Talk:Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C

This is the talk page for discussing Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Bore and Stroke

The bore and stroke are listed in hundreds of millimeters. I am absolutely positive this is incorrect but do not know where to find authoritative data. Would someone mind taking a look into this and confirm it is supposed to be cm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.24.243.122 (talk) 15:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

transmission

Is the Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96-C used with direct drive or something else (gearbox? electric transmission?)? njh 06:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The usual installation of marine diesel engines in large commercial vessels like container ships or tankers is a direct connection to a fixed pitch propeller, no clutch, no gearbox, no nothing. This means that such a ship can't move slowly on its own power but on the other hand gives lowest maintanance cost and best fuel economy for the designed speed. - Alureiter 12:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slow speeds, direct drive, Modern Marine Engineering =-) You are partially incorrect about the fixed pitch propellor. Many modern ships used a controllable pitch propeller, allowing the engine to be run at its most efficient speed, and the propeller blades are adjusted in accordance to bridge commands. You are correct about direct drive though, this extremely slow speed of the engine also allows for the long, slow burn that crude marine fuels require. Marine Diesel fuels are getting heavier and heavier (the cracking process in refining which gets the lighter distillate fuels, such as gasoline and kerosene out, is getting "better and better", meanwhile what's left over once that is done is often burned by the Maritime Industry - anywhere else and environmentalists would cry foul...out of sight out of mind). Hengineer 07:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LARGE commercial ships powered by engines like this one don't have CPPs, nobody can make such propellers powerful/large enough. IIRC the largest CPP is <40MW. We are talking about sizes like this. 80.218.218.68 19:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive piece of machinery

How is this engine started? Pneumatically?

Yes, large marine diesels are started with compressed air. - Alureiter 10:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RTA96-C : what are the (a) compression ratio, (b) maximum compression pressure and firing prressure at full load?

Regards

Ritinkar Sen

I have troubles to believe, that the engine is really started by compressed air because the small electric motor left to the flywheel in this picture

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/rta96c_crank.jpg

looks perfectly like a starting device to me. If the engine is really started with compressed air, what purpose have the gearwheel teeth of the flywheel? Do they drive alternators?

Regards,

euphras

It is started by compressed air. The small electric motor is to turn the engine to carry out maintenance or position pistons etc and the motor drives the flywheel through reduction gears. That's why you see teeth on the flywheel.

oi...Modern Marine Diesel Engines are started by Compressed air admitted to each cylinder in the same order as the firing sequence. Smaller engines are usually started by a small hydraulic or pneumatic motor (even smaller by electric motor). The above person is correct, usually called the "turning gear", that small motor has been in existence since the old steam days. Basically any time maintenance or engine inspections are performed, the turning gear is used to slowly rotate the engine (slowly in that the gearing allows for a smaller motor to be used, at the same time lowering the RPM of shaft speed @ turning gear speed. Hengineer 07:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

14-cylinder

--Ritinkarsen 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)…--Ritinkarsen 12:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)I'd say it's a 14 cylinder engine in the picture...[reply]

I count only 12 heads. The first 14 cylinder engine is just completed for the biggest maersk container ship, the gudrun maersk, I have to add it after verification. --Marc Lacoste 21:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Marc. its wrong! Gudrun Maersk has a Sulzer 12 RTflex96C engine. a 14 cylinder engine is not built yet. The worldwide first 14 cylinder engine was the MAN-B&W 14 K98 ME, built in S.Korea for the newest Maersk container vessels.217.9.49.2 11:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you're right, 217.9.49.2, the gudrun maersk is powered by a 12 cylinder, but i don't saw a press release from MAN saying they have built a 14 cylinder neither. MAN will break the 100 000 hp barrier in february 2006 with a 12 cylinder, and Wartsila will make a 14 cylinder for 2008 --Marc Lacoste 17:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there is no 14 Cylinder version yet.. i don't think it wil come in this type anyway

If you look at the photos from Hyundai plant, you will see that the 14-cylinder is actually a 8 + 6 cylinder engines manufactured in one piece, it's obvious from the crankshaft. It makes sense to make it that way for the torque distribution over the crankshaft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wärtsilä Drops the brand name 'Sulzer'

Wärtsilä has changed the name of this engine into Wärtsilä RT-Flex, do we have to change the name also ??

Create an article, then cause this article to redirect there, with a mention about the previous name. Is that so hard? By the way, source? Hengineer 08:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checked the Wartsila website, no the flex is a different line of products. The website states the flex has "better" capabilities, better fuel economy, "smokeless" operation, less maintenance, etc... http://www.wartsila.com/,en,productsservices,productdetail,product,106F8B1D-FFFA-400A-9F3A-7C4B5FBF7A47,5B676C68-5794-4765-AB44-4077CD1BF36F,,8001.htm Hengineer 16:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Crosshead bearing

Main and only reason why all big engines have crosshead is because of huge masses in motion and extreme side forces which will destroy cylinder liner after few hours in operation if engine does not have crosshead bearing. As it is, crosshead bearing take those forces and pisron, rings, and liner are not affected by them. Due to distance from crancase, lubrication of liner must be provided with a pump, not by splashing, and that is reason for additional lubricating system. Comment in article is completly false. --Billy the lid (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC) some trunk piston engines also have addtitional piston lubrication .wdl24.146.23.84 (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2008 (UTC)wdl[reply]

Actually, these engine have no choice but to have crossheads. Their strokes are so long that connecting rod and crank will overlap with the liner. Just remove the crosshead and see where is the crankpin when the piston is at TDC and how wide the connecting rod will travel when piston moves down to BDC from TDC. Rgds/Rajesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.116.194.131 (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree - the article states that the reason for the crosshead design is to allow split lubrication of the upper and lower parts of the engine, but this has cause and effect the wrong way around. Split lubrication is a consequence of the design, not a reason for it.

Furthermore, the cylinders are not "continuously" lubricated; oil is injected in a controlled and timed manner, sometimes by nothing more complicated than a differential pressure valve and sometimes by electronic control. 194.221.50.54 (talk) 11:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited as per above challenges. Weasley one (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both design choices (crosshead and separate lubricating systems) are made at the same time, the combustible piston lubricant needs different properties as the crankshaft lubricant. What I remember from the RT96 article is that they made an innovation of SEPARATED oil flows, that is, the piston has oil injectors cooling it (there are photos) and the oil then returns inside of the connecting rod towards the crosshead. What Wartsilla-Sulzer was happy to brag about at that time was the elimination of the cross-contamination of the two separate lubricating systems, allowing you to use two VERY different lubricants. This sure isn't a new invention, but it is one that is absolutely necessary for an engine of this type, size and efficiency. Crankcase/gear oils containing ZDDP and other fouling EP additives would cause higher smoke/smell emissions and foul exhaust, oil for piston rings needs to withstand high temperatures and condensing water and weak H2SO4, which gear oil doesn't need. With well separated oil systems the running costs and oil properties can be well optimised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.64.17.186 (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Picture?

Can we get a photo or two of this thing for the article? I read the description of a 5-story tall engine and, well, I want to see it. LOL --Ragemanchoo (talk) 02:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://people.bath.ac.uk/ccsshb/12cyl/ has pictures of this family of engine, though not that particular one. It should give you some sense of the scale. 67.98.226.14 (talk) 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel consumption

Where does the figure, "~160 grammes @ full load", come from? According to the Wärtsilä website the fuel consumption at full load is over 170 g/kWh. Tupsumato (talk) 14:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing specific fuel consumption and fuel injected per cylinder event. The article's sfc claim agarees with you, perhaps it needs to be rewritten for clarity. Greglocock (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake. This has happened awfully lot lately... Tupsumato (talk) 06:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two different engines

This article describes two different engines in a manner that may mislead and confuse the reader. Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA96C (there is no hyphen) has an injection pump, overhead cam and all other things of a traditional diesel. Wärtsilä-Sulzer RTA-flex96C, however, doesn't have all that. It's a common-rail engine. Somebody fix this. Le Grand Bleu (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common Rail

Doesn't Common Rail only refer to the fuel injection system, and NOT to some of the other mechanical items mentioned? Oceanic84 (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]