rotary engine

[evader32]

does anybody know of any rc rotary engine any info would be appreciated

[mook]

OS engines Wankel

http://www.osengines.com/engines/osmg1400.html

regards

mook

[Budman_222]

I just thought I'd throw this in here and let you look at it. Liquid cooled rotary 1/8 scale car. I've seen art that didn't look this good.

[Jetskiboy77]

lol that is better than any art I have ever seen. Is that a custom car thats made to 1/8 measurments or a real 1/8 kit that was changed to fit all those beautiful goodies?

[BCSavage]

MORE INFO! MORE INFO! MORE INFO! lol

[Chris LaPanse]

I NEED INFO!!!
that car belongs in a museum. It is ART.

[Budman_222]

I don't know much about it. Someone on here posted a link to it a while back. I thought it was just beautiful so I saved the pictures. There's 3. I don't remember where the link was posted. It's been several months. I'll search a little bit and see if I can find it.

[mgs9]

I dont know if its too practical for the fcc, it probly has a lot more power than most but it only has 17,000 rpm. Neet though.

[djmtsu]

One good thing about a rotary engine is the fact that it can be easily turbo/supercharged. On a vehicle of that scale, a working turbo could be made, hell if it has a radiator, it could use an intercooler.

PS- That is beautiful, and I want one to go along with my RX-7's, full scale.

[Losi Stealth]

What exactly are the benifits to a rotary engine? It has been my understanding that they are highly innefficient, but have fewer moving parts. This would cut down on maintanance, but I have always assumed that a standard piston driven engine created greater horsepower, and was more fuel efficient. Why, aside from the novelty value, would a rotary r/c engine have a practical application?

[Chris LaPanse]

A rotary can get almost as much horsepower as a traditional poston engine because they can REV. The rx-8 redlines at 9000 rpm. What other car even comes close? (racing cars excluded) However, it would not be as much of an advantage on the small scale, because the engines we have are already tuned to rev like crazy. They are slightly less fuel efficient, but can create similar amounts of power (when tuned right)

[josh222]

that looks sweet, doesn't the S2000 rev to about 9000RPMs?

[Jetskiboy77]

The S2000 is almost 10,000 RPMs I think, but I may be wrong. Also the BMW M3 engine revs pretty high I think its 8 something. Its not 9000 RPMs but its close enough.

[Dan H]

Yeah, the old S2K's did. The new ones have 2.2L engines that redline at 8300 or so.

I have a 1:1 rotary. Peripheral ported engines typically have a near 11K redline. But the OS wankel is already peripheral port so its pretty much at its limit. :D

I don't see any advantage with the current state of RC rotaries. We have so much money developed into piston 2 strokes. The only advantage is probably a very smooth engine and unique sound. I'd build a custom rotary RC if I had the money. :(

[Chris LaPanse]

Yes, I meant the new s2k's. The rotaries also give very good power to displacement ratio, but with nitro 2-strokes, we already have that too.

[Mike Keeney]

What exactly are the benifits to a rotary engine? It has been my understanding that they are highly innefficient, but have fewer moving parts. This would cut down on maintanance, but I have always assumed that a standard piston driven engine created greater horsepower, and was more fuel efficient. Why, aside from the novelty value, would a rotary r/c engine have a practical application?
I dunno if I would call a rotary inefficient. I remember back in the days when Mazda was putting them in street cars. Lots of people tricked them out for drag racing and I can tell you firsthand, they kicked some serious butt. They would also rev until they blew up.

I'm told that this type of engine doesn't have a theoretical rev limit. The only limits were due to fuel and the strength of the steel. So if they were so great why don't you see any of them today? Well, they had a terrible problem of backfiring every time you lifted the throttle. Sounded like a shotgun going off. The public was a little turned off with a car that blew its muffler to bits once a month.

Cheers,
Mike

[Dan H]

Not exactly. My RX7 backfired every now and then but only because it was modified (no cats) and my aftermarket ECU wasn't dyno tuned correctly. Otherwise, of all stock RX7's kept in good condition, they hardly, if ever, backfire at all. The reason you don't see more rotaries today is because they are thermally inefficient. Poor fuel economy and hard to meet emissions.

