Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
just landed).

"On-Condition" > wrote in message
news:MMMUe.167883$wr.92445@clgrps12...
>
> Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
> diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
> reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
> cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
> just landed).

Because there are no airframes currently in production that are designed for
radials. With other engine configurations, it is possible that the new
diesel(s) might be fitted to current airframes, either for new production or
for retrofits.

Kyle Boatright wrote:
> "On-Condition" > wrote in message
> news:MMMUe.167883$wr.92445@clgrps12...
>
>>Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
>>diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
>>reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
>>cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
>>just landed).
>
>
> Because there are no airframes currently in production that are designed for
> radials. With other engine configurations, it is possible that the new
> diesel(s) might be fitted to current airframes, either for new production or
> for retrofits.
>
>
>
Thrush, Air Tractor, Weatherly.

Sokois, Murphy Rebel...

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:38:36 GMT, On-Condition >
wrote:

>
>Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
>diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
>reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
>cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
>just landed).
>
If I won the lottery I'd buy a machine shop. My fist project would be
to machine a radial case to accept cylinders off a deutz engine

("On-Condition" wrote)
> Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
> diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
> reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
> cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
> just landed).


<http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Stin-Det.html>
Golden Wings Museum
1928 Stinson Detroiter Packard Diesel

John Ousterhaut told me last week that my idea for a diesel rotary engine
needed more time back at the ol' drawing board. Translation: It won't work.

I didn't tell him I was planning on running discarded Chinese buffet
"grease" through it. <g>

Heat the grease with exhaust tubing - start and shut down with a small Jet-A
tank. See, I've thought this all through.

http://www.greasecar.com/index.cfm
Check out the FAQs


Montblack

Drew Dalgleish wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 02:38:36 GMT, On-Condition >
> wrote:
>
>> Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
>> diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
>> reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
>> cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
>> just landed).
>>
> If I won the lottery I'd buy a machine shop. My fist project would be
> to machine a radial case to accept cylinders off a deutz engine

There are excavators using those, screaming full tilt all day
long with next to no airflow!

BTW, weren't there some diesel radials in the early days of
aviation? I've seen some photos I think. The high torque
of diesel almost begs for that can't-keep-from-turning
radial geometry.

Anybody know if the Lycoming/Detroit will be air-cooled opposed?

("On-Condition" wrote)
> BTW, weren't there some diesel radials in the early days of
> aviation? I've seen some photos I think. The high torque
> of diesel almost begs for that can't-keep-from-turning
> radial geometry.


<http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Stin-Det.html>
Golden Wings Museum
1928 Stinson Detroiter Packard Diesel


Montblack

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Sokois, Murphy Rebel...
>
> Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

And if you add up all the Sukhois, Murphy Mooses (not rebels), Thrushes,
etc. it isn't a drop in the bucket. There isn't nearly enough volume there
to make a radial diesel worthwhile for someone who wants to make money.

KB

"Build it and they will come..." ~ field of dreams.

Bryan "The Monk" Chaisone

Any comparison on energy content diesel v vegetable oil?

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("On-Condition" wrote)
>
> I didn't tell him I was planning on running discarded Chinese buffet
> "grease" through it. <g>
>
> Heat the grease with exhaust tubing - start and shut down with a small
> Jet-A tank. See, I've thought this all through.
>
> http://www.greasecar.com/index.cfm
> Check out the FAQs
>

On Dutch television they showed a diesel truck that could switch from
regular diesel to chicken fat, garbage from a chicken processing plant. The
truck ran equally well on both types of 'fuel'...

Can you imagine stuffing chicken waste in your diesel-powered plane?

Two thoughts:
1. See, chickens *can* fly!
2. Finally a positive effect of a bird strike..

Rob

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:38:52 +0200, "Rob Turk" >
wrote:

>On Dutch television they showed a diesel truck that could switch from
>regular diesel to chicken fat, garbage from a chicken processing plant. The
>truck ran equally well on both types of 'fuel'...
>
>Can you imagine stuffing chicken waste in your diesel-powered plane?
>
>2. Finally a positive effect of a bird strike..

All you need is something like a Bussard ramscoop, and you can fly forever.....


Ron "Or a Bustard Ramscoop" Wanttaja

Just imagine the entries to all the fly in's smelling like fried
chicken!!!!;)

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Ron Wanttaja" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 22:38:52 +0200, "Rob Turk" >
> wrote:
>
>>On Dutch television they showed a diesel truck that could switch from
>>regular diesel to chicken fat, garbage from a chicken processing plant.
>>The
>>truck ran equally well on both types of 'fuel'...
>>
>>Can you imagine stuffing chicken waste in your diesel-powered plane?
>>
>>2. Finally a positive effect of a bird strike..
>
> All you need is something like a Bussard ramscoop, and you can fly
> forever.....
>
>
> Ron "Or a Bustard Ramscoop" Wanttaja

Rob Turk wrote:
> "Montblack" > wrote in message
> ...
>> ("On-Condition" wrote)
>>
>> I didn't tell him I was planning on running discarded Chinese buffet
>> "grease" through it. <g>
>>
>> Heat the grease with exhaust tubing - start and shut down with a small
>> Jet-A tank. See, I've thought this all through.
>>
>> http://www.greasecar.com/index.cfm
>> Check out the FAQs
>>
>
> On Dutch television they showed a diesel truck that could switch from
> regular diesel to chicken fat, garbage from a chicken processing plant. The
> truck ran equally well on both types of 'fuel'...

