Aerotow with Diesel engine?

Some aero-engine and car manufacturers are working on Diesel engines for
use in small aircraft. There are now quite a lot of aircraft types
flying with these engines.

Is there anyone who can say something useful on recent Diesel engines in
glider-towing operation? Practical information (climb ratio, technical
and financial aspects, reliability etc.) would be very welcome. Or a
club where such a towplane is in use or tested.

Thanks for the info,

Olfert
Hornet A7, Netherlands.

"Olfert Cleveringa" wrote in message
bel.com...
Some aero-engine and car manufacturers are working on Diesel engines for
use in small aircraft. There are now quite a lot of aircraft types
flying with these engines.

Is there anyone who can say something useful on recent Diesel engines in
glider-towing operation? Practical information (climb ratio, technical
and financial aspects, reliability etc.) would be very welcome. Or a
club where such a towplane is in use or tested.

Thanks for the info,

Olfert
Hornet A7, Netherlands.

I've spoken with the good folks at DeltaHawk, a US based manufacturer of
liquid cooled V4 2-stroke diesels in the 200 HP range. See:
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/ They feel their engine would make a near
perfect tug engine. Look carefully at the Specific Fuel Consumption (SFC)
and the altitude performance.

DeltaHawk is busy working with airframe manufacturers to create 'firewall
forward" installation packages. A rumor is that they have a very large
order from the US government for drone engines that will let them work out
the mass production bugs and provide the company with financial stability.

Diesels make power at lower RPM's than a spark ignition engine so they can
use larger, quieter, more efficient propellers. A 200 HP diesel would be
the equivalent of a 260 HP Lycoming O-540 because of the greater propeller
efficiency. An added benefit would be the ability to legally use untaxed
agricultural diesel fuel (red diesel in the US). Even in the US, fuel is a
major expense for tug operators.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:

They feel their engine would make a near
perfect tug engine.

Surprize! :-)

A rumor is ...

So much for "practical information".

Diesels make power at lower RPM's than a spark ignition engine so they can
use larger, quieter, more efficient propellers.

There isn't a requirement anywhere that propellers have to be direct
driven. Actually, the only diesel flying today uses a gearbox.

(Sorry for my unfair quoting, but I couldn't resist.)

Stefan

"Stefan" wrote in message
...
Bill Daniels wrote:

They feel their engine would make a near
perfect tug engine.

Surprize! :-)

Selling an engine for an inappropriate use is a good way to get a bad
reputation. Engine manufacturers who plan to stay in business are very
careful about this. I have good feelings about Doug Doer and his group of
engineers.

Diesels make power at lower RPM's than a spark ignition engine so they
can
use larger, quieter, more efficient propellers.

There isn't a requirement anywhere that propellers have to be direct
driven. Actually, the only diesel flying today uses a gearbox.

The DeltaHawk is flying with good results. Geared propellers are a good idea
but they seem to work best with a large number of cylinders and in large
aircraft where the weight penalty isn't so great.


Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:

I have good feelings about Doug Doer and his group of
engineers.

Don't get me wrong: I'm hoping the best for them (und us). But the
original question was about experiences...

Stefan

Stefan wrote:
Bill Daniels wrote:

They feel their engine would make a near
perfect tug engine.


Surprize! :-)

A rumor is ...

So much for "practical information".

Diesels make power at lower RPM's than a spark ignition engine so they
can
use larger, quieter, more efficient propellers.


There isn't a requirement anywhere that propellers have to be direct
driven. Actually, the only diesel flying today uses a gearbox.

(Sorry for my unfair quoting, but I couldn't resist.)

Stefan

Not entirely accurate.
There is a three cylinder, direct drive two stroke diesel flying in the UK -
WAM120. Look at http://www.wilksch.com/
Mark Wilksch is certainly not following conventional wisdom here.

"Bruce Greeff" wrote in message
...
There is a three cylinder, direct drive two stroke diesel flying in the
UK -
WAM120. Look at http://www.wilksch.com/
Mark Wilksch is certainly not following conventional wisdom here.

The UK also has Diesel Air's Dair-100 - a two cylinder, four opposed piston
two stroke diesel that is a near drop in replacement for a Continental
O-200.
See: http://www.dair.co.uk/

They report that they have been running at 135 HP on the dyno which, in an
optimized airframe like a touring motorglider, would make a very nice tug
engine.

Bill Daniels

There is also the Zoche radial 2 stroke engine:

http://www.zoche.de/

although I have been mainly watching the progress of
the Wilksch engine because anyone who designs his own
2 stroke cycle has got to be worth a bit of interest:

http://www.wilksch.com/Cycle-1.jpg

John Galloway



At 20:06 21 October 2004, Bill Daniels wrote:

'Bruce Greeff' wrote in message
...
There is a three cylinder, direct drive two stroke
diesel flying in the
UK -
WAM120. Look at http://www.wilksch.com/
Mark Wilksch is certainly not following conventional
wisdom here.

The UK also has Diesel Air's Dair-100 - a two cylinder,
four opposed piston
two stroke diesel that is a near drop in replacement
for a Continental
O-200.
See: http://www.dair.co.uk/

They report that they have been running at 135 HP on
the dyno which, in an
optimized airframe like a touring motorglider, would
make a very nice tug
engine.

Bill Daniels

"John Galloway" wrote in message
...
There is also the Zoche radial 2 stroke engine:

http://www.zoche.de/

The Zoche web site has been dormant for several years. I haven't heard
anything new about them since about 1998.

BTW, reading the Diesel Air Ltd. site about the ducted fan dirigible
application, they say that they get 8 pounds of static thrust for each HP.
If 100 HP = 800 pounds of thrust, that stacks up pretty well against a 235
Pawnee that only produces about 390 pounds of thrust. That would be good
for avoiding wing dropping.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels wrote:

Reading the Diesel Air Ltd. site about the ducted fan
dirigible
application, they say that they get 8 pounds of static
thrust for each HP.
If 100 HP = 800 pounds of thrust, that stacks up pretty
well against a 235
Pawnee that only produces about 390 pounds of thrust.
That would be good
for avoiding wing dropping.

Jings, crivvens, I can just see the FAA, CAA or JAR
falling all over themselves to approve a ducted fan
for an existing airframe.

A diesel engine of a given horsepower with a propeller
on it will produce the same thrust as similar power
petrol (gas, steam) one.

It will, if turbo charged (another complication), produce
sea level power up to a considerable height but I don't
think that's a major problem for near sea level dwellers.

As far as I can see what's driving the production of
diesel engines in Europe is the low/no tax on diesel
or jet fuel. How long will it take the fiscal authorities
to latch on to that one I wonder?