Turbines so far have only been made of expensive materials whose cost
>can not be reduced
Ni-Cr alloy may cost 30 - 50 times more than>can not be reduced
steel or Al on a weight basis but the power
output of, say, a large turbo fan is 70 times
higher than reciprocating engines on a unit
weight basis.
With $400/ton steel the Ni-Cr in a GT engine
is now actually cheaper than the steel in a
reciprocating engine. Maybe a Wankel would
be cheaper than GT but not by much.
Anyway most of the cost of all engines is
labor -- that's why you see so few multi engine
motor vehicles -- so it is penny wise pound
foolish to spend too much time on material cost
and not on design.
and even then struggle to be efficient at part
>loads.
Turbo is DEFINITELY looking for heat>loads.
resistant materials but no engine is very
efficient at part load which is why series
hybrids or fuel cells will eventually take
over as gas reaches $20/gal.
Since Wankel is 1/4th the size and weight of
reciprocating it might do well in hybrids where
a lot of space and weight are devoted to
batteries.
What is the efficiency of a Wankel at optimum
rpm?
Besides the system could run on batteries to
a gas station in case of a coolant leak, which
I understand is a big disaster for Wankels.
As far as stationary power plants are
concerned GE has an industrial gas turbine
that is 60% efficient -- 50% higher than the best
steam power plants or diesel engines. It
weighs 100 tons and only runs at one rpm,
however.
Large aircraft engines -- 40% efficient, at
least at the one {wide open] speed they seem
to spend on 90% of the flight -- will remain
GT and even general aviation will eventually
go turbo because of its unparalleled reliability
and light weight.
Bret Cahill