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

Roy Smith wrote:

It is certainly possible to build much larger piston engines than that.
How about http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

Ah! I've always wondered how that Antonov 225 Mrija was powered...

Stefan

"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
Turbines do suffer from manufacturing defects (if I recall, there was an
uncontained failure in the 90's on some rear-engine jet -- 727, DC-9 or
something like that -- where the blade failure was due to some
metallurgical
problem).

Sioux City DC10.

Not actually the accident I'm thinking of. But yes, that's another example
of blade failure (did they eventually determine it was a manufacturing
defect, or a maintenance problem?).

The accident to which I was referring only involved one or two fatalities,
of a passenger or of passengers sitting right next to the engine.

Pete

I believe you are referring to a Delta MD-80/88 that
was taking off from Pensacola. I think there were
two killed and a couple of injuries.

Mike Pvt/IFT N44979 PA28-181 at RYY

Peter Duniho wrote:
"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...

Turbines do suffer from manufacturing defects (if I recall, there was an
uncontained failure in the 90's on some rear-engine jet -- 727, DC-9 or
something like that -- where the blade failure was due to some

metallurgical

problem).

Sioux City DC10.


Not actually the accident I'm thinking of. But yes, that's another example
of blade failure (did they eventually determine it was a manufacturing
defect, or a maintenance problem?).

The accident to which I was referring only involved one or two fatalities,
of a passenger or of passengers sitting right next to the engine.

Pete

"Peter Duniho" writes:


Not actually the accident I'm thinking of. But yes, that's another example
of blade failure (did they eventually determine it was a manufacturing
defect, or a maintenance problem?).

The accident to which I was referring only involved one or two fatalities,
of a passenger or of passengers sitting right next to the engine.


I recall it as well. DC-9, I believe...

--
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

Mike H writes:

I believe you are referring to a Delta MD-80/88 that
was taking off from Pensacola. I think there were
two killed and a couple of injuries.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...08X06203&key=1

--
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

Mike,

TCM IO-520/550's running LOP are about .39-.40 BPSC according to the GAMI
folks, the SEMA engine is about .33-.35 from their specs. At 70K for their
engine conversion and the cost of JetA being within 10% of the cost of 100LL
at most GA airports I ageree with you and don't think we'll see a lot
diesel's in the near future.

The Diamond Twin really impresses me, can' t wait for an independent
(non-Flying or other slick mag) pilot report to see how it really does.

Ernie
BE36 E-160
KDVO


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
k.net...
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

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

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport
wrote:
About the size of the Caravan 900hp+

Mike
MU-2

According to the Cessna website, the current Caravan is 675hp.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"Paul Sengupta" wrote in message
...
Turbines do suffer from manufacturing defects (if I recall, there was
an
uncontained failure in the 90's on some rear-engine jet -- 727, DC-9 or
something like that -- where the blade failure was due to some
metallurgical
problem).

Sioux City DC10.

Not actually the accident I'm thinking of. But yes, that's another
example
of blade failure (did they eventually determine it was a manufacturing
defect, or a maintenance problem?).

They say it was a manufacturing defect about the size of a grain of
sand.

http://www.ntsb.gov/speeches/former/hall/jh970912.htm

"Metallurgical examination of the titanium fan hub revealed that a fatigue
crack originated from an inclusion near the surface of the hub's bore. The
inclusion had been formed during the titanium vacuum-melting process at the
time of manufacture about 2 decades earlier, which developed an internal
cavity during final machining and/or shot peening. At the time of
manufacture, the fan hub had been ultrasonic and macroetch inspected."

The accident to which I was referring only involved one or two fatalities,
of a passenger or of passengers sitting right next to the engine.

Yes, I know the one you're talking about.

It's mentioned on the page referenced above:
"We will soon conclude our investigation on that Delta Air Lines MD-88
engine failure I mentioned earlier. Metallurgical examination of the
fracture surface of that fan hub revealed that a fatigue crack had
originated from a machining defect in a tie rod hole. Further, the fan hub
had been fluorescent particle inspected only seven months before the
failure, when the crack was estimated to be approximately ½-inch long."

Also http://www.ntsb.gov/pressrel/1998/980113d.htm

Paul

"Ernie Ganas" wrote

The Diamond Twin really impresses me, can' t wait for an independent
(non-Flying or other slick mag) pilot report to see how it really does.

Ernie

I hope they have a better single engine service ceiling than what they were
claiming during prototyping. I can't remember, but AIRC, it was less than 3
thousand feet.
--
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: 9/17/2004

Morgans,

I can't remember, but AIRC, it was less than 3
thousand feet.


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

FL180. But anything to bad-mouth a product not from the USofA, right?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

I can't remember, but AIRC, it was less than 3
thousand feet.


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

FL180. But anything to bad-mouth a product not from the USofA, right?

He said single engine...

Paul