Cozy, Long ezy, and diesel engine. [Archive]

Morgans

February 16th 05, 04:36 AM

"LCT Paintball" wrote
> Please excuse my ignorance, but I've been reading a lot of hoopla over 2
> stroke diesel aircraft engines. Has anybody tried one of these in a Cozy
or
> Long Ezy?

I am no expert, but I'll give it a shot.

Problem number one, they are all in test phase, or prototype, and not
available, AFAIK.

>It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
> aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?

Nope, and when they are out there at reasonable costs, lots of people will
be wanting to get ahold of them. Problem now is, they have been going to be
available to the public in the next six months, for the last five years.
Get my drift?

Some people are home-brewing 4 stroke diesels, from cars, and had pretty
good luck. I recall one being in a pusher.

> If the aircraft is home built, could it burn standard diesel even though
it
> hasn't been approved by the FAA?

For experimental, you could burn peanut oil, as far as the FAA cares.

>Is there a good reason not to use standard
> diesel other than fuel congealing at cold temperatures?

Sounds like a damn good reason to me! :-)

One of the big reasons that people want diesels, is that they could burn the
jet fuel that is at all major airports, and lots of minor ones. <g>
--
Jim in NC

Dude

February 16th 05, 06:29 AM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
news:kAzQd.8210$4q6.3720@attbi_s01...
> Please excuse my ignorance, but I've been reading a lot of hoopla over 2
> stroke diesel aircraft engines. Has anybody tried one of these in a Cozy
> or Long Ezy? It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
> aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?
>

No, so long as the power is there to take off before the end of the runway.

> If the aircraft is home built, could it burn standard diesel even though
> it hasn't been approved by the FAA? Is there a good reason not to use
> standard diesel other than fuel congealing at cold temperatures?
>
> --

US diesel is full of crud (someone else can tell you exactly what). If you
could filter it, it may be okay, but for me, I would just as soon go with
Jet A for the price.

> "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
> www.LCTPaintball.com
> www.LCTProducts.com
>
>
>

LCT Paintball

February 16th 05, 12:40 PM

">
>>It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
>> aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?
>
> Nope, and when they are out there at reasonable costs, lots of people will
> be wanting to get ahold of them. Problem now is, they have been going to
> be
> available to the public in the next six months, for the last five years.
> Get my drift?

You're saying that they just aren't available, not that they wouldn't be
efficient when they're available, right?

>
> Some people are home-brewing 4 stroke diesels, from cars, and had pretty
> good luck. I recall one being in a pusher.

I thought those had some weight issues.

> Sounds like a damn good reason to me! :-)

True, but that issue can be fixed.

>
> One of the big reasons that people want diesels, is that they could burn
> the
> jet fuel that is at all major airports, and lots of minor ones. <g>

Yea, but standard diesel is much cheaper.

Corky Scott

February 16th 05, 02:24 PM

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:01:20 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
> wrote:

>Please excuse my ignorance, but I've been reading a lot of hoopla over 2
>stroke diesel aircraft engines. Has anybody tried one of these in a Cozy or
>Long Ezy? It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
>aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?
>
>If the aircraft is home built, could it burn standard diesel even though it
>hasn't been approved by the FAA? Is there a good reason not to use standard
>diesel other than fuel congealing at cold temperatures?

Go to http://www.deltahawkengines.com/ for the latest information and
updates.

Corky Scott

Morgans

February 16th 05, 10:27 PM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
news:9bHQd.3342$zH6.1064@attbi_s53...
> ">
> >>It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
> >> aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?
> >
> > Nope, and when they are out there at reasonable costs, lots of people
will
> > be wanting to get ahold of them. Problem now is, they have been going
to
> > be
> > available to the public in the next six months, for the last five years.
> > Get my drift?
>
> You're saying that they just aren't available, not that they wouldn't be
> efficient when they're available, right?

Right
>
> >
> > Some people are home-brewing 4 stroke diesels, from cars, and had pretty
> > good luck. I recall one being in a pusher.
>
> I thought those had some weight issues.

Some have done a pretty good job of keepng the weight down, and it really
matters what you start from.

> > Sounds like a damn good reason to me! :-)
>
> True, but that issue can be fixed.

That comment was about fuel jelling. What are your fixes? Will it end up
making the cost higher? What happens when you go to other airports that
don't have auto diesel fuel?
>
> >
> > One of the big reasons that people want diesels, is that they could burn
> > the
> > jet fuel that is at all major airports, and lots of minor ones. <g>
>
> Yea, but standard diesel is much cheaper.
--
Jim in NC

LCT Paintball

February 16th 05, 10:51 PM

>> True, but that issue can be fixed.
>
> That comment was about fuel jelling. What are your fixes? Will it end up
> making the cost higher? What happens when you go to other airports that
> don't have auto diesel fuel?
>>

The first fix would be to pump extra fuel through the system so that it can
be warmed by the engine, then returned to the tank. Perhaps you could even
run it through the oil cooler before sending it to the engine. There are
also additives that are routinely used to keep the fuel from jelling.

