What engine would you like?

[[email protected]]

What would be the ideal configuration for an aircraft engine, given
contemporary technology?

1. Start at 0 degrees F with no fuss?
2. Water cooling for dependable cabin heat?
3. Automatic mixture control for altitude & power?
4. Automatic timing control?
5. Jet fuel (availability)?
6. Piston (for economy)?
7. Choice of RPM at cruise for same power?

I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines makes
no sense whatever.

[Steve C]

Sounds like you are describing the Thielert turbo diesel.

[Colin W Kingsbury]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines makes
> no sense whatever.
>

Have you ever owned an airplane with an exotic engine that no one knows how
to repair and parts have to be ordered from the other side of the ocean?

-cwk.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> What would be the ideal configuration for an aircraft engine, given
> contemporary technology?
>

I like this one:

http://www.predatoraviation.com/

[Dave S]

wrote:
> What would be the ideal configuration for an aircraft engine, given
> contemporary technology?
>
> 1. Start at 0 degrees F with no fuss?
> 2. Water cooling for dependable cabin heat?
> 3. Automatic mixture control for altitude & power?
> 4. Automatic timing control?
> 5. Jet fuel (availability)?
> 6. Piston (for economy)?
> 7. Choice of RPM at cruise for same power?
>
> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines makes
> no sense whatever.
>

While my response is more appropriate to the homebuilders forum, I
would have to say that an engine based upon the rotary engine concept
would meet many of those goals:

There are dozens flying now with engines that are either wholly or
loosely based on the Mazda 13B and 20B rotary engine cores. Mistral (in
Europe) is bringing out a rotary engine/PSRU combination that will
support a dual alternator and a constant speed prop. All of these
engines are oil and water cooled. I say oil cooled only because the oil
takes on a larger cooling burden in relation to a typical "auto" conversion.

With the exception of the Mistral, however, there are not any
firewall-forward installations for sale out there YET. Again, this is
where the reponse it more tuned to the amatuer built owners, rather than
the certified crowd. I realize that the vast majority of pilots want
to fly, not build.. and either lack the time, funds or inclination to
take on a custom engine project, and the required tweaking that will ensue.

That being said, a friend and I are building a Velocity, with a
powerplant consisting of a Mazda 13B "turbo" core engine. The driveshaft
will develop in excess of 200 hp with an attached gearbox dropping the
prop speed to around 25-2700 rpm. Hot oil, rather than water, will be
the source of cabin heat (per plans from Velocity). The PSRU we are
using will be able to operate on autogas or 100LL, as well as any
forseable gasoline product that will be used in the near future. Inital
operations would use unleaded fuel during the fine tuning of the
electronic ignition/advance, since an oxygen sensor is used for those
trials.

Maintenance in the amatuer built arena tends to be the bastion of
owners, but since this engine is heavily based on the Mazda designed
engine, spare parts can be obtained from any mazda dealer in the US, as
well as from specialty shops in the US as well as abroad. I am forseeing
a "maintenance pack" that will consist of the required tools to
completely remove and tear down the motor in an unimproved locale - a
few metric sockets, a torque wrench, breaker bar, some picks, etc. These
engines in the race setting have literally been torn down and rebuilt on
a 5 gallon bucket at the track. This isn't a lot of weight, and in fact
may constitute some of the ballast our airframe may require.

Sorry for the ramble.. and.. by the way.. the wankle concept of rotary
engines is 40's technology too.. but no valves, no camshafts, 3 moving
parts (not counting seals/springs). Water cooled means you can have
tighter tolerances, better efficiency..

Dave

[Dave Stadt]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> What would be the ideal configuration for an aircraft engine, given
> contemporary technology?
>
> 1. Start at 0 degrees F with no fuss?
> 2. Water cooling for dependable cabin heat?
> 3. Automatic mixture control for altitude & power?
> 4. Automatic timing control?
> 5. Jet fuel (availability)?
> 6. Piston (for economy)?
> 7. Choice of RPM at cruise for same power?
>
> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines makes
> no sense whatever.


