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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
you should see the flame at full power during
takeoff!...bright orange/red/yellow right back off the rear of the wing! wooHoo... Oh Indeeedy! WooooooooHoooooooo!!!!!!! I was in P2V Neptunes. Seem to recall exhaust flames were quite visible. Long time ago. Quent |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
On two cycle diesels, Detroit Diesels are what I am familiar with,
number 1 fuel is not recommended because of its poor lubricating quality. Diesel fuel must cool and lubricate the mechanical injectors. To prevent the wax in #2 from falling out of suspension in cold weather it can be mixed with #1 to lower the pour point. It's usually better to lower the pour point on on road applications chemically but you do what you have to do to keep them running. Ron |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Gord,
Not so much on us automotive engineers today... A lot of modern automotive engines are run right along the knock limit for efficiency, with knock control constantly operating. To do this, there has to be a knock event every now and then for the knock control to be able to detect the limit. (Knock control just detects knock events and retards the ignition. When there is no knock, ignition is advanced again until the next knock occurs.) This normally works fine. However on some (not all) engine types, on high load testbed runs this has recently led to very rare statistical occurence of "super-knock" events, with disastrous results. Yes, that's quite interesting to me, and it backs my opinion of using low test fuel in my cars...I never use high test fuel at all, mind you, I only use standard domestic vehicles but I consider high test wasteful in modern engines with 'knock control'. Well, it depends... Normally you won't damage an engine with knock control by using lower grade fuel than recommended, however within limits. If you use very low octane fuel on a high compression or a turbocharged engine, ignition might occur before the spark just from the compression, as we discussed. There is nothing knock control can do about that. Also, depending on your driving profile, you might find that fuel consumption increases with the lower grade fuel, as retarded ignition reduces engine efficiency. This is especially valid at high engine loads and low engine speed, where the biggest retard is neccessary. Wether the increase in consumption will eat up the price advantage of the lower grade can only be determined by experiment. Yes, I understand that, another good system that GAMI is looking at is their accurate fuel injectors to enable automobile engines to be run lean. Now that is a new one to me! I know about GAMIs injectors for GA piston engines and all the LOP-operation stuff, wich are around for a while now, and which I think are a big improvement. I didn't know that they are planning on entering the automotive market and I'm quite surprised. Automotive engines, different from aviation, run stoechiometric basically anywhere on the map exept full load. (stoechiometric mixture is more or less peak EGT). Due to their design, mostly liquid cooled, temperatures are not a problem. Of course you could run such an engine lean (LOP), but you won't pass any emissions test for sure. I don't think you really need special injectors to do it, but you would need to retune the ECU. And the fuel savings compared to running stoechiometric are only a fraction of what you save if otherwise you have to run rich. The Japanese car makers had lean running engines on the market for a while, and some of the direct injection gaoline engines being developed now also run lean by creating a stratified charge. But that's far beyond an aftermarket improvement. We run (perhaps ran might be more accurate) large recip aircraft engines at '10% lean from best power' (by manually leaning them during cruise) for many thousands of hours and they worked fine in that condition, matter of fact they'll continue to run fine as much as about 30% lean before they get unstable, they seem to love lean mixtures!... Do you by chance know whether these had direct injection (injecting the fuel into the cylinder instead of the manifold)? To my knowledge there have been direct injection piston engines among the big radials, but I haven't found any further information about it so far. regards, Friedrich -- for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 01:46:47 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote: KDR wrote: Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is JP-5? http://www.sd.fisc.navy.mil/FUEL/FUEL-INFOR-PAGE.HTML JP-5 $1.03/gallon DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76) That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up. Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a single universal fuel? Not that I've ever heard of. As long ago as 1960, my Diesel-powered ship made a NATO exercise and was refueled during the exercise with JP-5 (the oilers were carrying no Diesel fuel). I believe the fuel comsumption was slightly worse. I don't know the long-term effects on the Diesel engines, as JP-5 is missing some lubricant as compared to JP-5, I understand. This was just one two-month exercise, of course, but the matter was being considered even then. Do modern gas turbine powered ships use Diesel fuel, or is there yet another formulation of fuel for them? |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net, "Thomas
Schoene" wrote: KDR wrote: Many thanks for all the replies. Compared with F-76, how expensive is JP-5? http://www.sd.fisc.navy.mil/FUEL/FUEL-INFOR-PAGE.HTML JP-5 $1.03/gallon DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76) In the tutorial URL I posted, they made a definite distinction between F-76 and DFM. That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up. That's $500 for a 10K gallon fill up. Substantial enough savings. Anyone know how much fuel a DDG takes on at a time? Is there any official move in the RN or USN to adopt JP-5 as a single universal fuel? Not that I've ever heard of. Just proposals. -- Harry Andreas Engineering raconteur |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Harry Andreas wrote:
