Rotary vs. Piston
09-27-2005, 07:04 PM
#1
503wtq Boosted Bimmer
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rotary vs. Piston
http://www.streetracing.org/boards/s...ad.php?t=52357
Kind of interesting thread about the RX-8 engine before it was out on the street.
Kind of interesting thread about the RX-8 engine before it was out on the street.
Last edited by Rotary Rasp; 09-27-2005 at 07:08 PM.
09-27-2005, 07:22 PM
#2
Black Cherry 6-Speed
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Columbia, MD
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I question the whole thing when he says
Fist off, it is the 'Abrams' tank and it is propelled by a Honeywell AGT 1500 gas turbine engine. There are a few special made Wankel powered aircraft and helicopters but I know of none that are mass produced with a Wankel engine. Is he getting mixed up in that a helicopter is considered a "Rotary aircraft"? 
If the reliability of a rotary engine was an issue, why would army use a rotary engine in their Abraham tanks? Why would helicoptors use rotary engines?
09-27-2005, 08:28 PM
#5
Registered
Just went and read that thread. That guys knows just enough to not know anything and he apparently even owns/owned one. 240 hp from a peripheral port? Come on man! They can get up to 350 hp.
09-27-2005, 08:28 PM
#6
U-Stink-But-I-♥-U
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 12 o'clock on the Beltway.
Posts: 2,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RG not to question you (I dont want to go to heck), but to put the "shaft flexing" in context, the referenced link states that rotories will never see more than 8.5k rpm because of the shaft flex.
EDIT: Wrote this before your second post.
EDIT: Wrote this before your second post.
09-28-2005, 01:37 AM
#7
503wtq Boosted Bimmer
Thread Starter
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carbonRX8
Wow. you just posted complete crap. (no offense to you, of cource. Just my two cents on the topic.)
09-28-2005, 02:13 AM
#8
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha. this guy is pretty dumb, he says a rotary can be just as reliable as a honda/acura vtec motor LOL noob.
he also says half the reliability problem is mazda, theres nothing wrong with mazda, besides end user neglect, the only thing i can think of that really causes engine failure is bad tuning. mazda makes engines fine, in fact if you take care of any of mazda's naturally aspirated rx-7s properly they will last over 200k. 12as do it reguarly and more than enough 13bs have. the only real **** up mazda has done was the FD3S, they are ticking time bombs from the factory untill you do reliability mods and cooling.
he also says half the reliability problem is mazda, theres nothing wrong with mazda, besides end user neglect, the only thing i can think of that really causes engine failure is bad tuning. mazda makes engines fine, in fact if you take care of any of mazda's naturally aspirated rx-7s properly they will last over 200k. 12as do it reguarly and more than enough 13bs have. the only real **** up mazda has done was the FD3S, they are ticking time bombs from the factory untill you do reliability mods and cooling.
09-28-2005, 06:30 AM
#10
Originally Posted by StealthFox
haha. this guy is pretty dumb, he says a rotary can be just as reliable as a honda/acura vtec motor LOL noob.
he also says half the reliability problem is mazda, theres nothing wrong with mazda, besides end user neglect, the only thing i can think of that really causes engine failure is bad tuning. mazda makes engines fine, in fact if you take care of any of mazda's naturally aspirated rx-7s properly they will last over 200k. 12as do it reguarly and more than enough 13bs have. the only real **** up mazda has done was the FD3S, they are ticking time bombs from the factory untill you do reliability mods and cooling.
he also says half the reliability problem is mazda, theres nothing wrong with mazda, besides end user neglect, the only thing i can think of that really causes engine failure is bad tuning. mazda makes engines fine, in fact if you take care of any of mazda's naturally aspirated rx-7s properly they will last over 200k. 12as do it reguarly and more than enough 13bs have. the only real **** up mazda has done was the FD3S, they are ticking time bombs from the factory untill you do reliability mods and cooling.
but hey, most of the of its just the end user side of problem. They abused it like theres no tomorrow, when something happens they went back to complain.
You might ask everybody does that in every car out there but consider the RX-7 user base is quite small, and most of the people in that "small" group abuse them everyday.
09-28-2005, 07:03 AM
#11
Registered
..........There's no tank rotary engines....................
um, maybe I'm showing my age here, but alas, there were rotary engines in German tanks in WW2. It was so cold, they simply left them idling overnight, becuase quite often they wouldn't start next day.
um, maybe I'm showing my age here, but alas, there were rotary engines in German tanks in WW2. It was so cold, they simply left them idling overnight, becuase quite often they wouldn't start next day.
