"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

snip

I was talking about the model in
general, but it also applies to the car
industry. There are still enough
differentiation for consumer choice to
make a big difference.

You are having a laugh! Amazing isn't it. For the past 10 years all cars
have looked the same, similar to the BMW 3 series: Agenesis, Honda, Mazda,
Ford, Vauxhall, etc. Even the insides look similar. Now lead the Vauxhall
and new Avensis, new car have this chunk look. What choice? They look
like
they are all designed by the same fellla.

Choice of technology under the bonnet? None at all, except an RX8.

Which is a particularly appalling car in terms of fuel efficiency.

what about LPG, dual-fuel & hybrid electrics? Both available.


The reason all manufacturers are now
producing 4x4s is not that they are
legislated for, but that large numbers
of stupid consumers want them.

It is because the company marketing pushes them as desirable to the hard
of
thinking. Off road? The new Lexus only shows the car going around city
streets and they line up for them.


Marketing and advertising only seek to develop and exploit a latent demand
that is already present. Without demand you're facing an uphill and
needlessly expensive struggle when better gains can be made elsewhere.

--
Richard Sampson

email me at
richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk

IMM wrote:

You are having a laugh! Amazing isn't it. For the past 10 years all cars
have looked the same, similar to the BMW 3 series: Agenesis, Honda, Mazda,
Ford, Vauxhall, etc. Even the insides look similar. Now lead the Vauxhall
and new Avensis, new car have this chunk look. What choice? They look like
they are all designed by the same fellla.

Clearly a subject you know nothing about. Just because they look similar
doesn't make them the same - maybe this is why you get confused with
power tools - after all, a PPPoo drill looks fairly similar to a Makita.


Choice of technology under the bonnet? None at all, except an RX8.

Wrong again, there are *huge* differences between the engines available
- they just all use the same underlying principles.

Have you actually driven cars from different manufacturers, or just
looked at photos in your What Car mags?

--
Grunff

"RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote in message
.. .
"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

snip

I was talking about the model in
general, but it also applies to the car
industry. There are still enough
differentiation for consumer choice to
make a big difference.

You are having a laugh! Amazing isn't it. For the past 10 years all cars
have looked the same, similar to the BMW 3 series: Agenesis, Honda,
Mazda,
Ford, Vauxhall, etc. Even the insides look similar. Now lead the
Vauxhall
and new Avensis, new car have this chunk look. What choice? They look
like
they are all designed by the same fellla.

Choice of technology under the bonnet? None at all, except an RX8.

Which is a particularly appalling
car in terms of fuel efficiency.

The RX8 is a sports car a performs as well as any silly piston engine model
in speed and fuel.

what about LPG, dual-fuel & hybrid electrics? Both available.

LPG and duel fuel still are piston engines, which are very inefficient.
Hybrids are a step in the right direction, but still a piston engine is
there. They are also more complex having two different types motors. If they
had a hybrid of Stirling engine and electric or compressed air then that is
a big step in the right direction.

The reason all manufacturers are now
producing 4x4s is not that they are
legislated for, but that large numbers
of stupid consumers want them.

It is because the company marketing
pushes them as desirable to the hard
of thinking. Off road? The new Lexus
only shows the car going around city
streets and they line up for them.

Marketing and advertising only seek to
develop and exploit a latent demand
that is already present.

They create the market and demand. That is the aim. You make a market, you
don't cop a market.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:28:12 +0100, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .

Radial is the word our friend was searching for.

you sure about that? I'd always understood that a radial engine consisted
of a number of single cylinders arranged radially around a central prop
(used for large propellor aircraft before turboprops took over), wereas a
rotary engine was one that did not use reciprocating cylinder technology.

In aircraft terminology, they look much the same, except a rotary engine has
a fixed, offset, crankshaft and the cylinders rotate around it, with the
propeller attached to the actual block. It's still a reciprocating engine.
See: http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html I think they've been out of favour
for some considerable time. Radial engines are still to be found in
helicopters mostly, where their shape and dimensions are more suitable for
use than up at the pointy end of a normal aircraft.

--
I used to be disgusted, but now I try to be amused.

Mail john rather than nospam...

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:45 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .

Radial is the word our friend was searching for.

There is no doubt he was confused between rotary and radial.

I guess you're either referring to yourself in the third person or...

whoosh

--
The buck doesn't even slow down here!

Mail john rather than nospam...

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:28:12 +0100, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .

Radial is the word our friend was searching for.

you sure about that? I'd always understood that a radial engine
consisted
of a number of single cylinders arranged radially around a central prop
(used for large propellor aircraft before turboprops took over), wereas a
rotary engine was one that did not use reciprocating cylinder technology.

In aircraft terminology, they look much the same, except a rotary engine
has
a fixed, offset, crankshaft and the cylinders rotate around it, with the
propeller attached to the actual block. It's still a reciprocating
engine.
See: http://www.keveney.com/gnome.html I think they've been out of favour
for some considerable time. Radial engines are still to be found in
helicopters mostly, where their shape and dimensions are more suitable for
use than up at the pointy end of a normal aircraft.

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:03:45 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .

Radial is the word our friend was searching for.

There is no doubt he was confused between rotary and radial.

I guess you're either referring to yourself in the third person or...

whoosh

Wow....

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian one),
which started the radial/rotary debate. Come up with some proper proof, or
admit you were confused with radial engines which are a whole different
thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined helicopter.)

--
How come pizza gets to your house faster than the police?

Mail john rather than nospam...

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:32:29 +0100, "RichardS" noaccess@invalid
wrote:


Marketing and advertising only seek to develop and exploit a latent demand
that is already present. Without demand you're facing an uphill and
needlessly expensive struggle when better gains can be made elsewhere.


Don't worry about that. You can legislate. That fixes all problems
- apart from elections it seems........


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Come up with some proper proof,

Do a Google.

or admit you were confused with
radial engines which are a whole different

It is obvious I know what I am on about.

thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian
one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Well, I know what a Wankel engine is, one can only surmise what a "wankle"
is )


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't see any
twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more than
"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly one-offs.
On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the
crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use
reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to
be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian
one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Well, I know what a Wankel engine is, one can only surmise what a "wankle"
is )


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't see
any
twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more
than
"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly
one-offs.
On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!

Which was what?

Go he
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a one
off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft for
obvious reasons.

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

"IMM" wrote in message
...

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM"
wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the
crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use
reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were
to
be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian
one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Well, I know what a Wankel engine is, one can only surmise what a
"wankle"
is )


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't see
any
twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more
than
"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly
one-offs.
On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!

Which was what?

"(There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many are one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)"


Go he
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a one
off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft
for
obvious reasons.


Actually if you do a find on "helicopter" you get nothing. This is because
they spelt it "helicoptor" (which is hardly your fault)!

However there are two (that I missed). It's not at all clear from the
pictures or the rest of the Russion VAZ site that it is a Wankel engine but
I'll take their word for it. Without being "funny", having seen some of the
photos, you wouldn't catch me up in it!

The US one, as you say, is a proper jobby and all that it claims, clearly.

Neither is a twin engined helicopter, as John said.


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html

I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't see
any
twin engined helicopters.

Look at:
http://www.usbusiness.com/helicopter/WScor1.htm
http://www.protor.narod.ru/

This English design is a cross between a turbine and piston (no
resiprocating parts).
http://www.archertrice.co.uk

Designed initially for cars, it is being taken up by a Dutch company to
develop for combined heat and power applications on a district scale.
Millions are being spent on it and they have a tight timescale to do it. The
design is simple and brilliant and many predict it will replace the piston
engine in cars. One a few are made it will probably be used for many
applications, such as single home CHP, cars, gennies, etc.

Rotary engines are everywhere and countless designs in development. Most
development is small scale. The big boys don't want to know, as Archer
explains in his web site, giving Perkins as an example, as they are
financially locked into the piston engine. When mpg is 100% better, or the
Koreans look like they are going to introduce a new design, then they might
look at them.

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...

thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or
helicopters,
many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't
see
any
twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more
than
"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly
one-offs.
On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!

Which was what?

"(There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many are one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)"


Go he
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a
one
off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft
for
obvious reasons.


Actually if you do a find on "helicopter" you get nothing. This is because
they spelt it "helicoptor" (which is hardly your fault)!

I searched on "heli".

However there are two (that I missed). It's not at all clear from the
pictures or the rest of the Russion VAZ site that it is a Wankel engine
but
I'll take their word for it. Without being "funny", having seen some of
the
photos, you wouldn't catch me up in it!

The US one, as you say, is a proper jobby and all that it claims, clearly.

Neither is a twin engined helicopter, as John said.

The Ruskies do a twin wankel jobbie, and their version of a rotary, in
development, is quite neat. Instead of a triangular rotor, they reverse it
and have a triangular chamber with the seals in the block. The mixture is
injected via the rotor, like injecting via a piston in a piston engine.

When you see what is in development all around the world and the big car
companies say there is no future in rotaries, you realise they are talking
balls. Thee is some brilliant work out there. They want a proven design to
be given to them, so they can tool up for it, if they can be bothered. They
don't want to spend money on R&D.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Come up with some proper proof,

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you. But you have,
so...

or admit you were confused with
radial engines which are a whole different

It is obvious I know what I am on about.

I'm going to let that pass with just a ;-)

thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html

Thank you. I'll revise my words:

There are few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, most are one-offs, and
I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined helicopter.

--
Suicide Hotline... Please hold for the next available operator...

Mail john rather than nospam...

IMM wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.


That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines


Aanaircraft rotary engine is not necessarily a wanke or anything like it.

Check out 'Le Rhone' or 'Le Clerget' for deatils.


Come up with some proper proof,


Do a Google.


or admit you were confused with
radial engines which are a whole different


It is obvious I know what I am on about.


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many

are

one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined

helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html



All experimental one offs. No production planes at all. I wonder why...

IMM wrote:

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a one
off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft for
obvious reasons.


Rotaries are not popular for light aircarft, because they are probably
not certified, the spares will be ahrd to come by, and the service
issues not widely known.

In light aoirfcarft what counts above everythinglese is total
reliability. Typically these engines are run at low RPM, and have
extremely stringent service requirements.

Wankel Roraries are an interesting oddity: No way are they mainstream,.
or popular.

IMM wrote:

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or

helicopters,

many

are

one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined

helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't

see

any

twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more

than

"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly

one-offs.

On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!

Which was what?

"(There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many are one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)"


Go he
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a

one

off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft

for

obvious reasons.


Actually if you do a find on "helicopter" you get nothing. This is because
they spelt it "helicoptor" (which is hardly your fault)!


I searched on "heli".


However there are two (that I missed). It's not at all clear from the
pictures or the rest of the Russion VAZ site that it is a Wankel engine

but

I'll take their word for it. Without being "funny", having seen some of

the

photos, you wouldn't catch me up in it!

The US one, as you say, is a proper jobby and all that it claims, clearly.

Neither is a twin engined helicopter, as John said.


The Ruskies do a twin wankel jobbie, and their version of a rotary, in
development, is quite neat. Instead of a triangular rotor, they reverse it
and have a triangular chamber with the seals in the block. The mixture is
injected via the rotor, like injecting via a piston in a piston engine.

When you see what is in development all around the world and the big car
companies say there is no future in rotaries, you realise they are talking
balls. Thee is some brilliant work out there. They want a proven design to
be given to them, so they can tool up for it, if they can be bothered. They
don't want to spend money on R&D.


Ther is no future in ANY IC engine.


The theroteical adbvantages of et Wankel engine are slkight, and modern
materials and electronics habve made standard piston engnes as good as
the theory says any heat engine - wankel included - is likely to get.

WEankles are a bitch to mass produce - the epicycloidal shapes require
specialised CNC machining - and the seals were always a problem. In
short, great, but no cigar. Ther was a little advantage in racing as teh
power to weight was pretty good, but relaibility was always an issue.

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use
reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to
be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian
one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Come up with some proper proof,

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you.

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

But you have, so...

or admit you were confused with
radial engines which are a whole different

It is obvious I know what I am on about.

I'm going to let that pass with just a ;-)

thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html

Thank you. I'll revise my words:

There are few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, most are one-offs,
and
I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined helicopter.

Wrong on all counts.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 14:02:15 +0100, "IMM" wrote:


Both have cylinders aroud the crank in 360 degrees. One has the crank
fixed, a French invention, and one the cylinders fixed.

In modern terms, a rotary engine is one that does not use reciprocating
cylinder technology.

I know all this. It was you that claimed that rotary engines were to be
found in aircraft and helicopters (including a twin-engined Russian
one),
which started the radial/rotary debate.

That is true, they use Rotary (wankle) engines

Aanaircraft rotary engine is not necessarily a wanke or anything like it.

Check out 'Le Rhone' or 'Le Clerget' for deatils.

Come up with some proper proof,

Do a Google.

or admit you were confused with
radial engines which are a whole different

It is obvious I know what I am on about.

thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, many
are
one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined

helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html

All experimental one offs. No production planes at all.

Look harder.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a
one
off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft
for
obvious reasons.

Rotaries are not popular for light aircarft, because they are probably
not certified, the spares will be ahrd to come by, and the service
issues not widely known.

Wrong.

In light aoirfcarft what counts above everythinglese is total
reliability. Typically these engines are run at low RPM, and have
extremely stringent service requirements.

