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
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
In article
, bildan wrote: Take a look at this: http://www.fairdiesel.co.uk/ A Diesel version of the cam engine! This engine was certificated (in gasoline version) in 1946 and was tested in a Piper Arrow, IIRC, in the 1980s. I saw one of these run at a fly-in in Southern California about that time -- it had a 4-blade prop attached and sounded like a baby Merlin. I do not know the results, but I have seen some engineering materials analysis, which indicates that it pushes the stress limits of some major components -- namely the main cam followers, which drive the pistons. I would think that a Diesel version would place even higher stress on these components than a gasoline version would. The design is intriguing and would offer a very low frontal area and incredible smoothness. I think that it would have to be water-cooled, due to its compactness -- air-cooling would be next to impossible. -- Remove _'s from email address to talk to me. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
On Jan 27, 9:27*pm, Orval Fairbairn
wrote: In article , *bildan wrote: Take a look at this: http://www.fairdiesel.co.uk/ A Diesel version of the cam engine! This engine was certificated (in gasoline version) in 1946 and was tested in a Piper Arrow, IIRC, in the 1980s. I saw one of these run at a fly-in in Southern California about that time -- it had a 4-blade prop attached and sounded like a baby Merlin. I do not know the results, but I have seen some engineering materials analysis, which indicates that it pushes the stress limits of some major components -- namely the main cam followers, which drive the pistons. I would think that a Diesel version would place even higher stress on these components than a gasoline version would. The design is intriguing and would offer a very low frontal area and incredible smoothness. I think that it would have to be water-cooled, due to its compactness -- air-cooling would be next to impossible. -- Remove _'s *from email address to talk to me. One thing about the opposed piston configuration is that it spreads the loads from one power stroke over two cam followers. If the power ramps on the cams are very steep, maybe the loads could be minimized. Ultimately, it's about how much torque you can ask it to produce. One thing I like is the pistons can be held at TDC for the whole injection interval. That removes one of the big issues for high RPM diesels. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
On 28 Jan, 04:46, bildan wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:27*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In article , *bildan wrote: Take a look at this: http://www.fairdiesel.co.uk/ One thing I like is the pistons can be held at TDC for the whole injection interval. *That removes one of the big issues for high RPM diesels. They mention an improvement in efficiency is possible but don't give any numbers. I suppose that for an essentially fixed speed application such as an aircraft engine the cam profile could be selected to optimise efficiency at that speed. Interesting. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
On Feb 3, 8:48*am, bod43 wrote:
On 28 Jan, 04:46, bildan wrote: On Jan 27, 9:27*pm, Orval Fairbairn wrote: In article , *bildan wrote: Take a look at this: http://www.fairdiesel.co.uk/ One thing I like is the pistons can be held at TDC for the whole injection interval. *That removes one of the big issues for high RPM diesels. They mention an improvement in efficiency is possible but don't give any numbers. I suppose that for an essentially fixed speed application such as an aircraft engine the cam profile could be selected to optimise efficiency at that speed. Interesting. ....the dyna cam engine, which is what the diesel design is based on, was originally designed during WW2 to power torpedoes. ergo, when first designed, component life was not an issue beyond a minute or so... and anyone with a father, uncle or grandfather who sailed on ww2 pig boats who passed down war stories will attest to how reliable our torpedoes weren't. pat wilks and dennis palmer formed a corporation during the 80s to develop the technology for light aircraft, and flew an Archer around to airshows to promote it. Then they got into a pi$ $ing match with a company call axial vector technologies (originally over licensing the technology to axial), and lost the right to further develop (or for that matter even talk about) the engine. bottom line: very smooth, tons of torque at 1800 - 2000 rpm (and 200 horsepower), nice exhaust note, but also very heavy and with substantial cooling problems that were never remedied. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
wrote passed down war stories will attest to how reliable our torpedoes weren't. pat wilks and dennis palmer formed a corporation during the 80s to develop the technology for light aircraft, and flew an Archer around to airshows to promote it. Then they got into a pi$ $ing match with a company call axial vector technologies (originally over licensing the technology to axial), and lost the right to further develop (or for that matter even talk about) the engine. Reply to above post, from Jim: The major problem with the torpedoes were the fact that they would not go "boom" when they got to the target, not the engines. Yes, there were some engine problems, but they were reliable enough. -- Jim in NC |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
On Feb 3, 3:46*pm, "Morgans" wrote:
wrote passed down war stories will attest to how reliable our torpedoes weren't. * pat wilks and dennis palmer formed a corporation during the 80s to develop the technology for light aircraft, and flew an Archer around to airshows to promote it. *Then they got into a pi$ $ing match with a company call axial vector technologies (originally over licensing the technology to axial), and lost the right to further develop (or for that matter even talk about) the engine. Reply to above post, from Jim: The major problem with the torpedoes were the fact that they would not go "boom" when they got to the target, not the engines. Yes, there were some engine problems, but they were reliable enough. -- Jim in NC Torpedo engines and the Dynacam have very little in common with this engine except that they fall in the general category of "barrel engines". That's like saying the little 3-cylinder Anzani and the mighty R4360 were the same because they were both "radials". The Fairdiesel is an opposed piston, 2-stroke diesel. That puts it in the category of the Fairbanks Morse OP diesels and the Junkers Jumo 205 aircraft engines. The Fairdiesel had the added advantage that the intake and exhaust port timing and port duration can be non- symmetrical and highly optimized. Also the piston travel at "TDC" can be delayed while the fuel injection happens. The Fairdiesel is a theoretical masterpiece. The only question is the durability of the cam followers at some specified torque. That will require some testing to prove. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
If you like off beat engines...
In article ,
"Morgans" wrote: wrote passed down war stories will attest to how reliable our torpedoes weren't. pat wilks and dennis palmer formed a corporation during the 80s to develop the technology for light aircraft, and flew an Archer around to airshows to promote it. Then they got into a pi$ $ing match with a company call axial vector technologies (originally over licensing the technology to axial), and lost the right to further develop (or for that matter even talk about) the engine. Reply to above post, from Jim: The major problem with the torpedoes were the fact that they would not go "boom" when they got to the target, not the engines. And secondarily, problems with running at the proper set depths. Yes, there were some engine problems, but they were reliable enough. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 71 | June 26th 08 05:45 PM |
How Beat The High Cost Of Fuel: The ElectraFlyer-C | Larry Dighera | Home Built | 37 | June 26th 08 11:08 AM |
Preheating engines: Airplane engines versus auto engines | Peter R. | Owning | 86 | January 2nd 08 07:48 PM |
Beat the "EASY-MONEY" online scams | RastafarianWarrior | Home Built | 2 | May 21st 05 10:59 PM |
Beat up / worn out Arrow valuation | Chuck | Owning | 20 | May 11th 05 11:01 PM |