They have a rev limit too and there is no part of the engine that is steel. Stock seals (on the older engines) aren't too reliable after 9500RPM's or so. In severe cases, there have been instances where the rotor face met with the surface of the rotor housing. Not pretty. Besides, if its not making power past the redline, theres no point to rev it that high.

You're right though. They do kick serious butt in drag racing. :D

[josh222]

cool

[Freak e-maxx1]

that thing is F'n awesome

[Interstate]

I think RCCA made a truck that used a rotary engine a couple years ago, I think out of a Kyosho USA-1, and a lot of customization.

Rotary RC engines only rev to about 17000 RPM. Like their full scale models, they have very poor torque curves; producing peak torque just a hair below their "redliine". And that peak isn't very high, way less than their piston counterparts. Rotary engines have been plagued with inneficiency as well: this is because of their eccentric combustion chamber: it's not round. Because it's not round, the air fuel mix isn't completely burned by the time the rotor is about to begin the exhaust cycle. (for that power cycle of the rotor) I think Mazda did what it could do by adding a second spark plug and unique rotor surface.

The Honda S2000's engine still holds the official record for best hp/liter. Once again because Mazdas rotary engine doesn't have the torque necessary to make the high horsepower numbers. I think the Honda engine redlines at 8000 (8500 for power shifting) and has about 120 lb ft of torque. The RX-8 I think redlines at 8000, just so the everyday idiot doesn't take the engine up to 9000 rpm's. But I think it only makes about 100 lb ft.

THEORETICALLY rotary engines do not have rev limits, because there is no reciprocating parts to break at high rpms. BUT, since gasoline has it's own limits, there is only so much power that gasoline can make to keep the flywheel, rotor etc going. I've seen a video (I wish I knew where it was) of some guy in his drive way flooring an RX-7 in neutral. he took it to about 6000 revs and held it for about 30 seconds. Then he puts his foot to the floor and the tachometer more or less creeps up to 9000; not as fast as it was from 1000 to 6000.

It's really not worth mentioning hp/liter because there's really no point. My .18 sirio makes between 500-600 hp/liter. Does that mean it's very powerful? Relatively speaking, no. Horsepower doesn't really mean anything unless you have torque.

[speckamp]

Sorry about the off-topic-ish post, but there's some misinformation I feel I should clear up.

Rotary RC engines only rev to about 17000 RPM. Like their full scale models, they have very poor torque curves; producing peak torque just a hair below their "redliine". And that peak isn't very high, way less than their piston counterparts. Rotary engines have been plagued with inneficiency as well: this is because of their eccentric combustion chamber: it's not round. Because it's not round, the air fuel mix isn't completely burned by the time the rotor is about to begin the exhaust cycle. (for that power cycle of the rotor) I think Mazda did what it could do by adding a second spark plug and unique rotor surface.

Not to split hairs, but depending on the tuning of the engine, rotarys are blessed with a flat torque curve -- they make peak torque and stay there, I don't know how one could claim that's a "very poor" torque curve.

1985 GSL-SE Stock Baseline Dyno Run (http://home.mn.rr.com/linnihan/Dyno%20Results.htm)

Mazda has been developing the rotary engine design for years since it licensed it from NSU in the 50's/60's, piston engine designers have been doing much with multi-plug/cyl, variable valve timing, combustion chamber design over the years as well.


The Honda S2000's engine still holds the official record for best hp/liter. Once again because Mazdas rotary engine doesn't have the torque necessary to make the high horsepower numbers. I think the Honda engine redlines at 8000 (8500 for power shifting) and has about 120 lb ft of torque. The RX-8 I think redlines at 8000, just so the everyday idiot doesn't take the engine up to 9000 rpm's. But I think it only makes about 100 lb ft.


I don't know where you get your "official records" from, but by my math, and the numbers provided by the manufacturer...
S2000 - 2005 - 2.2l i-vtec inline 4 cyl, 240bhp = 109bhp/liter
RX-8 - 2005 - 1.3l inline 2-rotor wankel RENESIS rotary, 238bhp = 183hp/liter
(for reference, my car)
RX-7 - 1985 - 1.3liter inline 2-rotor wankel 13B rotary, 135bhp = 103.8hp/liter

The redline in the 2005 RX-8 is 9,000RPM, with a fuel cutoff around 10,000RPM.

As for torque numbers,

2005 S2000 - 162lb/ft
2005 RX-8 - 159lb/ft

Not much of a difference there.