My understanding is that these engines are actually multifueled. You could
run them from diesel fuel, Jet-a, or any combination of the 2.

If I understand the issues correctly, the turbo charged diesel engines
retain most of their power even at high altitudes (around 25K). And, they
give about 30% improvement in fuel efficiency over av gas.

Please understand you're speaking to a complete novice here. I was hoping to
glean knowledge from you guys.

LCT Paintball

February 16th 05, 11:01 PM

Thanks, that is a cool sight! Apparently they will have the engines for sale
next month.

--
"Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."
www.LCTPaintball.com
www.LCTProducts.com

"Corky Scott" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 04:01:20 GMT, "LCT Paintball"
> > wrote:
>
>>Please excuse my ignorance, but I've been reading a lot of hoopla over 2
>>stroke diesel aircraft engines. Has anybody tried one of these in a Cozy
>>or
>>Long Ezy? It sounds to me like that may make for a very fuel efficient
>>aircraft with good performance. Any reason why it can't be done?
>>
>>If the aircraft is home built, could it burn standard diesel even though
>>it
>>hasn't been approved by the FAA? Is there a good reason not to use
>>standard
>>diesel other than fuel congealing at cold temperatures?
>
> Go to http://www.deltahawkengines.com/ for the latest information and
> updates.
>
> Corky Scott

Morgans

February 17th 05, 03:31 AM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
news:F7QQd.5629$4D6.3605@attbi_s51...
> >> True, but that issue can be fixed.
> >
> > That comment was about fuel jelling. What are your fixes? Will it end
up
> > making the cost higher? What happens when you go to other airports that
> > don't have auto diesel fuel?
> >>
>
> The first fix would be to pump extra fuel through the system so that it
can
> be warmed by the engine, then returned to the tank. Perhaps you could even
> run it through the oil cooler before sending it to the engine. There are
> also additives that are routinely used to keep the fuel from jelling.

The additives will be the best bet, but expensive, when you add that to the
price for fuel. Truckers use it, but they are only dealing with negative in
the teens, not 20 to 30 below, with a huge moving air factor, around the
fuel. All that fuel, basicly in direct contact with the air, with Al's
great thermal conductivity. You would need to insulate the tank. Not easy,
and more weight. Now add in whatever fuel heat exchangers, lines, and
pumps, and more weight, and also, complexity. (read ways to bring you down
before you wanted to) I didn't do any calcs, but you would need to capture
almost all of the engine's waste heat to do this without additives.

I realize that you would not be in that kind of temperatures all of the
time, but all you need is one time where things were colder than you
thought, and......

Many around here will talk about the hassles of using your own auto fuel,
and what happens when you travel away from home. That is what the airplane
you are describing will be good at; great economy, and legs.

Shoot, one nutcase that hangs out around here even made his own fuel truck
to feed his habit. <g>

The old saying about asking how much fuel that yacht burns? If you have to
ask how much fuel it burns, you can't afford the boat.

Same thing here. Jet fuel is not that bad, it will give you great economy,
and it is available, and won't end up killing you. Just my humble opinions.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

February 17th 05, 03:37 AM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message

> Thanks, that is a cool sight! Apparently they will have the engines for
sale
> next month.
>
> --
> "Don't be misled, bad company corrupts good character."

Good sig line.

Tell you what. Get out your planner, then write down in one month, to check
and see if the engines are shipping, right then. If not, write it down to
check in a month. Repeat as necessary.

There is some Latin saying about my attitude, but I don't remember it.
--
Jim (I'm really from Okalahoma; show me) in NC

Bill Daniels

February 17th 05, 03:54 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
> news:F7QQd.5629$4D6.3605@attbi_s51...
> > >> True, but that issue can be fixed.
> > >
> > > That comment was about fuel jelling. What are your fixes? Will it
end
> up
> > > making the cost higher? What happens when you go to other airports
that
> > > don't have auto diesel fuel?
> > >>
> >
> > The first fix would be to pump extra fuel through the system so that it
> can
> > be warmed by the engine, then returned to the tank. Perhaps you could
even
> > run it through the oil cooler before sending it to the engine. There are
> > also additives that are routinely used to keep the fuel from jelling.
>
> The additives will be the best bet, but expensive, when you add that to
the
> price for fuel. Truckers use it, but they are only dealing with negative
in
> the teens, not 20 to 30 below, with a huge moving air factor, around the
> fuel. All that fuel, basicly in direct contact with the air, with Al's
> great thermal conductivity. You would need to insulate the tank. Not
easy,
> and more weight. Now add in whatever fuel heat exchangers, lines, and
> pumps, and more weight, and also, complexity. (read ways to bring you down
> before you wanted to) I didn't do any calcs, but you would need to
capture
> almost all of the engine's waste heat to do this without additives.
>
> I realize that you would not be in that kind of temperatures all of the
> time, but all you need is one time where things were colder than you
> thought, and......
>
> Many around here will talk about the hassles of using your own auto fuel,
> and what happens when you travel away from home. That is what the
airplane
> you are describing will be good at; great economy, and legs.
>
> Shoot, one nutcase that hangs out around here even made his own fuel truck
> to feed his habit. <g>
>
> The old saying about asking how much fuel that yacht burns? If you have
to
> ask how much fuel it burns, you can't afford the boat.
>
> Same thing here. Jet fuel is not that bad, it will give you great
economy,
> and it is available, and won't end up killing you. Just my humble
opinions.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>

