Has anyone seen this technology? I just saw the advertisement on CNBC
business news. It is called the Rand Cam.
Very interesting. http://www.regtech.com/93.html
Doug Mueller
RX6 13BT
N900DM
Boulder CIty, NV
Doug Mueller
RX-6 13BT
N900DM
Boulder City(61B),Nevada
Longest on going scam I can thing of. Next to Moller they just refuse to
die :) This thing does not come close to the requirements
outlined below. If I had a nickel for every rotary that did not
make it I would be a billionaire :)
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
By Kenichi Yamamoto from his book "Rotary Engine" 1981
1.3 REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRACTICAL ROTARY ENGINE
Although various types of rotary engines have been
developed to date, there are few that do not qualify as internal
combustion engines or do not qualify as a practical engine even
if they satisfy the qualifications of an internal combustion
engine.
The requirements for a rotary engine to be qualified
as a practical internal combustion engine can be summed up in
the following five items. The practicality of various ideas on
rotary engines can be judged by evaluating them by these
criteria:
(1) Every moving part, including the timing mechanism, should
make a rotating motion. A mechanism having a reciprocating
inertia will increase mechanical noise and vibration, and will
work against high speed and high revolution. Accordingly,
structures that require intake and exhaust valves and
mechanisms using the rotors oscillatory motion are not
desirable.
(2) Gas seals or the working chamber should be three
dimensionally reliable. The gas seal mechanism of a rotary
engine should be constituted by connecting the individual seals
three dimensionally. Among the many ideas we come across are
those that don't show such three dimensional thoughts.
(3) Appropriate gas exchange of intake and exhaust should
take place. Together with having a mechanism that can correctly
open and close the ports, sufficient time for intake and exhaust
should be provided especially for high speed and high
revolution. Among the ideas on rotary engines, there are some
that ignore this point.
(4) Every component part should have the strength to endure
high speed and high pressure. As the component parts are
exposed to high pressure, high sliding velocity and high heat
load, every part should have sufficient allowance in size and in
shape.
(5) Sufficient cooling and lubrication should be provided.
In order to qualify as an internal combustion engine, although
this is related to above (4), durability against high heat load,
high sliding velocity, etc. are required. Therefore, the
structure should be simple, and the ideas on rotor cooling,
lubrication of seal parts, and oil seal structure should be
those that are given adequate thought.
Also, it is desirable for a practical rotary engine to
have a simple and compact structure. When we evaluate the
various type's of rotary engines devised to date in view of the
above mentioned requirements, the NSU Wankel type rotary engine
is the engine that best satisfies the above mentioned
requirements.
Yeah, but the graphics on the website are the best!! :)
Matt-
A very innovative 2 place sport plane has already been designed around
the
Rand Cam. It was the 2002 NASA SATS contest winner. It was a joint
collaboration between Virginia Tech and Loughborough Univ (UK). There is a
very interesting downloadable design report covering every aspect of this
a/c including an 11 page technical article on the engine in Appendix C.
Glenn C
http://www.aoe.vt.edu/design/ikelos/
Talk, web sites and paper are cheap. It is vapor wear until it runs
and flys.
That is really putting the cart before the horse. It is downright
stupid trying a new airplane design with a new engine design at
the same time. As far as I can tell the Rand Cam engine has never run.
At least Zoche had engines at OSH.
They have a bunch of idiots at NASA anyway. There for awhile they
were advocating a 3900 pound gross airplane powered by a Chevy LS1.
Thankfully that died a well deserved death. NASA also granted $100
million to Williams for a low cost jet engine that was supposed to
get more MPG than a C172. That too is nowhere to be found after
ten years or so. You won't ever see your 100 million tax dollars either.
We are still finding out things about the Wankel after 30 years,
billions of development dollars and two million engines. The Rand Cam
has a snowballs chance in hell. As far as I am concerned it is still
a stock scam for people with more money than brains.
------------------------------------------------------------
What is this? Bad engineering day?
Here is a 3 view dwg of the Rand Cam airplane. Any ten year
old child model airplane builder can glance at this drawing
and tell you what is seriously wrong.
Lets make it a quiz. What is the most serious, blatant and obvious
design error in this airplane?
I can accept the students involved are just starting out in the world
of aviation but the NASA people that approved this project need
to be fired by the Congress of the U.S. for incompetence. These people
are no Burt Rutans. Perhaps NASA it self should be shut down.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2005 All world wide rights reserved.