Some buses in Halifax ran on fishing industry waste oils.
For all I know that could be the whole fleet by now.

What I like about diesel in airplanes is the possibility
of low rpm power for sometimes double the range (at lower
speeds). A radial will turn very smoothly at 1000 rpm
and the diesel would be torquing near optimum just audible
around 1400-1600 (?).

Montblack wrote:
> ("On-Condition" wrote)
>> BTW, weren't there some diesel radials in the early days of
>> aviation? I've seen some photos I think. The high torque
>> of diesel almost begs for that can't-keep-from-turning
>> radial geometry.
>
>
> <http://www.goldenwingsmuseum.com/Aircraft%20Pages/Stin-Det.html>
> Golden Wings Museum
> 1928 Stinson Detroiter Packard Diesel

http://home.earthlink.net/~ralphcooper/pimagh34.htm

2 lbs/hp, but that was then. I'm sure 1/1 could be
had today (for air cooled).

Zoche had displayed his radial Diesels at Oshkosh for some twenty
years.They were extremely smooth running two stroke turbocharged single
or twin row configurations. Compact, light, and well designed. Zoche
was most likely ahead of the market.
See back issues of Sport Aviation.
Don Black

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote

> And if you add up all the Sukhois, Murphy Mooses (not rebels), Thrushes,
> etc. it isn't a drop in the bucket. There isn't nearly enough volume there
> to make a radial diesel worthwhile for someone who wants to make money.

I would think that the reason is not economics, but the suitability of a
radial for diesel.

You always see diesels using a very stout block, and very stout cranks and
rods. Could a radial diesel be beefed up enough? I don't know, but I think
the answer is no.

GM tried to use a gas engine block converted to diesel, and it was a dismal
failure. That even had a solid cast iron block, and stout crank, and that
wasn't even up to the task.

Individual jugs are weak, since they blow off even with gasoline pressures,
sometimes. How much stronger would they have to be, for diesel? Could it
be done using separate cylinders?

A master rod may be strong enough, but I would think that the slave rods and
pins would not be. They would have to be extremely beefed up to stand the
pressures. I don't know if there would be enough room in the case to do it.

Good questions raised here. Answers?
--
Jim in NC

Morgans wrote:
> "Kyle Boatright" > wrote
>
>> And if you add up all the Sukhois, Murphy Mooses (not rebels), Thrushes,
>> etc. it isn't a drop in the bucket. There isn't nearly enough volume there
>> to make a radial diesel worthwhile for someone who wants to make money.
>
> I would think that the reason is not economics, but the suitability of a
> radial for diesel.
>
> You always see diesels using a very stout block, and very stout cranks and
> rods. Could a radial diesel be beefed up enough? I don't know, but I think
> the answer is no.
>
> GM tried to use a gas engine block converted to diesel, and it was a dismal
> failure. That even had a solid cast iron block, and stout crank, and that
> wasn't even up to the task.
>
> Individual jugs are weak, since they blow off even with gasoline pressures,
> sometimes. How much stronger would they have to be, for diesel? Could it
> be done using separate cylinders?

Pressures during misfiring/backfiring are considerable also
but don't bust the jugs. I'm no engine expert but think that
jug failures are mostly O/H, fatique or casting related (?)
and they sure do happen on opposed gas engines as well as
radials. The difference is that a radial (at least one I saw)
just kept on going.

Most gas radials I've seen/flown had around 8:1 compression,
that's food for thought. Just wondering though, are the german
aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?


> A master rod may be strong enough, but I would think that the slave rods and
> pins would not be. They would have to be extremely beefed up to stand the
> pressures. I don't know if there would be enough room in the case to do it.
>
> Good questions raised here. Answers?

"On-Condition" > wrote

Just wondering though, are the german
> aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?

I think they are bolt on, but in a dual assembly. Not positive.
--
Jim in NC

>> If I won the lottery I'd buy a machine shop. My fist project would be
>> to machine a radial case to accept cylinders off a deutz engine
>
>There are excavators using those, screaming full tilt all day
>long with next to no airflow!
Yeah I work in an underground mine. I've seen first hand what kind of
abuse these engines can endure in the hands of union personel that
hate the things.