It makes us with 1940s airplanes feel kinda spiffy.

[Darrel Toepfer]

wrote:

> I like this one:
>
> http://www.predatoraviation.com

My mid '60's Cessna 4 seat airplane didn't cost that much...

[Bob Noel]

In article om>,
wrote:

> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines makes
> no sense whatever.

if it ain't broke...

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> if it ain't broke...
>

Well, fly it for another 300 to 400 hours and it will be.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > if it ain't broke...
>
> Well, fly it for another 300 to 400 hours and it will be.

I'm figuring to get a bit more than 300 to 400 hours on my engine.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> I'm figuring to get a bit more than 300 to 400 hours on my engine.
>

And the cylinder heads? For the higher powered engines we have, a top
overhaul after 400 hours is nothing unusual at all. With a 1800 or so
hours TBO, if that ain't broken, I don't know what is.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter R.]

Thomas Borchert ) wrote:

> And the cylinder heads? For the higher powered engines we have, a top
> overhaul after 400 hours is nothing unusual at all. With a 1800 or so
> hours TBO, if that ain't broken, I don't know what is.

The IO-520 that was just removed from my Bonanza got somewhere around
2400 hours on it before a small crack in one of the cylinders put the
first and last nail in the engine's coffin.

Prior to the crack, the cylinders were all still producing excellent
compression ratios. As far as I know, no overhaul was ever done on
them. BTW, these were Continental cylinders manufactured in the late
80s.

I certainly do not expect to have to perform a top overhaul on the new
engine's Superior Millennium after 400 hours.

--
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> BTW, these were Continental cylinders manufactured in the late
> 80s.
>

That may be the secret.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Doug]

wrote:
> What would be the ideal configuration for an aircraft engine, given
> contemporary technology?
>
> 1. Start at 0 degrees F with no fuss?
Although I have never tried to start my Lycoming 0360 at that
temperature, it may very well start just fine. With expensive aircraft
engines there is just too much wear with cold starts to do it. Get a
preheat. Which leads to installed preheat devices and perhaps a
pre-oiler
> 2. Water cooling for dependable cabin heat?
There is actually plenty of heat available from air cooled if they
would just deliver it. A FAN would be a terrific new age idea.
> 3. Automatic mixture control for altitude & power?
With automation comes complexity. Personally I see no reason to
automate this. How hard is it to lean to a temperature. All you need is
a digital EGT.
> 4. Automatic timing control?
Great idea along with electronic ignition making hotter spark
(capacitive discharge). Actually available from Unison now as an STC.
> 5. Jet fuel (availability)?
I'll stick with gas, thanks. You can get it at out of the way airports.
> 6. Piston (for economy)?
> 7. Choice of RPM at cruise for same power?
Constant speed prop does just that.
>
> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines
makes
> no sense whatever.
Well, it actually does. Although water cooling would allow closer
tolerences and more power, you would have to have geared engine to prop
because you need higher rpm to get the power. Again more complexity and
more weight. Probably not worth it. One thing about the existing
Lycosaurs and Contibrasaurus engines is they are simple. No emissions
stuff, simple mechanical fuel injection or carburetion, simple
mechanical magnetos. This all makes for reliability. These engines are
really all that bad. And they are light. If you look at car engines,
they are heavier for given horsepower. And one thing we definitely
don't need is heavier engines. Even though water cooling (or active
oil cooling) would make more horsepower, I wonder if after the weight
is considered if it would make more horsepower per pound of engine,
which really is the key factor. That and reliability.

A fancy engine that quits or gives trouble with high maintenance is not
an improvement. My Lycoming 0-360 has 2150 hours on it and has never
needed service. Never even had the valve covers off. I have had to
replace accessories. This is actually fairly typical if you do the oil
changes and are careful about how you start and run the engine.

Much to our modern technology chagrin, the designers of these engines
got a lot of things right. They work pretty damn well.

