 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / October 2007rotary engine -- what's the name ??
Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I read about a "rotary" engine which is a kind of Wankel engine, but has two paddles in the shape "X". He told me that the name of such a type of engine is "nu-teddy" because of the crossed paddles. I did a search on the Internet, but could not find any mentioning of "nu-teddy". Obviously, I wrongly spelled it. Maybe someone can tell me what was the term ? Thanks. "Beladi Nasralla" wrote : I read about a rotary engine called something like "nu-teddy". But I can't find any mention of "nu-teddy" on the Internet. If I misspelled it, can someone can tell me the correct term? _______________________________________________ Nutating. "Nutating" (oscillating), I think. If it's the one I'm thinking of, its the McMaster Motor. There is only one "paddle". The brother of a guy I worked with at 3M invented it and he used to show us its progress at our monthly retirement breakfast meetings. the brother is now gone, but the commercialization continues. Last I heard, they had a large order from a cab company in England. You can see it at > http://www.mcmastermotor.com/concept.htm Pete Stanaitis ---------------- > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, I wrongly spelled it. Maybe someone can tell me what was > the term ? Thanks. Mighty Engine? (MYTY?) Atom Ant,,, Mighty Mouse. cuhulin > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, I wrongly spelled it. Maybe someone can tell me what was > the term ? Thanks. BTW in relation to aircraft, "rotary" also means a radial in which the crankcase rotates, & the crankshaft is stationary. See Gnome Monosoupape (ie 1-valve), and similar designs. Popular in WW1, but long gone now. Those rotary wobble plate engine designs date back to at least the 1960s or 1950s or so.Many, many years ago, there was at least one auto outfit that had a rotary engine similar to Aircraft.I don't remember the name of it though. cuhulin Look on the internet for, Popular Mechanics Atomic Airplane I have the magazine around here somewhere, dates back about five or six years ago.Your local area librairies might have the magazine.I used to read True and Saga and Bluebook For Men magazines.Back in the 1960s or 1950s, one of those magazines had an article about an Atomic powered Aircraft engine that didn't work out.The magazine article said that Atomic powered Aircraft engine is sitting on the Nevada (or Utah) desert floor/ground. cuhulin > BTW in relation to aircraft, "rotary" also means a radial in which the > crankcase rotates, & the crankshaft is stationary. See Gnome Monosoupape > (ie 1-valve), and similar designs. Popular in WW1, but long gone now. It's hard riding in the ones where the propellor is stationary and the fuselage is rotating at 6,000 RPM. I always spill my beer.  SignatureOne meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): Three feet Three inches Three eights of an inch >One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): > Three feet > Three inches > Three eights of an inch After all these years, I learn something new. That's cool. (Although, whenever I need to convert, the accuracy I need is either, "a bit more than a yard," or out to at least three decimal places.) SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer Dear Turby: >>One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 >>inches): [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > need is either, "a bit more than a yard," or out to at > least three decimal places.) 5/16" diameter tubing and 8 mm tubing will fit in the same compression fittings. 5/8" and 16 mm are at the extreme limit of compression fitting tolerance (0.004 inch difference). David A. Smith I hope this isn't too off topic.Once in a while I see a funny Mitsubishi auto commercial on tv.It is an elderly lady and she has her house dress on and a cloth on the top of her head, as though she is cleaning her house. She says, Dontchoo BUY no ugly truck! cuhulin On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:09:01 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote: >Dear Turby: > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >compression fittings. 5/8" and 16 mm are at the extreme limit of >compression fitting tolerance (0.004 inch difference). 5/16" sounds like a an odd size. I'm sure it must be standard for something, but not where I'm from. (I design a lot of tubes, and spec a lot of fittings. We have tube bending machines. You input the bend data, push a button, and out comes a bent tube.) I'd guess the garage mechanic might need to kluge both metric and inch fittings/tubes together, but it seems like a rare occurance. Vendors, like Parker, have catalogs of both inch and metric fittings. It's just too easy to buy tube and fittings that match to cobble together parts not designed for each other. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer Dear Turby: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:09:01 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com > \(dlzc\)" > <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote: ... >>5/16" diameter tubing and 8 mm tubing will fit in the >>same compression fittings. 