>Most gas radials I've seen/flown had around 8:1 compression,
>that's food for thought. Just wondering though, are the german
>aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?
>
>
Nope as far as
I know separate cylinders and heads

On 11 Sep 2005 15:58:58 -0700, "EAA TC 1441" >
wrote:

>Zoche had displayed his radial Diesels at Oshkosh for some twenty
>years.They were extremely smooth running two stroke turbocharged single
>or twin row configurations. Compact, light, and well designed. Zoche
>was most likely ahead of the market.
>See back issues of Sport Aviation.
>Don Black
>
I think Zoche was the origional inventor of vaporware.

On-Condition wrote:

> Most gas radials I've seen/flown had around 8:1 compression,
> that's food for thought. Just wondering though, are the german
> aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?

the WWII era Guiberson and Cat D-200A Radials had 14.3:1 and
15.5:1 respectively. The Guiberson weighed about 1100 pounds
in Tank trim, And that Cat engine started out as an Wright R-1820,
but weighed over 3000 pounds by time Cat beefed it up enough
to be reliable.

**
mike
**

The "Lycoming-Detroit" opposed motor is actaually the Italian V-M of
V-M Motori, a onetime company owned by AlfaRomeo. This is the 2nd time
that americans have attempted to market this line in the US. It is
modular and very economical. Back in the 70's the attempt to
distribute failed due to lack of experience and a serious investment in
the future. When FIAT "bought" AlfaRomeo, they did not want the sister
companies of Alfa, so they were sold off, along with AlfaAvio. V-M
automotive motors are very successful due to their low noise levels and
extremely low untreated exhaust emissions.

Further to the radial comments, Dont forget that the Packard radial
Diesel was built in Detroit and was not popular with airframe designers.

mike wrote:
> On-Condition wrote:
>
>> Most gas radials I've seen/flown had around 8:1 compression,
>> that's food for thought. Just wondering though, are the german
>> aircooled diesel cylinders intergral with the block?
>
> the WWII era Guiberson and Cat D-200A Radials had 14.3:1 and
> 15.5:1 respectively. The Guiberson weighed about 1100 pounds
> in Tank trim, And that Cat engine started out as an Wright R-1820,
> but weighed over 3000 pounds by time Cat beefed it up enough
> to be reliable.

Diesels are heavy, I know. Just got my tractor
up to about 35mph on the runway, but the damned
thing wouldn't stay in the air.


(2-stroke) aircooled diesel radials:

70 hp 121 lbs
150 hp 185 lbs
300 hp 271 lbs

http://www.zoche.de/specs.html

EAA TC 1441 wrote:
> The "Lycoming-Detroit" opposed motor is actaually the Italian V-M of
> V-M Motori, a onetime company owned by AlfaRomeo. This is the 2nd time
> that americans have attempted to market this line in the US. It is
> modular and very economical. Back in the 70's the attempt to
> distribute failed due to lack of experience and a serious investment in
> the future. When FIAT "bought" AlfaRomeo, they did not want the sister
> companies of Alfa, so they were sold off, along with AlfaAvio. V-M
> automotive motors are very successful due to their low noise levels and
> extremely low untreated exhaust emissions.

Thanks for the details; it's most interesting. I had presumed that
a brand new engine was in the oven.

> Further to the radial comments, Dont forget that the Packard radial
> Diesel was built in Detroit and was not popular with airframe designers.

Yeah, there's that one thing that turns designers right off: weight.

On-Condition wrote:
> Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
> diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
> reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
> cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
> just landed).

Guiberson: 4 stroke 9 cylinder radial, 2 valves per cylinder, 300HP.

Packard: 4 stroke 9 cylinder 1 valve per cylinder (Neato) 225HP.

Zoche is a ported 2 stroke, if I recall it was supposed to be available
in 2 4 and 8 cylinders.

There is an V4 in development in the US, a piston-opposed 2 cyclinder 2
stroke 100HP engine in the UK that is apparently shipping, and 150HP
engine (I think in france?) that is also shipping and I believe is
either certified or approaching certification in the 172. (Anybody know
whether the ICAO agreements make that a certifiable install in the
USA?)

One thing I always wondered about the old radial diesels was how prone
these engines were to hydraulic lock? I mean you can take a plug out of
a gas radial and drain oil, but at the lower compression ratio you
should just have to walk a couple blades through once in a while to
prevent it. At 15 to 1 compression ratio, I would think diesel radials
would be much more susceptable to overpressuring the jugs. Looking at
the zoche engine this seems doubly odd, since there are no valves to
let excess engine oil out of the lower cylinders. Anybody know how they
deal with this?