[Dude]

>> 1. Start at 0 degrees F with no fuss?
> Although I have never tried to start my Lycoming 0360 at that
> temperature, it may very well start just fine. With expensive aircraft
> engines there is just too much wear with cold starts to do it. Get a
> preheat. Which leads to installed preheat devices and perhaps a
> pre-oiler

That would satisfy my definition of "fuss". A more "turn key" power plant
would do a lot to bring in more buyers.

>> 2. Water cooling for dependable cabin heat?
> There is actually plenty of heat available from air cooled if they
> would just deliver it. A FAN would be a terrific new age idea.

There would seem to be other ways to get more heat. Water cooling has other
advantages and disadvantages. I see this as a solution not a benefit.

>> 3. Automatic mixture control for altitude & power?
> With automation comes complexity. Personally I see no reason to
> automate this. How hard is it to lean to a temperature. All you need is
> a digital EGT.

If you can reduce complexity for the pilot with little cost in other areas,
its a plus. Less to do is more safety overall.

>> 4. Automatic timing control?
> Great idea along with electronic ignition making hotter spark
> (capacitive discharge). Actually available from Unison now as an STC.

Would seem to be a good feature. I just want to be confident that my engine
is running properly and efficiently without my having to fiddle with it.

>> 5. Jet fuel (availability)?
> I'll stick with gas, thanks. You can get it at out of the way airports.

Availibility will likely solve itself. If the better engine runs on
grapefruit juice, then you will start seeing grapefruit juice at the pumps.
I just want to get away from 100LL and move to something cheaper which juice
isn't likely to be :)

>> 6. Piston (for economy)?

Piston, Rotary, Nuclear, I don't care. I want it to work, and I want the
guy at the airport to be able to fix it.

>> 7. Choice of RPM at cruise for same power?
> Constant speed prop does just that.

Yep

>>
>> I believe that delivering brand new airplanes with 1940s engines
> makes
>> no sense whatever.
> Well, it actually does.

Well, it do and it don't. Does it make sense for women in Afghanistan to
wear Burkhas? We use Lycontinentals because we always have. Its a weird
economic/technological hole we are in, and the only way out will likely cost
much money.


Although water cooling would allow closer
> tolerences and more power, you would have to have geared engine to prop
> because you need higher rpm to get the power. Again more complexity and
> more weight. Probably not worth it. One thing about the existing
> Lycosaurs and Contibrasaurus engines is they are simple. No emissions
> stuff, simple mechanical fuel injection or carburetion, simple
> mechanical magnetos. This all makes for reliability.

Um, I have to disagree. I know all the reasons why we settle for the
reliability we have, and I am all for simplicity. However, my Toyota is
still a lot more reliable even if it is more complex. I know, I know, I
know! Its not stressed to the limits like my Lycoming. So what! It has been
improved to the point that it exceeds my needs. Those who keep making
excuses for the engine industry need to just bite their tongues so they will
get off their arses and improve.

These engines are
> really all that bad. And they are light. If you look at car engines,
> they are heavier for given horsepower. And one thing we definitely
> don't need is heavier engines. Even though water cooling (or active
> oil cooling) would make more horsepower, I wonder if after the weight
> is considered if it would make more horsepower per pound of engine,
> which really is the key factor. That and reliability.
>

A really good point, and why I don't care about how my engine is cooled,
just that I start seeing improvement at greater than glacier speed.

> A fancy engine that quits or gives trouble with high maintenance is not
> an improvement.

Thats true, but you are implying that anything new and better would be more
trouble and maintenance. That is not necessily true.

My Lycoming 0-360 has 2150 hours on it and has never
> needed service. Never even had the valve covers off. I have had to
> replace accessories. This is actually fairly typical if you do the oil
> changes and are careful about how you start and run the engine.
>

Accessories are not seperate in my mind. And I think you are in the
minority. Every starter, pump, or electrical failure is a power plant
failure to me. Also, you have had an exceptional experience with what is the
best example of current reliability (the 360). Why you find an engine that
could quit due to carb ice as acceptable in the 21st century is beyond me.


> Much to our modern technology chagrin, the designers of these engines
> got a lot of things right. They work pretty damn well.
>

I give them their proper and due respect. I thank them. Now, where is the
next generation? Why are a bunch of people not content to travel on the
ground content to see no progress in engine technology?

