2 stroke thread (with occasional F1 relevance!)

[J.A.W.]

A-G, as far as your prediction of "horrendous" control issues for Manolis.. ..well we shall see..
The layout he proposes - has been test flown successfully in the past, see - 'The Flying Pancake'.

As for the complications & weight penalties due to electromotive power transfer, they could well be "horrendous" too..

Odd that there has not been a modern reiteration of the Rotodyne though.. .. perhaps due to vested interests?
Much like the standing ban on 2-strokes in G.P. racing competition, on 4 wheels or 2..

[bill shoe]

The per-unit cost of something like the Osprey does not include the cost of getting to the first production unit. Countries like Israel will now get somewhat workable Ospreys at somewhat reasonable cost because U.S. taxpayers (hey, that's me) have spent many billions over two decades (!!!) flogging the bad concept into submission. As Autogyro implies, this is a significant weakness of U.S. military aviation. We can afford to spend our way through technical problems and we tend to do so instead of ever letting bad programs die.

I see a real analogy to current F1 problems. F1 has an economically inefficient set of rules right now. The hybrid/green direction is fine but it's really inefficient in terms of dollars to be competitive. However the top teams are happy to flog the powertrains into submission with buckets of Euros. Meanwhile the small teams can't afford the truly staggering engine bills. Mercedes spent maybe a half-billion dollars to develop a championship powertrain that is similar in efficiency to a Prius. Except I can buy a Prius for $30K but Marussia had to pay $40 million for one season of engines. Economic inefficiency. Maybe Ferrari can sell some $40 million engine packages to Israel.

[autogyro]

A-G, as far as your prediction of "horrendous" control issues for Manolis.. ..well we shall see..
The layout he proposes - has been test flown successfully in the past, see - 'The Flying Pancake'.

As for the complications & weight penalties due to electromotive power transfer, they could well be "horrendous" too..

Odd that there has not been a modern reiteration of the Rotodyne though.. .. perhaps due to vested interests?
Much like the standing ban on 2-strokes in G.P. racing competition, on 4 wheels or 2..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vought_V-173

Exactly as I said, flying a prototype aviation concept is only a small part of the job.

Electro motive power used in helicopter flight is indeed still unable to give usable results because of the battery weight and the large amount of energy needed to sustain flight with a driven rotor.
However in autogyro flight, lift is maintained using a fraction of the energy needed in helicopter flight.
Our light autogyro has a far superior performance including speed and range on only 60 hp a level of power completely unusable for powered VTOL.
I could build and fly for you a world record electric only autogyro inside two Months.
It would have a usable flight tasking capability.
The first all electric rotor winged aircraft, where are you Richard Branson?

The two stroke hybrid electric concept would also work well.
With no need for a crankshaft or con rods and no need for a large battery pack for the main energy source the weight would be much the same as a silly multi rotor tilt wing with all its heavy dangerous gearing.

[uniflow]

A free piston engine?

[J.A.W.]

A free piston engine?

Yeah, & I'd like to see A-G's proposal for this - at least in schematic, if not metal, form..

[manolis]

Hello Autogyro.

The required power for a Flyer is, more or less, constant during a long flight.

To replace the crankshaft by magnets, coils, cables, batteries, controls etc seems not so clever.

Why to make all these transformations of energy? From kinetic to electric, from electric to chemical, from chemical back to electric (at what efficiency?), from electric back to kinetic? What is the point?

The piston – you use pistons, too – have ready kinetic energy which is transformed into rotation by the crankshafts, which are secured to the propellers, which push the air, and the Flyer / airplane / helicopter fly.

In a car (wherein the demand for power varies a lot) the hybrids is a “solution” which fades out as the internal combustion engines improve by providing good thermal efficiency even at partial loads. In its recent models Toyota uses the Atkinson Miller cycle (used initially only in the PRIUS hybrid) for several non-hybrid powertrains, too.

I can’t follow you.
Unless I am wrong, you want to load a flying machine with all this weight, cost, complication, reliability issues etc etc.
For what?
And what about the cost?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[autogyro]

A free piston engine?

Yeah, & I'd like to see A-G's proposal for this - at least in schematic, if not metal, form..

