A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

ASH 26E VS DG 808C



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 3rd 06, 08:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
no-top-post
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

-- snip --

Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which allows a narrow
fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration free smoothness. The
Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free. The lack of vibration
means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the motor and things
nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to most 2-strokes.

-- snip --

What are fuel consumption ratios for 4-stroke, 2-stroke, wankel;
and typical engine weight ratios ?

I expect the wankel to be lightest and thirstiest, so that up to
a certain duration threshold its combined engine + fuel is
better/lighter.

== Chris Glur.

  #2  
Old November 3rd 06, 07:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Eric Greenwell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,096
Default ASH 26E VS DG 808C

no-top-post wrote:
-- snip --

Otherwise the Wankel, besides having small size which allows a narrow
fuselage, has excellent power density and vibration free smoothness. The
Wankel is also remarkably reliable and trouble free. The lack of vibration
means that stuff doesn't crack, break or fall off the motor and things
nearby - - a major positive attribute as compared to most 2-strokes.

-- snip --

What are fuel consumption ratios for 4-stroke, 2-stroke, wankel;
and typical engine weight ratios ?

I expect the wankel to be lightest and thirstiest, so that up to
a certain duration threshold its combined engine + fuel is
better/lighter.


The 4 stroke piston engine is most fuel efficient, followed by the
rotary Wankel, and finally the 2 stroke piston engines; at least, for
the engines used in our gliders.

The Wankel has four phases (intake, compression, power, exhaust) like a
4 stroke piston engine, but "stroke" doesn't seem to apply to a rotary
engine! Maybe a good term is "4 phase"?

I don't know how the weights compare, but if you consider the entire
propulsion system (motor plus starter, muffler, etc, the mast and
propeller, fuel, pumps, lines, and fuel tanks, starting battery, engine
controls and wiring, and all the structural additions to a glider to
carry the motor, a few pounds variation in basic engine weights is
probably irrelevant.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ASH 26E VS DG 808C [email protected] Soaring 63 November 2nd 06 06:33 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.