rotary engine -- what's the name ??

Beladi Nasralla wrote:
> 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)

On Oct 24, 4:42 pm, "Ed Huntress" > wrote:
> "John S." > wrote in message
>
> ups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 24, 4:48 am, Beladi Nasralla > wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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- Hide quoted text -
>
> - 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 he
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/20...006-214342.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, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
> > 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.

On Oct 24, 4:57 pm, " > wrote:
> > The McMaster (wobble) motor website causes me to pause
>
> There's an article about it hehttp://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/20...006-214342.pdf
>
> I guess I'd like to see more about it if it is as promising as the
> 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.

John S. wrote:
> On Oct 24, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
>>> 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.

I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company
that currently manufactures a rotary engine
specifically for aviation use?

Jim Stewart wrote:
> John S. wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>>> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
> I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company
> that currently manufactures a rotary engine
> specifically for aviation use?

Among real companies a
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.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Oct 24, 3:57 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> John S. wrote:
> > On Oct 24, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
> >> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
> >>> 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.
>
> I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company
> 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

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:57:53 -0700, Jim Stewart >
wrote:

>John S. wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>>> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
>>>> 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.
>
>I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company
>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)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:14:07 -0400, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 14:57:53 -0700, Jim Stewart >
>wrote:
>
>>John S. wrote:
>>> On Oct 24, 4:45 pm, Jim Stewart > wrote:
>>>> Beladi Nasralla wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>I guess I wasn't clear. Is there a company
>>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)

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)

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com