|
|
It is different because of the internal passages in their rotor where the air-fuel mixture and exhaust pass (on opposite sides). This allows them to have port timing that is very different than the ports on a Wankel. The net effect of this seems to be to allow for higher compression on the intake and more expansion on the exhaust. I don’t claim to understand the thermodynamic cycle explanations in terms of expected efficiencies, but they are definitely decoupling the intake and exhaust timing from the simple passing of apexes and/or rotor edges as in the Wankel.
It looks to me simply like an inside-out Wankel. The rotor has the inside
shape of the rotor housing, and the rotor housing is the inside shape of a
rotor. Everything else would be the same.
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 1:10 PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: New Rotary powerplant
The 13B's poor fuel burn, extremely hot exhaust and extremely loud
exhaust were all caused in large part by the unburned fuel in the quench areas
of the cylinder near the apex seals. It appears that
this engine is using direct injection into a recess in the
combustion chamber. The recess is practically spherical, minimizing
heat transfer to the metal in the body of the engine. The burn occurs
there, and then expands out into the larger chamber where there will be some
fresh air not pushed into the combustion chamber that will help burn any
remaining hydrocarbons and be expanded by the combustion heat as it waits for
the exhaust port to come around.
This
design will still have the same inter-chamber sealing issues that the 13B
has. It still has the same lubricating issues that the rotary has.
But, both are minor issues compared to that of fuel burn and exhaust problems
that are the bane of the Wankel. This could be very promising for
experimental aircraft use if they started producing larger models (for
generators perhaps).
|
|