5/8" and 16 mm are at [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 5/16" sounds like a an odd size. I'm sure it must be > standard for something, but not where I'm from. ... > Vendors, like Parker, have catalogs of both inch > and metric fittings. It's just too easy to buy tube > and fittings that match to cobble together parts not > designed for each other. I had to deliver deionized water to a part manufactured in Japan. They can get 8mm fittings cheap. I can get 5/16"OD teflon tubing cheap, cheaper than 8mm anyway. So it was a win-win. David A. Smith I saw five gallons of plastic buckets full of urine on street corners in Asia. The way I think of meters is three times three equals three times that much (in American measurement) plus three.I never measure thingys in foreign increments anyway.I am not going to try to learn any new languages.I am too old a dog to learn any new tricks. cuhulin > Dear Turby: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > fittings. 5/8" and 16 mm are at the extreme limit of compression > fitting tolerance (0.004 inch difference). And if you don't have a half inch wrench handy, a 13mm open end will do most of the time. Robert >>One meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): >> Three feet [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > whenever I need to convert, the accuracy I need is either, "a bit > more than a yard," or out to at least three decimal places.) That's what's so spiffy about this. It's quick and easy to figure that three meters is 9'10-1/8" and you're off (high) by 0.015". You expended no more effort than the "bit more than a yard" estimate and got accuracy to two decimal places in a jiff, and better than five if you subtract out the 0.015". Specifically, a meter is 39.37007874" and my measure is 39.375". SignatureOne meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): Three feet Three inches Three eights of an inch ... > Specifically, a meter is 39.37007874" and my measure is > 39.375". Actually, the meter is *both* 39.37 exactly (US Survey foot) and the number you cite. Go figure. David A. Smith > ... >> Specifically, a meter is 39.37007874" and my measure is >> 39.375". > > Actually, the meter is *both* 39.37 exactly (US Survey foot) and > the number you cite. Go figure. Different feet. Like US and Imperial gallons, or Statute vs Nautical vs Roman miles. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:29:59 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com \(dlzc\)" <dlzc1@cox.net> wrote: >... >> Specifically, a meter is 39.37007874" and my measure is >> 39.375". > >Actually, the meter is *both* 39.37 exactly (US Survey foot) and >the number you cite. Go figure. AIR, (& without resorting to Google,) the standard meter started out in France as a stick of some metal stored in the French Academy or some place. Then it was redefined as an atomic distance dependant on some isotope. I don't think the distances are exactly the same, but it's close enough for guv'mint work. I don't remember the history of the inch, but you know it's flexed over the centuries. SignatureTurby the Turbosurfer Dear Turby: > On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 10:29:59 -0700, "N:dlzc D:aol T:com > \(dlzc\)" [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > redefined as an atomic distance dependant on some > isotope. Good memory. Characteristic wavelengths of certain elements (xenon perhaps, 1960). Finally established as c times a certain amount of time (1983). > I don't think the distances are exactly the same, but > it's close enough for guv'mint work. I don't remember > the history of the inch, but you know it's flexed over > the centuries. Big time. Now back to the engines. This stuff is largely boring... David A. Smith >AIR, (& without resorting to Google,) the standard meter started out >in France as a stick of some metal stored in the French Academy or >some place. Before that, it was conceived as the length of the meridian distance from the pole, passing through Paris to the equator - a quater of a polar circumference in fact. The Enlightenment, and all that. It didn't quite work out that way though. Brian Whatcott Altus OK >> AIR, (& without resorting to Google,) the standard meter started out >> in France as a stick of some metal stored in the French Academy or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > from the pole, passing through Paris to the equator - a quater of a > polar circumference in fact. The Enlightenment, and all that. You're only off by a factor of 10 million, but I knew what you meant. > It didn't quite work out that way though. It did though- it's not a coincidence that the circumference of the earth is almost exactly 40 000 km. Signature'01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '98 ZG1000-A13 OMF #7 [ the standard meter ] >>... was conceived as the length of the meridian distance >> from the pole, passing through Paris to the equator - a quarter of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It did though- it's not a coincidence that the circumference of the >earth is almost exactly 40 000 km. You mean the meter is not quite the desired fraction of the polar circumference, I suppose? :-) Brian W > [ the standard meter ] >>>... was conceived as the length of the meridian distance [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > You mean the meter is not quite the desired fraction > of the polar circumference, I suppose? :-) Blame it on planetary cellulitis. SignatureOne meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): Three feet Three inches Three eights of an inch > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Obviously, I wrongly spelled it. Maybe someone can tell me what was > the term ? Thanks. The McMaster (wobble) motor website causes me to pause when I read hyperbole like this: "Each power stroke results in very smooth, high torque, equivalent to an eight-cylinder engine." The Technical Information portion of the website consists of 3 paragraphs and the website looks like it was last updated in 2000. I suspect that one of of many significant technical issues to be solved will be designing seals for the wobbling rotor. The idea has been around for quite a while and the latest spin is to make it run on hydrogen. Count this as yet another automotive version of vaporware. >> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > make it run on hydrogen. Count this as yet another automotive version > of vaporware. When I saw the comment about hydrogen I guessed that the engine is such a stinking polluter that hydrogen is the only thing that could get it passed the law. <g> It sure is interesting though. If somebody could just come up with clever geometry like that without having reciprocating, sliding seals. This isn't the first engine with that problem. It was solved pretty well in the Wankel but Renault's wobbly engine never did get it solved. -- Ed Huntress > >> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > >> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. I mentioned to him that I [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > - Show quoted text - According to the website the motor is the centerpiece of a project involving "A new engine; A new fuel source; A new source of power to assist in the production of the fuel". The company address is at a University and they were apparently looking for funding from a variety of sources including a DOE grant. Ultimately their goal appears to be money from licensing production: "It is anticipated the McMaster Motor's technology will be licensed to multiple industry sources for volume production." I don't know if this is going beyond the dream stage. > The McMaster (wobble) motor website causes me to pause There's an article about it here: http://www.me.wustl.edu/ME/faculty/tk/nutating.htm and this discusses real world concerns such as seals and coatings: http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/TM-2006-214342.pdf I guess I'd like to see more about it if it is as promising as the NASA article implies... --Glenn Lyford On Oct 24, 4:57 pm, "glyf...@gmail.com" <glyf...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The McMaster (wobble) motor website causes me to pause > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > NASA article implies... > --Glenn Lyford Well, yes, but websites that trumpet the 10 most important benefits of a given product but say nothing on the downside do not strike me as unbiased. Indeed I start thinking about sales hype. There have been several promising engine designs over the years that have come forth only to die a slow death. One I remember was a resurrection of the old Sterling Motor to run a generator/battery driven electric car. Seals were the biggest problem. The motor would run fine until the loud pop told of a broken seal, exploded hydrogen and rapidly declining mph. I'm sure the problems of that design could have been fixed but the costs of doing so would have been considerable. The result mwas likely not a marketable product because of the development cost. > I'm sure the problems of that design could have been fixed but the > costs of doing so would have been considerable. The result mwas > likely not a marketable product because of the development cost. Yeah. I remember when they were talking about putting in the expense and effort to get tires to last more than ten thousand miles. SignatureOne meter, to within 0.0125% accuracy (off by just under .005 inches): Three feet Three inches Three eights of an inch I have seen those hit and miss engines at the state fair before, and on tv and movies.I need to look around and see if somebody has a little one for sale.A real old one. cuhulin > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. What company is that? I'm not aware of any aircraft rotary engines. (Not to be confused with radial engines) > > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. > > What company is that? I'm not aware of > any aircraft rotary engines. (Not to be > confused with radial engines) Rotary engines were used in aircraft long ago. While they were powerful little motors they had several problems which limited