SELLER REI at http://rotaryaircraftengines.com/enginemodels2.htm
FACTORY Rotamax at http://www.rotamax.net/history.html
USER Airgryo Aviation at http://www.airgyro.com/latestnews.htm
WHAT? I can't believe you said they "need about 10,000 flight hours to prove what they say".Now they just need about 10,000 flight hours to prove what they say. I'll wait and see what kind of muffler they have to supply that lasts and keeps this puppy from ripping out eardrums.
See at http://rotaryaircraftengines.com/enginemodels.htm the Rotamax 1300 CC turbocharged is 180 HP at 6000 RPM and in another article is says it is 170Toque HP at 5000 RPM cruise, and it is only 150 lbs. Also listen to news cast from last air show at Oshkosh, http://www.mefeedia.com/entry/3204436/
In which Paul Plack talks with Eric Barger, president of RotaMax Rotary Engines, and how his company is introducing a line of aviation rotaries based on a long-established, non-automotive design from OMC. They also describe how, along with the history article in their website, the engine already has over 10,000 hours in snow machines and other applications from years of mass production at OMC. It has always been aluminum and is well known as "run forever" motors. OMC went out of business years ago but not because of the rotary engine. They produced a ton of recreation equipment from Motor-homes to boats and snowmobiles, farm and lawn equipment etc.
The snowmobiles had good muffler systems, these are not as loud as Mazda's anyway and no where near the rpm either, which is the main reason for the noise difference. Rotamax peaks at 6,000 rpm instead of 8 to 10 grand on the Mazda engines.
Good to know there is some ground history behind these.
I just don't believe, ready to run weights like this. Longblock maybe but not as installed with ancillaries.
The double asterick at the bottom says-
** Weight does not include PSRU, starting, charging, exhaust, cooling, or other accessory systems.
Probably double the weight to about 300 or so? Still in the ballpark to 180hp Lyc...
My other choice would be Crossflow Subaru for the same reason, and aircraft version built new from scratch. Aerocat has had a 250 in the cat for 2 years now and has selected it as the engine they will use. Their past is horrible but new owners and revamped factory may make the difference.
My understanding was that Crossflow was defunct? Yes, no?
You're right, their past is horrible. I helped a couple ex customers fix multiple oversights and poor "engineering" with the turbos and EFI. I hope if they rise from the ashes, lots of things have been changed, especially their attitude towards customers. Retaining the name will make future prospects an uphill battle.
The new rotary stuff sounds promising. We'll be waiting for that RV flight test at Van's side by side with the Lycosaurus. If engine vendors are serious and confident in their products, this should be their first stop IMO.
What happened to my ROSS? Was he abducted by aliens?The new rotary stuff sounds promising. We'll be waiting for that RV flight test at Van's side by side with the Lycosaurus. If engine vendors are serious and confident in their products, this should be their first stop IMO.
Garth no offense, it all sounds impressive, but inherent in the rotary design, besides positives, are two drawbacks which are part of the design and inescapable.Well its in the design and coating both.
Not true. Van tested this and the Powersport's "made enough noise to prompt a visit from the airport manager". Click below last par right side.The muffler exhaust system on the Powersport site is 81 DB on this engine, quieter than a similar Lyc, and the pitch is like a quiet turbine they say, and is the same on the Mazda engine too.
Look no offense but I don't believe everything I hear. I mean prove it, or have they tested this in a RV-?. How do they know unless they have a full tested installation? It's propaganda to me at this point.At 75% it burns 25 GPH at about 340 torque HP to the prop. The 450 HP Rotamax is going to weigh 375 lbs with PSRU and all acc in full dress also, will burn 16.5 GPH at 5500 RPM cruise (its rated standard cruise setting) and is putting 435 torque HP to the prop, and is only 18" round (the cowling, 16" motor, not much bigger than the spinner) and 49" long (of course with PSRU) and cost about $40,000.00
If its too good to be true........... its probably not true. I would hold on to your money and make them prove it. Better get a lawyer to write up a contract to make them guarantee performance. If they don't sign it, run, don't walk. I guarantee you they will not guarantee squat. They will say it depends on your installation.So if it is even close to what they say, compared to other "true aircraft engines" it is a god send.
Well good, I'm happy for him. I don't wish the company ill, but the skycar is ridiculous. With 4 separate engines in each corner, when one goes TU it will be ugly. The Osprey V-22 tilt rotor and Chinook helicopter have interconnected drive shafts to keep both rotors going on one engine. It may need to descend on a single engine, but it will not do it a** over tea kettle out of control. Actually Mollier says it will fly with one engine out. I doubt it and again he has never tested it.Your right on the Mollier Skycar, what a lose, any failure and the glide ratio is that of an anvil. Need the chute system on that one for sure, IF it ever gets off the tether line. But I understand its his money mostly, some grants, but a news article said he has over 200 million of his own money in it. However his rotary motor and equipment manufacturing business is going good I understand. See it at http://www.freedom-motors.com/ for jet boats and motorboats and equipment etc, at that 10 HP rotary that fits in the palm of your hand is sure impressive. See it on the NASA site at http://www.nasatech.com/Spinoff/spinoff2001/t2.html
We have been waiting for years and its been quite for some time. I understand from they are trying to get certification with the FAA. Their market is towards retrofitting GA planes.Also the Mistral is something I am following, but it has no new design like Rotamax, coating, porting etc and is very heavy , foreign and expensive, but may be cool we'll see.
The actually did some noise dB meter test. The Rotaries where louder (83, 84 and 94 peek on takeoff) verses a 360 Lyc that was a full 11 dB less, in the 69-73 dB range. The proof is in the ear bleeding.![]()
To answer your question Chad,
YES the sound of a P-51 is better.
A new podcast on the Rotamax engine...
http://www.aero-news.net/podcasts/casts/1/ann-special-feature-2007-10-12.mp3
--
Michael
Garth,
Third...you blew a jug off a lycoming...twice...how? The only similar failures I am aware of are super high tuned engines..11.5 to 1 compression, etc.