rotary engine -- what's the name ??

You can use made up words all you want to, but the rest of the world calls the Wankel a "rotary" with an "a", not the "o" that you are trying to sell. Who knows, maybe you'll succeed. I doubt it though--the words sound so much alike that unless you deliberately exaggerate the difference--call it a roTOry engine vs a ROtary engine--nobody is going to notice the difference in conversation.

It's kind of moot to anybody but historians anyway.

There are lots of engines made currently that could qualify as a rotary if the definition is stretched to mean an engine with rotating rather than reciprocating parts. The Wankel-based designs and numerous turbines would qualify under that over-expanded definition.

The more traditional definition of a rotary engine is one that allows the cylinders to rotate as the pistons reciprocate. Using that definition the Wankel Rotary really operates more like an aircraft radial.

I'm not aware of anyone manufacturing a rotary engine in the old sense of the definition. I'm sure there are hobbyists that have crafted one- of scaled models however.

Actually, you can buy new production working 1/4 scale Gnome rotaries for about 4,000 bucks.

Interesting website, thanks for providing it. I guess that would make the new Rhone a limited production hobbyist motor. Do you happen to know if that spinning midget is being used to power something?

"gnome engine replica" brings it up as the first hit.

And yes, it is being used to power among other things a 1/4 scale Eindecker. And it's "limited production" but it's not "one off". The company that makes it picks an engine, makes a hundred of them, sells them, and makes a hundred more of something else. They've done, among others, the OX-5 and the Harley Shovelhead.

Replica and restored original engines are fascinating. Good to read that the Rhone is actually being used and not just displayed. So when the Eindecker is landed can the engine be switched on and off to cut power as with the original?

At the other end of the technology scale I've seen several replicas and restorations of the Hit and Miss engines used in agriculture and other applications several decades back.

I've flown an ultralight with a Rotax 503

That's a Gnome, not a LeRhone. And apparently the engine is as exact as they can make it, so yes, that's how it would have to work.

It's hard riding in the ones where the propellor is stationary and the fuselage is rotating at 6,000 RPM. I always spill my beer.

Yeah. I remember when they were talking about putting in the expense and effort to get tires to last more than ten thousand miles.

Interesting! How many horses does the Mazda 13-B put out? I like their engineering. (We have had two Ford Festivas for an aggregate of 300K miles with way low maintenance issues)

Brian W

Depends on the version--typical estimates are around 185 in aircraft trim without turbos. With turbos over 250.

After all these years, I learn something new. That's cool. (Although, whenever I need to convert, the accuracy I need is either, "a bit more than a yard," or out to at least three decimal places.)

Yup - my mistake in engine name.

Now that sounds useful: a 2 even 4 seat light single could do well with this. I guess it needs a PRSU? They can be pricey too, I see. Any thoughts?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

Dear Turby:

David A. Smith

That's what's so spiffy about this. It's quick and easy to figure that three meters is 9'10-1/8" and you're off (high) by 0.015". You expended no more effort than the "bit more than a yard" estimate and got accuracy to two decimal places in a jiff, and better than five if you subtract out the 0.015".

Specifically, a meter is 39.37007874" and my measure is 39.375".

Actually, the meter is *both* 39.37 exactly (US Survey foot) and the number you cite. Go figure.

David A. Smith