their use. Just to confuse things modern-day Rotary engines of Wankel design have been used in aircraft although not widely. >>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Just to confuse things modern-day Rotary engines of Wankel design have > been used in aircraft although not widely. I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company that currently manufactures a rotary engine specifically for aviation use? >>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > that currently manufactures a rotary engine > specifically for aviation use? Among real companies are: Mistral Engines UAV Ltd Possibly Wankel AG (not sure of their current status--Wankel Gmbh went under and Wankel AG is the remains under new management) Moeller Skycar has an engine manufacturing subsidiary, but like all things Moeller, one should believe it when they deliver a product to you personally. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > >>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that currently manufactures a rotary engine > specifically for aviation use? If you look at it the right way, any turbojet/turbofan/turboprop is a rotary engine. Probably more efficient than anything using a non- continuous combustion cycle. Don't know of any other type approved for aircraft use. I think it was the BD-5 that was designed to use a Wankel snowmobile engine and there were some small model-sized Wankel glow-plug engines, don't know of anything else recently that's actually flown and isn't a magnet for venture capital and/or government research contracts, e.g. vaporware. Stan >>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > actually flown and isn't a magnet for venture capital and/or > government research contracts, e.g. vaporware. Turbojet/turbofan/turboprops also unless you luck into military surplus cost a mint. There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/flying.html. Most are based on the Mazda 13-B. The things seem to be robust the same way that WWII radials were robust. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. >>>>> What company is that? I'm not aware of >>>>> any aircraft rotary engines. (Not to be >>>>> confused with radial engines) Hey Jim, You are correct. There are still rotary engined aircraft flying today, but few and far between, and none are new. I also do not believe that there are any new rotary engines produced, but there are still many new and varied radial engines in full production today. With the exception of "model engines" of course. The model engineering engines come in two basic flavours...scaled sizes of prototypes, and a large variety of custom designed. There are always a couple of each at NAMES, some even run in the demo area. The "rotary" engine referred to in other posts are Wankels (mostly RX-7, 13-B's), and to me these are rotory rather rotary. Rotary engines rotate the cylinders and hold firm the crank, so the cylinders spin. Rotory engines are those as in Wankel products, where they use a rotor with a shaft for output, rather than conventional pistons and crank. And then there is the Rotax line of engines, which are much used in Ultra-light aircraft, but are neither rotary or rotory nor radial. Just conventional air cooled recips. Take care. Brian Lawson, Bothwell, Ontario. >>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > rotor > with a shaft for output, rather than conventional pistons and crank. You can use made up words all you want to, but the rest of the world calls the Wankel a "rotary" with an "a", not the "o" that you are trying to sell. Who knows, maybe you'll succeed. I doubt it though--the words sound so much alike that unless you deliberately exaggerate the difference--call it a roTOry engine vs a ROtary engine--nobody is going to notice the difference in conversation. It's kind of moot to anybody but historians anyway. > And then there is the Rotax line of engines, which are much used in > Ultra-light aircraft, but are neither rotary or rotory nor radial. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Brian Lawson, > Bothwell, Ontario. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Ultra-light aircraft, but are neither rotary or rotory nor radial. > Just conventional air cooled recips. I've flown an ultralight with a Rotax 503 2-stroke and my CTSW has a 912 4-stroke. I don't much care for any 2-stroke, but the 912 is a beautiful and sweet-running little piece of work. >There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. >Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion >http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/rotaryroster/flying.html. Most are based >on the Mazda 13-B. The things seem to be robust the same way that >WWII radials were robust. Interesting! How many horses does the Mazda 13-B put out? I like their engineering. (We have had two Ford Festivas for an aggregate of 300K miles with way low maintenance issues) Brian W >> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. >> Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I like their engineering. (We have had two Ford Festivas for an > aggregate of 300K miles with way low maintenance issues) Depends on the version--typical estimates are around 185 in aircraft trim without turbos. With turbos over 250. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. >>> Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >Depends on the version--typical estimates are around 185 in aircraft >trim without turbos. With turbos over 250. Now that sounds useful: a 2 even 4 seat light single could do well with this. I guess it needs a PRSU? They can be pricey too, I see. Any thoughts? Brian Whatcott Altus OK - >>>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. >>>> Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I guess it needs a PRSU? They can be pricey too, I see. > Any thoughts? There's at least one PSRU available that is designed specifically for the Mazda. In principle you could change out the internal gearing and do away with the reduction unit--I've never had Wankel apart so I don't know if the gearing on the rotors is removable. > Brian Whatcott Altus OK > - Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> ....How many horses does the Mazda 13-B put out? ... >>> around 185 in aircraft trim without turbos. .... >> I guess it needs a PSRU? ... >In principle you could change out the internal gearing and do away >with the reduction unit Using auto gearboxes is usually a Very Bad Thing. Those lower gears are not intended for continuous hi torque. Top gear is usually a straight through (no gear) arrangement. Still overdrive is not. Brian W >>>>> ....How many horses does the Mazda 13-B put out? > ... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Top gear is usually a straight through (no gear) arrangement. > Still overdrive is not. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wankel_engine_diagram.png Note items 5 and 7. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> I guess it needs a PSRU? >> ... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Note items 5 and 7. Ah, good one John! Count the teeth on item 5 and 7, and work out what happens if you vary the ratio. If that is what you are suggesting. Brian W At sixty five years old, I am,,,, I am used to American measurments.Stuff I learned in my school days.It is easy for me to envision cubic inches, other American kinds of mesurments.I reckon because it has been ingrained in my mind since forever.I am not interested in the way(s) foreigners measure things.Just does not compute with me.This is America. cuhulin >>>>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary engines. >>>>> Here's a list of some that are flying or near completion [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >> Brian Whatcott Altus OK There is no internal gearing that affects output speed. The internal gears time the rotor so it progresses accuratelly around the trochoidal housing. Chas Hurst >>>>>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary >>>>>> engines. [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > gears time the rotor so it progresses accuratelly around the > trochoidal housing. Oh? You also need to take a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Wankel_engine_diagram.png The shaft is geared to the rotor that gear ratio most assuredly does affect output speed. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>>>>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary >>>>>>> engines. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > The shaft is geared to the rotor that gear ratio most assuredly does > affect output speed. You have a misconception that's quite common. The rotor is NOT geared to the shaft. It orbits around the stationary gear. Here's an animation that shows it better than the Wiki article. http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html >>>>>>>> There are numerous homebuilt aircraft flying with rotary >>>>>>>> engines. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Here's an animation that shows it better than the Wiki article. > http://www.keveney.com/Wankel.html Interesting. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> You have a misconception that's quite common. The rotor is NOT >> geared [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Interesting. Here's another link with photos of actual parts. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm >>> You have a misconception that's quite common. The rotor is NOT >>> geared [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://auto.howstuffworks.com/rotary-engine.htm I see now--it's really a reciprocating engine with a "differently abled" piston. I've been toying with the idea of building a LoCost with a Mazda engine. Might do it once I get my current project list cleared, just to have an excuse to take one apart. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >>>> You have a misconception that's quite common. The rotor is NOT >>>> geared [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > engine. Might do it once I get my current project list cleared, just > to have an excuse to take one apart. A rotory powered LoCost would be a very nice drive and a fun project. >> I've been toying with the idea of building a LoCost with a Mazda >> engine. Might do it once I get my current project list cleared, just >> to have an excuse to take one apart. > >A rotory powered LoCost would be a very nice drive and a fun project. Not familiar with this name. It's not a pet name for a Lotus 7 kit is it? Brian W > On Sat, 27 Oct 2007 12:10:45 -0400, "Chas Hurst" > <hurst1@comcast.not> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Not familiar with this name. > It's not a pet name for a Lotus 7 kit is it? It's the car described in Ron Champion's book "Build Your Own Sports Car for as Little as UKP250". While it has a lot of similarities with a Seven and can easily be mistaken for one, it's not technically a Seven. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >> Not familiar with this name. >> It's not a pet name for a Lotus 7 kit is it? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >a Seven and can easily be mistaken for one, it's not technically a >Seven. I still enjoy reading a book about building a race car from mini bits _ I think he called it the Terrapin - he used brazed square section tube. He worked out steering geometry etc. from articulated cardboard models. Must get Ron Champion's work too. Ouch! Amazon wanted $150 for a copy - too high. Thanks Brian Whatcott Altus OK >>> Not familiar with this name. >>> It's not a pet name for a Lotus 7 kit is it? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Must get Ron Champion's work too. > Ouch! Amazon wanted $150 for a copy - too high. Try Amazon UK. They're listing it for about 13 UKP and 7 UKP shipping to the US. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Terrapin, sounds familar.I guess I had read an article years ago in whichever auto magazine. cuhulin >>> It's the car described in Ron Champion's book "Build Your Own >>> Sports [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >Try Amazon UK. They're listing it for about 13 UKP and 7 UKP shipping >to the US. I scratched round a little and settled for an eBay.uk bid I saw Haynes is offering a new version with the same title, different author - similar illustration. I thought I would stick with your recommendation. Brian W >>>> It's the car described in Ron Champion's book "Build Your Own >>>> Sports [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > author - similar illustration. I thought I would stick with your > recommendation. Actually there are three that kind of form a set. Ron Champion's is the original. Chris Gibbs' is designed around a single-donor concept using a Ford Sierra--he also cleaned up the drawings some. Keith Tanner's is also designed around a single-vehicle donor but using a Miata. Ron's is more generic--he goes more into how to piece things together from what you find at the junk yard. Keith Tanner also has an excellent build diary online at http://www.cheapsportscar.net/diary.php. Chris Gibbs also has a site up at http://www.gibbs111.fsnet.co.uk/. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) >Actually there are three that kind of form a set. Ron Champion's is >the original. Chris Gibbs' is designed around a single-donor concept [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >http://www.cheapsportscar.net/diary.php. Chris Gibbs also has a site >up at http://www.gibbs111.fsnet.co.uk/. Making a home-brew sports car out of a Miata? There's a concept to juggle with! Thanks Brian W Don't forget about the experimental Torroidal ''Rotary'' engines.I don't think they ever went much of anywhere though. cuhulin > Don't forget about the experimental Torroidal ''Rotary'' engines.I don't > think they ever went much of anywhere though. > cuhulin If you guys have some real interest in the rotary, you may be able to google up the original Wankel engine. Much like the old radial engine, the crank/eccentric shaft was stationary and the engine turned. The name for the first engine in German is drehkolbenmaschin (DKM) or single rotation machine. The second design is the kreiskolbenmaschin (KKM) or planetary rotation machine. Rudolph Diesel intended or his first engine to run on Coal.(or so I once read about, I think) He disappeared off of a Ship from America to Europe. Not much more than a few years ago (1980s?) Cadillac was experimenting with an engine of theirs to run on powdered coal the consisentcy of baby powder. cuhulin I have to say though, the weirder and stranger looking some of those experimental engines are, the better I like them. www.acroflyer.com/Turbine_round.htm cuhulin >>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >that currently manufactures a rotary engine >specifically for aviation use? I believe there is a european or British firm using a derivative of the Norton rotary for aircraft use. (microlight) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com >>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I believe there is a european or British firm using a derivative of >the Norton rotary for aircraft use. (microlight) Actually Teledyne Continental has licenced the Norton Rotary engine, and Avco Lycoming, in concert with Deere and Co are also working on a rotary engine concept. (or have been in the last 15 years - no idea at what stage they