If you regulate engine size by the amount of air and fuel
processed in 2 revs then i bet this works out...same as it
would with the rotary.. It is simple math..
Dave Dahlgren
Hot Shot Wanna-be engineer to the pro racing world...
ardunbill@webtv.net wrote:
>
> X-WebTV-Signature: 1
> ETAtAhUAjnxtsHNeC/quynztG/LRuv8h5ogCFDkS+2wg3Xgm6zGcO1X28OuzaEN7
> From: ardunbill@webtv.net
> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 09:24:15 -0500 (EST)
> To: crothfuss@coastalnet.com (Chuck Rothfuss)
> Subject: Re: mazda rotary engine factor
> Message-ID: <6549-3A49FB8F-6369@storefull-241.iap.bryant.webtv.net>
> In-Reply-To: Chuck Rothfuss <crothfuss@coastalnet.com>'s message of Tue,
> 26 Dec 2000 20:26:18 -0500
> Content-Disposition: Inline
> MIME-Version: 1.0 (WebTV)
>
> Chuck, is there an issue of "breathing efficiency" at play here? I know
> that today's best four strokes and today's best two strokes are not a
> fair match based on displacement, because the two stroke, although it
> does not have as good breathing (volumetric efficiency), has a net power
> output better than the four stroke merely by virtue of double the power
> strokes.
>
> How does the rotary fit into this group, in other words, does it breathe
> better or worse than its two and four stroke piston cousins? Porting,
> time available for induction and exhaust, etc.
>
> Regards from Ardun Bill where there's a dusting of snow this morning in
> the Great Dismal Swamp, Chesapeake, VA
|