Wankel Roraries are an interesting oddity: No way are they mainstream,.
or popular.

Wrong again.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

"Bob Mannix" wrote in message
...


thing. (There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or

helicopters,

many

are

one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined

helicopter.)

Try for starters:
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html
http://www.deadbeatdad.org/eliptoid/history.html


I did try these, and they are quite interesting. However I couldn't

see

any

twin engined helicopters. There are clearly some (being generous, more

than

"very few") Wankel engined aircraft but they do seem to be mostly

one-offs.

On the whole I would say the refernces supported what John said!

Which was what?

"(There are very few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters,
many are one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined
helicopter.)"


Go he
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/ACRE.html

Do a find on helicopter. US and Russian come up. The US heli is not a

one

off, being a production model. Rotaries are popular with light aircraft

for

obvious reasons.


Actually if you do a find on "helicopter" you get nothing. This is
because
they spelt it "helicoptor" (which is hardly your fault)!


I searched on "heli".


However there are two (that I missed). It's not at all clear from the
pictures or the rest of the Russion VAZ site that it is a Wankel engine

but

I'll take their word for it. Without being "funny", having seen some of

the

photos, you wouldn't catch me up in it!

The US one, as you say, is a proper jobby and all that it claims,
clearly.

Neither is a twin engined helicopter, as John said.


The Ruskies do a twin wankel jobbie, and their version of a rotary, in
development, is quite neat. Instead of a triangular rotor, they reverse
it
and have a triangular chamber with the seals in the block. The mixture
is
injected via the rotor, like injecting via a piston in a piston engine.

When you see what is in development all around the world and the big car
companies say there is no future in rotaries, you realise they are
talking
balls. Thee is some brilliant work out there. They want a proven design
to
be given to them, so they can tool up for it, if they can be bothered.
They
don't want to spend money on R&D.


Ther is no future in ANY IC engine.

In the lomng term, yes. In the short to medium, no.

The theroteical adbvantages of et Wankel engine are slkight, and modern
materials and electronics habve made standard piston engnes as good as
the theory says any heat engine - wankel included - is likely to get.

Not so. The Wankel engine is only one design of rotary, and wasn't even on
paper the best when NSU adopted it. Look at the Archer-Trice.

WEankles are a bitch to mass produce

They are not.

- the epicycloidal shapes require
specialised CNC machining

Not a problem.

- and the seals were always a problem.

"were" but not now.

In
short, great, but no cigar. Ther was a little advantage in racing as teh
power to weight was pretty good, but relaibility was always an issue.

One won LeMans in 1991. It ****ed all over the others. They banned wankels
after because it would win each year. Reliability is its main point. So
few moving parts.

Poor show 1/10.

In article ,
IMM wrote:
RX8 which is superb.

What a strange fellow you are. One minute you're recommending feet of
insulation to save pennies in energy, and next your saying how wonderful a
woefully inefficient IC engine design is.

Rotary engines are used in planes, helicopters and
other applications.

They will have applications where size and weight is important, but fuel
efficiency isn't. Although with any aircraft, the weight of the fuel
needed for any given distance would count against it.

the Russians have a twin rotary engine helicopter.

The *Russians*? Well, they're certainly at the forefront of technology in
things aeronautical. Is it made by Lada?

Because an industry that scorns advancement does not use it, the car
industry, does not mean it is not viable.

You really are a fool. Billions have been spent trying to make a rotary
engine efficient. And they've failed.

--
*Would a fly without wings be called a walk?

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:27:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you.

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

Proof by assertion is not acceptable. It's like saying magnetic water
treatment works, in the absence of any sound scientific tests, simply
because you believe it.

Oh wait...

slaps head

--
Just a fake guitar player in the Monkees of life.

Mail john rather than nospam...

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:27:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you.

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

Proof by assertion is not acceptable.

You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it is wrong.

It's like saying magnetic water
treatment works, in the absence of any
sound scientific tests, simply
because you believe it.

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very
simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

Oh wait...

slaps head

Can you slap it harder please. Please use a hammer it my have an impact.

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:59:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:27:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you.

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

Proof by assertion is not acceptable.

You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it is wrong.

Let me just get this straight. I have to prove X doesn't exist, by finding
evidence of that condition. (Have you heard the expression "absence of
evidence is not evidence of absence" ?) You assert X does exists but don't
feel there is any requirement for you to back that up. R-i-g-h-t.

It's like saying magnetic water
treatment works, in the absence of any
sound scientific tests, simply
because you believe it.