I've read quite a bit of conflicting information about diesel radials.
One account said that the packard had good high altitude performance
because the nature of a diesel is to always have a lean air/fuel ratio,
so it it would richen the mixture into a better ratio as it climbed.
I've read in usenet other accounts that said that the high altitude
performance sucked. Guess we'll just have to take one out and fly it to
see :-)

The packard was 1 valve per jug, (reasonable since it is just air, not
fuel) ran on stove oil. The arrangement has a donut flange on the top
of the cylinders and uses ram air to clear the exhaust gasses. The side
effect though is that your exhaust is not funneled, so the pilot and
pax of a single engine bird end up sucking diesel exhaust. Obviously
hanging the engines under the wings fixes that, but in the thirties
that was easier said than done.

Then you have fuel considerations. Stove oil and summer diesel can gel
at altitude, requiring some fairly complex added equipment to correct
the problem, which I am guessing is why all the new ones are designed
to run on Jet-A. Somebody else mentioned a priming issue as well in a
previous thread. In essence, if you stop the engine from fuel
starvation, the fuel injectors suck air out of the cylinders instead of
sucking fuel out of the fuel line, so you can't restart. (Am I
understanding that problem correctly?) old diesels have hand priming
pumps to fix this. Look under the hood of Mercedes 240D for example, it
looks like a little accordion on the drivers side of the engine. I
believe common rail injection solves this problem though.

So the system infrustructure for using a diesel is a bit more complex
even though you don't need magnetos. Complex = weight. Though in
general I expect if it had ever become a reasonably standard practice
the kinks would have been worked out a long time ago. Actually it
probably would have been become more practical as the number of jugs
grew because of the increase in mechanical efficiency native to the
radial configuration. (Can you imagine an 18 cylinder diesel WASP sized
engine?) But now there are turbines for that kind of power, so theres
no reason to do it.

Weight is an issue with smaller engines yes. The packard made 2/3's of
the rated power of a comparable gas engine of the era at the same
weight. (And that is an educated guess, I don't feel like looking it
up, but it is probably generous.) Higher pressure in the jugs requires
more steel to be reasonably reliable. No way to get around that. Like
all things diesel, you have to accept some derated performance if you
want the benefits.

I read an article about a PT6A that was tested with B100 mixed into the
fuel. If I remember they noted no significant change in performance up
to about 20% blend or so. Though I have to wonder, since the PT6A is
sometimes configured to derate its max power whether this was accurate.
(Am I correct there? Isn't the one in the Caravan derated to 600HP from
1000?)Also the test was relatively short compared to the actual
lifespan of turbine so the results though positive, were not conclusive
in my humble interpretation of the report. But it was a while ago that
I read that.

So that about sizes up my understanding of the current situation :)

What I'd like to see someone work out a new turbine design with an
injector and hot section suitable for running on SVO or B100. Stick
that on a couple of 747's, diesel trains, and cruise liners and you
save thousands of tons of net-CO2 emissions a year.

Anybody is welcomed to jump in and correct me where I'm wrong. I'm sure
some of this in misinformation. This is usenet after all.

-Matt

wrote:

>
> What I'd like to see someone work out a new turbine design with an
> injector and hot section suitable for running on SVO or B100. Stick
> that on a couple of 747's, diesel trains, and cruise liners and you
> save thousands of tons of net-CO2 emissions a year.

Mind explaining what SVO and B100 are?

David Johnson

I think:

SVO = Straight Virgin Oil
B100 = 100% biodeisel

David


> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > What I'd like to see someone work out a new turbine design with an
> > injector and hot section suitable for running on SVO or B100. Stick
> > that on a couple of 747's, diesel trains, and cruise liners and you
> > save thousands of tons of net-CO2 emissions a year.
>
> Mind explaining what SVO and B100 are?
>
> David Johnson
>

Why would one ruin a good virgin for oil?

"dje" > wrote in message
...
>I think:
>
> SVO = Straight Virgin Oil
> B100 = 100% biodeisel
>
> David
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What I'd like to see someone work out a new turbine design with an
>> > injector and hot section suitable for running on SVO or B100. Stick
>> > that on a couple of 747's, diesel trains, and cruise liners and you
>> > save thousands of tons of net-CO2 emissions a year.
>>
>> Mind explaining what SVO and B100 are?
>>
>> David Johnson
>>
>
>

Cy Galley wrote:
> Why would one ruin a good virgin for oil?
>

Because they outlawed sacrificing virgins for oil.

An elderly woman died a virgin, her tombstone reads "returned unopened."

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

wrote:
> On-Condition wrote:
>> Just wondering, exactly why are radial diesels not part of the
>> diesel revival? You can't beat radials on airplanes for smooth
>> reliability. I once saw a cracked-off jug pounding through the
>> cowling as the engine was still running (the single Otter had
>> just landed).
>
> Guiberson: 4 stroke 9 cylinder radial, 2 valves per cylinder, 300HP.
>
> Packard: 4 stroke 9 cylinder 1 valve per cylinder (Neato) 225HP.
>
> Zoche is a ported 2 stroke, if I recall it was supposed to be available
> in 2 4 and 8 cylinders.
>

Well done.

