http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.

On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

Is this the Wankel one with that weird triangular piston rotaor?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________


"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it needs
no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an early
motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

On 18/03/2014 23:39, Brian Gaff wrote:
Is this the Wankel one with that weird triangular piston rotaor?

No, it is a 19th century design, with five air cooled cylinders that
rotate around a fixed vertical crankshaft. Having the cylinders rotating
does away with the need for a flywheel, giving a good power to weight
ratio, and creates a forced draught over them that improves cooling
efficiency.

Similar designs were used in world war I fighter aircraft. However, the
gyroscopic effect made turning them rather interesting.

Colin Bignell

On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).

On Sat, 22 Mar 2014 12:08:38 +0000, Part Timer wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHUAI-0
Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.

A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).

Nope, that's definitely a rotary. It's not a Wankel, but it's not a
radial, either.

On radials, the cylinders were static and the crankshaft rotated. Just
like a normal V engine but with banks all the way round.

On a rotary, the crank is static, and the cylinders rotate, just like
that one. Think WW1 fighter plane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

A Wankel is the NSU/Mazda-style one that everybody thinks of as "rotary",
with static cylinders, triangular rotor geared to and spinning around the
crank.

On 22/03/14 12:08, Part Timer wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).
No
Radial is engines arranged with cylinders in a circle.
Rotary is when the 'crankshaft' is fixed and the cylinders go round it.

Not needing a flywheel is the least of issues for aircraft - the
propellor itself is a massive flywheel.

It was all about cooling really.

Rotary engines are pigs to get the fuel into. too.

"Another factor in the demise of the rotary was the fundamentally
inefficient use of fuel and lubricating oil, caused in part by the need
to aspirate the fuel/air mixture through the hollow crankshaft and
crankcase, as in a two-stroke engine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

The Wankel 'rotary' is a completely different animal.
It has a rotating piston, not a rotating cylinder.

Radial engines reached their peak at the end of WWII and were then
overtaken but the jet engine and turboprops.

Rotary engines didnt even make it to the end of WWI..

Post WWI Bristol engines went down the radial route and Rolls Royce down
the inline route.

There were legals reasons for this.

In the US Pratt and Whitney were the big radial engine people.

As far as cars went, the cooling problems meant that water cooled was
practically de rigeur as power levels went up. So inline was easily
possible.

The thing about radials being that they offer better air cooling if the
flat face of the cylinders in=s in a prop blast.

But that is draggy - its better to have an inline arrangement and put
the radiators elsewhere where they can be more aerodynamic



--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

On 22/03/2014 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/14 12:08, Part Timer wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).
No
Radial is engines arranged with cylinders in a circle.
Rotary is when the 'crankshaft' is fixed and the cylinders go round it.

Not needing a flywheel is the least of issues for aircraft - the
propellor itself is a massive flywheel.

It was all about cooling really.

Rotary engines are pigs to get the fuel into. too.

"Another factor in the demise of the rotary was the fundamentally
inefficient use of fuel and lubricating oil, caused in part by the need
to aspirate the fuel/air mixture through the hollow crankshaft and
crankcase, as in a two-stroke engine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

The Wankel 'rotary' is a completely different animal.
It has a rotating piston, not a rotating cylinder.

Radial engines reached their peak at the end of WWII and were then
overtaken but the jet engine and turboprops.

Rotary engines didnt even make it to the end of WWI..

Post WWI Bristol engines went down the radial route and Rolls Royce down
the inline route.

There were legals reasons for this.

In the US Pratt and Whitney were the big radial engine people.

As far as cars went, the cooling problems meant that water cooled was
practically de rigeur as power levels went up. So inline was easily
possible.

The thing about radials being that they offer better air cooling if the
flat face of the cylinders in=s in a prop blast.

But that is draggy - its better to have an inline arrangement and put
the radiators elsewhere where they can be more aerodynamic



Someone once told me that a water-cooled aircraft engine was about as
sensible as an air-cooled submarine engine ;-)

On 22/03/14 14:44, wrote:


Someone once told me that a water-cooled aircraft engine was about as
sensible as an air-cooled submarine engine ;-)

Nevertheless most of them were.

VERY few really fast piston engined aircraft had radials.

