Thanks for the reply, and apologies for acknowledging your reply earlier. I must have missed the push notification.
My project is a journey of research and fun not just top end power, it needs to be drivable on the street, emissions friendly as best as practical. So small primaries are needed. That makes it harder to manage fuel flow capacity given my second requirement: Max injector duty cycle < port opening time for optimal fuel injection, hopefully cleaner burn again potentially better for emissions and torque. These are factors the manufacturers aim for. Shorter pulse widths also allows for some adjustment to port open time and injection start/finish potentially assisting in the positioning of fuel in the chamber. Again, probably not measurable except via emissions, but its the fun of trying for me.
So:
1. Manageable at low rpm (900-100rpm)
2. By design max 25% injection duty cycle
based on those two criteria I worked through various capacity, flow calculations and concluded that the Injector Dynamics injector selection tool was actually a sound place to confirm. I produced a mud map of various boost, rpm, AFR, fuel pressure combinations et al and a little bit of sensitivity analysis on the piston engine parameters provided in the tool (not useful for a rotary). I then made adjustments for the rotary engine cycle and calculated fuel flow and confirmed opening times from there. I extrapolated that and compared against some very old telemetry data from the car 15+ years ago and found the results were reasonably consistent. Having numbers come up and say, put 4 x 2600cc injectors in did cause me to take a step back.
No for the journey, I would expect 1st stage (2 x 1050) and 2nd stage (2 x 2600) will get me to my first goal (more power than my brother's Aston Martin for bragging rights over a beer ). The 3rd stage (2 x 2600) injectors is because the new manifold will take them, and all things considered, the car build might be able to use some of it.
I understand what I am attempting is not the norm, but have got confirmation of the approach from two sources that would be regarded as very reliable: Good control of fuel injection is part of "the secret sauce" to a top grade solution.
So, I would be kicking myself, if I found after doing all the work needed for a major car uplift, that I could not engage the stage 3 injectors.
I've spent quite a lot of time comparing my options for the ECU and the Link is nice. Not having a 3rd stage is the only significant drawback I find in comparing it to Haltech. As an Aussie, both are designed in Australasia so a plus either way.
I've attached my injector duty cycle "heat" map that shows a subset of the results determined using various calculations and the ID web tool: Fuel Flow Calculator | Injector Dynamics where I picked off the flow and duty cycle based on RPM for each injector. Each column in the spreadsheet represents a different combination of calculations.