DHC-6's (PT6) run on winter diesel in the north all the time
where turbine fuels are simply not available. Wouldn't know
about biodiesel but I've heard that fish-sourced biodiesel
(used in Halifax) tends to congeal a bit more than winter diesel.
I've always thought that summer fuel with a slight BTU/lb
edge added to lower cost was the way to go, even if it means
preheat with exhaust or whatever.

As for emissions, diesels appear dirty but are cleaner as far
as ozone is concerned. Might be the lesser of two evils.

Finally, walking the prop on a radial would clear lesser hydraulic
locks but I think the objective was more detection that cure.
This would not be much different for a diesel radial (out on a
limb on this). I sure would not look forward to having to swing
one though ;-)

dje wrote:
> I think:
>
> SVO = Straight Virgin Oil
> B100 = 100% biodeisel
>
> David
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > What I'd like to see someone work out a new turbine design with an
> > > injector and hot section suitable for running on SVO or B100. Stick
> > > that on a couple of 747's, diesel trains, and cruise liners and you
> > > save thousands of tons of net-CO2 emissions a year.
> >
> > Mind explaining what SVO and B100 are?
> >
> > David Johnson
> >

SVO = straight vegetable oil
B100 = biodiesel.

I vaguely remember a B80, though I'm not sure if that is a blend or
what.

I expect there is an ISO standard for biodiesel by now.

-Matt

I'd be interested in reading anything on the practice of using diesel
and biodiesel in turbines your refering too. Did you read this
somewhere, or is that from experience? Have you actually heard of
Biodiesel being used in jets? Or is your reference to biodiesel gelling
related to cars?

Regarding Hydraulic lock I was thinking more preventatively. Like going
to the hanger once a week and walking through a few blades regardless
of whether you were actually going flying. Though I would figure at
15/1 it would require much less oil to frag the engine than at 7.5/1.

I'm probably overthinking the problem. Anybody know how the Guiberson
was mounted in the Stuart tank? Was it on it's back or was it mounted
upright like it would be in an airplane?

Shoot. Somebody ought to just take one out and strap it to Beech 18 and
go flying. Then give us all a pilot report to tell us what the the deal
really is. :-)

-Matt

wrote:
> I'd be interested in reading anything on the practice of using diesel
> and biodiesel in turbines your refering too. Did you read this
> somewhere, or is that from experience? Have you actually heard of
> Biodiesel being used in jets? Or is your reference to biodiesel gelling
> related to cars?

The first time I heard of biodiesel was in a documentary about some
Halifax buses. They use fisheries byproducts. They have had to deal
with gelling, though Halifax winters are not all that cold.

No knowledge or experience involving biodiesel in turbines, but winter
diesel is/was being used by DHC6's in the artic about half of the time
since turbine fuel is only available at the main bases. Their PT6's
are in fact derated to 600 shp as suggested
for another airplane type. I never saw any technical documentation
on this, it being common practice.

> Regarding Hydraulic lock I was thinking more preventatively. Like going
> to the hanger once a week and walking through a few blades regardless
> of whether you were actually going flying. Though I would figure at
> 15/1 it would require much less oil to frag the engine than at 7.5/1.

No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)

In article <FcpYe.269629$tt5.163046@edtnps90>, On-Condition > wrote:
>............

>No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
>especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
>once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
>where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)

Just what is an "inertial starter"?

I have seen references to them, mostly in literature about
airplanes built before the 1940s. But I have never seen a
description of one, or an explanation of how it is different
from any other type of starter.

On-Condition wrote:
> wrote:
> > I'd be interested in reading anything on the practice of using diesel
> > and biodiesel in turbines your refering too. Did you read this
> > somewhere, or is that from experience? Have you actually heard of
> > Biodiesel being used in jets? Or is your reference to biodiesel gelling
> > related to cars?
>
> The first time I heard of biodiesel was in a documentary about some
> Halifax buses. They use fisheries byproducts. They have had to deal
> with gelling, though Halifax winters are not all that cold.
>

To get a little OT, there is a lot of neat stuff being done right now
with biomass hydrocarbons. (veggie oil, fish oil etc.) The bugaboo
seems to be injector coking in direct injection engines, though actual
experienced rate of coking from one motor to the next is a point of
huge debate in the alternative fuel crowd these days. Indirect
piston-pump injected engines will apparently run on straight veggie oil
reasonably well with few ill effects or modifications.

These guys are heating the oil and running straight to the motor.
Apparently the added energy causes the long stranded molecules to burn
cleaner which is what averts the coking. I'd be highly interested in
seeing somebody do that with an allison 250 and what the results were.