You could use the fuel as an engine coolant in a liquid cooled diesel like
the Deltahawk.

With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin radiator
in the bargain.

'Course, it wouldn't work if you ran out of fuel.....:)

Bill Daniels

[email protected]

February 17th 05, 04:03 AM

In article >, "Bill Daniels" > wrote:
>

>
>You could use the fuel as an engine coolant in a liquid cooled diesel like
>the Deltahawk.
>
>With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin radiator
>in the bargain.

1960's vintage Allis Chalmers crawlers using the diesel fuel as a cooling
medium and working medium for the torque converter. Worked well.
tom

Morgans

February 17th 05, 04:13 AM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote

> With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin
radiator
> in the bargain.
>
> 'Course, it wouldn't work if you ran out of fuel.....:)
>
> Bill Daniels

Couple years back, someone did a pretty good set of calculations on that.
If you captured 100% of the engine waste heat, It wouldn't be even close
enough to de-ice a wing.

Turbines do it, cause they burn tons of fuel. IC engines don't come close.
--
Jim in NC

LCT Paintball

February 17th 05, 04:45 AM

LCT Paintball

February 17th 05, 05:16 AM

> fuel. All that fuel, basicly in direct contact with the air, with Al's
> great thermal conductivity. You would need to insulate the tank. Not
> easy,
> and more weight. Now add in whatever fuel heat exchangers, lines, and

Cozies and Long ez's aren't aluminum. I haven't studied what the wings look
like on the inside, but don't they already have foam in them? Do you still
think they would loose too much heat?

> pumps, and more weight, and also, complexity. (read ways to bring you down
> before you wanted to)

The fuel pumps are already there, and so are the fuel lines. The only thing
you would be adding is a device to transfer the heat from the engine oil, or
radiator to the fuel. I would think (read I'm not smart enough to do the
calculations) that the improved airodynamics of not having to have a
radiator in the wind would offset the extra weight of the heat exchanger.

> Many around here will talk about the hassles of using your own auto fuel,
> and what happens when you travel away from home. That is what the
> airplane
> you are describing will be good at; great economy, and legs.

My understanding is that they run equally well off Jet-a. If there's not any
diesel around, just filler up with Jet-a.

> The old saying about asking how much fuel that yacht burns? If you have
> to
> ask how much fuel it burns, you can't afford the boat.

That is a good statement for me. Money is always an issue. I have been known
to spend $1,000 so I can save $100. ;)

>
> Same thing here. Jet fuel is not that bad, it will give you great
> economy,
> and it is available, and won't end up killing you. Just my humble
> opinions.
> --

I like that not killing me part. It's a rule that I try to live by.
I also like opinions. They make me think.....

Dude

February 17th 05, 03:34 PM

> Tell you what. Get out your planner, then write down in one month, to
> check
> and see if the engines are shipping, right then. If not, write it down to
> check in a month. Repeat as necessary.
>

No doubt, the Liberty airplane has been ready to ship in 2 to 3 months for 2
to 3 years!

Believe it or not, the jack ass that sold all those useless orders is still
selling airplanes.

Morgans

February 18th 05, 01:47 AM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote

> Cozies and Long ez's aren't aluminum. I haven't studied what the wings
look
> like on the inside, but don't they already have foam in them? Do you still
> think they would loose too much heat?

Right, I forgot that this was all about a long. Less loss, but it still is
zipping through the air, to help. How much? I don't know.

> The fuel pumps are already there, and so are the fuel lines. The only
thing
> you would be adding is a device to transfer the heat from the engine oil,
or
> radiator to the fuel. I would think (read I'm not smart enough to do the
> calculations) that the improved airodynamics of not having to have a
> radiator in the wind would offset the extra weight of the heat exchanger.

If it did hold the heat real well, you might overheat the fuel, and have no
way to cool the oil. Very bad.

If this is a new tec engine, there is already a real big unknown added to
your plane. The old experience around here says not to add too many new
things to the mix, all at once. It adds to the chance of something going
wrong. It will go wrong, you just have to hope not too bad.

