Intresting new GA engine
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Intresting new GA engine
Mistral Engines - Products
Any chances this would make its way down-under and would it prove a better proposition that the current engine duopoly?
Mind you the way our South Pacific Peso is faring ATM it might be too expensive for our fair shores, made in China perhaps?
Any chances this would make its way down-under and would it prove a better proposition that the current engine duopoly?
Mind you the way our South Pacific Peso is faring ATM it might be too expensive for our fair shores, made in China perhaps?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I wouldn't be too quick to discount rotory engines just yet. Sure they had/have there faults like all infernal combustion donks. In another life many moons ago I used to work on some of those rotory jobs (Mazda, 10A & 12A for Eg) & apart from the seals & some warping of the rotor housings (this was due to poor cooling & abuse) those engines produced some mean HP output, much better than the recipricating slugs of the day.
Compact design & much better in some ways due to less parts count, thnxs 'flyingblind' shall keep an eye on this one:-)
CW
Compact design & much better in some ways due to less parts count, thnxs 'flyingblind' shall keep an eye on this one:-)
CW
I use to own an RX7 many moons ago. It was a series 2 with the 12A engine and it is still to this day the best and one of the most reliable cars I have ever owned. It went like a cut cat and even when I sold it with 300K on the clock and the original engine, it was only consuming about 1 L of oil every 5K. It’s only down fall was it would gulp down the petrol.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'404' ah yes the RX7, I think that was the last of the good looking cars, after that they where just 'plain-jane' junk:-) The RX3 (808 in recip) was the smartest looking one though.
I didn't mention the fuel consumption in my above post 'cause to get that sought of 'get-up&-go' engineers had one of two things available to them, cubes or revs (ynaks loved the cubes Japs loved the revs), both needed lots of gas to produce lots of HP
Sure would be smooth though in an airframe application.
CW
I didn't mention the fuel consumption in my above post 'cause to get that sought of 'get-up&-go' engineers had one of two things available to them, cubes or revs (ynaks loved the cubes Japs loved the revs), both needed lots of gas to produce lots of HP
Sure would be smooth though in an airframe application.CW
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: darwin
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't wait to see the Diesel version. Only known Diesel Rotary I can think of is in generators and some large ships. I remember years ago reading a magazine where a single rotor (13B I think) was made for a NASA experimental aircraft. Possibly built by MAZSPEED in the US.
I'm a big fan of Rotarys (Used to have a RX4 Coupe) but like the economy of Diesel. Hopefully get the best of both worlds.
PS: Hope they fixed those apex seals or it won't pass the greenie laws.
I'm a big fan of Rotarys (Used to have a RX4 Coupe) but like the economy of Diesel. Hopefully get the best of both worlds.
PS: Hope they fixed those apex seals or it won't pass the greenie laws.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at these. Nice in your RV4!
Innodyn :: Aviation :: The Innodyn Turbines
Promotional Video
Take-off Video
Flight Sequence Video
Landing Video
Innodyn :: Aviation :: The Innodyn Turbines
Promotional Video
Take-off Video
Flight Sequence Video
Landing Video
Could it be that the big bore boxer engine is the most efficient/cost effective configuration for GA aircraft?
Quite a few pretenders have come and gone over the past 50 years!
Dr
Quite a few pretenders have come and gone over the past 50 years!
Dr
My recollection of rotary engines is that they are all high rpm horsepower and little torque.
According to my calculations (which may or may not be correct), those things would be turning 6000 odd RPM at take off power....
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hey Dr the boxer type engine is a good basic design, heavens know Noah used one as a back up just in case Gods engine failed
They have proven their reliablity no end. I think that the main reason another design hasn't come to fruition outside of turbine engines is because the boxer design works well enough and are avialable at the corner milk bar but to produce another just as succesful type of engine would take a huge amount of design work, testing & even after it's found out that a new design would/could replace the old clunkers you would have to not only convince the rule makers but the airframe manufacturers not to mention the flying public. Porche tried that stunt with their engines in various airframes (Mooney for Eg.) but even though they are available & no doubt are good you don't see too many other airframe makers rushing out to replace the Lyc's & Conty's with Porche donks.
Imagine what the current eng makers would do to squash a design that threatened their livelyhood. Like the Oil Co's when someone comes up with a gadget tha appears to save fuel the Oil Co's go to work in no doubt seceret ways to squash it
When I used to fix cars for a living (dumb I know!) the rotory would actually keep running even with a totally blown rotor assembly (albiet poorly), recip engines not like to do this as nothing will bring one of those designs to a grinding halt faster than a thrown rod!
Still one can always invent a better mouse trap
Now let the Cat get his own back
CW
They have proven their reliablity no end. I think that the main reason another design hasn't come to fruition outside of turbine engines is because the boxer design works well enough and are avialable at the corner milk bar but to produce another just as succesful type of engine would take a huge amount of design work, testing & even after it's found out that a new design would/could replace the old clunkers you would have to not only convince the rule makers but the airframe manufacturers not to mention the flying public. Porche tried that stunt with their engines in various airframes (Mooney for Eg.) but even though they are available & no doubt are good you don't see too many other airframe makers rushing out to replace the Lyc's & Conty's with Porche donks. Imagine what the current eng makers would do to squash a design that threatened their livelyhood. Like the Oil Co's when someone comes up with a gadget tha appears to save fuel the Oil Co's go to work in no doubt seceret ways to squash it
When I used to fix cars for a living (dumb I know!) the rotory would actually keep running even with a totally blown rotor assembly (albiet poorly), recip engines not like to do this as nothing will bring one of those designs to a grinding halt faster than a thrown rod!
Still one can always invent a better mouse trap
Now let the Cat get his own back
CW
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the note of high RPM, Rotax engines are very-high revver's - Max. Power Output in the region of 6000 RPM without any issues.
Why would RPM alone present any issues?
Why would RPM alone present any issues?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the note of high RPM, Rotax engines are very-high revver's - Max. Power Output in the region of 6000 RPM without any issues.
Why would RPM alone present any issues?
Why would RPM alone present any issues?
No, the problem with RPMS is the fact that unless it's used in a ducted envelope, a gearbox must be employed to bring props back into the land of the living. It's gearboxes that give aircraft a bad name
the rotory would actually keep running even with a totally blown rotor assembly (albiet poorly), recip engines not like to do this as nothing will bring one of those designs to a grinding halt faster than a thrown rod!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too true also 'ZEEBEE' couldn't agree more there but I was more leaning towards the rotating parts of both types of engines where there is enormous stresses involved. ALL engines have their weak points. On the subject of RPM I read an article some time ago now when I was fixing engines that given enough fuel a rotory would pretty much continue gaining revs 'till it self destructed, things like valve springs etc as in recip engines where mostly the limiting factor for those ancient designs.
..................It's gearboxes that give aircraft a bad name
this comment is spot on Turbines will continue to produce greater power 'till they all but blow up but the gearboxes attached to them would let go first.
Ok a good thread for sure
CW
..................It's gearboxes that give aircraft a bad name
this comment is spot on Turbines will continue to produce greater power 'till they all but blow up but the gearboxes attached to them would let go first.Ok a good thread for sure
CW
It's gearboxes that give aircraft a bad name this comment is spot on
Is it possible that the rotary engine may not have the same issues since there is no vibrating reciprocating mass?