> No knowledge or experience involving biodiesel in turbines, but winter
> diesel is/was being used by DHC6's in the artic about half of the time
> since turbine fuel is only available at the main bases. Their PT6's
> are in fact derated to 600 shp as suggested
> for another airplane type. I never saw any technical documentation
> on this, it being common practice.
>
> > Regarding Hydraulic lock I was thinking more preventatively. Like going
> > to the hanger once a week and walking through a few blades regardless
> > of whether you were actually going flying. Though I would figure at
> > 15/1 it would require much less oil to frag the engine than at 7.5/1.
>
> No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
> especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
> once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
> where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)

My point was that diesels start at 15/1 and gas engines are around 7/1
or 8/1 So oil leakage in a diesel should increase cylinder pressure
way faster than it would in a gas engine. For example: an ounce of
excess oil in a gas engine my increase the cylinder pressure by 10% or
so, the same ounce in a diesel of the same displacement would increase
the pressure by much more than 10%. At a higher pressure the mass of
the air displaced by a constant uncompressable volume (the oil)
increases.

Obviously you don't have to fill the cylinder completely with oil to do
a lot of damage. Just increase the pressure in the jug to the point
were rings crack or bolts become fatigued. With the four strokes you
walk the blades, the valves open and the oil that leaked past the lower
rings dribbles into the exhaust stack. With the Zoche there is no
valve, so once oil dribbles into the cylinders past the rings, how do
you get it out? I would guess the only way to clear a lock or to
prevent an over-pressure from a partial hydraulic lock would be to
remove the injector and cycle the engine. Or perhaps the porting design
prevents it? I don't know.

I saw that there is a diesel CH701 flying with the engine out of a
Mercedes Smart. I'd love to read more about that bird but haven't been
able to find any good info.

-Matt

me wrote:
> In article <FcpYe.269629$tt5.163046@edtnps90>, On-Condition > wrote:
>
>>............
>
>
>>No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
>>especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
>>once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
>>where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)
>
>
> Just what is an "inertial starter"?
>
> I have seen references to them, mostly in literature about
> airplanes built before the 1940s. But I have never seen a
> description of one, or an explanation of how it is different
> from any other type of starter.
>

If memory serves the term refers to wind up starters. If you have
ever seen "The Great Escape" they had one on the airplane James Garner
and Donald Pleasence flew in.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"me" > wrote in message
news:OYEYe.4264$yN1.2550@trnddc03...
> In article <FcpYe.269629$tt5.163046@edtnps90>, On-Condition
> wrote:
> >............
>
> >No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
> >especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
> >once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
> >where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)
>
> Just what is an "inertial starter"?
>
> I have seen references to them, mostly in literature about
> airplanes built before the 1940s. But I have never seen a
> description of one, or an explanation of how it is different
> from any other type of starter.
>

Inertial Starter: Flywheel spun up by a geared hand crank then clutched to
engine to hopefully start it before all the energy in the flywheel is
consumed - slightly lighter than a battery, generator and electric starter.
Used on airplanes without electrical systems.

Bill Daniels

In article . com>,
" > wrote:

> On-Condition wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > I'd be interested in reading anything on the practice of using diesel
> > > and biodiesel in turbines your refering too. Did you read this
> > > somewhere, or is that from experience? Have you actually heard of
> > > Biodiesel being used in jets? Or is your reference to biodiesel gelling
> > > related to cars?
> >
> > The first time I heard of biodiesel was in a documentary about some
> > Halifax buses. They use fisheries byproducts. They have had to deal
> > with gelling, though Halifax winters are not all that cold.
> >
>
> To get a little OT, there is a lot of neat stuff being done right now
> with biomass hydrocarbons. (veggie oil, fish oil etc.) The bugaboo
> seems to be injector coking in direct injection engines, though actual
> experienced rate of coking from one motor to the next is a point of
> huge debate in the alternative fuel crowd these days. Indirect
> piston-pump injected engines will apparently run on straight veggie oil
> reasonably well with few ill effects or modifications.
>
> These guys are heating the oil and running straight to the motor.
> Apparently the added energy causes the long stranded molecules to burn
> cleaner which is what averts the coking. I'd be highly interested in
> seeing somebody do that with an allison 250 and what the results were.
>
> > No knowledge or experience involving biodiesel in turbines, but winter
> > diesel is/was being used by DHC6's in the artic about half of the time
> > since turbine fuel is only available at the main bases. Their PT6's
> > are in fact derated to 600 shp as suggested
> > for another airplane type. I never saw any technical documentation
> > on this, it being common practice.
> >
> > > Regarding Hydraulic lock I was thinking more preventatively. Like going
> > > to the hanger once a week and walking through a few blades regardless
> > > of whether you were actually going flying. Though I would figure at
> > > 15/1 it would require much less oil to frag the engine than at 7.5/1.
> >
> > No doubt, but I think either ratio will suffice as soon as you start,
> > especially with one of the inertial starters that just won't stop
> > once engaged. Walking the props used to be mandatory in the military
> > where even a desk gets a walkaround twice a day ;-)
>
> My point was that diesels start at 15/1 and gas engines are around 7/1
> or 8/1 So oil leakage in a diesel should increase cylinder pressure
> way faster than it would in a gas engine. For example: an ounce of
> excess oil in a gas engine my increase the cylinder pressure by 10% or
> so, the same ounce in a diesel of the same displacement would increase
> the pressure by much more than 10%. At a higher pressure the mass of
> the air displaced by a constant uncompressable volume (the oil)
> increases.
>
> Obviously you don't have to fill the cylinder completely with oil to do
> a lot of damage. Just increase the pressure in the jug to the point
> were rings crack or bolts become fatigued. With the four strokes you
> walk the blades, the valves open and the oil that leaked past the lower
> rings dribbles into the exhaust stack. With the Zoche there is no
> valve, so once oil dribbles into the cylinders past the rings, how do
> you get it out? I would guess the only way to clear a lock or to
> prevent an over-pressure from a partial hydraulic lock would be to
> remove the injector and cycle the engine. Or perhaps the porting design
> prevents it? I don't know.

