Quality Of Tools

helicopters,

I searched on "heli".

The Ruskies do a twin wankel jobbie, and their version of a rotary, in development, is quite neat. Instead of a triangular rotor, they reverse it and have a triangular chamber with the seals in the block. The mixture is injected via the rotor, like injecting via a piston in a piston engine.

When you see what is in development all around the world and the big car companies say there is no future in rotaries, you realise they are talking balls. Thee is some brilliant work out there. They want a proven design to be given to them, so they can tool up for it, if they can be bothered. They don't want to spend money on R&D.

Actually, since you made the first claim it's up to you. But you have, so...

I'm going to let that pass with just a ;-)

There are few Wankel-engined aircraft or helicopters, most are one-offs, and I can't find a single reference to a twin-engined helicopter.

Aanaircraft rotary engine is not necessarily a wanke or anything like it.

Check out 'Le Rhone' or 'Le Clerget' for deatils.

All experimental one offs. No production planes at all. I wonder why...

Rotaries are not popular for light aircarft, because they are probably not certified, the spares will be ahrd to come by, and the service issues not widely known.

In light aoirfcarft what counts above everythinglese is total reliability. Typically these engines are run at low RPM, and have extremely stringent service requirements.

Wankel Roraries are an interesting oddity: No way are they mainstream,. or popular.

Ther is no future in ANY IC engine.

The theroteical adbvantages of et Wankel engine are slkight, and modern materials and electronics habve made standard piston engnes as good as the theory says any heat engine - wankel included - is likely to get.

WEankles are a bitch to mass produce - the epicycloidal shapes require specialised CNC machining - and the seals were always a problem. In short, great, but no cigar. Ther was a little advantage in racing as teh power to weight was pretty good, but relaibility was always an issue.

reciprocating

You are the one demanding info,. Find it.

Wrong on all counts.

Look harder.

Wrong.

Wrong again.

In the lomng term, yes. In the short to medium, no.

Not so. The Wankel engine is only one design of rotary, and wasn't even on paper the best when NSU adopted it. Look at the Archer-Trice.

They are not.

Not a problem.

"were" but not now.

One won LeMans in 1991. It pissed all over the others. They banned wankels after because it would win each year. Reliability is its main point. So few moving parts.

Poor show 1/10.

What a strange fellow you are. One minute you're recommending feet of insulation to save pennies in energy, and next your saying how wonderful a woefully inefficient IC engine design is.

They will have applications where size and weight is important, but fuel efficiency isn't. Although with any aircraft, the weight of the fuel needed for any given distance would count against it.

The *Russians*? Well, they're certainly at the forefront of technology in things aeronautical. Is it made by Lada?

You really are a fool. Billions have been spent trying to make a rotary engine efficient. And they've failed.

Proof by assertion is not acceptable. It's like saying magnetic water treatment works, in the absence of any sound scientific tests, simply because you believe it.

Oh wait...

You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it is wrong.

I don't need scientific testing. Mine works. I just look. It is very simple thing to do, and people have looked since the beginning of time.

Can you slap it harder please. Please use a hammer it my have an impact.

Let me just get this straight. I have to prove X doesn't exist, by finding evidence of that condition. (Have you heard the expression "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" ?) You assert X does exists but don't feel there is any requirement for you to back that up. R-i-g-h-t.

Just like since the beginning of time they have looked and decided the earth was the centre of the solar system, was furthermore flat, contained much flammable material made up in part of phlogiston, and was inhabited by bipeds whose many ailments could be cured by blood-letting ?

I have a better idea. There is a button here marked

Isn't the original meaning an engine with a stationary crankshaft which the rest rotates round? Although it does seem to mean a Wankel these days.

No, he really isn't wrong. You are.

Ditto.

I saw a car with a Rolls Royce Merlin in it, once. Isn't that rotary? (I'm not actually sure, I really am asking)

For anyone interested, I'm still selling my water softening pet rocks, which also promote hair re-growth.

No, the Merlin is a conventional V-12.

If you were thinking about the John Dodd monstrosity, it wasn't fitted with a Merlin engine, but the far less powerful tank version, IIRC Meteor.

Those R-R V-12s were a bit like Rover V-8s - any state of tune from van to racing. ;-)

Yes here it is straight.."You are the one demanding info. Find it. Prove it is wrong".

They didn't see that, they thought that. I see that my descaler works.

I hope he hit himself with the hammer.