Paul and Dale, I know this has been a source of disagreement in the
past but I feel compelled to respond to the displacement narrative.

Displacement is defined as "c: the volume displaced by a piston (as
in a pump or engine) in a single stroke. All manufactures of rotary
engines use the same method as Mazda in determining displacement.

The only people that define the rotary displacement differently are
sanctioning bodies to help competitors that must compete against it!
This is also done to handicap the two stroke engine.

A second idea for consideration. If we physically take the 3.15" wide
X 7.5" long rotor (23.625 sq in) working against a very short 5/8"
stroke we get our 653 cc. When we add the 1500 psi to the above
volume we get torque.

If we could some how magically double this displacement we would
double torque and HP.

Let me concede that there is a clue that might indicate that it's
displacement is larger... and that is the way it drives a turbine
wheel causing turbo selection to be  skewed larger than 4 strokes.

But in the end it is a very small and intriguing simple engine with
a very high heat load unencumbered by parasitic valve mechanisms.

My Take, Barry Bordes


The rotary is not a two stroke. It is a four stroke.

Lets turn it around. How much air would a 2.6 liter two cylinder TWO
STROKE engine pump in one revolution?

As far as HP is concerned the ONLY thing that matters is how much air
a four stroke engine pumps in ONE REVOLUTION at 100% VE. Not the
physical displacement of x number of chambers.

The definition of displacement, as far as engines are concerned, is
only valid in context with the type of stroke.

Here is what Ansdale has to say about that.

13B rotaries are raced in the 2.6 liter class world wide for a good
reason. The only reason they generate more power than a 2.6 liter
four cylinder engine is they turn faster and breath better. Lately
that is less true as the piston engine RPM has been raised by detail
development and the use of high strength to weight ratio materials
like titanium. Also four valves per cylinder has improved the
breathing. It is very rare for any 2 valve cylinder to have a VE over
one. The RX8 engine is just over one and P-ports are typically 1.2.

Formula One (2.5 liter as I recall) V8 engines were turning 19,000
RPM. At least four valves per cylinder with a very short stroke so
larger valves can be used for a given physical cylinder displacement.
You will not find the details of a competitive Formula One engine
anywhere. Its a well kept secret. However I would not be surprised if
the VE's were well over one. Applying the RPM difference to a 2.6L
p-port rotary making 340 HP at 10,000 RPM would make the Formula One
engine about 19,000/10,000 times 300 HP or 655 HP which is about
right for a Formula One engine in that period.

Paul Lamar


Paul,

It probably would be more correct to call a rotary a two sweep
engine with 4 phases: intake, compression, power, and exhaust. As you
know there is no reciprocating type stroke involved.

The only comparison to the 2 stroke that I used was that it is also
handicapped by sanctioning bodies because of its performance over a
4 stroke.

Did outlawing the peripheral port change its displacement?... no
only its competitiveness.  That after the rotary was penalized by
giving the 4 strokes a double displacement advantage. This does make
sense to keep other manufactures competitive, profitable and happy.
But it doesn't change the definition of displacement.

The cutaway picture of the rotary that you showed in Blue is exactly
the depiction of its displacement.  Displacement is not denoted by
Ansdale's opinion... it is a dimensionally exact measurement.

Our little engines are indeed more powerful than most can envision.
Barry Bordes


The Ansdale definition of Wankel displacement is accepted by all the
world's engine engineers.. It is not an opinion. It is based on
facts. That's it period :-) You need to get his book and read it.

Paul Lamar

Barry, I have a question. Why do you state rotor dimensions in
imperial units and then state displacement in metric? All Mazda and I
would suspect almost all manufacturers use the metric system.
Ingersoll Rand may have used Imperial due to American design and the
dimensions involved.

Dale Davies


Paul and Dale, Here is a list of Rotary engines produced.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094802/http://www.monito.com/wankel/engines.html <https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094802/http://www.monito.com/wankel/engines.html>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094802/http://www.monito.com/wankel/engines.html <https://web.archive.org/web/20050219094802/http://www.monito.com/wankel/engines.html>>

The displacement figures stated represent what?  Are we to guess
that they are 1/2 or doubled or actual? This is the problem with not
using a standard for displacement.  You guys want to use a different
standard... this introduces confusion. I would ask that you show one
manufacturer that uses Ansdale's method as its standard.

As for metric vs imperial units I tend to use either depending on the
majority audience. Respectfully, Barry Bordes


People have no trouble understanding that 2 cycle engines are twice
as powerful as a 4 stroke. However the Wankel is not a 2 stroke.
There in lies the problem.

Just call them rotor dimensions. Or Wankel displacements so people
that are not familiar with Wankel engines can form an equivalent to a
4 stroke piston engine in their minds.

BTW if you have Windows with Office please load HTML's in Word and
save them as a pdf's and send that to me. HTML files do not forward
well to all operating systems.

Paul Lamar



  I have to add, just how many things done for power. Rotary doesn't
do a dry fire for exhaust evac. I have to agree with the two stroke
analysis. It's piston draws in combustion fires and spits it out on the
same crank revolution like a two stroke. But the intake and exhaust evac
are complete volume like a four stroke. Now add that it does that three
times per crank revolution and it should be more effective than a two
stroke if you can get the combustion efficiency worked out.

  Kurt Emerson


Kurt,
You are going to see a lot of returns on this. The rotor turns at 1/3
E-shaft speed.
Bill Jepson



Paul,
On the subject of the two stroke's displacement.
It is calculated as if the cylinder sleeve had no ports in it. It's compression ratio would also be calculated using this theoretical model.
In actuality the trapped displacement would be formed by the stroke from the top of the exhaust port to TDC and consequently it and the compression ratio would be substantially lower.
If a two-stroke could have a separate action that would supercharge the cylinder like.... say another full stroke it would make it more efficient.
That is what a four stroke does. It uses another complete revolution to supercharge it's engine cycle.... And we do not penalize for doing this. We actually penalize the two stroke in the rotary for not doing this.


Paul also I am sorry about my lack of computer knowledge. The above is written on a PC  and below is a HTML copy from an Internet program.  Is it any better?

A different perspective,
Barry Bordes

We will call it the Barry Bordes Displacement :-)

The text is the same. In your email program and I assume that is Outlook.

Set the auto line wrap in Outlook to at least 65 characters.
What ever it is set to now it makes a huge mess of forwarded messages.

Forward a message to your self and see what it looks like.

Paul Lamar

Paul and Barry,
You are missing a very important part of 2 stroke operation. I did some work on 2 strokes during the heyday of the 2 stroke GP motorcycles. All the designers were CONSTANTLY harping about crankcase volume. The reason is that a modern 2 stroke is a double ended pump. using case reed induction or a disk valve a lot of compression takes place in the lower end. (crankcase)


The piston traveling down both forces and mildly compresses the volume inside the crankcase and vigorously forces it through the transfer ports. At Kawasaki they liked the disk or rotary valve and with a good intake they often complained about the compression being too high! that despite the short time all the ports were closed! I believe that a P-port rotary does so well because the fully uncovered intake is open for a longer time than a comparable piston engine. The rotary also responds very well to a tuned length intake, therefore the use of the variable length inlets on the Le Mans engine.

Bill Jepson



The Rotary Engine free News Letter. Powered by Linux. If you want
off the list PLEASE let me know and I will remove  you.  ACRE NL web
site. http://www.rotaryeng.net You Tube http://tinyurl.com/beqqxas
Copyright 1998-2017 All world wide rights reserved.