Totally new type of IC engine.

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,967
Location
Memphis, TN
RCV model engines were selling this type in the early 2000s. I think 10cc and 20cc versions. They also had a version that wasn’t inline. They were always a little expensive and down on power. Still cool. There have been a number of inline piston model engines since the Aero35 from the early 60s.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,967
Location
Memphis, TN
I looked up RCV and the are using the regular vertical cylinder versions for drone and commercial small engines. So still in business.
 

HoHun

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2022
Messages
27
Location
Rhineview
Hi,

Very promissing:


It's certainly a very cute engine. Basically, it's a rotary valve engine which spins the cylinder around its own axis so it can use an integral cylinder with a valve-opening instead an "open-topped" one only closed by the rotary valve.

Generally, rotary, rotary valve and sleeve valve engines haven't fared so well with regard to emission control, because it's difficult to tailor the charge/discharge control.

But I'm not an expert ... it'll be interesting to see what this engine type will be used for.

Regards,

Henning (HoHun)
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
9,500
Location
Saline Michigan
Totally new? Harrumph! It still has long existing features of air cooling, pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, rotating valving, geared speed reduction, carburation, and ignition. These are OLD features.

What is new is this arrangement of the design features. If it indeed proves to make useable power while durable and lightwieght is yet to be seen. Those gears have to see ALL of the local firing torque, which means they will have to be sturdy indeed to be durable.

After making a 10 hp single work, how do we scale it up to a 200 hp airplane engine? This scheme packages a single compactly. Making 200 hp would mean making a 10 hp single 20 times bigger? First we would have to find a combination of piston diameter, crank stroke, and gearing to make the power within reasonable piston speeds and packaging. Then both fore-aft and rotational vibration of a system that big will be impressive and may be difficult to make propellors live through. I suspect serious vibe isolation will be needed both between engine and airframe and between engine and prop.

Does anyone see a way to build even a twin from this? How to scale it to a six?

Yeah, I am a skeptic, and have served on a couple Patent Committees in my career.

Billski
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
17,967
Location
Memphis, TN
So you have a RCV engine on the shelf and didn’t recognize it. Next you will walk outside and realize you own a real p-51. Memory isn’t what it use to be huh.
 

Sraight'nlevel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
461
So you have a RCV engine on the shelf and didn’t recognize it. Next you will walk outside and realize you own a real p-51. Memory isn’t what it use to be huh.
Yes apparently so...I once bought a whole model shop when it closed up...I have lotsa stuff there.
 

Sraight'nlevel

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 4, 2021
Messages
461
Totally new? Harrumph! It still has long existing features of air cooling, pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, rotating valving, geared speed reduction, carburation, and ignition. These are OLD features.

What is new is this arrangement of the design features. If it indeed proves to make useable power while durable and lightwieght is yet to be seen. Those gears have to see ALL of the local firing torque, which means they will have to be sturdy indeed to be durable.

After making a 10 hp single work, how do we scale it up to a 200 hp airplane engine? This scheme packages a single compactly. Making 200 hp would mean making a 10 hp single 20 times bigger? First we would have to find a combination of piston diameter, crank stroke, and gearing to make the power within reasonable piston speeds and packaging. Then both fore-aft and rotational vibration of a system that big will be impressive and may be difficult to make propellors live through. I suspect serious vibe isolation will be needed both between engine and airframe and between engine and prop.

Does anyone see a way to build even a twin from this? How to scale it to a six?

Yeah, I am a skeptic, and have served on a couple Patent Committees in my career.

Billski
I think it looks very neat packace.

Don't forget Hughes had 8 engines on H-4.

Jerries had 6 on one design.
 

Attachments

  • 1597362_original.jpg
    1597362_original.jpg
    26.6 KB · Views: 0

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
7,530
Totally new? Harrumph! It still has long existing features of air cooling, pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts, rotating valving, geared speed reduction, carburation, and ignition. These are OLD features.
New! Revolutionary! Improved! In new Cessnas next week!

Huh. I saw way too many such engines in the pages of Mechanix Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science and Science and Mechanics. They were great ways to sell magazines to gullible young folks like me. The one that we see now? The Wankel. It's the only one out of dozens of ideas.

For all of them, there were drawbacks that made them less practical than the old piston/cylinder/con rod/crankshaft idea that has been used in just about everything since the steam engine was invented in 1712. They get too complicated or have so much friction or have stuff that gets gummed up with carbon or are impossible to lubricate and cool well enough to survive.

Anything truly "new" needs to eliminate pistons and cylinders altogether, to eliminate reciprocating motion. That's what the Wankel did. That's what the turbine did. And it took many years of development to make those engines practical and efficient enough to displace piston engines.
 

BJC

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
15,918
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
Circa 1984, my neighbor offered me the opportunity to invest in a new, revolutionary, piston engine. Supposedly, it would increase the HP through a unique gearing arrangement. I told him that it would not do that, and invited him to explain the physics to me. He could not do it “with traditional physics”. I advised him not to invest, but he did anyway, and lost around $20,000. He firmly believed that the “big engine manufacturers” had kept the revolutionary engine from being produced.


BJC
 

Tom DM

Well-Known Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2022
Messages
320
Location
EBGB Grimbergen airfield (N of Brussels, Belgium)
New! Revolutionary! Improved! In new Cessnas next week!

Huh. I saw way too many such engines in the pages of Mechanix Illustrated, Popular Mechanics, Popular Science and Science and Mechanics. They were great ways to sell magazines to gullible young folks like me. The one that we see now? The Wankel. It's the only one out of dozens of ideas.

snip

Anything truly "new" needs to eliminate pistons and cylinders altogether, to eliminate reciprocating motion. That's what the Wankel did. That's what the turbine did. And it took many years of development to make those engines practical and efficient enough to displace piston engines.

Indeed and lets not forget all those engines either needing 1 l of fuel per 100 km or running on water.

Always liked the Wankel-engine though, not its fuel-burn nor its specific seals and exotic oils. My prof at uni said it this way: "The Wankel engine, Gentlemen, wankel!" (wankel in Flemish or Dutch means "not stable").

Strange how some stuff 35 years back stays fresh in memory while what I ate for lunch, is firmly forgotten by the evening.
 

Grelly

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2010
Messages
262
Location
Surrey, UK
I'm no engineer, but as someone with a 40HP single cylinder motorcycle, I'd think that a single cylinder engine producing 90+ HP is going to be a hell of a thumper. Hard on props?
 
Top