Nice thoughts, but I think it is valid to try to keep it simple.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

February 20th 05, 02:14 PM

LCT Paintball wrote:
> > Tell you what. Get out your planner, then write down in one month,
to
> > check
> > and see if the engines are shipping, right then. If not, write it
down to
> > check in a month. Repeat as necessar
>
>
> I think I get your point. ;)

Also known as the "Zoche syndrome." www.Zoche.com Ah, yes, I
remember it well..........being excited by Michael Zoche's "pitch" back
in....... I think it was 1980 !!!

Neal

Dan Nafe

February 21st 05, 05:32 PM

In article >,
wrote:

> In article >, "Bill Daniels"
> > wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >You could use the fuel as an engine coolant in a liquid cooled diesel like
> >the Deltahawk.
> >
> >With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin radiator
> >in the bargain.
>
> 1960's vintage Allis Chalmers crawlers using the diesel fuel as a cooling
> medium and working medium for the torque converter. Worked well.
> tom

would a mazda/wankle-rotary run on Jet-A, JP-4, etc?

Bill Daniels

February 21st 05, 07:58 PM

Compression ignition Wankel-type rotaries have been built and run.

Bill Daniels

"Bryan Martin" > wrote in message
...
> No. The Mazda rotary engine is an Otto cycle engine, the same cycle used
in
> a piston engine. Jet fuel has too low an octane rating for an Otto cycle
> engine, you would get pre-ignition. You would have to convert it to direct
> fuel injection to use these low octane fuels. You wouldn't gain much
> efficiency unless you also found a way to significantly increase the
> compression ratio as well.
>
> in article , Dan Nafe at
> wrote on 2/21/05 12:32 PM:
>
> >
> > would a mazda/wankle-rotary run on Jet-A, JP-4, etc?
>
>
> --
> Bryan Martin
>

Morgans

February 21st 05, 11:00 PM

"Dan Nafe" > wrote > > >
> >
> > >
> > >You could use the fuel as an engine coolant in a liquid cooled diesel
like
> > >the Deltahawk.
> > >
> > >With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin
radiator
> > >in the bargain.
> >
> > 1960's vintage Allis Chalmers crawlers using the diesel fuel as a
cooling
> > medium and working medium for the torque converter. Worked well.
> > tom
>
> would a mazda/wankle-rotary run on Jet-A, JP-4, etc?

If it did, it would come the closest chance of having waste heat deice the
wing. Wankel engines do not have a high enough compression ratio, I
believe.

The other issues have been kicked around before.

1.) Wings make poor radiators. The boundary layer of air does not move
enough, to carry the heat away efficiently. It was tried, even in the early
years of air racing.

2.) Internal combustion engines do not produce enough waste heat to deice a
wing, even if 100% of the exhaust heat and engine cooling heat was captured,
and put onto the wing. 100% will never happen, and that makes the
possibilities even more unlikely.
--
Jim in NC

Bill Daniels

February 22nd 05, 12:11 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Nafe" > wrote > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >You could use the fuel as an engine coolant in a liquid cooled diesel
> like
> > > >the Deltahawk.
> > > >
> > > >With a wet wing, you'd get hot wing anti-ice capability and a skin
> radiator
> > > >in the bargain.
> > >
> > > 1960's vintage Allis Chalmers crawlers using the diesel fuel as a
> cooling
> > > medium and working medium for the torque converter. Worked well.
> > > tom
> >
> > would a mazda/wankle-rotary run on Jet-A, JP-4, etc?
>
> If it did, it would come the closest chance of having waste heat deice the
> wing. Wankel engines do not have a high enough compression ratio, I
> believe.
>
> The other issues have been kicked around before.
>
> 1.) Wings make poor radiators. The boundary layer of air does not move
> enough, to carry the heat away efficiently. It was tried, even in the
early
> years of air racing.
>
> 2.) Internal combustion engines do not produce enough waste heat to deice
a
> wing, even if 100% of the exhaust heat and engine cooling heat was
captured,
> and put onto the wing. 100% will never happen, and that makes the
> possibilities even more unlikely.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Seems counter to say that a skin radiator won't cool an engine but won't
de-ice either. Last I checked, ice melted at 32F and coolant is usually
180-200F. If the skin radiator won't transfer heat to the airstream, it'll
get damn hot. If the heat won't melt ice, it's going somewhere.

I'd bet a 180F wing would melt ice pretty damn well with an OAT of 28F.
Actually, the golden air age racers with skin radiators worked pretty well.

BTW, if heat won't transfer through a wing boundary layer, why should it
transfer through the boundary layer on a cooling fin?

Bill Daniels

Morgans

February 22nd 05, 02:48 AM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote
>
> Seems counter to say that a skin radiator won't cool an engine but won't
> de-ice either. Last I checked, ice melted at 32F and coolant is usually
> 180-200F. If the skin radiator won't transfer heat to the airstream,
it'll
> get damn hot. If the heat won't melt ice, it's going somewhere.

It takes a lot of energy to melt ice. What is it, specific heat? I can
never remember if it is that, or latent heat, from my high school chemestry.

