![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:22:41 -0700, James Sleeman
wrote in .com: On Aug 7, 3:39 am, Larry Dighera wrote: Are external combustion engines as efficient as internal combustion engines? Stirling engines are great for converting waste heat to mechanical energy, but I'm not sure how appropriate they would be for aircraft propulsion. In theory, I think that stirling engines are quite well suited to aircraft, all it needs is a source of "hot" and a source of "cold", the cold is in abundance (stick a heatsink in the wind, higher you go, colder it gets, more power the engine can deliver, directly the opposite of IC), the hot could be provided with any number of combustables (and some oxygen delivery system). I see what you mean. Unfortunately, the highest power requirements of aircraft engines are during the takeoff and climb phases of flight. Power requirements are even greater when the ambient temperature rises resulting in less air density or a higher density altitude. That is when the most power is required for takeoff, but that would be a situation where the Stirling engine would have its minimum power production. I would also like to see a comparison of the efficiencies of IC and EC engines and their relative weight and size per horsepower compared. Unlike electrical motors, that must be constructed with heavy iron, IC and EC engines can be constructed of lighter materials like aluminum, but electrical motors are usually 80% to 95% efficient. With the Stirling aircraft engine there is a requirement for what I would imagine would be a large heat sink or heat exchanger located in the slip stream. The weight of this heat exchanger and its drag penalty must also be considered. I found yesterday after writing my initial post an article about exactly this - http://www.qrmc.com/fourpartstirling.html "Why Aviation Needs the Stirling Engine by Darryl Phillips" from 1993/1994. Given what was said in the article, I'm kind of surprised that nobody has come up with a working protoype actually. The article is interesting; thank you for mentioning it. I am e-mailing a copy of this followup article to the author Darryl Phillips. There might be one advantage to using Sterling external combustion engines for aviation: the use of atomic energy as a fuel source if the weight of the lead shielding were not too great. Imagine an aircraft that effectively never runs out of fuel! There'd be no more fuel exhaustion mishaps. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Electrically Powered Ultralight Aircraft | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 178 | December 31st 07 08:53 PM |
Solar powered aircraft. Was: Can Aircraft Be Far Behind? | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 4 | February 9th 07 01:11 PM |
World's First Certified Electrically Propelled Aircraft? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | September 22nd 06 01:50 AM |
Powered gliders = powered aircraft for 91.205 | Mark James Boyd | Soaring | 2 | December 12th 04 03:28 AM |
Help! 2motors propelled ultralight aircraft | [email protected] | Home Built | 3 | July 9th 03 01:02 AM |