Sorry, I never post my designs until patented.
You could start by taking a look at the Toyota internal combustion linear generator.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUbBqSu9Hdc

[autogyro]

Hello Autogyro.

The required power for a Flyer is, more or less, constant during a long flight.

To replace the crankshaft by magnets, coils, cables, batteries, controls etc seems not so clever.

Why to make all these transformations of energy? From kinetic to electric, from electric to chemical, from chemical back to electric (at what efficiency?), from electric back to kinetic? What is the point?

The piston – you use pistons, too – have ready kinetic energy which is transformed into rotation by the crankshafts, which are secured to the propellers, which push the air, and the Flyer / airplane / helicopter fly.

In a car (wherein the demand for power varies a lot) the hybrids is a “solution” which fades out as the internal combustion engines improve by providing good thermal efficiency even at partial loads. In its recent models Toyota uses the Atkinson Miller cycle (used initially only in the PRIUS hybrid) for several non-hybrid powertrains, too.

I can’t follow you.
Unless I am wrong, you want to load a flying machine with all this weight, cost, complication, reliability issues etc etc.
For what?
And what about the cost?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

It depends on how much energy is being used for lift Manolis, driven rotors are much less efficient than undriven autogyro rotors.
And my concept would be lighter and far less complex than any gear drive crankshaft connected ic concept..
As for reliability I dont think a lethal tilt wing Osprey coffin or a 'flyer' that has no chance of autorotation to save the pilot on any mechanical failure compares very well to my concept that can glide with no energy in use at all.
No need for heavy batteries. Light batteries and capacitors like I suggested to Red Bull would be a fraction the weight and the main application of electrical energy would be strait from the generator.
You should follow F1 hybrid energy development Manolis.

As electrical storage becomes more efficient and lighter, there is less and less need for any form of internal combustion, eventually it will be obsolete and confined to the history books.
For the moment range extender hybrids fill the gap until electric energy distribution is made effective.
You call hybrids 'solutions' that fail as IC improves.
What are they a solution to Manolis?
You are missing the main point.Using liquid fuel is inefficient both in use and in distribution.
Electric centralised power production with grid distribution is much more efficient and gives the base to develop non fossil fuel energy production that makes both ecological and business sense.
Time to wake up, just like F1 needs to wake up before it ceases to exist.

[J.A.W.]

A-G, notwithstanding your flowery/emotive doomcasting, ICE practicality/power density - is far from being beaten..

At least Manolis is giving it a red-hot go, & actually putting his 2-stroke cards on the table..

..& as the recent comet landing debacle shows, electric machinery has its issues too..
& sure, while the decades old deep space probe plutonium powered fuel cells are still productive..
.. they are a bit iffy for regular use - here on Earth..

[manolis]

Hello Autogyro.

Pal-V is an autogyro.
An 160kW (217bhp) gasoline engine is giving it a top speed of 180 km/h (112 mph) on land and in air; not much for such power, especially if you consider the top speed of motorcycles having less than half this power.


If the cheap electricity you are talking about comes from burning fossil fuels, it is not as cheap as you think.

The best internal combustion engines of cars and trucks operate near 40% Brake Thermal Efficiency, the gasoline, and 45% the Diesels.

In comparison the biggest power plants operate at a BTE a little more than 50%.

So, from the energy of the fuel, at the power station you throw away 50%.
Then you distribute the electric power losing another percentage.
Then you put your electric car to recharge it batteries in your garage. The electric to chemical energy transformation throws a good part of the energy to the surrounding air as heat.
Then you get into your car and drive it by transforming the chemical energy of the batteries back to electricity (also at a poor efficiency), and then the electricity into kinetic energy to the wheels.

As you see, it is not an efficient procedure.

If your calculations are based on the cost per kWh, you should take into consideration the taxes you pay at the gas station.

In areas wherein there is plenty of renewable energy, the electric vehicles is a great solution. But if your electric car (or electric autogyro etc) is to be charged by the energy produced by burning – at a distant power station - fossil fuels, it is not a good solution.


The granting of a patent for a new idea / engine / mechanism etc takes a lot of time (sometimes more than 3 or 5 years).

In the meantime – and after applying for the patent – your idea is patent pending, i.e. your intellectual property is protected.