Zoche is a 2-cycle engine, so there is no oil in the crankcase to leak
into the cylinder. Actually, there is no airplane that has ever flown a
Zoche, either, for that matter. He has been around since at least 1980
and has never flown the engine!


> I saw that there is a diesel CH701 flying with the engine out of a
> Mercedes Smart. I'd love to read more about that bird but haven't been
> able to find any good info.
>
> -Matt

> wrote
> With the Zoche there is no
> valve, so once oil dribbles into the cylinders past the rings, how do
> you get it out? I would guess the only way to clear a lock or to
> prevent an over-pressure from a partial hydraulic lock would be to
> remove the injector and cycle the engine.

You don't have to walk a prop through, that's for sure. First it will have
to have a prop, and on an airplane. That has not happened yet, nor will it
likely ever.

Start looking at other engines, because if you wait for this one, you will
grow old waiting.

Legal disclaimer:
Just my opinion, of course. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Orval Fairbairn wrote:
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> > On-Condition wrote:
> > > wrote:

<SNIP>

> >
> > Obviously you don't have to fill the cylinder completely with oil to do
> > a lot of damage. Just increase the pressure in the jug to the point
> > were rings crack or bolts become fatigued. With the four strokes you
> > walk the blades, the valves open and the oil that leaked past the lower
> > rings dribbles into the exhaust stack. With the Zoche there is no
> > valve, so once oil dribbles into the cylinders past the rings, how do
> > you get it out? I would guess the only way to clear a lock or to
> > prevent an over-pressure from a partial hydraulic lock would be to
> > remove the injector and cycle the engine. Or perhaps the porting design
> > prevents it? I don't know.
>
> Zoche is a 2-cycle engine, so there is no oil in the crankcase to leak
> into the cylinder. Actually, there is no airplane that has ever flown a
> Zoche, either, for that matter. He has been around since at least 1980
> and has never flown the engine!
>
>

Err. You sure about that? It is a 2 stroke DIESEL. The fuel is directly
injected into the cylinder, not passed through the crank case like gas
2 stroke designs. So if there is no oil or fuel in the crankcase, how
is it lubricated?

Ditto on the engine being vapor-ware. I started another thread on small
diesels accordingly. I'm interested in Fords TDCi engine and the
Mercedes smart diesel. I found 2 light aircraft in germany using the
smart engine, but I haven't found any specs on it as a crate engine
yet.

-Matt

<SNIP>

"Orval Fairbairn" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>
> Zoche is a 2-cycle engine, so there is no oil in the crankcase to leak
> into the cylinder. Actually, there is no airplane that has ever flown a
> Zoche, either, for that matter. He has been around since at least 1980
> and has never flown the engine!
>

The Zoche does have oil in the crankcase. All the 2-stroke diesels
currently under development use supercharger/turbochargers to force air into
the cylinders and not crankcase pumping so the crankcase contains oil just
like a 4-stroke.

I suspect that a problem with the Zoche is that it uses 'slipper rods', 4 of
which connect with a single crank journal instead of the 'master/slave' rod
system. This leaves only a small contact area at the rod big end. Diesel
bottom ends need to be very robust and this doesn't sound like it is.

Bill Daniels

On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:01:34 GMT, (me) wrote:

>Just what is an "inertial starter"?
>
>I have seen references to them, mostly in literature about
>airplanes built before the 1940s. But I have never seen a
>description of one, or an explanation of how it is different
>from any other type of starter.

In order to understand what an inertial starter is, you have to be
able to understand what an inertia wheel is. An inertia wheel is a
wheel that has most of it's mass out along the perimeter such that
it's mass tends to keep the wheel spinning. Gyroscopes utilized tiny
inertia wheels. A child's toy top is another example of an inertia
wheel.