09-28-2005, 08:22 AM
#12
Insanely Yellow
Well, he says that they use it in the "Abrahams" tank. Interesting, I didn't realize they named their tanks after biblical characters ... LOL whatta dipshit that guy is.
As pointed out above, both tanks and choppers use GAS TURBINE engines - which are JET ENGINES that have been optimized for shaft horsepower rather than direct thrust.
I suppose our rotary has something in common with those - they both rely on rotating, not reciprocating motion, both make cool noises and both consume prodigious amounts of fuel, but also produce prodigious power-to-weight.
But a gas turbine is not a rotary engine nor is a rotary engine a gas turbine.
As pointed out above, both tanks and choppers use GAS TURBINE engines - which are JET ENGINES that have been optimized for shaft horsepower rather than direct thrust.
I suppose our rotary has something in common with those - they both rely on rotating, not reciprocating motion, both make cool noises and both consume prodigious amounts of fuel, but also produce prodigious power-to-weight.
But a gas turbine is not a rotary engine nor is a rotary engine a gas turbine.
09-28-2005, 02:59 PM
#14
脾臓が痛みました
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of Peaches, Pecans, and Peanuts
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryan13b
Wankel engines weren't around then.
I'm not a tank expert, but I'd assume they either used big inline engines, or radial engines.
I'm not a tank expert, but I'd assume they either used big inline engines, or radial engines.
09-28-2005, 03:29 PM
#15
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: East Tennessee
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't read the article, but I do have a little input on the talk about rotary tank engines. John Deere's experimental engine division actually marketed a multi-fuel rotary engine for many different applications back in the late 1980s. Don't know whatever became of it, but I got interested because of my work. As I remember, and this hazy, they had three different sizes each of which could be stacked for different power outputs. They were touting this engine's use for a variety of applications ranging from emergency generators for the small version up to tanks and other large weapon systems for the big engines.
I'll look in my files and see if I have any old info on these things.
I'll look in my files and see if I have any old info on these things.
09-28-2005, 03:35 PM
#16
Registered
Originally Posted by StealthFox
haha. this guy is pretty dumb, he says a rotary can be just as reliable as a honda/acura vtec motor LOL noob.
09-28-2005, 04:18 PM
#17
Evil Genius
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ryan13b
Pretty inaccurate stuff though.
There's no tank rotary engines, and I've never seen one in a helicoptor either.
And Eccentric shaft flexing? Only in 4 rotor engines.
There's no tank rotary engines, and I've never seen one in a helicoptor either.
And Eccentric shaft flexing? Only in 4 rotor engines.
-R.
09-28-2005, 07:51 PM
#18
Registered
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,505
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by StewC625
Well, he says that they use it in the "Abrahams" tank. Interesting, I didn't realize they named their tanks after biblical characters ... LOL whatta dipshit that guy is.
As pointed out above, both tanks and choppers use GAS TURBINE engines - which are JET ENGINES that have been optimized for shaft horsepower rather than direct thrust.
I suppose our rotary has something in common with those - they both rely on rotating, not reciprocating motion, both make cool noises and both consume prodigious amounts of fuel, but also produce prodigious power-to-weight.
But a gas turbine is not a rotary engine nor is a rotary engine a gas turbine.
As pointed out above, both tanks and choppers use GAS TURBINE engines - which are JET ENGINES that have been optimized for shaft horsepower rather than direct thrust.
I suppose our rotary has something in common with those - they both rely on rotating, not reciprocating motion, both make cool noises and both consume prodigious amounts of fuel, but also produce prodigious power-to-weight.
But a gas turbine is not a rotary engine nor is a rotary engine a gas turbine.
09-28-2005, 09:44 PM
#19
well, i know the first production wankel was not until the 50's, but wankel was german and he had alot of data and tests by the 20s. Im not saying this is accurate or anything, but is it possible that the german army used wankels for anything before it was mass produced publicly? I mean, wankel was part of the **** party and then tried to back out when he found out alot of their engagements and future plans. So, who knows what happened.
09-30-2005, 01:48 PM
#21
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OfficerCarva
Im not saying this is accurate or anything, but is it possible that the german army used wankels for anything before it was mass produced publicly? I mean, wankel was part of the **** party and then tried to back out when he found out alot of their engagements and future plans. So, who knows what happened.
Like Wernher von Braun (the saturn rocket guy), Wankel was also greatly funded by the ****'s. Although I don't know what his political views were or if he had any at all.