[Colin W Kingsbury]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> > Much to our modern technology chagrin, the designers of these engines
> > got a lot of things right. They work pretty damn well.
> >
>
> I give them their proper and due respect. I thank them. Now, where is
the
> next generation? Why are a bunch of people not content to travel on the
> ground content to see no progress in engine technology?
>

Because the one thing none of these designs are promising yet is the only
one that really matters to most of us: cost.

The diesels make sense in Europe where 100LL costs more than grand cru
Burgundy but to me they look like a gamble wired in to my bank account. This
is subject to change as they prove themselves.

As for the comparison to auto engines, I used to think it made the Lycosaurs
look bad, but if you look at the experimental crowd, they've been playing
with auto conversions for years and it's hard to say what it's gotten them
other than something to tinker with endlessly while they're not flying. The
majority of experimentals that are built for the sake of flying are built
with the same 1940s engines the rest of us use. Plenty of these "amateur
experimentals" are built by people who know as much about engines as any
professional, though they do work with far smaller budgets.

About the only serious problem I see with current technology is the
dependence on 100LL, which is going to disappear long before most of us do.
The rest is just pet peeves.

-cwk.

[nuke]

<< . My Lycoming 0-360 has 2150 hours on it and has never
needed service. Never even had the valve covers off. I >><BR><BR>


Uhh, then you have NOT been following the maintenance schedule from Lycoming.

<< Lycosaurs and Contibrasaurus engines is they are simple. No emissions
stuff, simple mechanical fuel injection or carburetion, simple
mechanical magnetos. This all makes for reliability. These engines are
really all that bad. And they are light. If you look at car engines,
they are heavier for given horsepower. And >><BR><BR>


I'll agree with simple, but not more reliable.

Magneto's are not as reliable as modern day, no moving parts electronic
ignition.

I would have no objection to adding emmissions control systems to the aircraft
engine either.

A fully dressed Chevrolet LS1 engine (98-04 Corvette engine) with a constant
speed prop, gear reduction unit, radiator, computer, coolant and oil weighs
less than 10lbs more than a IO360 with constant speed prop and produces MORE
power, less fuel consumption and less maintenance.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > I'm figuring to get a bit more than 300 to 400 hours on my engine.
>
> And the cylinder heads?

I expect to the cylinders to last to TBO as well.

> For the higher powered engines we have, a top
> overhaul after 400 hours is nothing unusual at all.

I don't have a high power engine, just the 160hp O-320.

> With a 1800 or so
> hours TBO, if that ain't broken, I don't know what is.

1800 hours TBO is broke? Then we have different ideas
of broke.

note that I figure to reach calender TBO of 12 years before
getting 2000 hours on my freshly overhauled engine.

--
Bob Noel
looking for a sig the lawyers will like

[Doug]

nuke wrote:
> A fully dressed Chevrolet LS1 engine (98-04 Corvette engine) with a
constant
> speed prop, gear reduction unit, radiator, computer, coolant and oil
weighs
> less than 10lbs more than a IO360 with constant speed prop and
produces MORE
> power, less fuel consumption and less maintenance.

Grooooaaan. Oh what the hell. Cool. Can you find some use for the 4 on
the floor?
I bet when it's done, it will go at least 300 knots. Damn aircraft
companies. If only they'd put in a 'vette engine. Must be in cahoots
with the oil companies. Let us know when you get it flying. Man... a
'vette!! Damn cool. I'm going to put a HARLEY engine in my
experimental! Top THAT!

[[email protected]]

Doug wrote:

> 'vette!! Damn cool. I'm going to put a HARLEY engine in my
> experimental! Top THAT!

