Interesting Engine

luvflyin

luvflyin

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
May 8, 2015
Messages
15,829
Location
Santa Barbara, CA
Display Name
Display name:
Luvflyin
Last edited:
A couple weeks ago I was looking at this drone, trying to figure out what kind of engine it was; I only had a few seconds, and failed to snap a pic of the engineIMG_2120.jpegIMG_2118.jpegIMG_2119.jpg. It reminded me of the general external outline of ‘yours’.
 
Reminiscent of the old DynaCam that was going to save aviation. The problem ended up being insufficient lubrication of the cam surfaces.
 
A commenter on that article says this:

Need efficiency specs. Also, I am not a drivetrain engineer, but this thing looks like it wouldnt hold up to high RPMs. I would assume the pistons would "catch air" or float over the output shaft humps with enough RPMs.

He has a point. The weight of the piston and "rod" will tend to float off the cam surface until the combustion pressure catches up with it, then it will it the cam hard. A high-RPM problem.
With eight cylinders in a low-mass engine, cooling becomes quite difficult. The Wankel had problems that way. At least 50 or 60% of the heat energy released from the fuel is waste heat and it has to go somewhere. Much goes out the exhaust, but the rest has to be carried away by coolant of some sort, and I'd like to know how they're managing that in that "new" design.

After six or seven decades of this sort of stuff, we older folks take a wait-and-see attitude:

1689532029307.png
https://www.macsmotorcitygarage.com/ramblers-forgotten-1964-rotary-engine/

...and it was different from the Wankel.


From 1950:
1689532093615.png

1961:

1689532186017.png

1975:
1689532287647.png
 
They are claiming 120(ish)hp. I wonder what the torque is?

I want one. Max the rpm to 2575 rpm, no high rpm float.
I'd try to fly behind it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top