And the big ones with multiple banks all had cooling issues

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.

wrote in message
...
On 22/03/2014 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/14 12:08, Part Timer wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).
No
Radial is engines arranged with cylinders in a circle.
Rotary is when the 'crankshaft' is fixed and the cylinders go round it.

Not needing a flywheel is the least of issues for aircraft - the
propellor itself is a massive flywheel.

It was all about cooling really.

Rotary engines are pigs to get the fuel into. too.

"Another factor in the demise of the rotary was the fundamentally
inefficient use of fuel and lubricating oil, caused in part by the need
to aspirate the fuel/air mixture through the hollow crankshaft and
crankcase, as in a two-stroke engine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

The Wankel 'rotary' is a completely different animal.
It has a rotating piston, not a rotating cylinder.

Radial engines reached their peak at the end of WWII and were then
overtaken but the jet engine and turboprops.

Rotary engines didnt even make it to the end of WWI..

Post WWI Bristol engines went down the radial route and Rolls Royce down
the inline route.

There were legals reasons for this.

In the US Pratt and Whitney were the big radial engine people.

As far as cars went, the cooling problems meant that water cooled was
practically de rigeur as power levels went up. So inline was easily
possible.

The thing about radials being that they offer better air cooling if the
flat face of the cylinders in=s in a prop blast.

But that is draggy - its better to have an inline arrangement and put
the radiators elsewhere where they can be more aerodynamic



Someone once told me that a water-cooled aircraft engine was about as
sensible as an air-cooled submarine engine ;-)

Air cooled aero engines have major cooling problems when flying.
Eg
When descending they over cool and the cylinders can seize onto the pistons.
At best it causes high wear and tear.

If you look at radial engines, there is a circle of flaps round the engine
nacelle which are closed on descent.

One some aircraft it is recommended to side slip in when landing for rapid
descent to the reduce the cooling effect.

So "someone" didn't have a clue.

On 22/03/2014 12:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 22/03/14 12:08, Part Timer wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.

Colin Bignell

I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).
No
Radial is engines arranged with cylinders in a circle.
Rotary is when the 'crankshaft' is fixed and the cylinders go round it.

Not needing a flywheel is the least of issues for aircraft - the
propellor itself is a massive flywheel.

It was all about cooling really.

Rotary engines are pigs to get the fuel into. too.

"Another factor in the demise of the rotary was the fundamentally
inefficient use of fuel and lubricating oil, caused in part by the need
to aspirate the fuel/air mixture through the hollow crankshaft and
crankcase, as in a two-stroke engine."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

The Wankel 'rotary' is a completely different animal.
It has a rotating piston, not a rotating cylinder.

Radial engines reached their peak at the end of WWII and were then
overtaken but the jet engine and turboprops.

Rotary engines didnt even make it to the end of WWI..

Post WWI Bristol engines went down the radial route and Rolls Royce down
the inline route.

There were legals reasons for this.

In the US Pratt and Whitney were the big radial engine people.

As far as cars went, the cooling problems meant that water cooled was
practically de rigeur as power levels went up. So inline was easily
possible.

The thing about radials being that they offer better air cooling if the
flat face of the cylinders in=s in a prop blast.

But that is draggy - its better to have an inline arrangement and put
the radiators elsewhere where they can be more aerodynamic

Thanks for that info - I appreciated reading it! I wonder what the power
and torque curves are like on a rotary like this? Can't be very
free-revving in a car can it?

On 22/03/2014 12:08, Part Timer wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:46, Nightjar wrote:
On 18/03/2014 09:02, harryagain wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y0XbqHU...yer_detailpage

Heh. I knew these were used on aircraft but not in cars.


A good power to weight ratio, which the rotary engine has because it
needs no additional flywheel, would have been just as important in an
early motor car as it was in early aircraft.


I'd have called it a radial engine, not a rotary (Wankel).

Although described as a rotary engine, the Wankel is an entirely
different beast.

Radial and rotary engines both have a number of cylinders arrange around
the crankshaft. Visually, they are similar when stationary. However, the
defining difference is whether the crankshaft rotates, which makes it a
radial engine, or the cylinders rotate, which makes it a rotary engine.

Colin Bignell