MOVED: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

[Leo]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

You couldn't pay me to ride as passenger in that configuration! Backwards, reclined and with my face pinned against the glass... Not to say the concept would'nt be cool with a little refining.
The engine is water cooled is it not? Thats a lot of radiator area.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Air cooled unlike the x375 from fifties...

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

I also find the 40 000 hour TBO pretty cool.

The use of our engines in automobiles will catapult the vehicle to a new efficiency. Due to the huge gains in torque per horse power, 3.14:1, AVEC engine are three times as efficient in producing torque than any other engine in circulation today. The decrease in the number of parts also permits a 40,000 hour mean time to overhaul as compared to a 20,000 hour mean time to overhaul of the conventional internal combustion engines in the market.

The AVEC engine incorporates 50% fewer parts than any engine in existence which simply makes it half as likely to have anything go wrong whilst in operation. Our third generation engines weigh 68 pounds are 200 horse power and produce 640 pounds of torque, truly remarkable.

AVEC engines are not only lighter and smaller than conventional engines but also due to their efficiency whilst running, they emit less harmful substances into the atmosphere.

[mayday51]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

.....and I heard the Spainish went 30,000 miles on a Galleon.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Pretty good Jim !

If that is true it has 50 % less moving parts than a rotary engine ( vankel ) and produces 3x torque and 40 000 h TBO and is 1/7th in weight...then why the heck aren't they everywhere..I mean they should have replaced also jet engines long time ago etc...where is the hick up here ?

rgds,

Juke

[AirDOGGe]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Maybe it's because pretty much all aviation engine makers have had their pants sued off at one time or another, usually more than once, even when their engines weren't responsible for an incident/accident.

Remember, excessive and sometimes outrageous lawsuits are why Cessna got out of the general aviation business altogether for all those years, until changes were finally made to make the laws more reasonable.

You have to have pretty deep pockets, great insurance and a good group of lawyers if you want to get into the airplane engine business these days...It's easier, cheaper, and possibly more profitable to make power generators from the dyna-cams, as they have been doing.


Just my thoughts.

[Leo]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

I would agree. You could have spent $50 million developing and certifying it. Then a vendor's part failes and causes a crash. The vendor folds up under the resulting suit leaving you with the liability, and the choice of settling with any profits you have made (or will make) for 10 years, or fighting and trying to prove your engineering to people that do not understand a word of it in court. Or the product is misused or maintained improperly and you STILL lose the resulting wrongful death suit. It's a crazy world.
At least an aircraft engine as they pretty much are now is past the first hurdle with an excepted configuration. I am convinced that anti-gravity would not sell now due to the liability of an untested (as in already in service for umpteen years) technology.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Airdogge and Leo !

Great to express toughts with you guys. It must be this way as you describe. Dyna Cam dudes may be little bitter and possibly give out slightly better figures as well. I have an expert here in Finland who says he has 100 000 pages of data on axial vector engines and that he has discussed this matter with transportation engineers and discovered that there are several weakpoints in the layout. I would love to believe him like I'd enjoy believe the Dyna Cam people.

It is like the Colt revolver..very compact and handy. I wonder if placing 2-6 of them into one mount and propel one prop via reduction gear ableing to shut down any damaged engine would give reliability more than a regular engine.

I know I will start to sound very dull repeating this same topic, but if what they say in Dyna Cam is true, then the mankind is burning 2x more gas in combustion engines in cars and aviation that they would have if chosen to use Dyna Cam type axial piston engines in the fifties.

What if they have solved all known problems of the engine by choosing right materials and lubricants etc ? Anyone with deep enough pockets to investigate this in real life and with concrete test results and not just educated guesses ?!

Any AC that I sketch/design with those engines gives me an edge ( drag/weight ) over any regular piston engine...and that bugs me a lot.

Why don't they have a real working engine ( of the 200 hp or the smaller one ) on their video instead of an animation ?

[Leo]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

I still think it's the fear of the new, both in public opinion and in liability. The Mazda rotary was a flash in the pan that was going to revolutionize the industry but it fell short of promises in actual use. I fear this would also, otherwise with the numbers it has it would make a great auto engine as a water cooled version.
It's safer to rely on proven configurations and improve them with new technology. My best example is the venerable Chevy 350. In 1981 it gave 170 HP on about 17 MPG, unless you leadfooted it. It was choked with state of the art smog to reduce emissions. The 350 in my 2001 car puts out 375 HP, gives 24-27 MPG and extremely less emissions without add-on smog controls. All due to lighter, better materials and better design. If that can be done with an existing platform, why risk a whole new design?

[Skyracer]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Why don't they have a real working engine ( of the 200 hp or the smaller one ) on their video instead of an animation ?

Because computer models are cheaper to produce than real machines, they can be made to appear as if they work, and they don't wear out.