For instance, the US8,910,597 Patent was granted (mail of Issue Notice) yesterday by the USA Patent Office (US-PTO) for the PatPOC engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPOC.htm (compare it with the OPOC engine of Bill Gates / EcoMotors):



and for the PatPortLess engine at http://www.pattakon.com/pattakonPatPortLess.htm :



For some years the PatPortLess engine and the PatPOC engine were open to the public and protected as “patent pending”.

It is your right to not want to talk for (and risk) your “patent pending” ideas.
But you have to decide either to open your ideas to the public, or to keep them secret.
What you are doing in this discussion is to talk for your great, but secret, idea.

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos

[uniflow]

I wasn't going to post, but here we go. This talk of gyro efficieny, the most efficient gyro's have partially driven rotors , 14 to 20% , of the thrust used to push the craft along ( via a driveshaft coupled to the crankshaft). The standard gyro ( free wheeling rotor head ) IS driven by the engine in whats termed an air coupling, not very efficient.
As I said earlier, you will find all this information at http://www.rotorywingforum.com, perhaps where autogyro's should be talked about.
Back to twostrokes, I say put up or shut up, no good saying " I have a secret plan " , show us or don't post.

[Richard]

I've updated the thread title to reflect the content!

[J.A.W.]

Well R, since 2-strokes are on the long list of advantageous technical items categorically - BANNED! - in F1..
..any direct relevance - in the current scheme of things - is sadly moot, anyhow..

[autogyro]

Love your engine ideas Manolis impressive.

You should re-think autogyro efficiency however
Below is an old link where I think you can see that the W116 autogyro was perfectly capable of 120 mph on only 60 hp.
Less than half of your quote for modern machines.

http://www.kate.aviators.net/gyro2.htm

Things have gone much further since 1997 but not it would seem in most modern autogyro development.
Are they missing something

You also missed the losses in energy produced from extracting fossil fuels from the ground (if it were a level tax playing field, fracking would be a complete energy loss joke) and the 50 percent energy loss from delivering the fossil fuel from source to consumer.
These losses are always conveniently ignored when comparing fossil fuel with centrally produced electrical energy from all sources.

Converting piston kinetic energy to electricity using a linear generator is little different than converting it to rotational energy using a crank and con rods.
Your flyer doubles any conversion losses by having two cranks.
Driving electric motors for thrust is better than lots of complex gearing for driven rotors.
I would use electrical turbines rather than props and perhaps use by-pass air to augment vertical lift on the main rotor.
With the need to already carry liquid fuel it could also be used in tip jets to augment VTOL when needed for load carrying.
A simple clutch would allow unloaded VTOL driving the main rotor and this motor could also be used to re-charge electrical storage on decent. It would not have to be heavy because it would only be used for VTOL and only over a short time.
STOL would be the main operational envelope.

[manolis]

Hello Autogyro.

You write:
“Your flyer doubles any conversion losses by having two cranks.”


The PatATi is an opposed-piston two-stroke engine having compact combustion chamber and low mean piston speed (both crucial for the reduction of the total losses).

Compare it with the conventional (and very common in autogyros, ultralights etc) two-cylinder two-stroke Rotax 582.

The two crankshafts of the PatATi require, for their support on the casing, four roller bearings in total, while the single crankshaft of the Rotax requires – theoretically - only three, but in practice it has also four. Equity.

The PatATi has built-in asymmetric transfer and intake. The Rotax has not asymmetric transfer. The asymmetric intake of the Rotax requires an additional rotary valve, additional bearings and gearing to drive it (friction). Here the PatATi is clearly better.

The Rotax has two cylinder heads, the PatATi none. The thermal loss in the two cylinder heads of the Rotax decreases substantially the Brake Thermal Efficiency. Here the PatATi is way better.

The PatATi is perfectly balanced, the Rotax 582 suffers from inertia vibrations (second order forces, first order moments). In order to balance the inertia vibrations of the Rotax you need several bearings, balance shafts, gearing etc (which means friction). Here the PatATi is way better, too.

The basis of the PatATi (Portable Flyer) is rid of combustion vibrations, it is also rid of aby reaction torque. The Rotax cannot offer such things.


So, how the PatATi Opposed Piston doubles the conversion losses?

Thanks
Manolis Pattakos