> Paul and all
>
> I love KEITHS' story about the automatic rifle. It proves just how
> ABSOUTELY WRONG Keith is with publicly destroying a rotary
engine! The
> rifleman DID NOT run the gun over with a bulldoser to prove its
worth he
> took it and USED IT FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE! Please publish your new
> address Paul, I would like to send you a donation for the Everett
Hatch
> Fund to add my meager help to properly bring the rotary into the
> limelight. Thanx Dave
Okay, Dave, instead of telling how the story proves something that it
doesn't prove, how about giving us your new idea on promoting the
Wankel?
Remember, what's been done DIDN'T WORK, so more of the same is
worthless
-- it has to be a NEW IDEA that will grab and hold the attention of the
skeptics.
You're missing the whole point. The issue isn't the destruction of an
engine -- it is how long the engine CONTINUES TO RUN after an action
which should have IMMEDIATELY destroyed it, and would have immediately
destroyed any water-cooled engine with which the vast majority are
familiar.
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that "continues to
run" WAS the "intended purpose" of an engine (well, anything but a
Rotax, anyhow).
Let me also note that, in aerospace, such testing (and demonstration) is
not only common, but a near-universal requirement before adoption of a
new technology. The DOD has specific rules for such testing (go watch
"The Pentagon Wars," where they tested the Bradley by SHOOTING IT UP).
They test helmets by smashing them. I wouldn't wear a motorcycle
helmet
which hadn't passed the latest set of such standardized testing. I
don't remember every being told that the intended purpose of a helmet
was to be smashed by an anvil.
They test tires by running them over steel spikes. One tire company
used to run commercials showing one of their tires hitting a steel spike
at 60 MPH. I don't remember anything that said the intended purpose of
a tire was to hit steel spikes.
They test anti-icing systems by forcing them to ice over to the
point of
failure. I don't remember anything saying that the purpose of
anti-icing systems was to be defeated by ice.
Canopies are tested with the Chicken Gun. Fire supression systems are
tested with flamethrowers. Ammunition is tested at 40 degrees below
zero and 150 degrees above. The guns that they go in are tested by
tossed into cement mixers full of sand, or mud, or tar, or even corn
syrup, run around a while, then rinsed and fired.
The engineering world is FULL of extreme testing programs, and many of
these go far beyond running a Wankel without water to see how long it
will keep running and then to show how little damage was done by the
"torture."
I guess all of those companies, engineers, and the people who write
"torture test" acceptance standards are as crazy as I am, di ba?
The purpose of an engine is to RUN. I dunno about where you live, but
here in the West it is a very common sight to see a car or truck pulled
to the side of the road, steam pouring out the top and the last of the
water dripping out the bottom. engine seized and occupants in despair.
If we show an engine perceived to have been a flop as being relatively
immune to that challenge, then everyone who counts will wonder what else
they "know" about the Wankel isn't true.
I didn't pull the idea out of a hat. I looked at something that I've
done a dozen times (and seen a hundred times) and wondered how to adapt
the idea to the Wankel.
You can't just show an engine running. Oshkosh history is replete with
prototype engines, or highly-modified auto conversions, that came one
year and never appeared again. This certainly won't be the first time
that the Wankel appears there. But NOBODY CARES. Nobody even
REMEMBERS. They don't see an RX-7 and imagine putting the engine into
their plane. They don't even know that the RX-8 is running a rotary
engine, unless they get close enough to wonder why it sounds "funny."
To get this shift in mindset, you have to do something spectacular,
standing up in the face of a world of skeptics, grabbing their interest
and inviting them to prove that it's all done with smoke and mirrors.
Ad Topperwein did that -- he gave those two rifles over THIRTY-SIX
THOUSAND ROUNDS EACH.
And you're wrong, they were NOT intended to do that.
The average smallbore rifle shooter goes through 200 rounds each visit
to the range, so that's 15 YEARS' worth of EVERY-Saturday-at-the-range.
The average shooter cleans his rifle after done shooting, and Ad did
NOT clean them -- which is a kind of abuse very similar to running a
Wankel without water.
If you have a better idea how to do this, don't keep it to yourself,
share it with the rest of the class!
If you DON'T have a better idea, then get out of the way, people are
working here. We'll send for you when it's safe.
Keith
He is kidding Dave :) Now Keith be nice.
Paul Lamar ...No rotor no motor.
Okay... Here's a(nother/ better) idea. Put a rotary on an airplane
(modified Supercub) and fly the poop out of it. Fly to OSH with it. At
the O-show, tear it down with everybody watching (and a video camera
running). Measure all of the parts and compare to new. Log the data.
Put it back together only replacing the necessary gaskets. Fly it
during the airshow. Tear it down a couple of times during the show,
reassemble and fly. Fly it home. Fly it 1000 hours during the year.
Do not make any mods to the airplane. Do not tinker with it. Come
back to OSH during the O-show and do the same exact thing again -
demonstrating lack of significant wear. People are concerned about
trouble free durability as well as loss of coolant.
Test to Failure (Terminal Effects Research) is certainly done on lots of
products, though I disagree with a few of your examples.. For instance,
a canopy that fails on the chicken gun fails acceptance. A de/anti
icing system that actually "fails" causes a plane to crash - failing
acceptance. Products are sold to meet a performance specification.
During qualification, once they meet the spec, testing can stop. Plus,
TER is not typically demonstrated in a marketing gig.
Testing an engine without coolant is fine. I think it's a potentially
low-bang-for-the-buck demonstration however. Doing it once or twice
would probably suffice. Maybe once per year at SnF would be good.
You'd definitely have to do some characterization work up front to
understand how hard you can run the engine (oil temperature might be a
way to monitor this) and still have it run. If it can make 150hp for
20minutes after coolant loss, great. Tell people that's what you want
to show. Or, better yet, come up with a way for it to run for a full
hour without coolant (is this possible with adequate oil cooling)? That
would be spectacular, even if you could only make 40% power during the
run. Or run it at idle without coolant for an hour, and then ramp up
the output to something like 50% and then run it for 20minutes (possible?).
I think there's room (a need) for a multitude of ways to demonstrate the
value of the rotary engine.
Here is a list of common gripes (rumors):
1. Fragile (see above)
2. Needs a PSRU
3. Needs coolant/oil cooling systems
4. Burns too much gas (poor BSFC)
5. Loud/Sounds Weird
6. Exhaust gas is ungodly hot - impossible to build a reliable exhaust
7. Burns lots of oil
8. Installations look too frankensteinish (complicated).
What else?
Each of these items must be addressed somehow. An item can either be
addressed by reliably demonstrating well thought out (engineered)
solutions, or by a marketing ploy, or (preferably) by both.
I think people would be impressed by somebody doing aerobatics demos in
a Skybolt (or similar) that's powered by a rotary of some kind. Ideally
they would go on a circuit where they made at least 6 appearances during
a season. It doesn't have to be unlimited style aerobatics, just
something with loops, rolls, and spins. Racing is great too, but I
think racing by itself implies a specially built, high strung engine
where lots of black magic has been done. Aerobatics implies inherent
robustness. Racing implies "motorhead." Lots of people want to fly and
not have to be a motorhead to do it. I think rotary engines say
"motorhead" thus far.
Regards,
Matt-
The Rotary Engine NewsLetter. Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://www.rotaryeng.net
Copyright 1998-2006 All world wide rights reserved.