Ever notice how small the radiators are, in a auto engine homebuilt? Lots
of the 4.3 Liter V-6's are using 2 Chevy air conditioner evaporators. How
much surface area, if it were all spread out? 3 or 4 square feet would be
my guess. Now take the wing of of a RV. What are they, 100, 120 sf? That
makes it 200 or 240 square feet, top and bottom. Oh, let's take off 20% for
ailerons and flaps... 190 or so. 47 times more surface on the wing, than
the radiator. How hot do you think that will get, with all of that air
zooming by at 150 + MPH. Yes, if you made the whole wing a radiator, the
coolant will get cooled. How much will all of it weigh?

Some time ago, someone in the group did some calculations, that pretty much
proved the case. They used the efficiency of an IC engine, then assumed
that all the rest of the BTU's produced by burning, say 10 gal/hr, that were
not used for HP went into the wing. They started with a thin layer of ice
over a given surface area, and calculated how much heat it wuld take to melt
that ice. The waste BTU's in that gas were far short of melting all of it.
>
> I'd bet a 180F wing would melt ice pretty damn well with an OAT of 28F.

If you put the heat in a small surface area, say the first 6" of the leading
edge, yes. What happens after it runs back and re-freezes? Seems to me, a
commuter plane model had a problem with that type of thing, and a couple
crashed, a few years back.

If the wing was 180 without the ice, how well would the engine be cooling.
(or overheating)

> Actually, the golden air age racers with skin radiators worked pretty
well.

Cites?

> BTW, if heat won't transfer through a wing boundary layer, why should it
> transfer through the boundary layer on a cooling fin?
>
> Bill Daniels

I am not an aerodynamoisist, but I think there is something you are not
understanding, here.

I do not believe boundry layers apply, when the air is being forced past the
surface, with nowhere else to go, with a pressure differential.

Ever notice the lip on the cooling intake of a P-51? It is away from the
surface of the belly by a few inches, away from the boundry layer, to get to
where the air is flowing fast, and energetic, and pressure can be developed,
due to ram effect. The other big part of the equation is the negative
pressure behind the lip of the outlet.

How does your cite of boundry layer apply to a radiator?

For my final argument, why are wing radiators not commonplace? If you could
get the engine cooled, for no drag penalty, why is it not being done?
Surely Dick Rutan would have used it in Voyager, to eliminate the cooling
drag. What is cooling drag in a piston airplane? I seem to recall around
20% on most designs. 20% on Voyager would have been HUGE!
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

February 22nd 05, 02:55 AM

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 12:32:27 -0500, Dan Nafe >
> wrote:
>
> :
> :would a mazda/wankle-rotary run on Jet-A, JP-4, etc?
>
> Google "Wankle Deere SCORE"

Ah, that ugly little factor of weight and diesel engines, rears it's ugly
head again. ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Matt Whiting

February 22nd 05, 11:44 PM

Morgans wrote:

> "Bill Daniels" > wrote
>
>>Seems counter to say that a skin radiator won't cool an engine but won't
>>de-ice either. Last I checked, ice melted at 32F and coolant is usually
>>180-200F. If the skin radiator won't transfer heat to the airstream,
>
> it'll
>
>>get damn hot. If the heat won't melt ice, it's going somewhere.
>
>
> It takes a lot of energy to melt ice. What is it, specific heat? I can
> never remember if it is that, or latent heat, from my high school chemestry.
>
> Ever notice how small the radiators are, in a auto engine homebuilt? Lots
> of the 4.3 Liter V-6's are using 2 Chevy air conditioner evaporators. How
> much surface area, if it were all spread out? 3 or 4 square feet would be
> my guess. Now take the wing of of a RV. What are they, 100, 120 sf? That
> makes it 200 or 240 square feet, top and bottom. Oh, let's take off 20% for
> ailerons and flaps... 190 or so. 47 times more surface on the wing, than
> the radiator. How hot do you think that will get, with all of that air
> zooming by at 150 + MPH. Yes, if you made the whole wing a radiator, the
> coolant will get cooled. How much will all of it weigh?

I don't know the area of a typical car radiator either, but I'm betting
it is much more than 3-4 square feet. Also, keep in mind that you only
need to de-ice the leading edge of the wing (look at how much boots
cover). So the area is probably closer to 2' times the wingspan which
means 50-80 sq. ft. one a typical light airplane.

And you don't need to coolant at 180F+ to deice a wing, so you can push
the coolant through a lot more area than a radiator and still keep
sufficient temperature to melt or prevent ice.

> Some time ago, someone in the group did some calculations, that pretty much
> proved the case. They used the efficiency of an IC engine, then assumed
> that all the rest of the BTU's produced by burning, say 10 gal/hr, that were
> not used for HP went into the wing. They started with a thin layer of ice
> over a given surface area, and calculated how much heat it wuld take to melt
> that ice. The waste BTU's in that gas were far short of melting all of it.

