Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > Firewall Backward and Forward
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-07-2006, 11:22 AM
Torkel Torkel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Varberg,Sweden
Posts: 25
Default engine

John Slade, can you tell how much your engine weights including cooler,and also use of fuel for diff. hp setting, I have heard that the rotary use a lot of fuel, otherwise very reliable. I have search info on this on diff. forum but can`t find it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-07-2006, 11:36 AM
John Slade's Avatar
John Slade John Slade is offline
Flying TurboRotaryCozyIV
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KWST
Posts: 3,836
Default

Hi & welcome,
With the turbo, coolant and oil, oil coolers, radiator, intercooler and other accesories I think the 13B weights in at about 360lb. I don't have a clear idea of fuel burn yet, but it's clearly not ridiculously high. Other rotary flyers (Tracy Crook) have reported similar fuel burn to Lycomings. Since I'm using auto gas rather than 100 low lead the net cost per mile is much lower with the rotary.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-07-2006, 12:22 PM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

I'm no expert, but tests have shown that a well-leaned Mazda Rotary engine will produce the same hp/lb fuel as a Lycoming when running rich.

In terms of fuel burn alone, it is an indisputable fact that the air-cooled lycoming is more efficient. By leaning the Lycoming, it WILL BE more fuel efficient than a well-leaned rotary. However, you have to consider overall lifecycle costs. Running lean of peak with a lycoming will reduce your TBO, at significant cost, which may exceed the fuel savings. Once you consider all life-cycle cosst, including installation, maintenance, overhaul, fuel options (93 vs. 100LL), then the Mazda rotary appears to meet or exceed the cost efficiency of the Lycoming.

Turbocharging the Mazda rotary allows you to increase the overall fuel efficiency, at increased install/maintenance cost. A FADEC system that allows you to constantly run lean-of-peak (like the MISTRAL engine) is another way to maximise fuel efficiency. These two options will likely allow you to approach and meet average Lycombing fuel efficiency in most applications.
__________________
Plans #000

Redesigned 4-place canard.
500+ hrs into prototype build, Start Oct. 1, 05

(also build a MkIV fuselage, w/plans #1279)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-07-2006, 12:32 PM
Dust's Avatar
Dust Dust is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Troy, Michigan
Posts: 7,963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
Running lean of peak with a lycoming will reduce your TBO
Not from the reports i have read. running rich causes crap to condense out of the exhaust and coat the exhaust valve, causing wear, running lean stops this and reduces wear. I personally vacuumed this stuff out of my engine when i removed the exhaust
__________________
Enjoy the build,njut av byggandet, godere il costruire, nyd bygningen, geniesse den Bau, apolafse tin kataskevi, disfrute la construcción, curta a construção, Pidä hauskaa rakentamisen parissa, bouw lekker,uživaj grade?inaslajdaites postroikoi, geniet die bou
dust

maker of wood, fiberglass, foam dust, metal bits and one day a Cozy will pop out and swiftly whisk me from meeting old friends and family to adventures throughout the world
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-07-2006, 12:36 PM
Marc Zeitlin Marc Zeitlin is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Tehachapi, CA 93561
Posts: 1,083
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaleDC
.... Running lean of peak with a lycoming will reduce your TBO.....
I agree with everything you wrote except this one sentence. Everyone should read Deakin's articles on Avweb at:

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182179-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182176-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182583-1.html

In which he debunks this myth (as well as many others, and gives a wealth of useful information on how to treat aircraft engines).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-07-2006, 01:40 PM
ShaleDC ShaleDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Alexandria, VA
Posts: 673
Default

hmmm. Well as I don't own an aircraft, I can't speak from personal experience on Lycoming TBO.

Perhaps the origins of the myth are in that some people don't lean correctly, leading to detonation, burned valves, etc... Cooling on many GA aircraft is very shoddy, with wide dispersion in temps between cylinders. Lean of peak on one cylinder isn't neccessarily LOP on the others.

My impression has been that the Rotary is much more forgiving of the inherent inaccuracies of EGT/CHT sensors and their temp dispersion, allowing safer LOP operation.

(Of course, with poor cooling and unreliable EGT/CHT sensors, running rich is no guarrantee of TBO either. Those problems are going to manifest themselves in clogged valves, etc...) The real issue isn't the core engine, it's the complete install package and operator feedback/response.
__________________
Plans #000

Redesigned 4-place canard.
500+ hrs into prototype build, Start Oct. 1, 05

(also build a MkIV fuselage, w/plans #1279)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.