Hehehe! Of course you probably already know about this,
but for the benefit of those readers who haven't yet...
http://www.hog-air.com

[nuke]

<< Grooooaaan. Oh what the hell. Cool. Can you find some use for the 4 on
the floor?
I bet when it's done, it will go at least 300 knots. Damn aircraft
companies. If only they'd put in a 'vette engine. Must be in cahoots
with the oil companies. Let us know when you get it flying. Man... a
'vette!! Damn cool. I'm going to put a HARLEY engine in my
experimental! Top THAT! >><BR><BR>


http://predatoraviation.com/performance.html

Here's a liquid cooled conversion for Lycoming engines.

http://www.cooljugs.com/about.shtml

We're flying dinosaurs, you have to admit it.

Magnetos belong on lawnmowers, not aircraft.


--
Dr. Nuketopia
Sorry, no e-Mail.
Spam forgeries have resulted in thousands of faked bounces to my address.

[Doug]

Go up in a small GA single engine. Turn the radios off. Turn the
alternator off. Turn the Master off. Turn one magneto off. Note that
the engine keeps running. THAT's why they use magnetos.
I do agree that electronic ignition would be a good idea. The one's I
have seen revert to a mechanical system if electrical is lost. But you
cannot handprop them. And they add complexity and weight. There are
tradeoffs.

[Matt Whiting]

Doug wrote:

> Go up in a small GA single engine. Turn the radios off. Turn the
> alternator off. Turn the Master off. Turn one magneto off. Note that
> the engine keeps running. THAT's why they use magnetos.
> I do agree that electronic ignition would be a good idea. The one's I
> have seen revert to a mechanical system if electrical is lost. But you
> cannot handprop them. And they add complexity and weight. There are
> tradeoffs.
>

An electronic ignition can also be designed to run off power from a
generator that isn't dependent on the rest of the electrical system.
The reason this isn't done in cars is that the electrical system is at
least as reliable as the rest of the engine so there is no gain to be had.


Matt

[Aaron Coolidge]

Matt Whiting > wrote:
: An electronic ignition can also be designed to run off power from a
: generator that isn't dependent on the rest of the electrical system.
: The reason this isn't done in cars is that the electrical system is at
: least as reliable as the rest of the engine so there is no gain to be had.

Gas-turbine engine FADEC usually use their tachometer generator as a backup
source of electrical power. If you did this for a piston engine, it still
wouldn't let you handprop - the engine has to be turning quite a few RPM to
get any generator output. Perhaps the common setup amoung experimentals with
one electronic ignition and one mag has evolved out of experience.
--
Aaron C.

[[email protected]]

On 22 Jan 2005 05:10:07 -0800, "Doug" >
wrote:

>Go up in a small GA single engine. Turn the radios off. Turn the
>alternator off. Turn the Master off. Turn one magneto off. Note that
>the engine keeps running. THAT's why they use magnetos.
>I do agree that electronic ignition would be a good idea. The one's I
>have seen revert to a mechanical system if electrical is lost. But you
>cannot handprop them. And they add complexity and weight. There are
>tradeoffs.

You're wasting your breath.

I maintain a couple of new/old mid-size biz jets. When it comes right
down to it, all five electrical buses (DC and AC), all five batteries
(2 main. 3 emrgency), and the primary hydraulic system can be tits-up
and it still flies just fine. The primary flight controls/trim are
strictly mechanical, the isolated manual aux hydraulic system has the
capability to drop the gear and operate the secondary flight controls,
and two accumulators (one totally isolated from the main system)
provide braking action. The engines operate manually to within 5%
(give or take) margins provided by the failed engine computers.

It's old, crude, but it works. (emphasis on the period)

There probably aren't many people that hang around this group that
have been around the Porsche aircraft engine. It was designed with
"adequate" airframe electrical back-ups for it's systems. A very good
friend of mine experienced a total charging system failure (Mooney
version) and had to find a place to land before the batteries went
dead. It probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue if he hadn't
been crossing the Atlantic at the time.

Arguing new vs. old GA aircraft engines is like arguing politics.
Having spent half my life maintaining the "old" ones, you would think
that I would have as much cause to dislike them as anybody. Thing is,
nobody has come up with a suitable replacement-and a lot of people
have tried.

Would like to learn more about the Thielert engines, but will probably
never have the opportunity. I know that millions of dollars and many
years were spent refining the Orenda V-8, how many of them are out
there operating?

