 16x. Some of the info are estimations by Rolf
>> >> >> Pfeiffer ex - NSU engineer.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Hello George
>> >> >>> Nice to hear from you. Here is my assessment:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Also info supplied by Don Sherman as follows:-
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I interviewed Seiji Tashima, the engineering expert for Mazda's new
>> >> >> rotary, at Tokyo on your behalf. Here are a few details he
>> >> >> revealed:
>> >> >> Rotor width reduced by 5mm saves weight, improves apex seal
>> >> >> performance
>> >> >> trochoid is 25mm wider, 35mm taller for more displacement and
>> >> >> torque
>> >> >> would not reveal increase in eccentricity. New displacement is
>> >> >> 800cc/rotor.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Aluminum end plates have plasma-sprayed wear surface direct and
>> >> >> indirect
>> >> >> fuel injection.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Torque gains come from longer e-dimension, more displacement, and
>> >> >> direct
>> >> >> injection.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> He would not confirm 300 hp power goal.
>> >> >> All the gas seals are improved,  with smaller flame holes adjacent
>> >> >> to
>> >> >> spark plugs.
>> >> >> The 16x engine ran for the first time this year, full development
>> >> >> will
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> at least 2 more years.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Engine weight is reduced from 125kg [275 pounds] to 100 kg [220
>> >> >> pounds].
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Assessment by Rolf Pfeiffer as follows:-
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> /Now, using above dimensions we get the following:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 25 mm wider means the short axis goes from 180 to 205 mm.
>> >> >>> 35 mm taller means the long axis goes from 240 to 275 mm.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This results in E = 17.5 mm, and R = 120 mm.
>> >> >>> The old dimensions were E = 15 mm and R = 105 (including the
>> >> >>> radius
>> >> >>> of 3
>> >> >>> mm for the apex seals).
>> >> >>> The ratio R/E is 6.857, down from 7.0.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The ratio of stroke to piston area becomes higher which is what
>> >> >>> they
>> >> >>> want, I suppose.
>> >> >>> The RX7/8's were 0.33 S/D, above numbers would be 0.3764, a
>> >> >>> substantial
>> >> >>> 14% improvement in ratio of stroke to equivalent piston diameter.
>> >> >>> A
>> >> >>> long
>> >> >>> stroke engine, so to speak.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I also had stated that:
>> >> >>> NSU also went that direction with their latest developments before
>> >> >>> folding.
>> >> >>> We are lucky that Mazda has the financial means and does carry on.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> The last big NSU unit EA 871 was approximately like this:
>> >> >>> (Calculating
>> >> >>> back from its displacement and width. I had already left by then,
>> >> >>> so
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> info is calculated.)
>> >> >>> E = 17.28, R = 120.5, width = 69 (given), displacement = 746.6 cc
>> >> >>> (given).
>> >> >>> This is very close to what Mazda seems to be doing now, if above
>> >> >>> numbers
>> >> >>> are right.
>> >> >>> NSU had great hopes in that engine. It was used in a German
>> >> >>> fan-liner.
>> >> >>> It was the high point of the Wankel development at NSU.
>> >> >>> Then the money did run out. NSU was merged with AUDI, and VW the
>> >> >>> parent,
>> >> >>> killed it all. All further development was stopped.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Fan Trainer:
>> >> >>> http://www.der-wankelmotor.de/Flugzeuge/RFB/rfb.html#Fanliner
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Regards
>> >> >>> Rolf
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> George Lendich wrote:
>> >> >>>> Rolf,
>> >> >>>> Could you give me your assessment of the new 16X eccentric. If I
>> >> >>>> remember correctly you gave you assessment on Paul's site. There
>> >> >>>> is
>> >> >>>> discussion on another site and I would like to pass it on to
>> >> >>>> interested
>> >> >>>> parties.
>> >> >>>> Also if my memory serves me right, you mentioned a manufacturer
>> >> >>>> was
>> >> >>>> working on a similar size ( change in eccentric) and what company
>> >> >>>> that
>> >> >>>> was.
>> >> >>>> Am I wrong to believe it was the company you were working with at
>> >> >>>> the
>> >> >>>> time?
>> >> >>>> George Lendich
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> >> > Archive and UnSub:
>> >> > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> >> Archive and UnSub:
>> >> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>> >>
>> >
>> > --
>> > Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> > Archive and UnSub:
>> > http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
>> Archive and UnSub:
>> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>>
>
> --
> Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
> Archive and UnSub:
> http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
>


--
Homepage:  http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub:   http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html