BTW - All rights, etc. of Dyna-Cam were sold to Axial Vector Engine Corp in 2006. The AVEC website doesn't give me a warm feelng as a place I would want to invest my money.

[mayday51]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

It is like the Colt revolver..very compact and handy.


Why don't they have a real working engine ( of the 200 hp or the smaller one ) on their video instead of an animation ?

.....I know my colts work (have proven them my self)......

.....as to those engines.......the site info is very vague........
(that is the reason for the "mileage boast")


......as far as "wobble plate"engines.....I have converted a GM A6
A/C compressor to run as an air motor before.....(not an engine,
it ran on compressed air).......great torque,wild revs......
....no actual readings as this was a "garage experiment" in my younger days...


Juke, keep on dreaming and drawing,
just don't buy all the salesman says.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

.....I know my colts work (have proven them my self)......

Juke, keep on dreaming and drawing,
just don't buy all the salesman says.

Yeah ..I do that. Here is another thing you could get with 200 hp engine that size and weight; a pusher 2 feet shorter than Mini Imp with 2 to 3 times more punch !

Easiest way to do that would be to use 50 hp Limbach L550 air cooled 2-stroke about 20 kilos. Might save some weight in it, but lacks 150 hps.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Here is the 50 hp version.

This is 1/3 bigger than V-MAX probe and about same size if little smaller than Micro Imp..and definitely smaller than Sierra-Sue by Northrop. Tail layout is like in LearFan 2100..proven good concept. Wing has forward sweep like Bugatti 100 Racer.

http://www.webcamsue.nl/vmax.html

Slightly longer nose geared version has 240 liters of luggage capacity.

Whadda ya say ?

This layout without luggage could take also Dyna Cam 200 hp on it. It would possibly also weigh around or under 650 lbs like this ( flyweight ). I won't guess the speeds but definitely somewhere 400 mph region with 200 hps.

Anyone interested...let's put some engineers to work on it..shall we ?!

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

I still think it's the fear of the new, both in public opinion and in liability. The Mazda rotary was a flash in the pan that was going to revolutionize the industry but it fell short of promises in actual use. I fear this would also, otherwise with the numbers it has it would make a great auto engine as a water cooled version.
It's safer to rely on proven configurations and improve them with new technology. My best example is the venerable Chevy 350. In 1981 it gave 170 HP on about 17 MPG, unless you leadfooted it. It was choked with state of the art smog to reduce emissions. The 350 in my 2001 car puts out 375 HP, gives 24-27 MPG and extremely less emissions without add-on smog controls. All due to lighter, better materials and better design. If that can be done with an existing platform, why risk a whole new design?

Leo I understand this well.

I brought few months back this topic about mileage...japanese team with a light female driver was able to drive a vehicle at 10 000 MPG...that is correct..there should be 4 zeros there is no error.

http://www.aafo.com/hangartalk/showthread.php?t=6871&page=2&pp=10

In this light I found 17 MPG not so excellent. New cars in Finland advertise 45-50 MPG ( 4,3-4,5 liters / 100 km ). We are talking about a lot smaller car than around Chevy 350 built vehicles..if it is a truck and used for great loads then it is cool. Otherwise it is just ok.



BTW: Does anyone know how SFC chart hould be read ?

I found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_fuel_consumption when trying to find out how to calculate consumption of this http://www.limflug.de/files/pdf/DS-L550E.pdf and I am getting a hang of it now.

The RAMJET does not seem to be very costeffective...does it

I did get 4.2 gallon/h fuel consumption for the 50 hp Limbach 550 ccm engine..I assume that is right. Please correct me if I am wrong.

This would mean 3.5 l/100 km consumtion ( which is the same I figured for LearFan 2100 per person ) for my pusher and slightly better than for a new car here, but I'd be only carrying some luggage and a pilot...two seater without much luggage would be nearly as economical as a car....and pretty near the DA-11 fuel consumtion ( MPG 107 ). All this of course demands perfect execution of the aerodynamics and structure in the Max III.

[First time Juke]

Re: What ever happened to the Dyna Cam engine?

Sorry if this has been discussed recently and I've just missed it, but I haven't heard anything about the Dyna Cam engine in some time. It seemed like a pretty neat engine, but since it's kind of fallen off the radar (at least my radar), I reckon it must not've been as good as I'd thought.

Does anyone know about the engine I'm talking about?

Gary

Could someone go and ask how they are doing ?

I am also very very interested about it. Even
if it wears out fast ( or maybe it doesn't ) the double output would be amazing in a small speedster ( ok overhaul the more often and you'll have the safety aspect covered ).

What works in a car 40 000 TbO cannot be that bad in a plane..in fact it was proven already in 1952 in Piper.

Here see it has got a fan inside...so it is cooled already...lotsa area to cool down with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Ua4gFF0LQ4&eurl=http://www.axialvectorengine.com/index.html