A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Light weight Euro-diesels



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #12  
Old September 26th 05, 02:31 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 26th 05, 05:28 PM
Stuart & Kathryn Fields
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 26th 05, 05:43 PM
Philippe Vessaire
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 26th 05, 10:47 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 27th 05, 12:22 AM
Morgans
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old September 27th 05, 01:20 AM
Bill Daniels
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 27th 05, 01:56 AM
GeorgeB
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old September 27th 05, 05:10 AM
John Halpenny
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 01:07 PM
New Military Aviation Books from Germany ArtKramr Military Aviation 0 November 24th 03 12:43 AM
New Military Aviation Books from Germany ArtKramr Military Aviation 0 October 29th 03 03:33 AM
New WWII books from Germany ArtKramr Military Aviation 0 October 13th 03 12:54 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.