Preventing it is easier than melting an accumulation to be sure. This
holds with other systems such as TKS as well.

> For my final argument, why are wing radiators not commonplace? If you could
> get the engine cooled, for no drag penalty, why is it not being done?
> Surely Dick Rutan would have used it in Voyager, to eliminate the cooling
> drag. What is cooling drag in a piston airplane? I seem to recall around
> 20% on most designs. 20% on Voyager would have been HUGE!

I'd guess cost and complexity would be two big reasons.

Matt

Dude

February 23rd 05, 12:18 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans wrote:
>
>> "Bill Daniels" > wrote
>>
>>>Seems counter to say that a skin radiator won't cool an engine but won't
>>>de-ice either. Last I checked, ice melted at 32F and coolant is usually
>>>180-200F. If the skin radiator won't transfer heat to the airstream,
>>
>> it'll
>>
>>>get damn hot. If the heat won't melt ice, it's going somewhere.
>>
>>
>> It takes a lot of energy to melt ice. What is it, specific heat? I can
>> never remember if it is that, or latent heat, from my high school
>> chemestry.
>>
>> Ever notice how small the radiators are, in a auto engine homebuilt?
>> Lots
>> of the 4.3 Liter V-6's are using 2 Chevy air conditioner evaporators.
>> How
>> much surface area, if it were all spread out? 3 or 4 square feet would
>> be
>> my guess. Now take the wing of of a RV. What are they, 100, 120 sf?
>> That
>> makes it 200 or 240 square feet, top and bottom. Oh, let's take off 20%
>> for
>> ailerons and flaps... 190 or so. 47 times more surface on the wing, than
>> the radiator. How hot do you think that will get, with all of that air
>> zooming by at 150 + MPH. Yes, if you made the whole wing a radiator, the
>> coolant will get cooled. How much will all of it weigh?
>
> I don't know the area of a typical car radiator either, but I'm betting it
> is much more than 3-4 square feet. Also, keep in mind that you only need
> to de-ice the leading edge of the wing (look at how much boots cover). So
> the area is probably closer to 2' times the wingspan which means 50-80 sq.
> ft. one a typical light airplane.
>
> And you don't need to coolant at 180F+ to deice a wing, so you can push
> the coolant through a lot more area than a radiator and still keep
> sufficient temperature to melt or prevent ice.
>
>
>> Some time ago, someone in the group did some calculations, that pretty
>> much
>> proved the case. They used the efficiency of an IC engine, then assumed
>> that all the rest of the BTU's produced by burning, say 10 gal/hr, that
>> were
>> not used for HP went into the wing. They started with a thin layer of
>> ice
>> over a given surface area, and calculated how much heat it wuld take to
>> melt
>> that ice. The waste BTU's in that gas were far short of melting all of
>> it.
>
> Preventing it is easier than melting an accumulation to be sure. This
> holds with other systems such as TKS as well.
>
>
>> For my final argument, why are wing radiators not commonplace? If you
>> could
>> get the engine cooled, for no drag penalty, why is it not being done?
>> Surely Dick Rutan would have used it in Voyager, to eliminate the cooling
>> drag. What is cooling drag in a piston airplane? I seem to recall around
>> 20% on most designs. 20% on Voyager would have been HUGE!
>
> I'd guess cost and complexity would be two big reasons.
>
>
> Matt

Could you add cooling fins to a wing? Would a serious set of vortex
generators add enough area?

Morgans

February 23rd 05, 12:39 AM

>
> I don't know the area of a typical car radiator either, but I'm betting
> it is much more than 3-4 square feet.

Yes, car radiators are much larger than 3 or 4 square feet. Car radiators
have to sit in traffic, not moving, in 110 degrees. Also, they have even
hotter air blowing past them, from the AC radiator in front of it.
Automatic transmission cars also have to cool the tranny fluid, by running
it through the radiator. That represents a huge amount of heat.

Most water cooled homebuilts do not tolerate sitting on the taxiway more
than a few minutes. How do I know that? By talking to the owners of them,
when they are deciding about when to taxi, and how long they can stand it.
There are exceptions; some have figured out how to cool their engines,
sitting on the ground for a long time. They are the exception, in the
homebuilt world. So really, that is how they get away with such small
radiators. Lots of cool fast moving air.

> Also, keep in mind that you only
> need to de-ice the leading edge of the wing (look at how much boots
> cover).

Different princples at work. If you *melted* the first few inches of ice,
it would run back and re-freeze, before it got off the wing. Bad thing.
VERY bad thing, as in guaranteed crash, after about 1/4" of ice.

> So the area is probably closer to 2' times the wingspan which
> means 50-80 sq. ft. one a typical light airplane.

Nope, see above. Good for crashing, if it did stay hot enough to melt ice.
>
> And you don't need to coolant at 180F+ to deice a wing, so you can push
> the coolant through a lot more area than a radiator and still keep
> sufficient temperature to melt or prevent ice.

