@@sandervanderkammen9230 sorry maybe my english is not good enough - I just want to defend anybody who has enough knowledge and passion to understand the advantages of the rotary engine and chooses to build and bolt one to their airplane. I did it am open to any question. I don't want to offend anyone, I have flown behind and between lycomings for decades and like them, but had to go a different path for my experimental due to noise restrictions in germany. It was a long and interesting time to do the conversion and I do not regret it. My engine has 180 hp, takes 35l/h automotive fuel and is significantly more silent than a lycoming with the prop turning only 1970rpm in cruise. It has a redundant double ignition and the german FAA grants me a flight permit that lets me fly throughout europe. There are my wankels flying worldwide with single rotor engines certified by the easa in touring motor gliders. I do not want to convince anybody to do the same or like what I do, but prefer not to be treated like a idiot if you don't mind.
@@THESLlCK A new Cessna 172 costs around $400,000 USD... 100k won't buy you shit.... maybe just enough shit to get you off the ground, and take you to the scene of your fatal crash!!!! That is my point.
you are a retard then. during the 1991 le mans that mazda won, 38 cars in total were in the race. of the 38 cars, only 12 didn't break down. 0 of the rotary cars broke down. 24 hours of le mans is just about the most grueling race in existence. all 3 finished and of course, won. rotary engines are very reliable if done correctly.
@@WilhelmKarsten I wouldnt say epic fail, it had about 1/1000000th the cost in RND, and still did well. Its not like rotaries arent fast or can't be made fast. What a stupid claim that would be.
@@c0rpse1 *The Mazda 787B lost every single race bar one fluke win because of a massive crash earlier in the race, it never scored a single pole position or fastest race lap time.* *Mazda lost the 1990 World Sports Car Championship to Mercedes-Benz and lost the 1991 title to Jaguar.* *Wankel engines have proven to be inferior to reciprocating piston engines in motorsports competition and are too unreliable for aircraft or endurance racing.* *Even Mazda admitted defeat and has left racing completely, they no longer have any factory motorsports program.*
This is from the dark ages of aviation... when people still believed that the Wankel engine was suitable for aircraft... thankfully we know better today.
Really neat seeing this. Honestly if I owned a EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft, this would be a cool option. But my favorite part was reading the replies doktorbimmer has done. I hope he replies to this with and incel response about the FAA, and EASA like he actually has a real world use for them. Probably flies the zibo 737 mod every day into KLAX everyday wishing to do it in real life.
@@doktorbimmer they are not used in production aircraft because they are hard to keep cool. They are more reliable when cooled properly BUT its damned near impossible to cool them properly in an airplane. you cant build a plane with a face full of radiator. Should a rotary engine fail most of the time the other half of the engine (housing) is still functioning.. you can also run them leaner than a normal piston engine but again HEAT
@Biscuit112 DT *Wankel engines have never been used in production aircraft... because there are no Wankel engines that meet the minimum PFTR for either FAA or EASA airworthiness certification.* *Not true, cooling is not a significant issue and is not the primary failure mode, The Wankel engine is inherently less reliable because of its very poor combustion and ignition efficiency and its incredibly weak and failure prone sealing system.*
@Biscuit112 DT *Again not true, the Wankel engine has very poor combustion and ignition characteristics and as a direct result suffer from higher incidence of seal failures due to pre-ignition, detonation and miss-fires. Wankel engines need to run **_Rich of Peak_** to run reliably and running the engine **_Lean of Peak_** can cause them to self-destruct very quickly.* *Wankel engines have higher EGTs because they have a much lower Carnot Cycle efficiency and very high BSFCs than comparable reciprocating engines, less of the air-fuel charge is converted into heat in the combustion chamber and is rejected as waste heat into the exhaust and cooling system, the Wankel is also less thermodynamic and mechanically efficient causing higher heat rejection and less energy converted into rotational energy to the propeller.*
There is not a single type rated passenger aircraft manufactured with a Wankel engine. Please stop spreading your lies and false information about Wankel engines
@@MrZnarffy Losing an apex seal on takeoff is just as bad as losing a cylinder... and apex seal failures are far more common. This is exactly why not one single type-rated passenger aircraft in the world has a Wankel engine. Wankel aircraft engines are not just dangerous they are a monumentally dumb idea.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are totally wrong..yes a 2 rotor wankel is a dumb idea, you lose half the power.. But a 4 one is not... A lypical aircraft piston engine though is extremely dumb.. aircooled, 50's tech, quite often fail, reliability is a joke compared to a modern toyota engine. Reliability on normal car engine conversion is better than "real" aircraft engine... Compare to a modern bike engine..I had a 1986 honda bike.. Dry sump, water cooled, electronic ignition,4 valves and dual overhead camshafts, fuel injected... Thats over 30 years ago.. Anyway, if I would get a plane,first thing I'd do is getting a custom engine shop build me a high performance billet rotor engine and replace the shit plane engine. It would still be cheaper and better...
@@eduardgenardandalis1437 If this is the same plane? Crashed near Adelaide Australia killing all on-board, pilot reported loss of engine power shortly after take-off. ATSB investigation uncovered evidence of mechanical engine failure, several apex seals were found to have severe damage and engine was not running when it impacted the ground.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 For ordinary use, yeah, but rotors have an unchallenged epicness and high output for racing, including setting ttc records in the aviation world. Also your opinion goes back years as I can tell, so maybe I should quit the arguing
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are *WRONG*. Rotaries are this this this and have never met FAA reliability standards. You are gay and they don't work in aircraft. Anything you say probes your stupidity and will be shouted down in the harshest of terms. You should stick to staying in bed and so too should all Rotaries risking you life to fly one... Ok and???? Anything else to add on?????
@@josephc.9520 And you sir are an epic idiot... Wankel engines are obsolete in racing and were never used in certified passenger aircraft because they are too unreliable.
@@josephc.9520 Angry little internet trolls like ypu do not intimate me. Stop being a fragile little snowflake, grow some balls and learn to accept the truth.. Stay in school, someday you might learn something about engineering.
I would rather have a Lycoming at TBO than a Mazda engine . If these were so great there would be hundreds of conversions instead of a couple of dozen that alone should tell you something .
*The Lycoming is also certified flightworthy rated engine by the FAA, there are no Wankel engines reliable enough to receive airworthiness certification by the FAA or the EASA.*
@Milo B. *Wankel engines are inherently unreliable, regardless of urban myths that the very high failure rate is related to maintenance, this myth was dispelled by the NHTSA. More reliable than a Lycoming engine??? That is a false claim you cannot prove because it is not true.*
@Milo B *Dubious personal anecdotes aside.. You are clearly not experienced or educated enough to speak intelligently on this topic. The Wankel KKM engine design was extensively developed for aircraft applications and proved to be an epic failure, reliability and service life being the fatal flaw in the basic fundamental concept along with a long list of serious disadvantages and no advantages over the well-proven reciprocating and gas turbine engine technology that dominates the aviation industry.*
@Milo B *Then why did you make spurious and unqualified claims that the Wankel engine was reliable???* *Are you serious? Are you really so unfamiliar with the Wankel KKM design you need to google it??? Are you really that confused and bewildered that you are unclear what type of engine we are discussing here???* *Maybe you should reconsider posting comments which do not hold up under scrutiny and expose yourself a novice amateur... this allows anyone to point out your egregious errors and makes you look rather foolish to say the least.*
@@doktorbimmer Incorrect. (Wikipedia) In principle, Wankel engines are ideal for light aircraft, being light, compact, almost vibrationless, and with a high power-to-weight ratio. Further aviation benefits of a Wankel engine include: Rotors cannot seize, since rotor casings expand greater than rotors; The engine is less prone to the serious condition known as "engine-knock", which can destroy a plane's piston engines in mid-flight. The engine is not susceptible to "shock-cooling" during descent; The engine does not require an enriched mixture for cooling at high power; Having no reciprocating parts, there is less vulnerability to damage when the engine revolves at a higher rate than the designed maximum. The limit to the revolutions is the strength of the main bearings. Unlike cars and motorcycles, a Wankel aero-engine will be sufficiently warm before full power is asked of it because of the time taken for pre-flight checks. A Wankel aero-engine spends most of its operational time at high power outputs, with little idling. This makes ideal the use of peripheral ports. An advantage is that modular engines with more than two rotors are feasible. If icing of any intake tracts is an issue, there is plenty of waste engine heat available to prevent icing. See also: www.kit-plane-advice.com/rotary-engine.html deankmiller.com/mazda-rotary-aircraft-engine/
@@sandervanderkammen9230 That reason has more to do with not enough manufacturers trying to make the engines. In the racing world, rotary's are some of the most reliable engines and have NUMBERUOS victory's to back up that reliability. When I build a kit plane, rotary is what I'm using as I have 30+yrs experience around. If you blow a seal, they still have power which something you really can't say for piston with too many moving parts that can fail.
You not breaking ANY seals with the new seal tech and billet housings (especially on a NA engine). Please update your research because you're wayyy behind on rotary knowledge.
@@rotaryperfection there is a reason why mazda discontinued the rotary there super unreliable and get terrible gas mileage if you have to dump money into a rotary just to get it fly worthy you might as well save money and go with an ls3 or even a k24
good old can of startyabastard..............
works everytime!
If it didnt start using startyabastard, theres always the For-christ-sake-come-on
Hell yeah! Love seeing my two passions together, aviation and rotary engines! Great job gentlemen
This is clearly not a Rotary engine.... it's a Wankel engine that is too unreliable for aircraft applications.
Congratulation ! Flying a13B myself and love it ! Unfortunately many people have no idea about Wankels but love so much to talk about it 😎
@@sandervanderkammen9230 ua-cam.com/video/lddkANjH0uI/v-deo.html
🤣🤣🤣
@@sandervanderkammen9230 what point ? Did I miss something here ?
@@sandervanderkammen9230 sorry maybe my english is not good enough - I just want to defend anybody who has enough knowledge and passion to understand the advantages of the rotary engine and chooses to build and bolt one to their airplane. I did it am open to any question. I don't want to offend anyone, I have flown behind and between lycomings for decades and like them, but had to go a different path for my experimental due to noise restrictions in germany. It was a long and interesting time to do the conversion and I do not regret it. My engine has 180 hp, takes 35l/h automotive fuel and is significantly more silent than a lycoming with the prop turning only 1970rpm in cruise. It has a redundant double ignition and the german FAA grants me a flight permit that lets me fly throughout europe. There are my wankels flying worldwide with single rotor engines certified by the easa in touring motor gliders. I do not want to convince anybody to do the same or like what I do, but prefer not to be treated like a idiot if you don't mind.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 thank you for your answer - have a good night Sir !
Another fatal crash involving a Mazda engine this week..
Now youve got the power to weight ratio that nothing else can touch. Well Done!
Nothing can match the power to weight of a gas turbine... or their reliability.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 you got 100k I could borrow??
@@THESLlCK $100k won't buy you a turboprop... not even close.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 my point exactly
@@THESLlCK A new Cessna 172 costs around $400,000 USD... 100k won't buy you shit.... maybe just enough shit to get you off the ground, and take you to the scene of your fatal crash!!!! That is my point.
That's one way to sweep the hangar
I didn’t understand this comment until he started it lmao
I think that is one plane I wouldn't trust my life in.
Props for living life on the edge though.
you are a retard then. during the 1991 le mans that mazda won, 38 cars in total were in the race. of the 38 cars, only 12 didn't break down. 0 of the rotary cars broke down. 24 hours of le mans is just about the most grueling race in existence. all 3 finished and of course, won. rotary engines are very reliable if done correctly.
🤦♂
@@c0rpse1*You silly rotard, Mazda's 878b was an epic failure and they never won a single world championship title!!!.*
@@WilhelmKarsten I wouldnt say epic fail, it had about 1/1000000th the cost in RND, and still did well. Its not like rotaries arent fast or can't be made fast. What a stupid claim that would be.
@@c0rpse1 *The Mazda 787B lost every single race bar one fluke win because of a massive crash earlier in the race, it never scored a single pole position or fastest race lap time.*
*Mazda lost the 1990 World Sports Car Championship to Mercedes-Benz and lost the 1991 title to Jaguar.*
*Wankel engines have proven to be inferior to reciprocating piston engines in motorsports competition and are too unreliable for aircraft or endurance racing.*
*Even Mazda admitted defeat and has left racing completely, they no longer have any factory motorsports program.*
You absolute madlad. You rotary swapped a FUCKING PLANE.
*Some people just want to ruin a perfectly good plane...*
Horray for the Ether Bunny!!
Looks like a Prince Prop!
This is from the dark ages of aviation... when people still believed that the Wankel engine was suitable for aircraft... thankfully we know better today.
So is their a oil fill inside the cabin ?
*No, but there is plenty of spare parachutes.*
You can still fly with a cylinder or two down but you can't fly with a rotor down.
This is what I'd like to be doing at 65!
Wasting your retirement money on engines that are unreliable and unsuitable for aircraft?
CLEAR PROP!!!!! Are you guys for real?
Really neat seeing this. Honestly if I owned a EXPERIMENTAL Aircraft, this would be a cool option. But my favorite part was reading the replies doktorbimmer
has done. I hope he replies to this with and incel response about the FAA, and EASA like he actually has a real world use for them. Probably flies the zibo 737 mod every day into KLAX everyday wishing to do it in real life.
Sounds like you got schooled by the dok...
Nah. But you got his burner account lol
@@Michaelation08 John Burns is that you???
Another fatal crash involving a Mazda engine this week. R.I.P.
Awesome! Your power to weight ratio must be insanely great. How fast can you go from ground to 10,000 ft?
*Wankel engines are not used in production aircraft because they are too unreliable and consume way too much fuel.*
@@doktorbimmer they are not used in production aircraft because they are hard to keep cool. They are more reliable when cooled properly BUT its damned near impossible to cool them properly in an airplane. you cant build a plane with a face full of radiator. Should a rotary engine fail most of the time the other half of the engine (housing) is still functioning.. you can also run them leaner than a normal piston engine but again HEAT
@Chet Carson *Childish insults won't prove your point (if you had one) and don't make you look very smart either.*
@Biscuit112 DT *Wankel engines have never been used in production aircraft... because there are no Wankel engines that meet the minimum PFTR for either FAA or EASA airworthiness certification.*
*Not true, cooling is not a significant issue and is not the primary failure mode, The Wankel engine is inherently less reliable because of its very poor combustion and ignition efficiency and its incredibly weak and failure prone sealing system.*
@Biscuit112 DT *Again not true, the Wankel engine has very poor combustion and ignition characteristics and as a direct result suffer from higher incidence of seal failures due to pre-ignition, detonation and miss-fires. Wankel engines need to run **_Rich of Peak_** to run reliably and running the engine **_Lean of Peak_** can cause them to self-destruct very quickly.*
*Wankel engines have higher EGTs because they have a much lower Carnot Cycle efficiency and very high BSFCs than comparable reciprocating engines, less of the air-fuel charge is converted into heat in the combustion chamber and is rejected as waste heat into the exhaust and cooling system, the Wankel is also less thermodynamic and mechanically efficient causing higher heat rejection and less energy converted into rotational energy to the propeller.*
I would not have given that motor shot of ether .
*I would not have put the most unreliable type of automotive engine in a plane...*
Fanliner and Fantrainer both production planes with rotary engines for all the confusion of people saying they haven’t been used in planes
Sorry Bobby, that is a bald faced lie.
The RFB Fanliner never entered production
The RFB Fantrainer is powered by a Allison 250 gas turbine engine.
There is not a single type rated passenger aircraft manufactured with a Wankel engine.
Please stop spreading your lies and false information about Wankel engines
I'm not aware of an certified passenger aircraft that used a Wankel engine
No production aircraft have ever used a Wankel engine... Wankel engines cannot pass airworthiness certification
only thing worse would be a 13b in a boat... ohh wait
Why delay in prop when starting and stopping??? Gear reduction??
Scotty Jones i too wondered the same
Video and audio is out of sync
Did it ever fly? If yes how many hours? Is it still flying? What kind of performance, speed, fuel burn, ROC.... Thanks.
Most of these Mazda conversations are quickly converted back to Continental or Lycoming power... if they didn't crash first.
How is your project?
It's all fun and games until it spits an apex seal at you at 10,000 feet lmao
Tom Parkes lost an apex seal on takeoff... horrible crash.
There is a good reason why there are no type-rated aircraft with a Wankel engine.
Better spit a seal than throw a rod out your crankcase..which real plane engines do at times.. rotaries tend to keep sorta running at least..
@@MrZnarffy Losing an apex seal on takeoff is just as bad as losing a cylinder... and apex seal failures are far more common.
This is exactly why not one single type-rated passenger aircraft in the world has a Wankel engine.
Wankel aircraft engines are not just dangerous they are a monumentally dumb idea.
@@MrZnarffy Wankel engines remain running... all the way to the crash site.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are totally wrong..yes a 2 rotor wankel is a dumb idea, you lose half the power.. But a 4 one is not...
A lypical aircraft piston engine though is extremely dumb.. aircooled, 50's tech, quite often fail, reliability is a joke compared to a modern toyota engine. Reliability on normal car engine conversion is better than "real" aircraft engine... Compare to a modern bike engine..I had a 1986 honda bike.. Dry sump, water cooled, electronic ignition,4 valves and dual overhead camshafts, fuel injected... Thats over 30 years ago..
Anyway, if I would get a plane,first thing I'd do is getting a custom engine shop build me a high performance billet rotor engine and replace the shit plane engine. It would still be cheaper and better...
Any video flying?🙂
Not since the crash...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 Do you have any sources about the crash (news,NTSB investigations, etc.)?
@@eduardgenardandalis1437 If this is the same plane? Crashed near Adelaide Australia killing all on-board, pilot reported loss of engine power shortly after take-off. ATSB investigation uncovered evidence of mechanical engine failure, several apex seals were found to have severe damage and engine was not running when it impacted the ground.
Y didn't U yell "CLEAR PROP"?
It's not clear, it's black.
This is epic 😂😂😂
Epic mistake...
@@sandervanderkammen9230 For ordinary use, yeah, but rotors have an unchallenged epicness and high output for racing, including setting ttc records in the aviation world. Also your opinion goes back years as I can tell, so maybe I should quit the arguing
@@sandervanderkammen9230 You are *WRONG*. Rotaries are this this this and have never met FAA reliability standards. You are gay and they don't work in aircraft. Anything you say probes your stupidity and will be shouted down in the harshest of terms. You should stick to staying in bed and so too should all Rotaries risking you life to fly one...
Ok and???? Anything else to add on?????
@@josephc.9520 And you sir are an epic idiot... Wankel engines are obsolete in racing and were never used in certified passenger aircraft because they are too unreliable.
@@josephc.9520 Angry little internet trolls like ypu do not intimate me.
Stop being a fragile little snowflake, grow some balls and learn to accept the truth..
Stay in school, someday you might learn something about engineering.
I would rather have a Lycoming at TBO than a Mazda engine . If these were so great there would be hundreds of conversions instead of a couple of dozen that alone should tell you something .
*The Lycoming is also certified flightworthy rated engine by the FAA, there are no Wankel engines reliable enough to receive airworthiness certification by the FAA or the EASA.*
@Milo B. *Wankel engines are inherently unreliable, regardless of urban myths that the very high failure rate is related to maintenance, this myth was dispelled by the NHTSA. More reliable than a Lycoming engine??? That is a false claim you cannot prove because it is not true.*
@Milo B *Then why are there no FAA or EASA certified flightworthy engines available???*
@Milo B *Dubious personal anecdotes aside.. You are clearly not experienced or educated enough to speak intelligently on this topic. The Wankel KKM engine design was extensively developed for aircraft applications and proved to be an epic failure, reliability and service life being the fatal flaw in the basic fundamental concept along with a long list of serious disadvantages and no advantages over the well-proven reciprocating and gas turbine engine technology that dominates the aviation industry.*
@Milo B *Then why did you make spurious and unqualified claims that the Wankel engine was reliable???*
*Are you serious? Are you really so unfamiliar with the Wankel KKM design you need to google it??? Are you really that confused and bewildered that you are unclear what type of engine we are discussing here???*
*Maybe you should reconsider posting comments which do not hold up under scrutiny and expose yourself a novice amateur... this allows anyone to point out your egregious errors and makes you look rather foolish to say the least.*
Ancien diesel motor I suppose!?
*Obsolete Mazda Wankel engine, poor choice for an aircraft engine.*
doktorbimmer yes... not reliable. futhermore, spark plugs die every time. Hope you'll find the good engine. Great respect for your job...
@@franckguire2807 Mazda is not a brand known for reliability or aircraft engines.
@@doktorbimmer Incorrect.
(Wikipedia)
In principle, Wankel engines are ideal for light aircraft, being light, compact, almost vibrationless, and with a high power-to-weight ratio. Further aviation benefits of a Wankel engine include:
Rotors cannot seize, since rotor casings expand greater than rotors;
The engine is less prone to the serious condition known as "engine-knock", which can destroy a plane's piston engines in mid-flight.
The engine is not susceptible to "shock-cooling" during descent;
The engine does not require an enriched mixture for cooling at high power;
Having no reciprocating parts, there is less vulnerability to damage when the engine revolves at a higher rate than the designed maximum. The limit to the revolutions is the strength of the main bearings.
Unlike cars and motorcycles, a Wankel aero-engine will be sufficiently warm before full power is asked of it because of the time taken for pre-flight checks. A Wankel aero-engine spends most of its operational time at high power outputs, with little idling. This makes ideal the use of peripheral ports. An advantage is that modular engines with more than two rotors are feasible. If icing of any intake tracts is an issue, there is plenty of waste engine heat available to prevent icing.
See also:
www.kit-plane-advice.com/rotary-engine.html
deankmiller.com/mazda-rotary-aircraft-engine/
@@Bearthedancingman Wankel engines are far too unreliable and too inefficient for passenger aircraft applications.
its all fun n games till a apex seal blows
Sounds like someone who has never owned a rotary talking out of their ass...
There is a good reason why no aircraft manufacturer uses a Wankel engine... they are too unreliable to pass airworthiness certification.
@@sandervanderkammen9230 That reason has more to do with not enough manufacturers trying to make the engines. In the racing world, rotary's are some of the most reliable engines and have NUMBERUOS victory's to back up that reliability. When I build a kit plane, rotary is what I'm using as I have 30+yrs experience around. If you blow a seal, they still have power which something you really can't say for piston with too many moving parts that can fail.
You not breaking ANY seals with the new seal tech and billet housings (especially on a NA engine). Please update your research because you're wayyy behind on rotary knowledge.
@@rotaryperfection there is a reason why mazda discontinued the rotary there super unreliable and get terrible gas mileage if you have to dump money into a rotary just to get it fly worthy you might as well save money and go with an ls3 or even a k24
a lot of know it alls in the comments
*Alot of stupid people that think installing a Wankel engine in an aircraft is a good idea...*
The delay was pissing me off
Drove me crazy
Why would you choose spinning Doritos……. So unreliable!!!
the most unreliable engines ever made,,, too unreliable for cars... suicidal in an aircraft!!!