This is a very interesting idea although I don't really

see the benefit over a larger Wankel turbo compound engine.
The gas turbine part will have lousy fuel consumption.
Valve 1 controls the boost on the Wankel as well as
the amount of boost air going to the gas turbine.
When the valve is closed all boost air goes to the Wankel.
When the valve is wide open some boost air still goes to the
Wankel and some goes to the turbine. As more compressed air
is devoted to the gas turbine less compressed air is going
to the Wankel.

As the device starts to work as a gas turbine back pressure
is generated on the Wankel exhaust ports further reducing the
power of the Wankel.

I would very much surprised if this thing worked worth a
tinkers damn :)

I could be wrong. Maybe I am missing something.


Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Looks to me like someone has been reading about history... Wasn't
it
a Mr. Wittle from England who did this very thing during the second
world war, to prove that a Gas Turbine engine would work..
He later removed the recip engine all together and just used
the Gas turbine..
Going from memory here..

Jarrett

A WW2 veteran aircraft mechanic told me that some of the warbirds in
War 2 used turbo compounding. Said it was a real bear to maintain. I
don't know if his idea of turbo compounding is the same as that
being
discussed, but it sounded like it. He said the exhaust was used to
drive a turbine which in turn was coupled to the output shaft. If
this
be true, I can see why the maintenance would be high: the turbine
alloys and lubricants available in the early to mid 40s were not
anywhere what they are today.

Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage

Actually it was very successful and thousands of engines
were built. Mostly for airliners after the war.

See http://www.rotaryeng.net/turbo.html

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

What did it do for BSFC? Doc

It dropped the BSFC from about .45 to .375 at sea level
and to .325 at 30,000 feet. See the attached chart.

A Super Connie could fly non stop from SFO to London over
the poles. It took years before the 747 could
do the same thing.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Very impressive. As usual you come up with data. The energy loss
across the exhaust valve is amazing. Of course the rotary doesn't have
exhaust valves. Do you have an estimate of the amount of power you
will be able to recover from the rotary?

Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage


No but it is going to be a bunch :)
I am very impressed you saw that right off the bat Doc.
There is a lot more on the web site of course.
http://www.rotaryeng.net/turbo.html

Not only does the exhaust valve suck down a lot of kinetic
energy but it is the Achilles heel of the piston turbo
compound engine. That is not saying much as it is also
the Achilles heel of the air cooled aircraft piston engine.

Peter Garrison is supposed to be writing a Technicalities
column on it for Flying magazine. Peter is a great writer
so I can hardly wait to read the article.

The AIAA first rejected my tech paper
on the subject and then changed their mind. Now they want
me to rewrite it slightly and submit it again. I suspect it
is a face saving move on their part. Since my wife
is on the SAE/PAMA board I might submit it to the SAE instead :)

I am still saving my money to do the next stage which is
some data taking dyno runs. I've spent  $7,000 on it so far
from my SS payments savings for the machining the gear box.
I was hoping to get some help from the aerospace industry or
NASA but that did not happen yet. This of course is a MAJOR break
through in light air craft engines up to 1000 HP using
mostly off the shelf Mazda parts both from a power to
weight ratio and fuel consumption/range  point of view not to
mention a potentially longer TBO. A piston engine
version is going to run into the same exhaust valve problems
Curtis Wright did with the R3350 TC.

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

Will you be able to patent it? If not, how do you plan to recover your
investment?

Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage

Patents are hardly worth the paper they are written on.
Unless you are GM you can't afford to challenge them
in court.

I don't expect to get anything out of it just like this
newsletter. It is my hobby gift to the world.
What else would I do? Watch TV. I don't think so.
Travel? Been everywhere I wanted to go and done that :)

Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation.

Doc Custer
Retired software engineer and sometime Audiologist
Building RV9-A. Fuselage


The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site. http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.