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

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:
The Caravan has a 940hp engine flat rated to 675hp. Turbines are
typically
flat rated so that the engine can make rated power to reasonable
altitudes
and temperatures without having to design the gearbox for the full
thermodynamic horsepower. To keep the comparison with piston engines
apples
to apples you need to use thermodynamic ratings.

http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0http://w.../3_0_2_1_2.asp

OK, that explains that.

To put some numbers on things, the engines in my MU-2 have a specific
fuel
consumption of .55lb/hp/hr and a piston engine is about .45 and diesels
can
be under .40. Huge (ship) diesels can be under .30. Compare your model
aircraft engines with the TFE731-60 used on the Falcon 900EX which uses
.405lb/lb thrust/hr

Aha, numbers!

So if one assumes the motivation to switch from a piston to a turbine is
the price of gas is roughly twice Jet-A, the crossover point would be a
turbine that did about .8 (to allow for the weight difference in the
fuels).

Any idea how small (in appropriate terms of hp) current technology can
make
a turbine with that consumption?


--
Jim Pennino

That would be the economic crossover point if the engines cost the same. Of
course a plane that needed twice the fuel (in lbs) to achieve the same
performance wouldn't have much useful load or range.

Dropping a diesel in an airplane costs a bunch. The justification is the
cost is recovered in lowered fuel costs.

Your second point is certainly valid though and a minor problem with the
diesels according to the AVweb article on them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

A diesel doesn't cost any more that a piston engine. A STC'd conversion
costs more but, in a new airplane the cost should be the same.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:

wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport
wrote:
The Caravan has a 940hp engine flat rated to 675hp. Turbines are
typically
flat rated so that the engine can make rated power to reasonable
altitudes
and temperatures without having to design the gearbox for the full
thermodynamic horsepower. To keep the comparison with piston engines
apples
to apples you need to use thermodynamic ratings.

http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0http://w.../3_0_2_1_2.asp

OK, that explains that.

To put some numbers on things, the engines in my MU-2 have a specific
fuel
consumption of .55lb/hp/hr and a piston engine is about .45 and
diesels
can
be under .40. Huge (ship) diesels can be under .30. Compare your
model
aircraft engines with the TFE731-60 used on the Falcon 900EX which
uses
.405lb/lb thrust/hr

Aha, numbers!

So if one assumes the motivation to switch from a piston to a turbine
is
the price of gas is roughly twice Jet-A, the crossover point would be a
turbine that did about .8 (to allow for the weight difference in the
fuels).

Any idea how small (in appropriate terms of hp) current technology can
make
a turbine with that consumption?


--
Jim Pennino

That would be the economic crossover point if the engines cost the same.
Of
course a plane that needed twice the fuel (in lbs) to achieve the same
performance wouldn't have much useful load or range.

Dropping a diesel in an airplane costs a bunch. The justification is the
cost is recovered in lowered fuel costs.

Your second point is certainly valid though and a minor problem with the
diesels according to the AVweb article on them.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
A diesel doesn't cost any more that a piston engine. A STC'd conversion
costs more but, in a new airplane the cost should be the same.

Right. Some people seem to think that diesels are somehow magic. The
basic construction of a diesel and a gasoline engine are almost
identical. The only differences I can think of a

1) Higher compression ratio. This could be done with a longer-throw
crankshaft, a taller piston, a lower head, or some combination of all
three.

2) A fancier (higher-pressure) injector pump.

3) No spark plugs. Which means no ignition system (be it electronic or
magnetos).

4) Possibly the addition of some kind of starting assist such as glow
plugs.

The biggest problem I can see with a diesel is cold-weather operation.
I used to have a diesel car (1980's era VW Rabbit). It was a bitch to
start in really cold weather. If the glow plugs were in good shape, you
were fine down to about 20 F. Once you got down below about 10 F, you
probably weren't going to get it started without a preheat.

Somewhere down around 15 F, normal diesel fuel starts to gel. These are
temperatures commonly experienced aloft even at the altitudes spam cans
fly at in the winter in temperate climates. It would be real bad news
to get the engine going, only to have the fuel gel up in the tanks when
you reached cruising altitude. But, I suppose the Jet-A folks have
figured out the right additives to solve that problem.

In rec.aviation.owning Roy Smith wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
A diesel doesn't cost any more that a piston engine. A STC'd conversion
costs more but, in a new airplane the cost should be the same.

Right. Some people seem to think that diesels are somehow magic. The
basic construction of a diesel and a gasoline engine are almost
identical. The only differences I can think of a

1) Higher compression ratio. This could be done with a longer-throw
crankshaft, a taller piston, a lower head, or some combination of all
three.

2) A fancier (higher-pressure) injector pump.

3) No spark plugs. Which means no ignition system (be it electronic or
magnetos).

4) Possibly the addition of some kind of starting assist such as glow
plugs.

The biggest problem I can see with a diesel is cold-weather operation.
I used to have a diesel car (1980's era VW Rabbit). It was a bitch to
start in really cold weather. If the glow plugs were in good shape, you
were fine down to about 20 F. Once you got down below about 10 F, you
probably weren't going to get it started without a preheat.

Somewhere down around 15 F, normal diesel fuel starts to gel. These are
temperatures commonly experienced aloft even at the altitudes spam cans
fly at in the winter in temperate climates. It would be real bad news
to get the engine going, only to have the fuel gel up in the tanks when
you reached cruising altitude. But, I suppose the Jet-A folks have
figured out the right additives to solve that problem.

Because of the higher compression ratio, a diesel has to be built
"beefier" than a gas engine to last as the automakers found out when
they tried a direct conversion on their gas engines in the 80's.

All the aircraft diesels have a constant speed prop and FADEC.

If gelling of Jet-A were a problem, airliners would be falling out of
the sky on a regular basis.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

wrote:
Because of the higher compression ratio, a diesel has to be built
"beefier" than a gas engine to last as the automakers found out when
they tried a direct conversion on their gas engines in the 80's.

Well, the Rabbit I had was built with exactly the same block, pistons,
crank, etc, as the gas version. The basicly just slapped a shallower
head on the thing to increase the compression ratio.

We drove the car into the ground at about 160k miles. We replaced
pretty much all of the accessories (starter, water pump, alternator,
radiator, etc) at least once, and the clutch wore out at about 110k, and
the body was more rust than steel, and the electrical system was a mess,
but the core engine was just fine.

The only thing that ever happened to the engine core was a blown head
gasket, but that was really my fault. We had chronic overheating
problems due to a leak in the cooling system that we didn't fix for a
while. Eventually, the gasket said, "OK, if you want to keep abusing me
like that, I'm outta here".

In rec.aviation.owning Roy Smith wrote:
wrote:
Because of the higher compression ratio, a diesel has to be built
"beefier" than a gas engine to last as the automakers found out when
they tried a direct conversion on their gas engines in the 80's.

Well, the Rabbit I had was built with exactly the same block, pistons,
crank, etc, as the gas version. The basicly just slapped a shallower
head on the thing to increase the compression ratio.

We drove the car into the ground at about 160k miles. We replaced
pretty much all of the accessories (starter, water pump, alternator,
radiator, etc) at least once, and the clutch wore out at about 110k, and
the body was more rust than steel, and the electrical system was a mess,
but the core engine was just fine.

The only thing that ever happened to the engine core was a blown head
gasket, but that was really my fault. We had chronic overheating
problems due to a leak in the cooling system that we didn't fix for a
while. Eventually, the gasket said, "OK, if you want to keep abusing me
like that, I'm outta here".

The debacle I'm talking about was Chevey's (?) attempt to power pickups
with a gas engine converted to diesel by basically the same method.

You can get away with this if the basic engine is strong to start with
and you're not trying to pull too many horses out of it.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Well, the Rabbit I had was built with exactly the same block, pistons,
crank, etc, as the gas version. The basicly just slapped a shallower
head on the thing to increase the compression ratio.

I could have sworn the Rabbit Diesel had a way different engine,
but I could be wrong.


The debacle I'm talking about was Chevey's (?) attempt to power pickups
with a gas engine converted to diesel by basically the same method.

Not pickups AFAIK; station wagons and maybe sedans. This was Roger
Smith at his finest.

A friend bought one with a dead@55000 mile engine. It was an stock
gas block; no where NEAR beefy enough. The blowby was so bad, the
engine soiled itself at every seal; he'd get 250 miles to the quart;
all leakage. At least it didn't rust!

It had a one-of-kind starter and flywheel. The distributor was
replaced with a vacuum pump to drive the HVAC door flaps. It had
dual batteries, designed wrong. The brakes were run off the PS pump,
so when the engine stalled, stop NOW.

He put in a gas 350 and drove it for 10 years more.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

wrote:



If gelling of Jet-A were a problem, airliners would be falling out of
the sky on a regular basis.

It is a problem. It is solved by heating the fuel.

"Newps" wrote in message
...


wrote:



If gelling of Jet-A were a problem, airliners would be falling out of
the sky on a regular basis.

It is a problem. It is solved by heating the fuel.

.... and since hydraulic fluid needs cooling they locate the hyd.cooling
coils inside the fuel tank(s). That helps solve two problems.

Excerpted from other posts.......

Any talk about Jet-A jelling sounds....bogus..

If gelling of Jet-A were a problem, airliners would be
falling out of the sky on a regular basis.

It is a problem. It is solved by heating the fuel.


It is a problem on long flights at high altitudes and high
latitudes. The fuel filters on the Boeings that I flew
were heated to prevent the screens from "waxing" over.
The fuel itself was not heated. The filters were heated
with hot engine bleed air and heated for one minute every
thirty minutes when the fuel temperature dropped below zero
degrees celsius.

At PanAm, we had three procedures for dealing with extremely
low temperatures across the North Atlantic.

1. Re-route to a more southernly (warmer) route.
2. Reduce altitude to a warmer OAT.
3. Increase speed for a greater friction effect on the tanks.
At around M.80, the Ram Air Temperature is about thirty
degrees higher than the True Air Temperature.

All of these required extra fuel of course and we depended
on the Dispatcher providing a good Temp Aloft forecast.

Bob Moore
ATP B-707 B-727
PanAm (retired)