In article . net, "Thomas Schoene" wrote: JP-5 $1.03/gallon DFM $0.98/gallon (DFM is Diesel fuel, Marine, another term for F-76) In the tutorial URL I posted, they made a definite distinction between F-76 and DFM. No, they made a distinction between F-76 and *commercial* marine distillate fuel. Commercial fuel can be all over the map quality-wise. The term "DFM" is used throughout the Navy as a synonym for F-76 (the NATO supply code for the same fuel). Technically, it seems that DFM might not be specific enough, as F-76 implies conformance to a specific MIL-SPEC while DFM does not. But the two terms seem to be interchangable in everyday use. For example: www.msc.navy.mil/instructions/doc/35007b.doc "Ships requiring DFM (NATO Symbol F-76) may be accomplished via barge or ship." http://www.nor.fisc.navy.mil/home/Su.../18APR03SC.pdf "Zuiderkruis took on 19,000 barrels of diesel fuel marine (DFM/F-76)..." http://www.jiatfs.southcom.mil/j4/Ma...PuertoRico.doc "(U) Fuel. DFM (F-76) and JP-5 (F-44) available." That's roughly 5% difference. It may not seem like much, but considering the Navy's overall fuels budget, it can really add up. That's $500 for a 10K gallon fill up. Substantial enough savings. Anyone know how much fuel a DDG takes on at a time? From a quick search, an UNREP of 150,000 gallons would seem to be typical. I figure a destroyer's total capacity is around 500,000 gallons. That's based on F-76 at 300 gallons per ton and the Combat Fleets figure that a Spruance carries 1,650 tons of fuel. No fuel figures available for DDGs, but that's a decent ballpark estimate anyway. Plenty of money to be saved here. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872 |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote:
We run (perhaps ran might be more accurate) large recip aircraft engines at '10% lean from best power' (by manually leaning them during cruise) for many thousands of hours and they worked fine in that condition, matter of fact they'll continue to run fine as much as about 30% lean before they get unstable, they seem to love lean mixtures!... Do you by chance know whether these had direct injection (injecting the fuel into the cylinder instead of the manifold)? To my knowledge there have been direct injection piston engines among the big radials, but I haven't found any further information about it so far. regards, Friedrich Well, just a comment about domestic automobiles, I didn't mean to indicate that I operate them below the manufacturers specified octane ratings, after all, I believe that the manufacturer knows his engine best and I'd never try to second guess him, but I have all kinds of friends and relatives who use hi octane fuel in their cars even though low octane is recommended. (complete waste I feel) Another thing that I NEVER do is 'recommend to anyone' what fuel to use. You're bound to get blamed sometime in your life because a friend's wife got preggy if you do... About the direct injection, the Argus (ASW aircraft) used by the Canadian Armed Forces had Wright R-3350-EA1 engines (3700 BHP) which had direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not just prior to the intake valve). The Wright R-3350-89A fitted to the Fairchild C-119 Packet had 'spinner injection', where the fuel was injected into the spinner of the supercharger, and the P2V-7 Neptune was set up this way too. -- -Gord. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Gord,
Well, just a comment about domestic automobiles, I didn't mean to indicate that I operate them below the manufacturers specified octane ratings, after all, I believe that the manufacturer knows his engine best and I'd never try to second guess him, but I have all kinds of friends and relatives who use hi octane fuel in their cars even though low octane is recommended. (complete waste I feel) Ah, you're absolutely right there! Sorry for the misunderstanding. There is no point in using higher octane than what the engine was designed for. Even knock control will not advance ignition beyond the calibrated map for the designated fuel. However a lot of people over here fell for a marketing trick of Shell Oil: Instead of the 98 octane highest grade fuel sold in Germany and most euroean countries they offered a 100 octane (by the way, this is ROZ, not ROZ+MOZ/2 as in the US) fuel called "V-power" with supposedly all kinds of mysterious additives at 10 ct / Liter premium over other oil company's 98 octane. Lots of car magazines and also the ADAC (your AA) tested it in various models and found no difference whatsoever in power and consumption. Yet Shell sells 10% of it's turnout in V-Power while the other's only sell 5% 98. Talk about snake oil... Another thing that I NEVER do is 'recommend to anyone' what fuel to use. You're bound to get blamed sometime in your life because a friend's wife got preggy if you do... :-) About the direct injection, the Argus (ASW aircraft) used by the Canadian Armed Forces had Wright R-3350-EA1 engines (3700 BHP) which had direct fuel injection into the cylinder (not just prior to the intake valve). The Wright R-3350-89A fitted to the Fairchild C-119 Packet had 'spinner injection', where the fuel was injected into the spinner of the supercharger, and the P2V-7 Neptune was set up this way too. I always find it intriguing, that almost everything we develop today as supposedly latest techology has been there half a century ago. The only really new thing in engines today is electronic control. regards, Friedrich -- for personal email please remove "entfernen" from my adress |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote:
I always find it intriguing, that almost everything we develop today as supposedly latest techology has been there half a century ago. The only really new thing in engines today is electronic control. regards, Friedrich Exactly...and it's one of the reasons that, although I consider myself quite knowledgeable engine wise, when I open the hood of an ailing engine I quickly close it and get on the fone for a towtruck...there's just so much complication in all the electronic sensors, computers etc to squeeze every ounce of efficiency out of a litre of fuel that I find it daunting. My wife's Corolla just finished it's lease and I bought it and leased another Toyota for her. A 'Matrix'. They have an intriguing feature called VVTi (Variable Valve Timing). Neat system!...hope it's rugged!... Cheers -- -Gord. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aerobatics | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund | Dr. Guenther Eichhorn | Aviation Marketplace | 0 | May 11th 04 10:43 PM |
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 18 | January 20th 04 04:02 PM |
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals | Mergatroide | Aviation Marketplace | 1 | January 13th 04 08:26 PM |