Are Rotary Engines Supposed to be Produced?

[Charles Wilson]

1. Sometimes I write things and it may appear as if I'm deprecating or downgrading the subject. 'Tis not my intention. I mentioned that the NSU 871 was developed and that few cared. Now, I know that many involved with the various Rotary Projects cared. Some have stated that "No one cared" about the RE-5. I cared. One of those motorcycles was MY bike for many years and it meant a lot to me. The 871 was a fine advance in many areas. You find a lot of that in the History of the Rotary.2. One of the Stories of the Rotary was the work of Curtiss-Wright. I mentioned Jan Norbye's book, The Wankel Engine, but you can find some truly stunning material about Curtiss-Wright in the SAE Papers. I mentioned Paper 770044 and there are others. A Search of SAE Papers at their Website will give a number of avenues to take if you are interested.3. Curtiss-Wright sold their interests in the Rotary to John Deere and work continued and in fact flourished. SAE Papers were produced, among them 871039 on Turbo-charged Stratified-Charge Rotary Engines, 890324 and a very fine summary of Stratified Charge Developments from 1984 to 1991 in 920310. Deere focused on Big Engines with Turbo-Charging, even Turbo-Compounding. They perfected the VERY elegant Pilot Injector - Main Injector Stratified Charge engine. Test Bed results for a particular engine: "...BSFCs better than .37 Lbs/BHP-hr (225 g/kW-h) in the peak torque region." "...this testing demonstrated that 500 HP/rotor is a reasonable next growth step."4. Deere sold their rights to a company named RPI, "Rotary Power International". http://rotarynews.com/node/view/461You'll find a few comments by Mr. NaiveOne there as well. What the Hell happened?5. The Line of development has made its way to Barger Tech, Ltd, in a small town in Ohio. Eric Barger now owns all of this work. This company is working hard to make an inroad somewhere. I certainly wish him and his company the best.6. On the Barger site are some interesting facts:"It is estimated that between the years 1958 and 1984, that Curtiss-Wright spent approximately $42,000,000 on the Research and Development of the Rotary Engine.""During the period 1984 to December 1991, Deere & Co. spent an estimated $70,000,000 on Research and development.""The USMC [[United States Marine Corps]] has had the rotary engine under development for approximately 15 years at an estimated cost of $113,800,000."Imagine the party Richard could throw if he had $113 MILLION DOLLARS!7. I remember reading a few articles in "The Engineer" back in the days when Norton was negotiating the License Fees for the Rotary (I can find'em, they're in the stacks...) and the sum was astronomical and absurdly small at the same time, considering the cash that has been thrown around since. I would like to tell the tale of the finances here but I would rather defer to someone who knows better.8. Curtiss-Wright produced no products other than a Mustang with an RC2-60 motor - and a speedboat. Deere produced one tractor to see if would plow a field and it did. I exagerate, but not by much. RPI produced nothing and had its Cash-Cow dry up, probably intentionally. Norton came into being as a Debt-Device and LeRoux...well, others should tell this tale. Then there's M_dl_nds Bank and asset stripping.9. Read that again: "...an estimated cost of $113,800,000". Clearly, I did everything wrong. I was in the wrong business at the wrong time. Lordy! 113 Mill ! Now, I haven't mentioned anyone else here and the Good Work that they did. There was NSU itself. They worked on the 871 and got to the threshold of Direct Injection. Some of this work appears to be carried on with a company named Wankel SuperTec. I don't know how much money the German gov't has invested in this company.This ain't walkin' aroun' money. All of this and no products.10. A final note here. You could find out about the NSU 871 by ordering the SAE Paper and maybe you should. If you want a free copy, you can find it athttp://ntrs.larc.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790007790&qs=N%3D4294966387%2B4294956368%2B4294962789%26No%3D20 .It's "free" because the written work of NSU was appropriated by NASA-Lewis or another Acronym Agency and had to be included in the Final Report. It's OK. My taxes went for a good cause. I just never got consulted about whether my taxes should have been spent there. The question, however, should be asked:Are Rotary Engines Supposed to be Produced?CW

[FloridaMike]

