The rotery engine was to be used not just for cars but other industrial applications however the seals gave out prematurely. Any of the engineeers here can tell me more about this engine and could it have railroad applications? As far as i know only Mazda used the engine and AMC Pacer was to use it but changed at the last minute.
I don't see any chance that there would have been RR applications of a gasoline burning Wankel engine other than MofW. Rolls-Royce was working on a diesel Wankel using a larger rotor for pre-compression, but I suspect that too much heat got lost during compression and expansion due to the much higher wall area to volume ratio in the Wankel design versus a piston engine.
The Wankel rotary [note sp.] worked out just fine; the Japanese did all the necessary work on the tip seals (and in the process greatly advanced our knowledge in several fields). The specific thing that killed development at GM was the emissions problem inherent in the large swept wall area, which (at least at that time) could not be kept from quenching some of the combustion, and I believe had additional issues of intrusion of engine lubricant into the combustion chamber.
Railroads do not value 'smaller and lighter' powerplants, in general, nor do they value the ability to make high horsepower through very high cyclic rpm. (One person racing Mazda rotaries said that if you let the little red 'overspeed' light that came on at 9000rpm go out, you weren't being competitive enough...) On the other hand, railroads do value extreme fuel efficiency, which is never going to be something a trochoidal expander with inherent internal combustion is going to provide anywhere near as well as a diesel crosshead engine.
The Wankel engine involves complicated steps to manufacture some of its components effectively; some of this is abated by the ability to make greater hp just ber 'stacking rotors' but you still needed considerable tooling and perhaps process changes to make the engines 'for production' -- this was much harder to do in the '70s, in the infancy of CNC, and is still probably expensive (relative to, say, using the Koenigsegg valvetrain on a dynamically-balanced piston engine).
There is also some question concerning the whole of the engine life cycle: when it gets higher hours, or isn't maintained correctly, the things that can go wrong with it, the failure modes it can experience, etc. are often different from comparable conventional piston engines.
The way I look at this and similar concepts like the Quasiturbine (which is not a turbine) is that they fit into a particular niche, with performance and packaging combined, somewhere between the positive-displacement piston engine and the ceramic/cermet turbine. If emissions weren't such an important 'modern' consideration I suspect you'd see far more of the design ... in automobiles and other lightweight applications like APUs or gensets. We are just starting to get to the point where 125mph locomotive design might benefit from modular Wankels of the type I proposed in the early '70s (as an alternative to modular turbines, in a rebuilt E-unit chassis of all things!) but I cannot imagine one of these engines meeting Tier 5 emissions without so much aftertreatment as to make you cry. (Well, cry even harder thn you would for other powerplants...)
In Germany, the NSU company made cars with Wankel engines, the NSU Ro-80 was a mid-size car about the same as an Audi. NSU was a division of Auto-Union which also made the Audi, Horch, Wanderer and DKW. The Ro-80 had problems with the seals too but any ones left on the road have been upgraded. Mileage was never good in those but I'd still own one. The Ro-80 came out in the late 1960s and it's looks haven't dated.
erikemI don't see any chance that there would have been RR applications of a gasoline burning Wankel engine other than MofW. Rolls-Royce was working on a diesel Wankel using a larger rotor for pre-compression, but I suspect that too much heat got lost during compression and expansion due to the much higher wall area to volume ratio in the Wankel design versus a piston engine.
I would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals. Sealing has been a problem on gas engines at a much lower compression ratio.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDI would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals.
It would, but not lethally insurmountably, Much more of an issue is how you lubricate the seals in the chamber environment and how you arrange the ports (for IDI) or the injector nozzle (for pilot injection or DI) with the entire chamber being swept volume. There are also concerns with combustion chemistry absent exotic promoters in the very short burn times corresponding to high-rpm operation.
with heated intake air you might be able to achieve polynucleate ignition, as with some two-stroke motorcycle engines, without getting into the detonation region. But I wouldn't be too sanguine doing that with a larger engine, except at steady speed and constant load (albeit those can be approximated with an electric transmission) with cost-effective 1970s technology.
