|
Pratt & Whitney Rotary Engine Patents!!
Did you guys know Pratt and Whitney is working on rotary engines?? There are lots of recent (2010-2018) patents related to or mentioning wankel rotary engines.
They have patents for rotors, apex seals, intake and exhaust ports, direct injection with pilot chamber, compound setups (turbine connected to eccentric shaft), you name it! I just found out about it. P&W Wankel Engine Google Patents https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...599a08c03e.png |
|
Clean is the new cool, so let’s keep it that way.
|
There is an ongoing trickle of interest for rotaries for UAVs, potentially light piloted aircraft. They're a much better fit in aircraft than cars. When cruising at constant rpm for hours at a time, a rotary can be more fuel efficient than an equivalent aviation piston engine. More efficiency = more time on station.
Also no cats on airplanes so they can build it properly instead of compromising. The turbine idea is interesting, maybe in a ducted fan set up of some sort. The rotary is potentially compact enough to fit inside a duct, where a piston engine would look awkward. Especially if its a 3 or 4 rotor with a small frontal area. |
Important question:
*In Mighty Car Mods voice*Will this fit in my Mazda? |
Yes it will - check the Will It Fit thread soon. because "race car"
|
Loki, that's been an interest for a long time, like you said fuel economy, but more importantly power to weight ratio which is huge in aviation. The constant problem is reliability, there is no side of the road to pull over 5k feet in the air... You can glide, but only for so long. In aviation, reliability trumps cost/savings.
|
Originally Posted by boricua13
(Post 4852174)
Loki, that's been an interest for a long time, like you said fuel economy, but more importantly power to weight ratio which is huge in aviation. The constant problem is reliability, there is no side of the road to pull over 5k feet in the air... You can glide, but only for so long. In aviation, reliability trumps cost/savings.
Rotary is fairly reliable when properly maintained. If you want to talk about longevity, that might be another story, but given that these aviation engines usually run at constant load and speed, these engines may last longer than road rotary engines. I mean, if you think about where the whole "RX-8 is unreliable" comes from, it's mostly because of the shitty early ignition coils that don't last long. |
Originally Posted by boricua13
(Post 4852174)
Loki, that's been an interest for a long time, like you said fuel economy, but more importantly power to weight ratio which is huge in aviation. The constant problem is reliability, there is no side of the road to pull over 5k feet in the air... You can glide, but only for so long. In aviation, reliability trumps cost/savings.
|
Originally Posted by Loki
(Post 4852180)
Also if you lose a cylinder on a conventional engine, it's produces 0 power. If you lose compression in 1 rotor for some reason, the thing can keep turning with some productive output. No rods to throw and no timing to screw up.
Also, fewer moving parts. |
Originally Posted by UnknownJinX
(Post 4852177)
On the other hand, I'd imagine these aviation engines are a lot better maintained and checked than your Average Joe car owner who doesn't even know how to check engine oil level...
Rotary is fairly reliable when properly maintained. If you want to talk about longevity, that might be another story, but given that these aviation engines usually run at constant load and speed, these engines may last longer than road rotary engines. I mean, if you think about where the whole "RX-8 is unreliable" comes from, it's mostly because of the shitty early ignition coils that don't last long. |
Good points all round, the problem I think is that they will never be in commercially available planes dues to the high maintenance. While most private pilots are well verse and keep up with the maintenance, piston engines are relatively easier to maintain. All it takes is the one dumbass to not follow the maintenance and try to fake the logbooks to bring a mfg down with a lawsuit. Even jet engines are less complicated and easier to maintain, just a whole lot more expensive due to the mats used, specially the turbine blades. Then again, all it takes is a lead pencil to blow up a jet engine, lol
|
Whoa!
That opposing 4 rotor thing looks interesting. How would you arrange the intake ports in that case? Hope to see it operate. Hey according to the documents, P&W Canada is working on this... I'm looking at their Montreal facility out my window at this very moment. Time for some industrial espionage. |
Mazda has a similar opposing side engine but with side-ports and turbos!
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...e836422c5c.gif design eliminates siamesed ports https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...eda3e963ef.gif https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...9e67d68008.gif lower intake upper exhaust for one rotor https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...10e2a6d91a.gif upper intake lower exhaust for the other rotor https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...1cab6460b7.gif both rotors same orientation on the eccentric shaft |
Interesting how the side seals flex against/inside the corner seal to keep a 100% sealing without creating any binding....
|
There were rotary-engine powered aircraft back in the sixties and seventies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wankel...rcraft_engines |
Yes and now there are wankel powered UAVs, what surprised me about the PW patents is that they are recent, from 2010 and as recent as january 2018
|
Originally Posted by strokercharged95gt
(Post 4852329)
Interesting how the side seals flex against/inside the corner seal to keep a 100% sealing without creating any binding....
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:50 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands