Diesel engine

On Sun, 25 Apr 2004, Pete Schaefer wrote:

I've watched the Mazda B13 thing closely over the last couple of years.
There are some interesting possibilities there, but none of the good options
look very cheap.

I think mine is a good option, and it is cheap. My 13b has flown over
400 hours in the last five years, and cost less than $2000. My fuel
burn is always less than a Lycoming at same speed/distance. It has
not had one hiccup inflight. I used the standard gearbox in second
gear, and it works fine.


You'll still spend a lot of time wringing the engine out
on the ground before you can gain enough confidence that you've done all
your homework.

This we agree on! Few would be dumb enough to leave mother earth and
wonder if the motor will make good power. In my case, the weather was too
cold to do layups anyway, so I enjoyed the time spent testing my motor.

BTW, I repair turbocharged diesel engined trucks for my living, and often
wonder if a part would be as reliable if it weighed one-tenth of what
the good ones weigh in at. Not likely.

The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.

I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!

George Graham
RX-7 Powered Graham-EZ, N4449E
Homepage http://bfn.org/~ca266

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:16:54 -0400, "George A. Graham"
wrote:

The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.

I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!

Hey George, good to hear from you. The Lycoming engine can get as low
as .38 BSFC when properly set up. Few pilots seem willing to go there
though as it requires leaning past peak. See John Deakin and "Mixture
Magic" in the AVWeb columns. The GAMI folks demonstrate the above
fuel burn routinely on their test stand. Auto engines tend to be at
..42 as you mention. I think lower BSFC with the big bore aircraft
engines has to do with large pistons and long stroke, I think, not
absolutely sure.

I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
try to go flying without any test runs.

Corky Scott

wrote:

On Mon, 26 Apr 2004 13:16:54 -0400, "George A. Graham"
wrote:

The BSFC of the Mazda wankle can get as good as .42, where the Lycoming
is over .5, and the turbo diesel is best at .36 lbs/hp/hr.

I am aware that most people should avoid trying to craft their own
airplane engine, but if you are so inclined, the Wankle rules!

Hey George, good to hear from you. The Lycoming engine can get as low
as .38 BSFC when properly set up. Few pilots seem willing to go there
though as it requires leaning past peak. See John Deakin and "Mixture
Magic" in the AVWeb columns. The GAMI folks demonstrate the above
fuel burn routinely on their test stand. Auto engines tend to be at
.42 as you mention. I think lower BSFC with the big bore aircraft
engines has to do with large pistons and long stroke, I think, not
absolutely sure.

I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
try to go flying without any test runs.

Corky Scott

Corky, your engine is liquid cooled, right?
Go for it and have fun.

But air cooled engines should generally _not_ be run static at high
power
for long periods - (ESPECIALLY VW conversions).

Richard
(Just my opinion, I could be wrong...)

wrote:

I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
try to go flying without any test runs.

Corky Scott

And don't just run it on the ground. You've got to instrument that
baby. Get a bunch of temperature probes and stick one to everything you
can. Add a handful of accelerometers to measure vibration at multiple
points if you can get your hands on them. I've read that the biggest
advances in aviation power during the second world war came about due to
improvements in instrumentation. It makes sense. You won't know what
to strengthen or cool if you don't know what's hot or under harmonic
vibrations.

Someone here mentioned an adjustable strobe light at night to look for
harmonics.


--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

Ernest Christley wrote:

wrote:

I'm getting set to do the ground runs on my engine and intend to run
it throughout the summer at high power settings. I don't understand
people who just bolt an engine, any engine, to the airframe and then
try to go flying without any test runs.

Corky Scott

And don't just run it on the ground. You've got to instrument that
baby. Get a bunch of temperature probes and stick one to everything you
can. Add a handful of accelerometers to measure vibration at multiple
points if you can get your hands on them. I've read that the biggest
advances in aviation power during the second world war came about due to
improvements in instrumentation. It makes sense. You won't know what
to strengthen or cool if you don't know what's hot or under harmonic
vibrations.

Someone here mentioned an adjustable strobe light at night to look for
harmonics.

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber


Good point. Excellent point, in fact.

My engine is a VW. Not a certified aircraft engine.

Quite a bit less then $1,000,000 has been spent on detailed engineering,
testing, analysis, etc to convert this into a safe aircraft engine.

Even though haven't spent much of that million on engineering, I don't
seem to have much left for instrumentation I suspect the coffee
fund).

Accelerometers struck out - cost, complexity, and I wouldn't know what
to do with them anyway.


One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.

Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
anything.


The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
where it is not warmed much from engine heat.

One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
carb heat muff.

But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?

Only way to know for sure is to measure it.

Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?

Richard


PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun

I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.

I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
disco strobe for the job.

But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
Until now.

Thanks.

Richard

Richard Lamb wrote:


PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun

I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.

I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
disco strobe for the job.

But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
Until now.

Thanks.

Richard

Radio Shack has a strobe for about $20. It's cheap, and won't even give
an epiletic a fit, but it has variable timing and does flash. You just
won't be able to use it in direct sunlight. Wait 'till evening or find
an old barn?

--
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
"Ignorance is mankinds normal state,
alleviated by information and experience."
Veeduber

In article , Ernest Christley wrote:
Another strobe that many people have in their shop is an automotive timing
light. You can wind a simple coil of a few dozen turns and put it in the
trigger clip. Then, any convenient signal source such as an audio signal
generator can be used to produce the timing signals.

good luck,
tom pettit



PS: thanks for remembering the harmonics thread, Robert. (:it was fun

I remember thinking(back then) that I wanted to take a real good look
a the engine installation on the new plane for harmonic reactions.

I even asked around and found someone who have an old variable speed
disco strobe for the job.

But the engine wasn't ready to run back then, and I forgot about it.
Until now.

Thanks.

Richard

Radio Shack has a strobe for about $20. It's cheap, and won't even give
an epiletic a fit, but it has variable timing and does flash. You just
won't be able to use it in direct sunlight. Wait 'till evening or find
an old barn?

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004 14:15:28 GMT, wrote:

In article , Ernest Christley wrote:
Another strobe that many people have in their shop is an automotive timing
light. You can wind a simple coil of a few dozen turns and put it in the
trigger clip. Then, any convenient signal source such as an audio signal
generator can be used to produce the timing signals.

good luck,
tom pettit

But what's a fella to do with the flashing light? What are you
checking and what's it all mean?

I mean the engine's going to have this 74" diameter prop on it and
it's bound to vibrate some. How do you tell what's normal and what
isn't?

Corky Scott

Richard,
Check this out... four K-type thermocouples and readout for $100! I
have had one for a couple years and it gets used every flight. Omega
is a well-respected name in industrial/scientific community.

http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH501DK

Sid Knox
Velocity N199RS
Starduster N666SK
KR2 N24TC
W7QJQ


One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.

Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
anything.


The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
where it is not warmed much from engine heat.

One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
carb heat muff.

But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?

Only way to know for sure is to measure it.

Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?

Richard

sidk wrote:

Richard,
Check this out... four K-type thermocouples and readout for $100! I
have had one for a couple years and it gets used every flight. Omega
is a well-respected name in industrial/scientific community.

http://www.omega.com/ppt/pptsc.asp?ref=HH501DK

Sid Knox
Velocity N199RS
Starduster N666SK
KR2 N24TC
W7QJQ

One thing I would like to instrument is the carburetor temperature.

Not a permenant gauge on the panel (I have one - but there's no space).
Just a low buck way of monitoring the carb temp in flight for a while to
see whazzappenin and see if pulling the carb heat knob is really doing
anything.


The carb is below the engine (KR2 style intakes manifold from GPAS)
where it is not warmed much from engine heat.

One of these days I want to make new exhaust pipes with a proper
carb heat muff.

But for now, I wonder if the air passing thru the cylinder fins would
be hot enough (too hot enough?) to work well - or not?

Only way to know for sure is to measure it.

Isn't there supposed to be a way to do that with a digital multimeter
and thermosistor, or thermocouple (what)?

Richard




Thanks Sid, Very intereseting site.
And yes, that puppy just might solve my silly problems...

Richard