BaltACD I would expect the higher compression ratio needed for diesel operation would have played a number on Wankel seals. Sealing has been a problem on gas engines at a much lower compression ratio.
Which is likely why the Wankel Diesel used the two rotor scheme, with the rotor co-planar. What would have been the combustion chamber on the larger rotor was mated to the intake/exhaust of the smaller rotor. Compression/expansion is done over both rotors.
I saw only one reference to this project, which suggests that it didn't work very well. The Napier Deltic on the other hand....
erikemWhich is likely why the Wankel Diesel used the two rotor scheme, with the rotor co-planar.
Sometimes a picture is worth 1000 words ... or contains them:
For some reason, the exhaust noise level was extremely high on the Mazda Wankel's that I saw race. They even had to use a muffler to keep the noise down. They were not fun to the ears as they raced!
.
I test drove a Mazda Wankel when they first came out and I didn't notice that I needed to shift. I was up to about 45 mph in second gear and the engine didn't give me a clue that I needed to shift. It was so smooth and quiet that I didn't realilize that the RPM's were way above where I would have redlined a reciprocating engine. it appears that no new cars are being built today with Wankel type engines.
Hey, how'd you guys like a look at a REAL rotary engine?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSOQAtkI-2k
I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was! Follow the right side links for a lot more fun.
"Alors mon amis, I love ze smell of castor oil in ze morning! Eet smells like victoire!"
Electroliner 1935 I test drove a Mazda Wankel when they first came out and I didn't notice that I needed to shift. I was up to about 45 mph in second gear and the engine didn't give me a clue that I needed to shift. It was so smooth and quiet that I didn't realilize that the RPM's were way above where I would have redlined a reciprocating engine. it appears that no new cars are being built today with Wankel type engines.
Wankels were a different breed, often unreliable, but great when working. I once rode a friend's Norton Commender P53. It was a water-cooled, twin rotor engine, just under 600 cc as I recall. Better recall for driving in an NSU Ro 80 (twin rotors, 1000 cc, 115 hp) in the summer on 1968. I was hitching from Stuttgart to Mainz. After an initial lift, I got stuck near Mannheim. Fortunately for me, along came a stylish red Ro 80 whose also stylish Fräulein offered me a lift. That car had a lot of pep, like most NSUs of the time. No comments needed about her!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Firelock76I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was!
BigJim Firelock76 I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was! I'll challenge that comment by putting Mazda's race record up for comparison.
Firelock76 I'll say this much, in it's own time the Le Rhone rotary was a helluva lot more successful than Herr Wankel's ever was!
I'll challenge that comment by putting Mazda's race record up for comparison.
As well as the thousands of Mazda RX-7's and 8's as well as RX-3's and RX-4's that were manufactured and prowled the highways and byways - with many still doing so today.
In eighth grade science we learned all about airplanes. The teacher told us about radial, opposed, in-line and so forth. I told the class about rotaries such as used on a Sopwith or Nieuport. The teacher said that I was wrong. I told him that my father, who knew more about early aircraft than anyone I knew told me about them. He still did not believe me. I let it go as he was a teacher, no matter how ignorant. Many years later, I was at The Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome and there was a Sopwith Camel. I reached over the rope and moved the prop and yep, the engine turned with it. I thought, "what a horses ass he was."
Rotary Engines are smooth and compact, but expensive and often unreliable
Were Wankel engines ever used in locomotives?
Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies. Different kind of competition, I know.
At least the second place trophy in a road race isn't "The Wooden Cross."
Firelock76Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies.
When I went to A&P school, we learned how to start an aero engine like that.
BigJim Firelock76 Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies. I'll say one thing, that sure is a lot of rotating mass and amazing to watch spin! When I went to A&P school, we learned how to start an aero engine like that.
Firelock76 Maybe so, but a helluva lot of World War One aces flew aircraft with Le Rhone engines or Le Rhone derivatives or copies.
I'll say one thing, that sure is a lot of rotating mass and amazing to watch spin!
Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
You were pretty lucky, Big Jim!
By the way, the now-defunct Virginia Aviation Museum had a cutaway Le Rhone on display you could walk up to and turn. It was a real masterpiece of the machinist's art, let me tell you, just a gorgeous piece of work.
Curtiss-Wright did some experimenting with the Wankel also.
http://www.glennhcurtissmuseum.org/
Firelock76Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
Less of a dead end than you might think. They were easier to make than something like an inline engine at the time, inherently ran in any attitude and when being 'tumbled', and (once you knew the secret starting ritual or the theories behind the steps required) was pretty reliable. But the important characteristics, the things that led the rotary to be actually preferred over 'block' engines, were directly related to the rotary construction.
First is that the enormous gyroscopic torque of the engine made dogfighting much easier (and less exhausting for the pilot!) and allowed very quick attitude changes (in more or less random directions) to be made repeatedly once a pilot had even relatively little time in the air. More importantly (according to Henry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat) was that all you had to do when your guns bore on the enemy was walk the rudder - this caused the 90-degree gyroscopic torque to pitch the aircraft up and down, too, and your guns would fire in a cone which could be widened or narrowed just by the impulse you gave the pedals. Ordinary engines, of course, did nothing of this sort.
Well, what I meant by "evolutionary dead-end" was the original purpose of the rotary engine was to solve the problem of engine cooling, which it did. Late in the war the French figured out that a properly designed radial engine with good airflow over the same would take care of cooling itself without any issues. After that the rotary didn't have long to live.
That gyroscopic torque could be a a boon in a dogfight, but with some aircraft like the Sopwith Camel it could be deadly on take-off. Turn right in a Camel on takeoff and the rotary would pull you up, turn left and it would put you right into the ground before you knew it. The Royal Flying Corps lost a lot of pilots that way until the word got out about the proper handling of the Camel.
Conversely, that torque could be used to get yourself out of a jam in a dogfight. Got a pesky Hun on your tail you just can't shake? Turn left, left, and left again and the Camel would pull itself out of Fritz's clutches before he even knew what was happening. Goes without saying you'd better have plenty of sky under you.
Firelock76 Goes without saying you'd better have plenty of sky under you.
You would be surprised how hard it is to make one of these things drop. Until you actually violate V sub NE and strip fabric off the upper wing you need to get into a complicated spiral to achieve any sort of concerted downward motion. The problem with takeoff was just that: you were only a few feet up, and the torque reaction coupled with peak takeoff-hp thrust flew you into the ground...
RMEHenry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat
The same Forster of the Lafayette Escadrille and later Manhattan real estate executive? How did that happen?
RME Firelock76 Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War. Less of a dead end than you might think. They were easier to make than something like an inline engine at the time, inherently ran in any attitude and when being 'tumbled', and (once you knew the secret starting ritual or the theories behind the steps required) was pretty reliable. But the important characteristics, the things that led the rotary to be actually preferred over 'block' engines, were directly related to the rotary construction. First is that the enormous gyroscopic torque of the engine made dogfighting much easier (and less exhausting for the pilot!) and allowed very quick attitude changes (in more or less random directions) to be made repeatedly once a pilot had even relatively little time in the air. More importantly (according to Henry Forster, who taught me some of the skills involved in air combat) was that all you had to do when your guns bore on the enemy was walk the rudder - this caused the 90-degree gyroscopic torque to pitch the aircraft up and down, too, and your guns would fire in a cone which could be widened or narrowed just by the impulse you gave the pedals. Ordinary engines, of course, did nothing of this sort.
Firelock76 Really! I am surprised, considering the aircraft rotary engine was an evolutionary dead-end and it's era pretty much ended with the First World War.
The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
schlimmThe Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
But let's not forget the Oberursels (company license-building Gnome engines before the war, bought by Fokker) as used in the Fokker Eindekkers (and perhaps the most recognizable German aircraft of the war, commonly known by its English name the Fokker Triplane .. and yes, I know what 'Eindekker' means).
