2 of 2
2
Mazda Kills The Wankel Like The Wankel Killed Internal Combustion
Posted: 09 July 2012 07:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 July 2012 04:54 PM

And why would an engine inefficient or unreliable for a car on four wheels, be good for a plane hanging by two wings?

Wizards.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 01:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Jr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  90
Joined  2012-04-24
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 July 2012 04:54 PM

But, you’re saying they are being used in aviation? http://www.rotaryeng.net/
How did they overcome those problems?

And why would an engine inefficient or unreliable for a car on four wheels, be good for a plane hanging by two wings?

I am a simple person indeed.

They’re not inefficient, they just have maintenance issues.  If you’re willing to maintain the engine, you’ll be just fine.  And because the Wankel is lighter than an equivalent piston engine, you save weight and therefore fuel.

 Signature 

Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 02:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3985
Joined  2010-08-15
Austin Harper - 09 July 2012 01:26 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 July 2012 04:54 PM

But, you’re saying they are being used in aviation? http://www.rotaryeng.net/
How did they overcome those problems?

And why would an engine inefficient or unreliable for a car on four wheels, be good for a plane hanging by two wings?

I am a simple person indeed.

They’re not inefficient, they just have maintenance issues.  If you’re willing to maintain the engine, you’ll be just fine.  And because the Wankel is lighter than an equivalent piston engine, you save weight and therefore fuel.

ahh, OK, that makes sense.  My brother’s a pilot, and I know there ain’t no one into maintenance the way a pilot is, jeez the dude still rides the BSA he bought in the early seventies and it’s mint. {Although he’d rather ride the Harley he got in the 90s or whenever it was. }

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2012 06:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4721
Joined  2007-10-05
Austin Harper - 09 July 2012 01:26 PM

They’re not inefficient, they just have maintenance issues.  If you’re willing to maintain the engine, you’ll be just fine.  And because the Wankel is lighter than an equivalent piston engine, you save weight and therefore fuel.

A 2400 pound car* with 100 horsepower that gets well under 20 mpg is not efficient. My 2011 Ford F150 weighs 5,500 pounds, has 360 HP and gets better mileage. Not near as much fun to drive, though.wind14.gif border=0

Check the specs of the 2011 Mazda RX8 and you’ll see the rotary engine is much less efficient than a turbocharged V6.

*Edit: I was referring to my 1980 RX7. The 2011 RX8 is heavier, faster and just as thirsty. According to fueleconomy.gov the 2011 RX8 is rated at 16 mpg city and 22 mpg hwy, exactly the same as my F150. However, users are reporting an average of 14.9 mpg. The F150 has a user report of 15.8 overall. I’m averaging 17.2 overall. Take these with a grain of salt, though, as both the RX8 and F150 have only one user report, and we do not know their driving habits. I suspect they are both reporting urban driving. I have gotten 24 mpg highway with my F150 driving 70 mph on I-35.

Edmunds.com lists the RX8’s weight as 3111 pounds, and the 1.3L engine yielding 212 HP and and 159 lb/ft torque. My F150 has a twin-turbocharged 3.5L V6 with 360 HP and 420 lb/ft torque, yet gets essentially the same mileage as the RX8. Just because you save weight with a Wankel does not mean you will save fuel. That was the thinking back in the 1970s when car companies started experimenting with the design. All but Mazda realized early on that the rotary engine was not a viable alternative to reciprocating piston engines. Newer does not always equal better.

[ Edited: 10 July 2012 07:50 AM by DarronS ]
 Signature 

“In the beginning, God created the universe. This has made many people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 07:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 07 July 2012 04:54 PM

Now that sounds like some serious problems.

But, you’re saying they are being used in aviation? http://www.rotaryeng.net/
How did they overcome those problems?

And why would an engine inefficient or unreliable for a car on four wheels, be good for a plane hanging by two wings?

I am a simple person indeed.

What I hear occasionally is that the starting and stopping of normal automobile driving is a problem for turbines.

I don’t see why that would be a problem for the seals in a Wankle but quite often in engineering some finicky detail about reality raises its ugly head.  But even more often people are giving out bullsh# excuses.

But a Wankle engine is an internal combustion engine.  A turbine is not.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 July 2012 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3985
Joined  2010-08-15

Yea, like the force of gravity…


sorry the devil made me do it.

hmmm

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 01:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2374
Joined  2007-07-05
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 July 2012 04:06 PM

Yea, like the force of gravity…


sorry the devil made me do it.

hmmm

If I respond I will be accused of being off topic at least.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 July 2012 08:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3985
Joined  2010-08-15
psikeyhackr - 12 July 2012 01:02 PM
citizenschallenge.pm - 10 July 2012 04:06 PM

Yea, like the force of gravity…


sorry the devil made me do it.

hmmm

If I respond I will be accused of being off topic at least.

psik

Watch your p‘s ‘n q‘s

You know how DM can get

wink

 Signature 

How many times do lies need to be exposed
before we have permission to trash them?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 07:31 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3028
Joined  2010-04-26

Hey!  I take….A squirrel with a bushy tail!  Hee hee hee.  Here squirrely.  Here squirrel.  Hee hee.

 Signature 

“In the end nature is horrific and teaches us nothing.” -Mutual of Omicron

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2