Sources:

http://automobiles.honda.com/models/specifications_descriptions.asp?ModelName=S2000&Category=S2000

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecsSpecs&vehicleCode=RX8


THEORETICALLY rotary engines do not have rev limits, because there is no reciprocating parts to break at high rpms. BUT, since gasoline has it's own limits, there is only so much power that gasoline can make to keep the flywheel, rotor etc going. I've seen a video (I wish I knew where it was) of some guy in his drive way flooring an RX-7 in neutral. he took it to about 6000 revs and held it for about 30 seconds. Then he puts his foot to the floor and the tachometer more or less creeps up to 9000; not as fast as it was from 1000 to 6000.


Untrue. Rotary engines are not a 100% orbital engine. There is a slight reciprocation as the apexs follow the rotor housing epitrichoidal shape (think oval with a pinched center), like any motor there are limits to the stresses the materials undergo.

Also, as the rotors spin at 1/3 output shaft velocity, there's more time to extract power from the gasoline than one might think.

I won't address the revving issue since I don't know which video you're talking about other than to say that in my humble opinion my RX-7 revs faster than any other car I've owned / driven.


It's really not worth mentioning hp/liter because there's really no point. My .18 sirio makes between 500-600 hp/liter. Does that mean it's very powerful? Relatively speaking, no. Horsepower doesn't really mean anything unless you have torque.

Funny. Horsepower is calculated as:

hp = (torque * rpm) / 5252


which would lead me to believe that torque and horsepower are very much related.

Hp/liter is simply a marketing term to show the "efficency" of an engine, I agree that it's more or less a useless number as far as performance, unless package size of a powerplant is taken into account.

[Interstate]

Not to split hairs, but depending on the tuning of the engine, rotarys are blessed with a flat torque curve -- they make peak torque and stay there, I don't know how one could claim that's a "very poor" torque curve.

It's very poor because isn't really any increase in torque at any point. So when exiting a turn, you don't have great torque to "explode" out of the turn. That dyno chart says it all: when you're needing more power than usual, there isn't any point in the rev range that has it.

Untrue. Rotary engines are not a 100% orbital engine. There is a slight reciprocation as the apexs follow the rotor housing epitrichoidal shape (think oval with a pinched center), like any motor there are limits to the stresses the materials undergo.

Please note I said theoretically there is no rev limit. It's in theory that that it has no rev limit, but of course materials come in the way.

I won't address the revving issue since I don't know which video you're talking about other than to say that in my humble opinion my RX-7 revs faster than any other car I've owned / driven.

Is that in neutral, or under load?

Funny. Horsepower is calculated as:

hp = (torque * rpm) / 5252

which would lead me to believe that torque and horsepower are very much related.


Once again, you didn't read what I wrote. I never said they weren't related, or how horsepower is calculated. I said hp/liter is pointless. Note my Sirio example.

[dude12345]

more info is on the rx7 forum.

http://www.rx7club.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193412&highlight=787b

[ducati777]

It's very poor because isn't really any increase in torque at any point. So when exiting a turn, you don't have great torque to "explode" out of the turn. That dyno chart says it all: when you're needing more power than usual, there isn't any point in the rev range that has it.


??? Uhhhh so you believe a desirable torque curve is one that peaks at high rpm, such as most 4 cyl motors. I'm a little confused because most people believe a flat torque curve is better. A 100hp motor with a flat torque curve will beat a 100hp motor with a peaky curve. I can show you a lot of math on it, but the flat torque curve will have more hp more of the time at a lower rpm. Given two motors of the same output, the flatter torque curve will be faster....


Is that in neutral, or under load?


Neutral? Why would you make any estimates off revving a motor in neutral? Every motor out there could spool up very quickly, the usual slowdown is the weight of the flywheel.


Once again, you didn't read what I wrote. I never said they weren't related, or how horsepower is calculated. I said hp/liter is pointless. Note my Sirio example.

Its a good example. Hp/liter is really just a fun way to compare motors. But in answer to your question, yes I think your Sirio is a very powerful motor. Well a very high performance motor.

[Interstate]

??? Uhhhh so you believe a desirable torque curve is one that peaks at high rpm, such as most 4 cyl motors. I'm a little confused because most people believe a flat torque curve is better. A 100hp motor with a flat torque curve will beat a 100hp motor with a peaky curve. I can show you a lot of math on it, but the flat torque curve will have more hp more of the time at a lower rpm. Given two motors of the same output, the flatter torque curve will be faster....

