• There seems to be an uptick in Political comments in recent months. Those of us who are long time members of the site know that Political and Religious content has been banned for years. Nothing has changed. Please leave all political and religious comments out of the forums.

    If you recently joined the forums you were not presented with this restriction in the terms of service. This was due to a conversion error when we went from vBulletin to Xenforo. We have updated our terms of service to reflect these corrections.

    Please note any post refering to a politician will be considered political even if it is intended to be humor. Our experience is these topics have a way of dividing the forums and causing deep resentment among members. It is a poison to the community. We appreciate compliance with the rules.

    The Staff of SOH

  • Server side Maintenance is done. We still have an update to the forum software to run but that one will have to wait for a better time.

Question on Rotary Wankel Engines

L

Lionheart

SOH-CM-2014
Hey all,


A quick question on Wankel Rotary engines. If one wanted a very powerful engine, 3 rotor size, would one make the rotors 'deeper' (thickness) or would you keep them about 3 inches thick and increase the overall diameter or face profile size? (You can make the rotors thick, or you could make them larger in diameter).

They now have aircooled rotory engines, such as the Sachs for snowmobiles and some older bikes, and in India, they are looking at running Wankels, aircooled, in their tiny 3 wheel cart cars.

A high performance version of one of these with an aircooled system would be really nice in a plane, (if it could be made quiet).

That Sachs engine is amazingly simple. One moving part like on a turbine. Basic castings, smooth, aircooled... What an amazing powerplant. Now that they have the seals tehcnology down, creating an aeroengine from one should be pretty easy, I would think...

Here is a Sachs Wankel;

4270531004_8709ddb29d.jpg




Bill
 
The short answer is to add an extra rotor Bill, at least with the MAZDA engineering philosophy.
:mixedsmi:
 
A local Long Eze had a Mazda rotary of aorund 600hp installed ...wow was it noisy ...you could hear it miles away...the owner must of thought it wasn't powerful and noisy enough :icon_lol: so now he's installed a jet engine from a Vietnam era drone/UAV with 2000lbs thrust giving a 1:1 power to weight ratio..

DSCF8704.jpg


DSCF8703.jpg
 
Making the engine in an aircraft quiet is no problem, it's the prop moving air that's the challange...
Even jet engines are not that noisey, it's the air and exhaust velocities that make the noise.
 
Naki said:
A local Long Eze had a Mazda rotary of aorund 600hp installed ...wow was it noisy ...you could hear it miles away...the owner must of thought it wasn't powerful and noisy enough :icon_lol: so now he's installed a jet engine from a Vietnam era drone/UAV with 2000lbs thrust giving a 1:1 power to weight ratio..

DSCF8704.jpg


DSCF8703.jpg
Click to expand...



Now that is COOL! Almost looks like something from Star Wars....


Roger that Wombat on rotor sets.


Roger that Tim on engine sound. The Wankel has a loudish 2 stroke sound to it. They tend to pop and stuff when at high RPM, changing RPM ranges. They are amazing engines. Really low vibration. Sort of a mix between a piston and a turbine jet.


Bill
 
I actually took those pics with with you in mind Bill...I will start another thread with some pics of other aircaft at a recent NZ air show which I think you might be interested in. There was a thread with all the airshow pics in Newshawks but it sort of got buried when SOH went offline for a few days..but i need to get to bed as its approaching midnight here and I have to work tomorrow...
 
Thanks Naki,

That would be awesome man. I found more pics of that plane online just now.

His paint scheme even looks a little 'Star Wars' looking, lol... If he had 4 super small turbines, two on each wing root, one on top, one on the bottom, it would look real close to a X-Wing, lol..

Must be fun...



Bill
 
Piglet said:
Even jet engines are not that noisey, it's the air and exhaust velocities that make the noise.
Click to expand...

Most old aircraft look silly with those hush kits fitted...

Unless it's a modern version (~ RX-8 era) I wouldn't use a Wankel at all. They're quite thirsty compared to their piston brethren.
 
.
Hmm. "Wankel Rotary Engine". Seems to me there was a Monty Python skit involving that term . . . . or is my memory faulty (pun unintended).
 
