Wankel Engine animation

[mocasvaldo]

What's the top revs for such engine ? cuz it looks like if it spins too fast the vibration would destroy it.

[mcsnowman11]

wow. people are calling these wanke's now? there called rotary engines.

[Snapeshit]

@mcsnowman11 they called them wankel because some guy named Wankel Made it,

[ntrnate]

awsome engine does it run off any other fuel yet

[FPAUTO]

they made a hydrogen rx8 as a proto.

[shinyfuzzy]

they tried diesel i think

[JUNIORROTAX55]

autodesk products are awesome

[flyweightnate]

Where a Wankel engine excels is endurance. The engine is smaller, lighter, and more robust for a similar power output, so while maintenance is expensive, it needs to be done less frequently. Look up the history of Wankel-powered LeMans vehicles. The weight advantage and inability to seize when overheated are ideal for such high-stress environments.

[theanswer00]

@flyweightnate What about fuel consuption? When the Mazda won at Le Mans, everybody was using very unefficient engines, but what about now? Would a Wankel powered prototype compete against a diesel one?

[flyweightnate]

I'm no 'expert' either, but those are issues, certainly. The tip seals are carbide, so they don't wear out, and the face seals actually last quite a while too, as they merely spin against the surfaces. The big issues with rebuilds is that, should the gearing wear or warp, the tip seals mutilate the chamber. Emissions are an issue due to moderate gas efficiency (30mpg is quite difficult to obtain) and a less-than-stellar compression ratio.

A standard piston engine is usually superior.

[jwrosenbury]

@flyweightnate Superior for what? Piston engines are better at some things like fuel efficiency (the Atkinson cycle is better still). Wankel rotaries are better at others things like power to weight ratio and softer failure modes (The engine doesn't seize as often). Choose the right engine for the job.

[flyweightnate]

Mazda RX7/ RX8 is proof of concept. The engine can handle over 3 times the total RPM as a reciprocating piston engine, and is readily balanced. Transmission durability becomes the primary issue, and lessened fuel efficiency.

[goofy775]

I would think emissions would be an issue as well trying to lubricate the seals.. end up burning oil like crazy or something.. I don't know much about these engines but just looking at it I feel like the seals would wear out quickly... are these false assumption or am i on the right track?

[SMGslimg00dy]

This is actually mis-led to some people. Yes the rx7/8 can do 7-9k RPM, but the engine doesn't actually spin that fast, when you say the rx8 goes to 9k RPM, the wankel engine is actually at 3k rpm. This is because the rx8 finishes 3 revolutions when a piston would finish 1 revolution. It takes more steps for the piston to complete 1 revolution. So when compred, the crankshaft spins faster to complete revolutions than the eccentric shaft because of the rotar design.

[RotangDan]

the revolutions taken is off the eccentric shaft on a rotary and the crankshaft off a piston engine so yes an rx8 at 9k rpm is making 9000 revolutions per minute from the shaft. so basically the rotor does the same job as the piston... spinning the shaft so just because the rotor itself may only be going 3000 rpm the eccentric shaft is still going 9000 rpm..... 9k rpm on a rotary IS 9k rpm

[nnovgorod4l]

Also the max RPM would be awful.... its just not efficient

[huze5]

have you not heard of the mazda rx-8? its a 1.3 litre rotary engine that produces 280 odd bhp from 3 cylinders. top speed near enough 150mph. and its not too fuel heavy. well it is 3 cylinder 1.3 litre like the yaris i have except my yaris has 4 cylinders and a top speed of 89mph.

[cipudakis]

ROTARY engine has ROTORS not cylinders

[huze5]

no, the rotors are replacements for the pistons. the cylinder is the cylindrical shaped thing that goes around the pistons/rotors.

[SMGslimg00dy]

I think you're comparison of cylinders and rotors are way off. You have to think how many revolutions a rotor has compared tone cylinder. That's three. A cylinder puts out energy once for every three times a rotor does. Because of that design, the Rx8 is NOT fuel efficient. And you can't say the rotary is 1.3 litlers when comparing to a piston because of its design.

[flyweightnate]

One 'rotor chamber' is the equivalent of three piston cylinders. There are three 4-cycle processes occurring in each 'chamber' at a time, so a 2-chamber engine behaves similarly to a 6-cylinder piston engine. A 3-chamber Wankel is equivalent to a 9-cylinder piston for power timing, and mileage is still in the 25mpg range on the RX8, which is a performance sports car.

[SMGslimg00dy]

For every 1 revolution on a piston, 3 revolutions pass on a rotary. So on a 2 rotar 6 revolutions would pass, to match that you would need a v6 engine. Which is why when compared to a piston, the rx8 is a 2.3 liter v6 engine. As for as fuel efficiency goes, I'm not so sure if its 25mpg, more like 18-22 mpg. The problem is compression, wankel doesn't compress air/fuel as well as piston. To help this, direct injection spray's air/fuel directly at the compression stage.

[FlyingSnake110]

@flyweightnate

There is common misunderstanding in wankel operation.

Although in one rotor has three chambers, ignition occurs ones per one crankshaft revolution. You can check this by looking carefully at any accurate Wankel engine animation, or movie showing how it works, where You can see how crankshaft is moving.

It still is superior to reciprocating piston engine in terms of vibration, max rpm and power to weight ratio.

[nnovgorod4l]

wow i don't see this lasting a long time... and still it could never match more conventional engines when it comes to balance. I just don't see it being a better idea then others.

[mattm63]

The rotary is a thing of beauty.

[txroyscock]

looks like the motor would shake around a bit

[ducatisti007]

i think the two rotors kinda spin at different revolutions so they counter each others motion to make it shake, if that makes any sense lol hard to explain with just text :) because these engines are extremely smooth compared to piston motors

[rwsmith29456]

They rotate in the same the same way and the same number of revolutions, but the rotors are mounted ' x ' number of degrees (depending on the number of rotors) apart so that they counter-balance one another.

[ducatisti007]

Thank you I'm horrible at explaining things lol

[tomcatfranks]

It's spinning the other way because it's British. (right-hand spin) just kiddin' :)

[MiciBhilli]

Isn't the output shaft rotating in the wrong direction?

[flyweightnate]

Yup, it is... the video got posted in reverse... and I don't feel like uploading the corrected one, cuz I'm lazy. At least I'm honest.

[MiciBhilli]

Thats alrite. Its just that that was the first time I saw a wankel engine working and it seemed to disagree with other videos so I got kind of confused. Good job otherwise though

[krankiev]

cool but it doesn't really show the combustion

[jtlovett27]

Couldnt you add another main hosuing plat then add another rotor housing then another front housing to create a four rotor?

[altspace1]

It has been done.

[12valvepower1]

mazda was one of the first to do four rotor wankel.. mazda 787b gtp car.. a legend in racing world..

[kisetsushin]

One of the first? Who are the others?

[12valvepower1]

all the little spec racers.. there was one before the 787b. also made by mazda.. 767b.

[humperfier]

how much was inventor?

[RatkoUSA]

Nice work.

[petrolheadjez]

Thats some pucca animation, i appreciate the time that it took, as i have no idea how to use inventor!!

[destinws2]

Looks sharp man. I'm just now learning how to animate in inventor. So far I've managed to do a decent explosion (my profile under "Engineer Eye Candy")

[rickaap]

what a strange concept that engine is

[v12revolver]

when i first saw this engine i thought the same thing. so take a muinite, look at it and youll get it

[elmelllo]

it took me a while to see how they got cumbustion.

[flyweightnate]

Honestly, final project in SolidEdge, and SolidEdge couldn't handle the constraints. So I rebuilt it in Inventor, which was about 3 hours, then animated it, which was 5 hours in tutorials and 3 hours of real work, and half a day rendering. I love Inventor.

[moskvalenin]

I think you need some work do do that animaton.Hi5 from a 3d Max fan:D

[ccederlo]

Nice animation!