alloyicon

http://www.mistral-engines.com/

alloyicon

The following is an excerpt from the Mistral Engines Technology section

"The sheer simplicity of the rotary engine block leads to its high reliability, longevity and low maintenance and overhaul costs. There are no valves, no pistons, no connecting rods, no camshaft…

The crankshaft is replaced by a much more simple and robust eccentric shaft, and the same power as some six-cylinder piston engines can be produced by a two-rotor engine. This design has proven itself over many years of reliable service in automobile applications. In car racing, rotary engines are renown for their dependability and piston engines are no match for them in endurance.

Contrary to reciprocating engines in which pistons brutally reverse direction thousands of times per minute, rotary pistons only … rotate, with a slight eccentric movement. This results in incomparably smooth, vibration-free engine operations and great durability… turbine-like!"

tajabaho1

I want that

alloyicon

http://www.rotaryeng.net/

This is a link that is in the "links" page of the above posted Mistral Engines page. This has a vast collection of rotary info that should keep many of you rotor heads busy for days. Enjoy!

Make sure to check out what seems to be an old 1970's Mazda Rotary commercial by going to the bottom of the page to the Video/Sounds links and watch the
"..... Before Zoom Zoom there was the ----" link. It is funny stuff.

champi0n

iTrader: (1)

i love how everyone that drives a civic says the rotary is unreliable, and how new owners are always like, omg this d00d told me i got ripped off coz tha rotary is unreliable and breaks.

i bought it for knowing its reliable and im glad people that fly airplanes like it too.

astrozoom

If you do a google search, you can actually find that there are numerous people out there who have or are working on putting a rotary in their own experimental planes. There is one site that the guy actually keeps an online log of everything they have done to the rotary to convert it to an aircraft engine. It is not all that uncommon to see auto engines in airplanes though.

Crztrtldck

the rotary engine was in a plane before it was in a car
or so ive heard
i'll see if i can find some sources on that

Crztrtldck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_engine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel_engine

the first link is the history of the rotary in WW1 aircrafts
and the second link is history of the rotary in cars

Easy_E1

iTrader: (2)

Atkins Rotary in Tacoma Wash. has been doing this for years.

enforcer

In your research did anyone see any rotary aircraft engines which failed....?

astrozoom

Are they actually certified by the FAA or do they just put them in experimental aircraft?

refugeefrompistons

completely different kind of rotary in airplanes during ww1. They just moved with the propeller, not like our rotary with rotors.

Crztrtldck

true but its the same concept... almost
its what inspired the rotary we have today

shinka1313

Not the same at all, WW1 rotary engines had pistons and the whole engine rotated. Wankel engines don't have pistons, rods or valves, they have rotors and the whole engine doesn't rotate. The rotary name was applied by Mazda marketing to the Wankel so now that's the common name for it.

von Richtofen

shinka1313 is absolutely correct. WWI rotary engines are exactly like "radial" piston engines with one difference: The crankshaft is stationary and the propellor and pistons rotate around it.

The WWI rotary has nothing to do with the Wankel concept.

Very, very few WW1 vintage rotary engines are still flying today. Most flying WWI aircraft, whether authentic or reproduction, use a modern stationary "radial" engine instead of a "rotary". Parts are very difficult and expensive to procure for an 85-year-old engine.

rotarygod

The engines Mistral is using are older 13B's. They are not Renesis engines.

von Richtofen

Notice that the Mistral engines use a planetary reduction gearbox of 2.8235:1 rpm reduction, to optimise propellor efficiency. At 9000 rpm engine speed, that corresponds to ~3187 rpm final propellor speed.

Typical WW1 propellor rotational speeds were almost all under 1500 rpm.

One wonders if Mazda has done gearbox-reduction experimentation for an automotive application? Torque gains would be most welcome.

astrozoom

Not only does the engine have to be geared down for efficiency, but it is also for prop noise and the stress of turning a propeller at 9000 rpms would created way too much stress on the entire system. Much added stress equates to bulky parts, which means the parts would be heavier, which makes the overall aircraft heavier, and weight is a huge deal in aircraft design. Weight drives a large part of the design.