I suppose the desired torque curve would really depend on the application and driver preference. Wanna agree to disagree?

Neutral? Why would you make any estimates off revving a motor in neutral? Every motor out there could spool up very quickly, the usual slowdown is the weight of the flywheel.

There are some stupid people on the internet, and since that was his first post, I don't really know his intellegence level... He may be free reving the engine, and he may be drag racing, but I don't know. I've actually reved a couple lower end engines that took a relativly long time to rev.

[ducati777]

We can agree, who am I to force the concept of a perfect torque curve on you.... Hmmm actually nevermind, that sounds pretty arrogant, like I have all the answers. I don't, but I do really like rotary motors so my preference is to come to their defense.

Usually lower end cars have big flywheels on them, and will rev really slow. If you've ever driven a car with a sporty clutch and light flywheel, they're a lot harder to drive. Mid '80s Porsche's come to mind. But jump in any Ford Escort and it has such a huge flywheel, and progressive clutch that its super simple to drive. When I had my rx7 I always wanted to lighten the flywheel but never got around to it.

Neutral drag races are a funny idea. Sit around and see who can bounce off the rev limiter faster... Have you seen those virtual drag racing dyno's? They're popular at Harley events, they strap you down and you do a dyno pull through all gears next to another guy. Dyno says who would have won the drag race...

[tocache]

Hi everybody, i found two interesting pictures:

http://www.iluvmyrx7.com/other/articles/rx7-0000/images/3326RotaryRCCarAndEngine1.jpg

http://www.iluvmyrx7.com/other/articles/rx7-0000/images/3326RotaryRCCarAndEngine2.jpg

[ducati777]

That was ultrabad! :eek: Wow... that guy really went all out.

[delphidude]

wow my rs4 is begging for a rotary engine conversion. my wallet on the other hand is saying no

[TurboFC3S]

Oh man, as a guy who produces a magazine dedicated 100% to the rotary engine (RX Tuner - www.rxtuner.com) I KNEW I shouldn't have clicked on this thread. I guess that's the best part about a rotary, 99.5% of the population doesn't have a clue about them. They just know that some Mazda that smells like an oil refinery walked away from them like they were standing still :D

[vlad_drac]

Ditto, the amount of missinformation spread by people that are 'experts' on rotaries is astounding.
Yes I'm a blow-in, yes this thread is long gone, but I got sucked in by the OS motor in the car in that photo' and then I got sucked in by some major misconceptions about these motors.
Here's some real information, I'm not bragging or making this up, I know none of you so what would I gain from it?
I'm not bashing piston engines either, though it may seem so when(if!) you read this. I love all engines, just some more than others.

A close friend of mine owns a 9 second(traction limited) Street legal 700+HP 13B turbo RX3, and its quite street friendly to drive. Thats approx 540HP/L. From dodgy memory It had somewhere in the region of 550NM of torque. I don't remember the exact figures, and they are always changing as he builds new engines to try and extract every last n'th HP out of it, but you can ask him yourself If your that interested: www.cypherindustries.com.au
He's got a mate (I don't know him well) who also has a 700+ HP street legal rotary.
1.3 litres!
Minimal internal modifications, a few extra dowels here and there, new apexes, new seals, not exactly bank busters.
Hmmm, A 3L V6 family-sedan engine would need to output 1600+hp to get close to that HP/L..... and you'd need a whole wad of cash.

They're not alone: There's also Terry Stacey, who I believe has run a 7sec pass in a 1st gen RX7 with twin turbo 20B(not street legal). I even witnessed Terry do an 11sec pass on the cars roof! Flipped it after some serious lack of traction, the car did the last 1/4 of the track on its lid, thru the trap.
All Terry's work done by www.rotomotion.com.au, which just out of interest was the performance rotary company started in '73 by Kim Ledger, father of Heath Ledger(the holywood actor). Kim(and Heath) is still involved with rotaries, just around the corner from Cypher actually.

Thats only a small example, there are thousands of rotaries with similar power around the world, a google search will get numerous hits, or better yet, buy a copy of the previous posters magazine, I've never seen it but It must be good if its all rotaries :D
The 20B, thats triple rotor 2.oL, theres also the vary rare 26G's - Quad rotor 2.6L. Thousands of HP's to get there. Mazda won the '91 Le Mans with the 26G, no drama's with torque there. All 3 cars finished the full 24hours, and placed 1st, 6th, and 8th. Le Mans subsequently banned rotaries. Welllll, they actually changed the rules so only piston engines could race, so thats effectively a ban right?
Bathurst 12Hour in Australia was dominated at around the same time by the S6 RX7, they were basically _STOCK_ engines, against V8's, so they banned the rotary too, the Nissan GTR Godzilla's also dominated for a while, so snapppo its now a two manufacturer only race - Ford and Holden(GM) V8's, they dun like getting beaten by 'milk and juice'. :rolleyes:

Ok, I've also seen a few high powered piston engines.
My old boss at Cypher had a 550+HP GTR Skyline(thats it on the main page for Cypher)(hmmm, seems the rest of the site is dead, try again later), thats 220ish/L, but lotsa money to get there. I think JUN has got 1000ish from a RB26, thats 385/L.
Another friend of mine has a 600ishHP RB20, thats 300HP/L
To be honest, I've been modding cars, and around modded cars, for a very long time and I've not seen many street legal piston powered modified cars with total powers getting anywhere near that of a rotary, except for 4+litre V8's.

The Puerto Rican's(sp?) are doing some pretty amazing things with Honda's, but its not as amazing as what they're doing to rotaries. The Kiwi's have a lot of sick rotaries too.

Heres an interesting fact: Piston engines have been in constant development by hundreds of manufacturers for 140 or so years.
The Wankel? only seriously by one manufacturer since '62, another long gone, and by Wankel himself from the mid 50's, so around 50 years of development. It's come a long way for a baby yeah?
50 years ago the engineers probably thought piston motors couldn't come much further.... There's plenty of potential for the Wankel, and I'm convinced it is superior, it's just not been taken seriously enough. Only one company has taken it seriously and they are f'n legends!!

The only real downside to a rotary is the fuel consumption, but hey, if you want serious power you are going to chew fuel by the bucketload no matter what engine type.
There's talk of renewed interest in developing rotaries now hydrogen has gained interest as a fuel.... endless fuel, cheap(one day), and..... more power than pistons per capacity/size/weight.... excellent, bring it on.

Ultimately I can't wait for Brushless DC electric vehicles.... max torque at stall..... will be great fun from the lights! Just gotta wait for battery technology to get better. Will miss engine noise tho.... a hissing-whine just won't be the same as a growling exhaust.

Gettin' off my soapbox.....

[IBJAMMIN]

For rc cars the os rotary motor is not worth it a wopping 1.27hp@17000rpm for 340 bucks WOW plus rotary motors run hot hence the water cooling in the converted buggy more weight :(

Full size rotarys have pros and cons and you are right alot of people out there have no idea how a rotary works I have seen quit a few in sand buggys over the years from injected nitro 13b's to my favorite the turbo 3 rotors an awsome motor for it's size and probable some of the fastest long travel buggys at glamis.:)

vlad drac you forgot to add the suzuki rotary powered street bikes from the late 70's?

[Nightz]

LOL to bring this back up to clear even more misconceptions, I love how people don't understand how 1.3L is derived. It's all Mazda's marketing vs the traditional 4 stroke. Just like how our rc manufactures can mislead (to their advantage) to promote their engines in cubic centimeters vs cubic inches to promote BIGGER numbers. It's all the way in how they measure. For example:

One output RPM from a NA 13B consumes 1.3L. That's 2 rotor faces combusted (.667x2 cc = ~1.3 L). Remember you have 2 rotors, and one rotor combusts one rotor face per eccentric shaft (similar to crankshaft). Call it rpm for sake of simplicity. 1 rpm, 2 rotors = 2 rotor faces combusted 180 degrees from each other.

In defense, 4 strokes are always rated at 2 turns of the crankshaft to combust all pistons. If you wanted to do fair comparisons, 1 turn of the crankshaft is half the displacement. Don't cry about, "but your not firing the other half of the pistons", well you ain't fireing up the other 4 rotor faces either at the time of one rpm. Trying to set crankshaft revolution vs vol of air combusted (displacement) as a baseline.

