Mistral Stops Development of Rotary

[KPmarc]

A press release just rolled through the inbox indicating that Mistral has stopped development of the rotary for aircraft.

Here's our small blurb on it.

Link to the Mistral site.

[nucleus]

I always thought they made a huge mistake not going with peripheral ports. They could have made 240 HP at 6000 eccentric shaft RPM with a naturally aspirated two rotor engine. That would be perfect to replace a IO360, you could derate the power as needed. Turbocharge the same and you have a IO540 output in a lighter package. No need for an expensive three rotor. They didn't seem to understand that Mazda's porting was all about meeting emission standards. They did a lot of good engineering, but missed the boat on the fundamentals of what makes a Wankle so strong: Volumetric Efficiency over 100% for gobs of power in a small, lightweight package. A three rotor engine should make 360 HP NA and 540 HP turbocharged.

That said, their FADEC, bell housing, accessory mounting, and planetary reduction unit were all top notch.

Hans

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by nucleus

I always thought they made a huge mistake not going with peripheral ports. They could have made 240 HP at 6000 eccentric shaft RPM with a naturally aspirated two rotor engine. That would be perfect to replace a IO360, you could derate the power as needed. Turbocharge the same and you have a IO540 output in a lighter package. No need for an expensive three rotor. They didn't seem to understand that Mazda's porting was all about meeting emission standards. They did a lot of good engineering, but missed the boat on the fundamentals of what makes a Wankle so strong: Volumetric Efficiency over 100% for gobs of power in a small, lightweight package. A three rotor engine should make 360 HP NA and 540 HP turbocharged.

That said, their FADEC, bell housing, accessory mounting, and planetary reduction unit were all top notch.

Hans

Hans you said it correctly in the last line. Too bad they didn't recognize that a new alternate engine needs to cost LESS not more than a Lyc or Conti.
Bill Jepson

[nucleus]

Originally Posted by Rotary10-RV

Hans you said it correctly in the last line. Too bad they didn't recognize that a new alternate engine needs to cost LESS not more than a Lyc or Conti.
Bill Jepson

You are right, cost is key. Peripheral ports would have increased power so much that they wouldn't have to build the three rotor which would have reduced costs... I suspect that building the troichoid housing was not easy or inexpensive though.

Hans

[rv6ejguy]

Too bad, it was nice looking stuff and they went to so much work on it.

Hit the nail on the head, the alt/ new engine guys never get it- the market is going to be small for their engines if they cost MORE than Lycos and Contis. Why would you switch to a more expensive, unknown, relatively unsupported engine that only the factory in Europe can work on?

Second part they never get, is almost every new engine that tries to get certified, never sees the light of day due to the massive costs involved. Why people don't go into the experimental market first to generate some capital and get more hours on their designs just baffles me. Enthusiastic engineers with no business sense I guess.

If they don't make it within 3 years, they never will. I think Deltahawk is in the same boat. There is no way they will ever recoup development and certification costs in the civil market after all this time and the price will be out of sight. Certification is usually the death blow for all these designs hoping to compete price wise with existing designs- look at SMA, Orenda/ Trace, Thielert, Toyota, Honda- either really expensive or have gone nowhere. The successful ones, Jabiru and Rotax went heavily into the experimental market. They are not cheap but they are in business at least.