I've been following the "progress" of rotary engines since the early 1980s.I remember buying an RX-7 engine out of a junkyard specifically to take it apart and see what was inside of it. My W2000 arrived in several boxes, it is now back together. I have Norbye's book and some other literature.In my opinion, the Wankel engine is never going to be a mainstream engine. This is a shame, because it really does have a lot of advantages as well as a "wow, that's neat!" factor.Here's what I see: We are looking at the beginning of the end of the reciprocating gasoline and diesel engines. Electric vehicles are coming, and within ten to fifteen years, they'll be FAR superior to IC engines of all types, not just Wankels. Our Wankel engined vehicles will be a "seemed like a good idea at the time" footnote, even thought they really WERE a good idea at the time.In addition to all the money and development effort you detail in your excellent e-mail above, Russia and (to a lesser extent) China have been working on Wankels for some years. The Chinese Wankel engines are found in a military vehicle (six wheels, I think) and in some "attack speedboats". They have not been notably successful, and their original goal was to have an "all fuel" vehicle which would run on anything you poured into the tank.Russia's Wankel story is a bit more complex. VAZ automobiles built some two and three rotor Wankels, and a few thousand of them found their way into police vehicles. Again, the ability to run on low octane fuel was a major consideration. VAZ also built some prototype two and three rotor aircraft engines which at one time I was trying to buy to import into the US.VAZ wasn't very cooperative (to say the least) and the last communication I had from them was "You need to buy 10,000 engines, full payment in advance, delivery when (or if) we get around to making them." Game over . . .Other than the upcoming trend away from IC engines, there were and are a number of other factors which did and do ensure that our Wankels won't be humming merrily along in millions of vehicles.First, the reciprocating IC engine is well understood, everyone already knows how to make them and has all the tooling, supplies, engineering, etc., it is a WELL established and VERY mature technology. There is a tremendous amount of "engineering inertia" and "not invented here" syndrome at work here. Piston engines are also very cheap to make and quite durable, often lasting 200,000 miles with no attention other than oil changes every 7,500 miles and spark plugs every 100K or so - try that plug change interval with a Wankel.Wankels don't last 200K miles without major service, and unless some super-duper edge and tip seal material is invented or discovered, aren't going to. Wankels are also comparatively thirsty, and nowadays, that is the absolute kiss of death for motor vehicle engines. Wankels also require all the normal and usual add-ons and accessories used in a piston engine, such as water pumps, radiators (obviously not with air cooled Wankels), mufflers, catalytic converters, a clutch and transmission, fuel pump, injectors, fuel tank, ECU and so forth.While the Wankel is a far superior idea, when taken in context with all the parts it uses which are identical to a regular piston engine vehicle, the whole package is an incremental improvement, not a revolutionary one (no pun intended).Electric vehicles dispense with 90% of these parts, and what you don't have doesn't break. Another consideration is that the electric vehicles currently on the market have a phenomenally high customer satisfaction rating. Just about everyone who has one loves it, and would not even consider going back to an IC powered car.No major vehicle manufacturer is willing to spend lots of time and vast piles of money developing something which is only incrementally better than what they have now when there is potentially game-changing technology coming in the near future. Even without the immanent arrival of electric vehicles, the Wankel simply doesn't offer sufficient advantages to replace the reciprocating piston engine in mass-market vehicles.There are going to be niche markets for the Wankel engine, such as drone powerplants (service life measured in hours), some are being used as LP-gas powered pumping stations (service life measured in decades, but weight measured in tons), and someone figured out a butane powered micro-Wankel which runs a generator to charge a cell phone. There's also the elegant little Graupner model airplane Wankel engine, but it is expensive.We're going to be unique. So be it.Best Regards,FloridaMike

[Charles Wilson]

FloridaMike-Thank you for your kind words."Russia and (to a lesser extent) China have been working on Wankels for some years..."http://thevintagent.blogspot.com/2011/1 ... s.htmlPart of my frustration has been that, although there are always military applications, I would have liked to have had a personal choice in the matter. There was a lot of /sarc in my statement above about spending my tax dollars for a "good cause". Let me decide if I want $113 million spent on a new set of Department of Defense Toys. "Oh!. But Charlie, that money was spent on Rotary Engines!" I'll keep my share in my pocket, thank you.This is what is interesting in Norton history. Norton sold bikes to the Policia. The results provided a spring board to "Civilian Production" (Blessed Phrase...). There were a precious few moments when survival came oh-so-close! In this mixed political "Market", however, the Pols made too many of the decisions. "Think of what might have happened if Norton had produced this bike ten years [prior to this introduction of the Classic]", a bike mag wrote. I did think about it. I pestered everyone I knew about it and some people I didn't know.I've owned a 2nd generation RX-7 and, for the short time I was in freezing Wyoming, it cranked 100% of the time while other's cars froze. I have approximately 1 1/2 KKM-3 lawnmower engines. I was given a choice to buy an RE-5 and I bought one. Never a regret, not one.Years ago, you could buy an RD-350, Kawasaki H-500 triple (an evil bike...) or some CB-329.5 for what a payment or two for one of today's bikes costs today. The days of major re-designs of today's bikes every year are in the rear view mirror but the costs for The Winner! of the modern design (Transverse four cylinder, 600 cc, DOHC, etc., etc.) are still high. "Why buy a motorcycle today anyway"?J B say stated:"[A] product is no sooner created than it, from that instant, affords a market for other products to the full extent of its own value. … Thus the mere circumstance of creation of one product immediately opens a vent for other products."I'm not much of a producer these days but I would have loved to have met in the Marketplace with my accumulated value to, as Milton Friedman used to say, "take my profit in pleasure". On a Norton. Rotary. I know the Rotary will always an odd thing to most but I had no use for a manufactured-only-once single speedboat, or a single Mustang with a special engine dropped in it or a single tractor powered by a rotary. Or a Drone or armored Personnel Carrier for that fact. My choice at the time was the RE-5. With my $12 dollar, welded single pipe, fabricated SuperTrapp overworked muffler, I berserked it for years.Key words: "My Choice".CW