Ya'd prolly wanna go with the extra rotor as increasing the rotor size will increase the rotational mass and actually decrease the power output as those rotary's run best at high RPM's. Mazda's didn't start to breath till about 7K RPM and IIRC the tach on those RX7's went to 12K +.
 
I wouldn't go with the extra rotor, I'd easily say the best idea is to buy an aftermarket reinforced apex seal and add more boost from twin turbochargers, one small and one large. I'd actually gut an RX-7 with twin turbos and then swap the core for a 3 rotor, the ones from the mazda station wagons.

The other thing to remember about rotaries is that they need plenty of RPMs. I'd turn the one above to about 11,000RPMs. that'd be good for about 550-600hp.
 
Unless you countered the rotation with additional rotary compressors, would not a rotary engine's natural rotation cause a corresponding oscillation in the aircraft, either in the pitch, roll, or yaw?

Ken
 
Bjoern said:
Most old aircraft look silly with those hush kits fitted...

Unless it's a modern version (~ RX-8 era) I wouldn't use a Wankel at all. They're quite thirsty compared to their piston brethren.
Click to expand...

The RX-8 also has a massive thirst for engine oil iirc.
 
Ken Stallings said:
Unless you countered the rotation with additional rotary compressors, would not a rotary engine's natural rotation cause a corresponding oscillation in the aircraft, either in the pitch, roll, or yaw?

Ken
Click to expand...

Hey Ken,

I havent never heard of this.

The Rotary engine is unique in that its vibration is extremely low. The only thing it has issues with in vehicle applications is torque. It acts like a huge lever in the Z axis when mounted with the shaft going front to rear. Thats why it failed so badly as a motorcycle engine, though the BMW still has the crank mounted fore/aft as well... They seem to deal with it.


One of the reasons I like the Rotary engine for aircraft is low vibration and continuous power curve. Its almost like an electric motor or turbine. I do not care for running one at 7K RPM though. Man, thats a high amount of R's... If they can sustain that though, and that is their perfect 'constant' then I guess thats what it is.


I have this design for a little triangle plane. Ive been dreaming on it for perhaps 20+ years now. It has a Wankle in it, 3 rotor, and you can drop the engine out the belly on a rack to examine it (change the oil, plugs, tune it, etc), and then heave it back up into the craft. The Wankle would feature lever like clamps so that you could literally disassemble the engine in sections and examine the innerts. Its a wild thought and probably too radical, but with technologies in machining getting so perfect, I figure such things could be done.

Thus... In an afternoon, you could add a module section (rotar and chamber) into your engine, clamp it together, (very elaborate double or tripple redundency interlocking lever system), and push it back up into the craft, start it up , and you have another 75+ HP.



Bill
 
Ken Stallings said:
Unless you countered the rotation with additional rotary compressors, would not a rotary engine's natural rotation cause a corresponding oscillation in the aircraft, either in the pitch, roll, or yaw?

Ken
Click to expand...

Because the effect is minimalized like many other forms of propulsion such as jet engines.
 
Lionheart said:
Hey Ken,

I do not care for running one at 7K RPM though. Man, thats a high amount of R's... If they can sustain that though, and that is their perfect 'constant' then I guess thats what it is.
Click to expand...


The sweet spot for most rotaries is barely tapped yet at 7,000rpms. You'd just have to plan the appropriate gear reduction, as with almost all automotive engines used in aerospace. There are so little moving parts in a rotary there is little besides proper apex sealing tht holds them back from high rpms. the clunky and cumbersome valve train is the source of many problems at high rpms for automotive engines.
 
I've heard that the RX-7 suffered from the tips of the rotors wearing....leading to compression problems after only 60k miles...and an expensive repair bill.
While I always liked the look of the RX8, with it's rear suicide doors and decent performance (in the 231bhp model)....... I don't think that I could live with a car that on average manages 16/17 mpg (unless it was a tuned BMW M3 or M5!!!!;) :icon_lol:)
 
The engine seals were with the early versions. That was long since fixed and improved, perhaps 15+ years ago.



Bill
 
Back in the 70's I had a friend that had an RX3 coupe. He removed the governer and that car was amazing. Small and light, it performed like it had a 400 hp V8. He would turn up 8 grand easily and 10 grand in second and third was was amazing ............. It was like a turbine.
I often wondered why they weren't used more. Still do!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top