Diesel aircraft engines and are the light jets pushing out the twins?

Paul,

He said single engine...


Oops! My bad....

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
Paul,

He said single engine...

Oops! My bad....

Do you know of any single engine figures? I couldn't find them on
the site. I seem to remember a year or so ago there was a claim for
quite a good rate of climb on one engine (700fpm at 10k feet?
Something like that) but I can't see anything about rate of climb
or ceiling or anything like that on there now.

Paul

Paul,

No, I looked, too, but didn't find anything. With the turbos, I can't
imagine it to be as low as the OP posted, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Paul Sengupta wrote:

I seem to remember a year or so ago there was a claim for
quite a good rate of climb on one engine (700fpm at 10k feet?
Something like that)

That's impressive. My Maule will only do about 300 fpm at that altitude.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...

Paul Sengupta wrote:

I seem to remember a year or so ago there was a claim for
quite a good rate of climb on one engine (700fpm at 10k feet?
Something like that)

That's impressive. My Maule will only do about 300 fpm at that altitude.

With the turbocharged diesels, I think I'm correct in saying you get
full power up to 10k feet, so I don't suppose it makes a huge difference
to the rate of climb whether you're at 3k or 10k.

I don't suppose it is 700fpm since that's pretty much what the climb rate
is for the DA40 (single engine) at sea level...and the DA42 has to carry
another engine and some aerodynamic penalty. And maybe the gross
weight is higher, too...I would expect it to be since the DA40 would have
a higher payload to the tune of one engine if it didn't!

DA40 specs:
Sea level rate of climb - 780fpm.
Rate of climb at 10k ft - 590fpm.
MTOW - 1150kg.

DA42 specs (two engines running)
Sea level rate of climb - 1,730fpm.
Rate of climb at 10k ft - 1,542fpm.
MTOW - 1650kg.

http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA40/facts.htm
http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/facts.htm

The original was probably a vapour-ware figure. While I
would guess that the single engine ceiling wouldn't be that
low, I wouldn't have thought the rate of climb at 1650kg
would be blistering.

Paul

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:13:49 -0700, wrote:

A gas turbine scales up easily and but is nearly impossible to scale
down. The auto manuacturers found that out in the 1940s - remember
the "car of the future" on the covers of Popular Science et al?
Turbines for cars are further away now than they were 55 years ago.
The turbine suffers from excessive fuel consumption at part throttle
(the piston engine is incredibly flexible that way)and in smaller HP
installations.
[...]

This is not my recollection. What killed auto turbines was their
spool-up and spool-down time, and gearboxes for 20,000 RPMs.

BTW, remember the rail engines. The turbines there tried to compete
well into 1960s. They were killed by their short overhaul time,
not fuel consumption.

-- Pete

In rec.aviation.owning Pete Zaitcev wrote:
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:13:49 -0700, wrote:

A gas turbine scales up easily and but is nearly impossible to scale
down. The auto manuacturers found that out in the 1940s - remember
the "car of the future" on the covers of Popular Science et al?
Turbines for cars are further away now than they were 55 years ago.
The turbine suffers from excessive fuel consumption at part throttle
(the piston engine is incredibly flexible that way)and in smaller HP
installations.
[...]

This is not my recollection. What killed auto turbines was their
spool-up and spool-down time, and gearboxes for 20,000 RPMs.

BTW, remember the rail engines. The turbines there tried to compete
well into 1960s. They were killed by their short overhaul time,
not fuel consumption.

-- Pete

According to a guy I worked with who worked on the Chrysler turbine car,
the problem that was the straw that broke the camel's back was the under
the hood temperature being too high for all the other stuff under the
hood, i.e. wiper motors, relays, etc.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Paul Sengupta" wrote

Do you know of any single engine figures? I couldn't find them on
the site. I seem to remember a year or so ago there was a claim for
quite a good rate of climb on one engine (700fpm at 10k feet?
Something like that) but I can't see anything about rate of climb
or ceiling or anything like that on there now.

Paul
++++++++++++++++++++++++
AIRC, it was between 3 and 4 thousand, but this was a prototype that was
being reviewed in a magazine article. I remember that number, because the
mountains around my home are about that elevation, and my thought was, "gee,
kinda' ruins the reason to have a twin, since you will still crash, if you
lose an engine."

They may have improved the production model. Or not, since you couldn't
find any specs on that. :-o

Also, to you, Thomas, I would not have seen your comment about me, but
someone included it in their reply. You will not find anyone more pro "made
in the USA", than me.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/19/2004

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Paul Sengupta" wrote

Do you know of any single engine figures? I couldn't find them on
the site. I seem to remember a year or so ago there was a claim for
quite a good rate of climb on one engine (700fpm at 10k feet?
Something like that) but I can't see anything about rate of climb
or ceiling or anything like that on there now.

Paul
++++++++++++++++++++++++
AIRC, it was between 3 and 4 thousand, but this was a prototype that was
being reviewed in a magazine article. I remember that number, because the
mountains around my home are about that elevation, and my thought was,
"gee,
kinda' ruins the reason to have a twin, since you will still crash, if you
lose an engine."

They may have improved the production model. Or not, since you couldn't
find any specs on that. :-o

Also, to you, Thomas, I would not have seen your comment about me, but
someone included it in their reply. You will not find anyone more pro
"made
in the USA", than me.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 9/19/2004


I would really be surprised if the single engine service ceiling was three
or four thousand. Its probably at least as high as the critical altitude
for the engine(s) and I've never heard of a turbocharged engine with a
critical altitude of 3-4,000'. Also, you don't need a single engine service
ceiling above terrain unless you have to climb out and fly to your
destination on one engine. First, the single engine service ceiling is
where a climb of 50fpm can achieved. The altitude where altitude can be
held is considerably higher. Even if you are thousands of feet above the
altitude where level flight can be maintained the descent rate is very low
and you will go a long way (hundreds of nm) before reaching the maximium
sustainable altitude. You would never reach the single engine service
ceiling. Barry Schieff had some actual figures in one of his Proficient
Pilot series of books.

Mike
MU-2

Roy Smith wrote:

But, I suppose the Jet-A folks have
figured out the right additives to solve that problem.

Oil-fuel heat exchange?

--
Fritz