You will have to add another pump (more weight) to move that "cooler" water,
then. ALL of the water that comes out of the engine is at 180 degrees.

> Preventing it is easier than melting an accumulation to be sure. This
> holds with other systems such as TKS as well.

Different, once again. Preventing it from forming on the leading edges, and
letting it freeze further back does no good. TKS keeps everything that runs
back from freezing, because the antifreez has mixed with all of the water
running back, to make a mixture that is above freezing.

If you melt it at the front of the wing with heat, the water must stay hot
enough to run ALL OF THE WAY back, and off of the wing. Jet engines have
enough waste heat to do that. IC engines DO NOT. Get that through your
head! It is not done, because it CAN NOT be done! Get it?

> > For my final argument, why are wing radiators not commonplace?

> I'd guess cost and complexity would be two big reasons.

Yes, but you missed the biggest one. Weight. Weight. Weight. If it were
cost and complexity, someone would still do it. They *will not* sacrifice
the weight.
--
Jim in NC

Ernest Christley

February 23rd 05, 03:03 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I don't know the area of a typical car radiator either, but I'm betting
> it is much more than 3-4 square feet. Also, keep in mind that you only
> need to de-ice the leading edge of the wing (look at how much boots
> cover). So the area is probably closer to 2' times the wingspan which
> means 50-80 sq. ft. one a typical light airplane.

I do. The radiators that several guys have been using to cool their 13B
rotaries have about 14,000sq.in. of radiator surface area. That nearly
100sq.ft. There are alot of very thin fold of aluminum sheet that are
exposed front and back. You'll need both sides of your wings and the
fuselage belly.

Add to that, the radiator is design to turbulate the air in order to mix
it up. A wing is designed to keep the air smooth, and won't fly if you
mix it up enough to to make it a decent radiator.

If you melt the ice on the leading edge, it will refreeze just behind
the leading edge, unless you can keep the laminar layer warm enough.

There could possibly be some benefit to heating the bottom of the wing.
The laminar layer is much thinner, and the heated air would add some
lift energy. But the weight penalty of containing the coolant would be
prohibitive.

Maybe you could have an open system. A hose would spray coolant or
engine heated oil on the inside of the wing skin and then flow back to a
collector. Wouldn't deal with all the engine heat, but it could take a
fair amount of it away.

Morgans

February 23rd 05, 04:21 AM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> The radiators that several guys have been using to cool their 13B
> rotaries have about 14,000sq.in. of radiator surface area. That nearly
> 100sq.ft.

What kind of radiator is it? A custom racing job? I would be interested.
How does it do on extended ground idle?

You know what I was talking about, with the GM AC condensers, right? I
believe that is what Tracy is running with his Mazda pusher. How much area
would you suppose is in one of those?
--
Jim in NC

Ernest Christley

February 24th 05, 12:08 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
>
>>The radiators that several guys have been using to cool their 13B
>>rotaries have about 14,000sq.in. of radiator surface area. That nearly
>>100sq.ft.
>
>
> What kind of radiator is it? A custom racing job? I would be interested.
> How does it do on extended ground idle?
>
> You know what I was talking about, with the GM AC condensers, right? I
> believe that is what Tracy is running with his Mazda pusher. How much area
> would you suppose is in one of those?

Those are the ones I'm talking about. I got the numbers from measuring
a sample area in the radiator I have and calculating what that would be
over the entire radiator surface.

If you're really interested, the FlyRotary mailing list archives will
reveal that quite a few planes are flying with this setup now.
Unfortunately, I'm not one of them yet. Most had overheating problems
initially, and had to make a modification or two to get things under
control, but there are now quite a few examples of how to get 170Hp out
of a rotary without overheating using a couple GM condenser cores. It
the last few to report first flights have not had heating problems.

Matt Whiting

February 24th 05, 12:25 AM

Morgans wrote:
>
>> Also, keep in mind that you only
>>need to de-ice the leading edge of the wing (look at how much boots
>>cover).
>
>
> Different princples at work. If you *melted* the first few inches of ice,
> it would run back and re-freeze, before it got off the wing. Bad thing.
> VERY bad thing, as in guaranteed crash, after about 1/4" of ice.

I couldn't find any definitive references with a quick search, but I'm
pretty sure that jets with heated wings, only heat the leading edge, not
the entire wing surface.

I suspect that the ice melts slowly enough that it evaporates (or
sublimates) long before it can run back over the wing.