Regards;

TC

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> I know that millions of dollars and many
> years were spent refining the Orenda V-8, how many of them are out
> there operating?



And we also know how successful the Porsche PFM 3200 Mooneys were in
the late 80's - early 90's too !!!

[Matt Whiting]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
> : An electronic ignition can also be designed to run off power from a
> : generator that isn't dependent on the rest of the electrical system.
> : The reason this isn't done in cars is that the electrical system is at
> : least as reliable as the rest of the engine so there is no gain to be had.
>
> Gas-turbine engine FADEC usually use their tachometer generator as a backup
> source of electrical power. If you did this for a piston engine, it still
> wouldn't let you handprop - the engine has to be turning quite a few RPM to
> get any generator output. Perhaps the common setup amoung experimentals with
> one electronic ignition and one mag has evolved out of experience.

Yes, that is a reasonable short-term solution. However, my point is
that there is nothing magic about a magneto ignition that couldn't be
designed into an electronic ignition if there was sufficient demand. It
wouldn't be hard to build a small permanent magnet generator that could
generate enough juice to operate an electronic ignition system. I doubt
there is sufficient demand yet to warrant this as there are other
reasonable solutions such as you mention above or having a small backup
battery.


Matt

[Thomas Borchert]

Doug,

> Turn one magneto off.
>

That's an ancient solution to a problem that could and can be solved
otherwise. Witness the Thielert engine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> And we also know how successful the Porsche PFM 3200 Mooneys were in
> the late 80's - early 90's too !!!
>

And we all knwo the reason for that was not primarily the reliability
of the engine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> ..... However, my point is
> that there is nothing magic about a magneto ignition that couldn't be
> designed into an electronic ignition if there was sufficient demand.
It
> wouldn't be hard to build a small permanent magnet generator that
could
> generate enough juice to operate an electronic ignition system. I
doubt
> there is sufficient demand yet to warrant this as there are other
> reasonable solutions such as you mention above or having a small
backup
> battery.

Actually, such a system does exist - it's called a P-Mag. It's made by
"Emagair" - see www.emagair.com. I have one on my COZY MKIV. As long
as the engine is turning more than 700 RPM, the generator will produce
enough juice to keep itself firing. Works great - I've turned off the
master switch and run the engine just like it's on two mags. Except
that the EI will advance the timing based on RPM and MP, produces a much
hotter spark so it's MUCH easier to start in cold weather, and I get a
few % better gas mileage.

Not only that, but with respect to whomever said that you can't handprop
a plane with electronic ignition, that's only partially true. As long
as the electrical system works, you can handprop a plane with the
Emagair or Lightspeed systems - Klaus Savier does not have a starter on
his Vari-EZ with his Lightspeed ignition, and ONLY handprops. Although
I haven't tried it on my plane (O-360 with a 3-blade prop), Emagair
swears that they've handpropped on their system many times, and
advertise it as being a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

If someone was interested in not having an electrical system, they could
have a very small portable battery (The P-Mag draws less than 5A) for
starting to run the P-Mag until the engine was running over 700 RPM.
After that, the P-Mag is on it's own. Two P-Mags would give you all the
advantages of EI, with all the advantages of a Magneto (such as they
are).

Personally, I think the E-Mag and P-Mag systems will take over the
homebuilt EI market, and they're claiming that they're going to try to
get it certified.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Dude]

But you
> cannot handprop them. And they add complexity and weight. There are
> tradeoffs.
>


Seriously, is there anyting to be gained by making a new engine that is
started by hand propping?

The percentage of the population that cares is almost nil. And their
families have lawyers. Ya Ya Ya, I know, ALL your friends and ALL the best
pilots do it. Great, you have planes you like. But you are small group
within a small group (pilots).

Anyone making a new engine would have to be thinking it will expand the
market place and appeal to NEW pilots. Hand propping is definitely NOT on
the must have list for a new engine to rule the piston market. Sorry if
that means you won't buy one.

