![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Go up in a small GA single engine. Turn the radios off. Turn the
alternator off. Turn the Master off. Turn one magneto off. Note that the engine keeps running. THAT's why they use magnetos. I do agree that electronic ignition would be a good idea. The one's I have seen revert to a mechanical system if electrical is lost. But you cannot handprop them. And they add complexity and weight. There are tradeoffs. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods
to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder designs. The improved fuel efficiency of a diesel would mean less fuel weight for even better performance. The lack of magnetos means that only fuel is needed to run once started. Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Mike MU-2 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them? -- Dan C-172RG at BFM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Dan Luke" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote: What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them? -- Dan C-172RG at BFM There are air cooled diesels made by Lombardini for use in tractors and stationary applications. Diesels tend to run cooler than gasoline engines. Air cooling should work better with a diesel than with a gasoline engine. Mike MU-2 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dan Luke wrote:
: "Mike Rapoport" wrote: : What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for : simplicity. : Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you : be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the : large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them? Deutz makes large aircooled turbo diesels for the marine industry. 1500HP and up. They don't have the greatest reputation because of lack of appreciation of the necessity of keeping the air moving over them, and the lack of skilled maintenance folks to keep them running. They're available, though. -- Aaron C. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dan Luke wrote:
"Mike Rapoport" wrote: What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them? I don't know of any in aircraft, but I believe at least one Ag company had an air cooled diesel (I want to say Deutz, but am not 100% sure). The biggest problem is making a diesel that is both robust and the same weight as an equivalent power gasoline engine. The high compression required for auto ignition comes at a significant penalty in either weight or reliability ... and most of us want our airplane engines to be reliable so you pay in weight. Matt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Mike,
What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder designs. Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine, depending on your definition of "not significantly" and your ability to forget about the 400 hp. IMHO, that requirement doesn't really make sense anyway: Why design something for 400 hp and then run it at only 300? The lack of magnetos means that only fuel is needed to run once started. Not necessarily, with a modern diesel. Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Depends on your view of "simplicity". -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Thomas Borchert wrote:
Mike, What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder designs. Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine, FYI, you can see (and hear) it running at http://www.hp-aircraft.de/img/27-09-04-3.MOV If you prefer two of them in a taxiing aircaft, try http://www.hp-aircraft.de/img/TT62%2...%2003dez04.AVI Greetings, Markus |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Thomas Borchert" wrote in message ... Mike, What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder designs. Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine, depending on your definition of "not significantly" and your ability to forget about the 400 hp. IMHO, that requirement doesn't really make sense anyway: Why design something for 400 hp and then run it at only 300? The lack of magnetos means that only fuel is needed to run once started. Not necessarily, with a modern diesel. Air cooling would be nice for simplicity. Depends on your view of "simplicity". -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) Every geared engine that I know of allows higher rpm and hence horsepower for takeoff and then requires a rpm reduction. I think that radials are rated for take-off and then have a METO (maximium except take off) rating which is less. Come to think of it every normally aspirated engine has more power for take-off than for cruise because of air density.. Seaplanes also need a lot of power for adequate takeoff performance but not thereafter. I flew a Murphy Moose with a 360hp engine. We used full power for takeoff but once at cruise we were back to 50% power. The Moose would do 145mph on under 14gph but only 155 on 23gph so it only needed the big engine for takeoff. Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ROP masking of engine problems | Roger Long | Owning | 4 | September 27th 04 07:36 PM |
Proposals for air breathing hypersonic craft. I | Robert Clark | Military Aviation | 2 | May 26th 04 06:42 PM |
My Engine Fire!! | [email protected] | Owning | 1 | March 31st 04 01:41 PM |
Car engine FAA certified for airplane use | Cy Galley | Home Built | 10 | February 6th 04 03:03 PM |
Corky's engine choice | Corky Scott | Home Built | 39 | August 8th 03 04:29 AM |