are today) SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > >>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > >>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that currently manufactures a rotary engine > specifically for aviation use? There are lots of engines made currently that could qualify as a rotary if the definition is stretched to mean an engine with rotating rather than reciprocating parts. The Wankel-based designs and numerous turbines would qualify under that over-expanded definition. The more traditional definition of a rotary engine is one that allows the cylinders to rotate as the pistons reciprocate. Using that definition the Wankel Rotary really operates more like an aircraft radial. I'm not aware of anyone manufacturing a rotary engine in the old sense of the definition. I'm sure there are hobbyists that have crafted one- of scaled models however. >>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > of the definition. I'm sure there are hobbyists that have crafted > one- of scaled models however. Actually, you can buy new production working 1/4 scale Gnome rotaries for about 4,000 bucks. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Those old airplane engines, the kind that the cylinders spin around and around.When I was a kid and I saw one for the first time in an old movie,,,, I was thinking,,, those engines are going to rip apart and all to pieces. I imagine it helped cool the engine(s) a lot by spinning around like that.A heck of a flywheel effect too. cuhulin www.aviation-history.com/index-engine.htm Rotary Engine Theory, I think it is. cuhulin > >>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > >>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Actually, you can buy new production working 1/4 scale Gnome rotaries > for about 4,000 bucks. Interesting website, thanks for providing it. I guess that would make the new Rhone a limited production hobbyist motor. Do you happen to know if that spinning midget is being used to power something? >>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which >>>>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > happen > to know if that spinning midget is being used to power something? "gnome engine replica" brings it up as the first hit. And yes, it is being used to power among other things a 1/4 scale Eindecker. And it's "limited production" but it's not "one off". The company that makes it picks an engine, makes a hundred of them, sells them, and makes a hundred more of something else. They've done, among others, the OX-5 and the Harley Shovelhead. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) I just am not a flyboy. cuhulin ......................................... They fell apart, from vibrations. ......................................... > >>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > >>>>>>> manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > them, and makes a hundred more of something else. They've done, among > others, the OX-5 and the Harley Shovelhead. Replica and restored original engines are fascinating. Good to read that the Rhone is actually being used and not just displayed. So when the Eindecker is landed can the engine be switched on and off to cut power as with the original? At the other end of the technology scale I've seen several replicas and restorations of the Hit and Miss engines used in agriculture and other applications several decades back. >>>>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company >>>>>>>>> which [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > the Eindecker is landed can the engine be switched on and off to cut > power as with the original? That's a Gnome, not a LeRhone. And apparently the engine is as exact as they can make it, so yes, that's how it would have to work. > At the other end of the technology scale I've seen several replicas > and restorations of the Hit and Miss engines used in agriculture and > other applications several decades back. Signature-- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) > >>>>>>>>> Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company > >>>>>>>>> which [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yup - my mistake in engine name. http://www.rotecradialengines.com/ There was times I had to fly when I was in the Army.Fixed wing Aircraft and Rotary Wing Aircraft.(Helicopters www.114thaviationcompany.com) (1964) I am a ground pounder, I never did let it show that I don't like flying.The first time on a Helicopter at Tan Son Nhut to Can Tho, I was sitting on the floor with a web belt around my waist hooked to a ring in the floor and my feet hanging out the door.My older brother (God rest his soul) and I were in Vietnam at the same time in 1964. cuhulin > > Recently I spoke to the Engineering Manager of a company which > > manufactures rotary engines for aircraft. > > What company is that? I'm not aware of > any aircraft rotary engines. (Not to be > confused with radial engines) Wankel engines are used in some pilotless drone aircraft and some people have used them in man-carrying aircraft.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.