It's hard to spin up such a wheel because of the mass, but once it's
spinning it tends to want to remain spinning.

Lots of early engines used inertial starters because very few had
electrical systems. The pilot or ground crewman would insert a hand
crank into the side of the engine and one or often two people would
struggle to wind the inertial wheel up to speed. While they're doing
this, you can hear the wheel begin to shriek as it gets going faster
and faster. It usually took two guys to get the inertial wheel on the
Me 109 up to speed.

Once up to speed, the pilot primes the engine, turns on the mags and
clutches in the engine to the inertial wheel. You can hear the sound
of the inertia wheel dramatically changing as it's dragged down by the
mass of the engine it's now turning.

Hopefully the engine starts before the inertia wheel has lost it's
momentum.

If not, it's back to the hand crank and spin it up again.

Get ahold of the old movie "Task Force" with Gary Cooper and Walter
Brennan. The early biplanes they "fly" are started using an inertial
starter. Two ground crewmen crank it to spin it up.

Corky Scott

> wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:01:34 GMT, (me) wrote:

>Just what is an "inertial starter"?
<SNIP>
Lots of early engines used inertial starters because very few had
electrical systems. The pilot or ground crewman would insert a hand
crank into the side of the engine and one or often two people would
struggle to wind the inertial wheel up to speed. While they're doing
this, you can hear the wheel begin to shriek as it gets going faster
and faster. It usually took two guys to get the inertial wheel on the
Me 109 up to speed.

Once up to speed, the pilot primes the engine, turns on the mags and
clutches in the engine to the inertial wheel. You can hear the sound
of the inertia wheel dramatically changing as it's dragged down by the
mass of the engine it's now turning.

Hopefully the engine starts before the inertia wheel has lost it's
momentum.

If not, it's back to the hand crank and spin it up again.

Get ahold of the old movie "Task Force" with Gary Cooper and Walter
Brennan. The early biplanes they "fly" are started using an inertial
starter. Two ground crewmen crank it to spin it up.

Corky Scott
--------------------------------
Reminds me of starting an old Stearman w/inertial starter. I don't recall
the engine size, but it wasn't too difficult. Still, some of the young lads
used to make a production of two-handed cranking; especially when there were
sweet young things looking.

Then, one day, the owner's wife came out to the plane to crank it (scenic
ride op). She stood by the front chatting w/her husband while using just
her left hand to crank the inertial starter; quite casual, not a drop of
sweat.

Talk about surprised looks on the faces of the guys who tried to convince
everyone it was very macho to be able to crank it up. :-)

Michael Pilla

On Mon, 26 Sep 2005 18:51:32 GMT, "Michael Pilla"
> wrote:

> wrote in message
...
>On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:01:34 GMT, (me) wrote:
>
>>Just what is an "inertial starter"?
><SNIP>
>Lots of early engines used inertial starters because very few had
They had a very distinctive sound. Sorta like a dual pitch whine that
dropped abrupty when the engine clutched in. Many of the old movies
used that sound for aircraft engines starting that didn't even have
inertial starters. I think they thought all airplane engines back
then were supposed to sound that way.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

Not all engines with inertial starters were hand cranked. Some used an
electric motor to operate the inertial flywheel i.e T6/SNJ, TBF/TBM, and
I believe even some DC3/C47.
Skip Schipper

This goes way back to the early 50's, but I seem to remember the R985 on a
BT-13 with an inertia starter. You turned the switch to "energize" and
listened to the nice music, then to "engage" and listened to even nicer
music. Finally you had the agallon---agallon--agallon---idle of the R985

Paul
N1431A


"

> Not all engines with inertial starters were hand cranked. Some used an
> electric motor to operate the inertial flywheel i.e T6/SNJ, TBF/TBM, and
> I believe even some DC3/C47.
> Skip Schipper
>

Tri-Pacer wrote:

> This goes way back to the early 50's, but I seem to remember the R985 on a
> BT-13 with an inertia starter. You turned the switch to "energize" and
> listened to the nice music, then to "engage" and listened to even nicer
> music. Finally you had the agallon---agallon--agallon---idle of the R985
>
> Paul
> N1431A

That is the best description of that sound I have ever come across.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article >,
wrote:

> On Thu, 22 Sep 2005 21:01:34 GMT, (me) wrote:
>
> >Just what is an "inertial starter"?
> >
[snip]
> Once up to speed, the pilot primes the engine, turns on the mags and
> clutches in the engine to the inertial wheel. You can hear the sound
> of the inertia wheel dramatically changing as it's dragged down by the
> mass of the engine it's now turning.

My boss at the FBO that I spent my teenage years at had a Lycoming 350hp
Stearman. I was just big enough to crank the flywheel by myself.

The sound it makes, flowed by the big radial coming to life, gives me a,
ummm, "special feeling"

;->