A better rotary design?

[Jon Matcho]

This company was pointed out to me by another forum member. It's like a rotary, but different.

 

 

www.quasiturbine.com

 

Interesting concept, and some specific mention of use in aircraft.

[John DiStefano]

So....I'm "just another forum member"...Oh, I see

[Cazenave26]

An interesting concept. I do think there comments about their being no crankshaft are somewhat misleading. True, the design does not have a centerline crankshaft going through the engine, but they do have to connect the rotating assembly to the external pully to transfer power. So, instead of a solid shaft the rotating assmembly is connected by either multiple shafts or a conical flange to the rotating pulley on the outside of the housing.

 

At it's current state of development, it's probably 10-15 years away from being a viable powerplant option. (provided it actually works).

[Steve Innova]

To oversimplify it, it's basically a 4 cycle rotary vs. the 3 cycle Mazda/Wankel rotary.

 

I don't see any fundimental advantage, it might be a small amount smoother, but using 2 roters achieves that result anyway.

 

You still have the issues of excess surface area on the combustion chambers.

[Cazenave26]

Their big selling point relative to a three lobe Wankel is that there is no elliptical motion on a centerline crankshaft. The distance from the lobe connection points to the centerline of the engine is constant.

[Steve Innova]

Why's that a selling point? The eliptical motion drives a 3:1 shaft, increasing the engine torque.

[Jon Matcho]

So....I'm "just another forum member"...Oh, I see

Thought you might have wanted to be anonymous, but I'm sure I can think of another name for you if you'd like.

 

True, the design does not have a centerline crankshaft going through the engine, but they do have to connect the rotating assembly to the external pully to transfer power.

I was under the impression that the shaftless design was for pumping fluids, and that there IS a centerline crankshaft in their design for aircraft (or other applications requiring a crankshaft).

 

At it's current state of development, it's probably 10-15 years away from being a viable powerplant option. (provided it actually works).

That's probably a fair statement.

 

To oversimplify it, it's basically a 4 cycle rotary vs. the 3 cycle Mazda/Wankel rotary.

That is over simplified, since both engines are 4 cycle engines.

 

I don't see any fundimental advantage, it might be a small amount smoother, but using 2 roters achieves that result anyway.

Did you actually read the info. on their Web site? They make quite a few good points.

 

Their big selling point relative to a three lobe Wankel is that there is no elliptical motion on a centerline crankshaft. The distance from the lobe connection points to the centerline of the engine is constant.

Why's that a selling point? The eliptical motion drives a 3:1 shaft, increasing the engine torque.

Simplicity and reduced energy loss. Their goal is to be able to power a prop WITHOUT a reduction drive. That's a selling point.

 

I would cheer this company on, hope Mazda buys them, wins a ton of road races, and then releases as the Renesis 9. Alternatively, you can just say their idea sucks.