The Germans decided the nominal advantages of the rotary didn't outweigh the advantages of inline power, just as the French adopted the Hisso 90-degree V8 for the Spad 180s and 220s for the more advanced power in the late war years. I remain surprised that no good American designs using the Liberty were done in time to go into wartime service, but had the war been protracted even a few months longer I'd expect the advantages of a good V12 or even something like the Bugatti 16 to have conclusively favored multithrow crankshaft engines over any rotary ... or any early practical radial built with that era's technology.
However, I think you will find that Camels in that later era were far more likely to have the superior Bentley "Admiralty rotary" engine (later called BR1) and, in fact, the first generation of British first-line fighters after the war was designed around the follow-on BR2, so there were in fact reliable and well-engineered rotaries available for those who valued their advantages. (Naturally, when better radials were developed, those were rapidly adopted.)
There was a highly interesting aircraft developed in Germany in 1919, I believe by Junkers, which used monocoque duraluminum construction (not the corrugated stuff that came later, as in the "Ford" Trimotors) -- it looks very similar to a small DC3 aside from the engines, which are either rotaries or primitive radials and give a shock of cognitive dissonance to people familiar with the form and packaging of American radial engines only a decade and a half later.
RME schlimm The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg. But let's not forget the Oberursels (company license-building Gnome engines before the war, bought by Fokker) as used in the Fokker Eindekkers (and perhaps the most recognizable German aircraft of the war, commonly known by its English name the Fokker Triplane .. and yes, I know what 'Eindekker' means). The Germans decided the nominal advantages of the rotary didn't outweigh the advantages of inline power, just as the French adopted the Hisso 90-degree V8 for the Spad 180s and 220s for the more advanced power in the late war years. I remain surprised that no good American designs using the Liberty were done in time to go into wartime service, but had the war been protracted even a few months longer I'd expect the advantages of a good V12 or even something like the Bugatti 16 to have conclusively favored multithrow crankshaft engines over any rotary ... or any early practical radial built with that era's technology. However, I think you will find that Camels in that later era were far more likely to have the superior Bentley "Admiralty rotary" engine (later called BR1) and, in fact, the first generation of British first-line fighters after the war was designed around the follow-on BR2, so there were in fact reliable and well-engineered rotaries available for those who valued their advantages. (Naturally, when better radials were developed, those were rapidly adopted.) There was a highly interesting aircraft developed in Germany in 1919, I believe by Junkers, which used monocoque duraluminum construction (not the corrugated stuff that came later, as in the "Ford" Trimotors) -- it looks very similar to a small DC3 aside from the engines, which are either rotaries or primitive radials and give a shock of cognitive dissonance to people familiar with the form and packaging of American radial engines only a decade and a half later.
schlimm The Sopwith (Camel) used mostly the Clerget 9B rotary, dry weight 173 kg. They also used the Le Rhone 146.5 kg. By contrast, the German Albatros D. V and Fokker D. VII both used the inline Mercedes D. IIIaü, 310 kg.
1. The Camels' standard engine was the Clerget, but they also used Le Rhones. R.N.A.S. kites used the BR 1 and had the best performance.
2. In the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker. The Dr.1 stands for Dreidecker. With the biplane single seater D types from Fokker, Albatros, Pfalz, the D stands for Doppeldecker.
3. Besides Oberursel rotaries, the German and Austro-Hungarian air forces relied on various in-line Mercedes engines. Only late in the war did BMW introduce their IIIa, 6-cylinder SOHC which put into the Fokker D.VII made it the best fighter plane of the war.
4. Junkers built several planes during WWI with the familiar corrugated duralumin skin, such as the CL.1 ground attack monoplane and D.1 fighter monoplane (below).
Well I got to say "Wankel!!" on this forum just like Dudley Moore
schlimmIn the Fokker E-series "the Fokker scourge" planes, the E stands for Eindecker.
When I was young, I'd swear the spelling with two Ks was used, the reason being Tony Fokker was Dutch. But now I go to check and there is nothing on the first pages of Google but schlimm's given German spelling of the thing.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.