So either you double the displacement of the 13B (2 revolutions = 2.6L) to compare it to the way the market rates 4 strokes, or if you wanna do it the other way around vice versa. SAE even knows this and rates the engines 2.6L appropriately.

With that said, still puts honda's engines on top for HP/L wars (not that it means anything because big broad torque wins races anyway). And people wonder why 13B's are gas hogs... hmm... maybe it's consuming 2.6L of air in 2 revolutions!

Rotaries are great for being a small power package where applications deem it appropriately, but with advancing technology furthering pistons engines away than the rotary can keep up, the rotary will remain the nitch market that it is, for better or for worse.

Last thing, the "less moving parts" holds no water for reliability. Look at how those apex seals are directly exposed to detonation waves. The baned achilles heel of the design. Your good ole fashioned reciprocating engine has 40+ moving parts and can take a beating way beyond 100,000 miles these days, even by people who negelect maintenance. The rotary on the other hand is very sensative to abuse.

I like rotaries, but lately it's starting to seem like a lost cause, i.e. RX-8.

[chadthenube]

I just thought I'd throw this in here and let you look at it. Liquid cooled rotary 1/8 scale car. I've seen art that didn't look this good.



Yeah i own about 6 of thoose

[vlad_drac]

LOL to bring this back up to clear even more misconceptions, I love how people don't understand how 1.3L is derived.

:D I wondered how long it would take for someone to pick up on that. ROFL
Yes they are 2.6L, as you demonstrated.
I'm glad someone with a clue finally picked up on it so I don't have to keep checking back.
Some people even claim that they are 3.9L! LOL (they're probably adding up all chambers, e.g. 6x 0.654cc = 3.924L)
BTW, I honestly did know the capacity. If you believe that or not, dun really care, no skin off my nose.

The Apex issue really hasn't been an issue for a decade or so now, the biggest problem these days is cracking endplates and housings.
People try to combat the flexure with dowelling, but this creates other problems.
Eccentric shaft flexure was a problem for a while, but was solved with two-peice shafts with a centre bearing.

BTW, I'm very very slowly working on a 1/4scale 13B and have managed to draw up the Peritrochoidal curve for the housing(kinda like a figure 8 or a pinched circle/oval thingy - the rotory's equivalent to a cylinder) in CAD, which was actually very easy, once you know how!(many failed attempts). Still gotta generate the curves for the rotors. The Rotors' curves are slightly 'flattened' to stop them fouling with the 'peaks' in the housing.
Now I have to finish building my CNC mill so I can start cutting.
Will post back here when it's finished(thats IF its ever finished!), and also assuming anyone realy cares.

[Old Sloppy]

Quad rotor 2.6L. Thousands of HP's to get there. Mazda won the '91 Le Mans with the 26G, no drama's with torque there. All 3 cars finished the full 24hours, and placed 1st, 6th, and 8th. Le Mans subsequently banned rotaries. Welllll, they actually changed the rules so only piston engines could race, so thats effectively a ban right?
.....

Want to know why the ban ?

4 rotor engines are = to a V12 piston engine.
because each rotor has 3 chambers times 4 rotors = 12

No problem with that untill...

Mazda published a beautiful 8"*10" photo of the winning car with false specs on the back side.

Mazda claimed it was a 4 cylinder engine. 2.6L
producing ~900 HP

This is what got them banned.

Harry :)

P.S. I worked for Mazda for 4 years, I know....

[GrayMatter]

Hey guys -
sorry for digging up an old post, but i came across it while i was doing research for my 914 project (i'm installing a custom turbo'd 13b in my '71 porsche 914). anyone come across any more info on the rotary powered rc cars? the images from iluvmyrx7.com are gone as the domain has been taken over. i would appreciate it if anyone has those saved somewhere.

Cheers!
GM

[fasterthanspeed]

I remember seeing a dragster on rcuniverse a while back. Ill go look for it and post a link when i find it.

[fasterthanspeed]

found em.

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5568215/anchors_5568215/mpage_1/key_rotary%252Cengine/anchor/tm.htm#5568215

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_5775934/anchors_5775934/mpage_1/key_rotary%252Cengine/anchor/tm.htm#5775934

[ajlovering12345]

http://rctech.net/forum/showthread.php?t=139551

1/10th car with rotary engine. There is also a post about a 1/10th car with a 4 stroke supercharged engine

Cheers