[Mike Rapoport]

What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods
to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine
(installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder
designs. The improved fuel efficiency of a diesel would mean less fuel
weight for even better performance. The lack of magnetos means that only
fuel is needed to run once started. Air cooling would be nice for
simplicity.

Mike
MU-2

[Dan Luke]

"Mike Rapoport" wrote:
> What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for
> simplicity.

Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you
be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the
large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them?
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short periods
> to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The engine
> (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder
> designs.

Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine, depending on
your definition of "not significantly" and your ability to forget about the
400 hp. IMHO, that requirement doesn't really make sense anyway: Why design
something for 400 hp and then run it at only 300?

> The lack of magnetos means that only
> fuel is needed to run once started.

Not necessarily, with a modern diesel.

> Air cooling would be nice for
> simplicity.
>

Depends on your view of "simplicity".


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Markus Voget]

Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> Mike,
>
>> What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short
>> periods to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after
>> that. The engine (installed) should not weigh significantly more
>> than current six cylinder designs.
>
> Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine,

FYI, you can see (and hear) it running at
http://www.hp-aircraft.de/img/27-09-04-3.MOV

If you prefer two of them in a taxiing aircaft, try
http://www.hp-aircraft.de/img/TT62%20Video%2003dez04.AVI


Greetings,
Markus

[Mike Rapoport]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>> What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for
>> simplicity.
>
> Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt
> you
> be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with
> the
> large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them?
> --
> Dan
> C-172RG at BFM
>
>
There are air cooled diesels made by Lombardini for use in tractors and
stationary applications. Diesels tend to run cooler than gasoline engines.
Air cooling should work better with a diesel than with a gasoline engine.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> What I want is a turbo diesel. I would like around 400hp for short
>> periods
>> to facilitate short takeoffs. 300hp would be fine after that. The
>> engine
>> (installed) should not weigh significantly more than current six cylinder
>> designs.
>
> Well, the Thielert Centurion 4.0 will be (almost) that engine, depending
> on
> your definition of "not significantly" and your ability to forget about
> the
> 400 hp. IMHO, that requirement doesn't really make sense anyway: Why
> design
> something for 400 hp and then run it at only 300?
>
>> The lack of magnetos means that only
>> fuel is needed to run once started.
>
> Not necessarily, with a modern diesel.
>
>> Air cooling would be nice for
>> simplicity.
>>
>
> Depends on your view of "simplicity".
>
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)


Every geared engine that I know of allows higher rpm and hence horsepower
for takeoff and then requires a rpm reduction. I think that radials are
rated for take-off and then have a METO (maximium except take off) rating
which is less. Come to think of it every normally aspirated engine has more
power for take-off than for cruise because of air density.. Seaplanes also
need a lot of power for adequate takeoff performance but not thereafter. I
flew a Murphy Moose with a 360hp engine. We used full power for takeoff but
once at cruise we were back to 50% power. The Moose would do 145mph on
under 14gph but only 155 on 23gph so it only needed the big engine for
takeoff.

Mike
MU-2

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dan Luke > wrote:
: "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
:> What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for
:> simplicity.

: Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you
: be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the
: large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them?

Deutz makes large aircooled turbo diesels for the marine industry. 1500HP
and up. They don't have the greatest reputation because of lack of
appreciation of the necessity of keeping the air moving over them, and
the lack of skilled maintenance folks to keep them running. They're
available, though.
--
Aaron C.

[Matt Whiting]

Dan Luke wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" wrote:
>
>>What I want is a turbo diesel. ...Air cooling would be nice for
>>simplicity.
>
>
> Do you know of successful air cooled turbo diesel applications? Would'nt you
> be asking for thermal distribution problems in such an engine, along with the
> large mechanical tolerances required to deal with them?

I don't know of any in aircraft, but I believe at least one Ag company
had an air cooled diesel (I want to say Deutz, but am not 100% sure).
The biggest problem is making a diesel that is both robust and the same
weight as an equivalent power gasoline engine. The high compression
required for auto ignition comes at a significant penalty in either
weight or reliability ... and most of us want our airplane engines to be
reliable so you pay in weight.


Matt