Paul Yaw wrote:

Paul wrote:

Vance and Emily Jaqua wrote:

Paul Yaw wrote:

I had planned a speedy response to this until I realized you made a
point well worth considering.  I am still letting this bounce from one
side of my skull to the other.  When the noise and vibration settles
down I will respond.

Paul Yaw

Paul Yaw - Thanks for stopping to think about it
I do not wish to be destructive, but I think that
close perusal will help us understand the rotary
and better exploit it's strengths and overcome
any weaknesses. My feeling is that the Wankel is
a truly elegant way of building a large displacement
engine in a very compact package. As Paul L says
for airplane application it is mostly a non issue.

Racing is another matter, and it has always been a
large task to level the playing field. Recent
example being the push rod loophole exploited
briefly by Ilmor/Mercedes at Indy, and the old
midget racing rules that tried to mix flat head
V8 60's, 2 stroke outboards, and those magnificent
little Offy's - Vance

My brain works slowly.  My earlier posts concerning diplacement were
clear to me years ago.  The idea of connecting to the rotor may take a
few more years to understand.  Stating its swept volume times three
really throws everything off in its current configuration.  VE, BMEP,
etc.  I have always considered the advantage to be in the duration of
the cycles.  TDC to BDC in a four stroke piston engine takes 180
degrees, while the rotary has 270 degrees to get the job done.  For a
given rpm, the rotary has 50% more time to fill and empty the chambers.
That is why they are so rev happy in comparison.  I will respond this
when I can make some sense of it.  In the mean time, how does Jeff
Spitzers post fit into all of this?  Maybe he has the answer, in which
case I will be poking fun at you again.

Paul Yaw

 
The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org