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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Philippe Vessaire wrote:
a =E9crit: Anybody know anything about that CH701 on Zenairs site that has a mercedes smart Diesel in it? It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions? http://www.ecofly.de/Prices_order.htm It is mogas engine. By -- Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france Philippe Vessaire =D2=BF=D3=AC Well the ecofly looks like they are selling 2 motors on the site, the first is mogas the second is diesel. The power ratings are displayed for both if you scroll down the page. It _is_ pretty impressive technology. Though the European-ness of it is really isn't that big of a deal. All the car companies are pan-global entities these days. Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? I've been too afraid to go to the pump the past few days :-) At current prices biodiesel does become cost effective if one could find a suitable anti-gel agent.=20 -Matt |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? I've been too
afraid to go to the pump the past few days One thing I have to ask, is if that engine is rated to use Jet A? From what I have read, many are not, because some injector pumps need the lubrication that diesel provides, that Jet A does not have. If the pump is not able to handle the Jet A, it will quit in fairly short order. -- Jim in NC |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Just a point. On one 700 mile trip in my VW Jetta TDI, holding the speed to
between 55 and 60mph, I got 55mpg. Normal use is 45mpg or better. -- Kathy Fields Experimental Helo magazine P. O. Box 1585 Inyokern, CA 93527 (760) 377-4478 (760) 408-9747 general and layout cell (760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell www.vkss.com www.experimentalhelo.com "Philippe Vessaire" wrote in message ... a écrit: It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions? These engines are "Light weight" only for automotive use. The 1l4 is a Peugeot design, you may choose a 1l6 (DV6 TED4) with the same weigt and power up to 110HP@4000rpm. http://minilien.com/?krjU8zHgIx I am not sure, but I read "around" 100kg for the engine. You still kneed a PSRU. I think you may have a 110HP engine for 120-130kg minimum. It is still heavier than mogas engine. Just for fun: with this type of engine, you may got 50mpg on car like Toyota Corolla. By -- Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬ |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:
Just a point. On one 700 mile trip in my VW Jetta TDI, holding the speed to between 55 and 60mph, I got 55mpg. Normal use is 45mpg or better. just googlise that: diesel "2CDDI-II" and you will see that http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/frankfurt05/pdf/e.pdf The most désirable diesel for light aircraft may be hide in the 2CDDI-II name. Just wait more news about weight. By. -- Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬ |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Philippe Vessaire wrote:
wrote: It _is_ pretty impressive technology. Though the European-ness of it is really isn't that big of a deal. All the car companies are pan-global entities these days. Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump. I've been too afraid to go to the pump the past few days :-) At current prices biodiesel does become cost effective if one could find a suitable anti-gel agent. No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the whole tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel, the car choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange. I just wait for a new design from daihatsu: a 2 cylinder, 2 strokes superchared, turbocharged 85HP. I'm waiting for weight info, the 2 strokes only may achieve same weight than mogas engine. By -- Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france Philippe Vessaire =D2=BF=D3=AC Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about fuel/oil ratios doing that! Interesting thought on plumbing the coolant to the fuel tanks. Have you heard of anybody doing this on an aircraft? (I know the car guys do it all the time) That might make aircraft designed with header tanks more appropriate for diesels. (Easier to build the heat sink) It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane. You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a thought.=20 -Matt |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
wrote It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane. You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a thought. Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems with that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few of the problems with the idea. 1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up. 2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a bunch of weight. 3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning, there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic efficiency of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to melt the ice by even more. 4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of the wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing very well, at all. Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using them. They are not. -- Jim in NC |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling so
why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing type, you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would cool the engine if I ran out of fuel.) Bill Daniels "Morgans" wrote in message ... wrote It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane. You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a thought. Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems with that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few of the problems with the idea. 1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up. 2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a bunch of weight. 3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning, there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic efficiency of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to melt the ice by even more. 4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of the wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing very well, at all. Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using them. They are not. -- Jim in NC |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On 26 Sep 2005 14:47:36 -0700, "
wrote: Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump. Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about fuel/oil ratios doing that! I recognize that they don't fly, but trucks have mixed kerosene (sometimes called #1 fuel oil) and diesel (sometimes called #2 fuel oil) in cold weather. One of the company's that my father dealt with had a small kerosene tank which they used before shutdown and to start. It is interesting that #2 has more BTU/gallon than #1, so mileage is slightly better on #2. The lubricity issue is one that I asked a buddy of mine aobut when Thielert said their "auto based" engine would run JetA ... Enquiring minds would like to know more. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
GeorgeB wrote:
On 26 Sep 2005 14:47:36 -0700, " wrote: Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump. Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about fuel/oil ratios doing that! I recognize that they don't fly, but trucks have mixed kerosene (sometimes called #1 fuel oil) and diesel (sometimes called #2 fuel oil) in cold weather. One of the company's that my father dealt with had a small kerosene tank which they used before shutdown and to start. It is interesting that #2 has more BTU/gallon than #1, so mileage is slightly better on #2. The lubricity issue is one that I asked a buddy of mine aobut when Thielert said their "auto based" engine would run JetA ... Enquiring minds would like to know more. I have a picture somewhere of a Twin Otter in a small arctic community being fueled from a truck clearly marked "Furnace Oil". Apparently these areas get one boatload of fuel each summer to last the year, and it is Arctic Diesel or "P-50", suitable for aircraft, diesel generators, stoves and just about anything else. Normal diesel is definitely not used in aircraft because it can get cold at altitude and the fuel jells. -- John Halpenny Truth is stranger than fiction. This is why writers and readers are more comfortable with fiction. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOW MANY GLIDER PILOTS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB | Mal | Soaring | 59 | October 4th 05 05:39 AM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | November 23rd 03 11:43 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 02:33 AM |
New WWII books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 12:54 AM |