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very
simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

Just like since the beginning of time they have looked and decided the earth
was the centre of the solar system, was furthermore flat, contained much
flammable material made up in part of phlogiston, and was inhabited by
bipeds whose many ailments could be cured by blood-letting ?

Oh wait...

slaps head

Can you slap it harder please. Please use a hammer it my have an impact.

I have a better idea. There is a button here marked
plonk

--
How can I miss you if you won't go away?

Mail john rather than nospam...

In article ,
John Laird wrote:
Rotary != Wankel.

Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

Isn't the original meaning an engine with a stationary crankshaft which
the rest rotates round? Although it does seem to mean a Wankel these days.

Radial is the word our friend was searching for.

--
*The severity of the itch is proportional to the reach *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

IMM wrote:

Rotaries are not popular for light aircarft, because they are probably
not certified, the spares will be ahrd to come by, and the service
issues not widely known.


Wrong.

No, he really isn't wrong. You are.



Wankel Roraries are an interesting oddity: No way are they mainstream,.
or popular.


Wrong again.

Ditto.

--
Grunff

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:54:43 UTC, John Laird
wrote:

Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?
(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

--
Bob Eager
begin a new life...dump Windows!

IMM wrote:

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very
simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

For anyone interested, I'm still selling my water softening pet rocks,
which also promote hair re-growth.

--
Grunff

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?
(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

No, the Merlin is a conventional V-12.

If you were thinking about the John Dodd monstrosity, it wasn't fitted
with a Merlin engine, but the far less powerful tank version, IIRC Meteor.

Those R-R V-12s were a bit like Rover V-8s - any state of tune from van to
racing. ;-)

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

"John Laird" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:59:24 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 19:27:19 +0100, "IMM" wrote:

"John Laird" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:02:44 +0100, "IMM"
wrote:

Do a Google.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you.

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

Proof by assertion is not acceptable.

You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it is wrong.

Let me just get this straight.

Yes here it is straight.."You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it
is wrong".

It's like saying magnetic water
treatment works, in the absence of any
sound scientific tests, simply
because you believe it.

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very
simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

Just like since the beginning of
time they have looked and decided the earth
was the centre of the solar system, was
furthermore flat, contained much
flammable material made up in part
of phlogiston, and was inhabited by
bipeds whose many ailments could be
cured by blood-letting ?

They didn't see that, they thought that. I see that my descaler works.

Oh wait...

slaps head

Can you slap it harder please. Please use a
hammer it my have an impact.

I have a better idea. There is a button here marked
plonk

I hope he hit himself with the hammer.

"Grunff" wrote in message
...
IMM wrote:

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very
simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

For anyone interested, I'm still selling my water softening pet rocks,
which also promote hair re-growth.

Did your hair grow with these rocks?

"Bob Eager" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 11:54:43 UTC, John Laird
wrote:

Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?

No. In-line water cooled.

(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 22:48:55 +0100, Dave Plowman
wrote:

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
Accepted definitions are a bit vague, often having Wankel engines as
alternative meanings for "rotary". However, I doubt you'd want a true
rotary engine under your bonnet ;-)

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?
(I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

No, the Merlin is a conventional V-12.

If you were thinking about the John Dodd monstrosity, it wasn't fitted
with a Merlin engine, but the far less powerful tank version, IIRC Meteor.

I expect 2000+bhp was a bit of a handful, even in 50 tons of tank. They
took the supercharger off, basically.

--
I want to be a modirater when I grow up.

Mail john rather than nospam...

IMM wrote:

Did your hair grow with these rocks?

Lol...yes, yes it did. You're a hoot!

--
Grunff

In article ,
IMM wrote:
The RX8 is a sports car a performs as well as any silly piston engine
model in speed and fuel.

Dear boy, instead of spouting nonsense, get hold of a copy of Autocar and
look at its real world fuel consumption in comparison to other cars of
similar performance. Oh - I forgot. You only ever believe maker's claims.

--
*My designated driver drove me to drink

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
IMM wrote:
I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary?

No. In-line water cooled.

It's a V-12, pea brain.

--
*The e-mail of the species is more deadly than the mail *

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

In article ,
IMM wrote:
Rotary engines are everywhere and countless designs in development. Most
development is small scale. The big boys don't want to know, as Archer
explains in his web site, giving Perkins as an example, as they are
financially locked into the piston engine. When mpg is 100% better, or
the Koreans look like they are going to introduce a new design, then
they might look at them.

If you research a little further, you'll find the fuel consumption
penalty is fundamental to the basic concept.

--
*Heart attacks... God's revenge for eating his animal friends

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn