Why no spherical rotary valve engines like this in F1

[autogyro]

Would it be possible to cast the combustion chamber half as part of the block and fit wet liners from the bottom?
I still think the old Bristol clunk head sleeve valve concept has potential.

[PlatinumZealot]

I forgot you could do that..
The original plan was to have it fit to current engine blocks, but yeah it seems that it has to be a special block.

Would make it interesting. I never drew a whole engine block before.

[autogyro]

I forgot you could do that..
The original plan was to have it fit to current engine blocks, but yeah it seems that it has to be a special block.

Would make it interesting. I never drew a whole engine block before.

If I was looking at engine design with light weight and reduced use of materials, I would also look into the feasibility of using a separate main bearing web to support the crank and reduce the block length.
In simple terms you would be moving the studs from the top where there is little available metal and placing them at the bottom of the unit, which can reduce weight, length and bring the CofG down.

[autogyro]

I am a firm supporter of the rotary engine, having been involved with the type in light aircraft experiments.
Rotary engines are very light and have few moving parts and no reciprocation limits.
The problem is the rich mixtures needed for cooling and long chamber flame travel.
This results in poor fuel economy and unburnt fuel in the exhaust. Not acceptable for current regulations.
There is a simple answer to this that would place the rotary way ahead of the conventional reciprocating engine.
Fit an exhaust turbine. Not a turbocharger however but a turbo generator as part of a hybrid power train. Inject a small amount of extra fuel and air into the exhaust and reignite this charge with fine electronic control over the resulting exhaust content and a combined flywheel/battery energy storage system capable of both rapid charge/discharge and high volume electrical storage, to accept the current from the generator. Oh yes, sorry, you would also need my ESERU to make it work.

[riff_raff]

n_smikle,

The manufacturability of that rotary valve head is the least of your worries. Heat transfer, combustion gas sealing, seal friction losses, and valve seizure due to lack of lubrication, thermal distortions and combustion pressure deflections, are much more difficult issues to deal with.

The biggest issue I can see with your model, is that you have very hot, high velocity exhaust gas flow passing over a thin, uncooled, thermally isolated, aluminum port edge. The exhaust heat transfer in this port edge will quickly cause it to melt away.

Nice models, regardless!

Terry

[autogyro]

n_smikle,

The manufacturability of that rotary valve head is the least of your worries. Heat transfer, combustion gas sealing, seal friction losses, and valve seizure due to lack of lubrication, thermal distortions and combustion pressure deflections, are much more difficult issues to deal with.

The biggest issue I can see with your model, is that you have very hot, high velocity exhaust gas flow passing over a thin, uncooled, thermally isolated, aluminum port edge. The exhaust heat transfer in this port edge will quickly cause it to melt away.

Nice models, regardless!

Terry

Unfortunately I would have to agree riff-raff. It is why I mentioned the Bristol sleeve valve engine used in aircraft during and post WW2.
You as an aircraft specialist engineer may well have come across these units.
A friend of mine has two Beverley units in one of his hangers in his garden.
The Bristol sleeve valve rotary suffered from similar sealing and heat transfer problems but the design was made reliable before being superseded by turbine technology. The separate sleeve drive cranks might limit the rpm possible but it may be useful to look into the technology again, in regard to valve and port comparisons.

[bettonracing]

n_smikle,

The manufacturability of that rotary valve head is the least of your worries. Heat transfer, combustion gas sealing, seal friction losses, and valve seizure due to lack of lubrication, thermal distortions and combustion pressure deflections, are much more difficult issues to deal with.

The biggest issue I can see with your model, is that you have very hot, high velocity exhaust gas flow passing over a thin, uncooled, thermally isolated, aluminum port edge. The exhaust heat transfer in this port edge will quickly cause it to melt away.

Nice models, regardless!

Terry

Sounds like an application for coatings...

Regards,

H. Kurt Betton

[PlatinumZealot]

Thanks for the replies. On the sealing..

This is my original plan:

The hollow shaft/valve is in purple.
The shaft (could be Labrynth) seals are in black
Needle roller bearings are the green boxes with "X" inside.
The cylinder head itself is in light blue.
The clearances are much much smaller than it appears in the picture.
Thrust bearings are to be at the ends of the shafts.



I was not too sure about the seals. All I knew is that they had to be carbon and be capable of high rpms. Labyrinth seals in gas turbines comes to my mind. I have never seen one in real life though.

Can these provide an adequate seal around the shafts and the shoulder?

Is some spring mechanism required?



http://www.aerospace.rexnord.com/Produc ... Circum.asp

Two for each cylinder with needle bearings supporting the shafts.

[compo]

look here http://www.rcvengines.com/corporate/rcv_technology.htm

goony

[autogyro]

Rotating a cylinder barrel would at first glance seem to be the logical development of the Bristol sleeve valve concept.
But the Bristol cylinder barrels move up and down and rotate backwards and then forwards, giving a much larger and better designed potential open port area than with a rotating barrel.
The main problem for the rotating cylinder barrel engine is sealing the piston rings. This was a very slight problem in the Bristol sleeve barrel, which rotates one way and then the other through a fairly narrow angle but this was overcome in production. This is not the case with a barrel that rotates at relatively high rpm.
I believe the geared barrel idea was one of the first ideas in the late 1930's that resulted in the Bristol sleeve valve design.
Most things have been done years ago when it comes to IC engine technology.
It is in the areas of modern materials and computer design and manufacture on fine detail that tiny improvements might be achieved.
Bit boring really.

[PlatinumZealot]

look here http://www.rcvengines.com/corporate/rcv_technology.htm

goony

This engine is very different from mine. In my version the valves go in the place of were a typical overhead camshaft would be. Its not a sleeve design like that one. But still interesting none the less. I wonder if the sleeve design would be good for Formula1?

[autogyro]

look here http://www.rcvengines.com/corporate/rcv_technology.htm

goony

This engine is very different from mine. In my version the valves go in the place of were a typical overhead camshaft would be. Its not a sleeve design like that one. But still interesting none the less. I wonder if the sleeve design would be good for Formula1?

The regulations will not allow it to be used of course.
The main problem would be the high rpm needed to achieve suitable bhp.

[riff_raff]

n_smikle,

Here's a rotary valve engine Ilmor Engineering built for F1:

http://www.v-eight.com/multimedia/pdf/AutoTechBRV.pdf

http://www.leapaust.com.au/about/casest ... rrocks.pdf



By all accounts, it worked pretty well. But it was made illegal before it ever raced.

Regards,
Terry

[autogyro]

n_smikle,

Here's a rotary valve engine Ilmor Engineering built for F1:

http://www.v-eight.com/multimedia/pdf/AutoTechBRV.pdf

http://www.leapaust.com.au/about/casest ... rrocks.pdf



By all accounts, it worked pretty well. But it was made illegal before it ever raced.

Regards,



Terry

I can only again suggest that a good look is given to the sleeve valve technology used in the late and post WW2 Bristol and Napier aero engines.
The main problem in the Bishop valve is the heat from the exhaust port in the rotary valve transferring to the inlet port through the uncooled thin wall.
The sleeve ports in the Bristol are separate, shielded partially by the cylinder, partially water cooled and of equal if not bigger area to the Bishop valve.
Induction and exhaust from the 'sides' of the upper cylinder creates a far better tumble subject to position of ports and piston crown design.
The problem that would need to be overcome on the Bristol is to design the mini cranks that operate the sleeves to allow the high rpm needed for F1.

[gcdugas]

The intake and exhaust gain nothing from being independent.

The exhaust valve is very hot so that means that if the exhaust and intake valve is one and the same then you have a hot intake valve.

The main problem in the Bishop valve is the heat from the exhaust port in the rotary valve transferring to the inlet port through the uncooled thin wall.

The piston crown and the cylinder walls are all heated by the exhaust gases and cooled by the intake charge. So what? The pumping gains are well worth it and the mechanical gains from having no reciprocating mass in the valve train are worth it. I still can't find the sparkplug location.