>>So the area is probably closer to 2' times the wingspan which
>>means 50-80 sq. ft. one a typical light airplane.
>
>
> Nope, see above. Good for crashing, if it did stay hot enough to melt ice.
>
>>And you don't need to coolant at 180F+ to deice a wing, so you can push
>>the coolant through a lot more area than a radiator and still keep
>>sufficient temperature to melt or prevent ice.
>
>
> You will have to add another pump (more weight) to move that "cooler" water,
> then. ALL of the water that comes out of the engine is at 180 degrees.
>
>
>>Preventing it is easier than melting an accumulation to be sure. This
>>holds with other systems such as TKS as well.
>
>
> Different, once again. Preventing it from forming on the leading edges, and
> letting it freeze further back does no good. TKS keeps everything that runs
> back from freezing, because the antifreez has mixed with all of the water
> running back, to make a mixture that is above freezing.
>
> If you melt it at the front of the wing with heat, the water must stay hot
> enough to run ALL OF THE WAY back, and off of the wing. Jet engines have
> enough waste heat to do that. IC engines DO NOT. Get that through your
> head! It is not done, because it CAN NOT be done! Get it?

Sorry, I've not seen any data that supports this conclusion. I don't
think Jet engines are that much less efficient than piston engines,
especially given that amount of heat they directly eject out the tailpipe.

>>>For my final argument, why are wing radiators not commonplace?
>
>
>>I'd guess cost and complexity would be two big reasons.
>
>
> Yes, but you missed the biggest one. Weight. Weight. Weight. If it were
> cost and complexity, someone would still do it. They *will not* sacrifice
> the weight.

Yes, I'm sure weight is another reason, although this could be minimized
if the coolant channels were formed integrally with the leading edge
skins. However, that would then bring back the cost issue.

Matt

Morgans

February 24th 05, 03:04 AM

"Matt Whiting" > wrote

> Sorry, I've not seen any data that supports this conclusion. I don't
> think Jet engines are that much less efficient than piston engines,
> especially given that amount of heat they directly eject out the tailpipe.
>
Pure volumes of fuel burned, is the all important factor. What does a
modern airliner burn per hour. Doug, or other jet qualified dude? 50
galons per hour for a regional turbo prop? 100 or more for a smaller
turbofan? Compared to 20 or 25 for a piston. Not even in the ballpark.
Not enough energy avaliable.

That many gallons being burned is a lot of energy available, and a
percentage can be used for anti ice. It is no free lunch, and the jets burn
more fuel when the anti ice is on. I don't know how much, but it is a large
enough factor to have to be calculated, AFAIK. Bleed air is used, and that
is capable of a tremendous volume, at a high temperature. An airplane
piston engine might be able to make that much heat and volume from
comperssed air, if it ran a rotary comperssor, and didn't have to mess with
a propellor. It would not fly very good without a prop! <g>

You also mentioned the water running back, only being heated from the front
with jets. OK, but they can heat it hot enough to evaporate some of it,
and get the rest hot enough that it does not refreeze before running off.
The piston engines could not put enough heat out, like the turofans. Even
the turboprops have to use boots.

> Yes, I'm sure weight is another reason, although this could be minimized
> if the coolant channels were formed integrally with the leading edge
> skins. However, that would then bring back the cost issue.
>
>
> Matt

If it would work, someone would have done it, with the cost not being an
object. The weight issue is too much to overcome, along with the
complexity. Still, the whole thing comes back around to the fact that it
demands more energy than is available.

Give it up. I know you won't; you just want to tilt at windmills. That's
OK, if that is your thing. It is not mine.

I'm done here. Good luck.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

February 24th 05, 03:09 AM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote

> If you're really interested, the FlyRotary mailing list archives will
> reveal that quite a few planes are flying with this setup now.
> Unfortunately, I'm not one of them yet. Most had overheating problems
> initially, and had to make a modification or two to get things under
> control, but there are now quite a few examples of how to get 170Hp out
> of a rotary without overheating using a couple GM condenser cores. It
> the last few to report first flights have not had heating problems.

Wow, I never would have guessed that they have that much area. I'm actually
a little bit skeptical. <g>

I'm curious. Other than availability, why has that GM condenser become so
popular? Any clues?
--
Jim in NC

Robert Bonomi

February 24th 05, 07:25 AM

In article >, Morgans > wrote:
>
>"Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
>> If you're really interested, the FlyRotary mailing list archives will
>> reveal that quite a few planes are flying with this setup now.
>> Unfortunately, I'm not one of them yet. Most had overheating problems
>> initially, and had to make a modification or two to get things under
>> control, but there are now quite a few examples of how to get 170Hp out
>> of a rotary without overheating using a couple GM condenser cores. It
>> the last few to report first flights have not had heating problems.
>
>Wow, I never would have guessed that they have that much area. I'm actually
>a little bit skeptical. <g>

Look *closely* at a radiator. Notice how many of the 'vanes' there are in a
linear inch. Now, consider how _deep_ the section is.

Making up numbers out of thin air, if there are 6 vanes/inch, and depth of
the assembly is 3 inches, you've got 18 inches of radiating surface for
each square inch of 'frontal' area. For a 2'x3' frontal area, this comes
out to 108 sq ft of radiating surface.

2'x 3' = 6 sq. ft frontal, * 18x for 'radiating' surface area

Dude

February 24th 05, 04:24 PM

>
> If it would work, someone would have done it, with the cost not being an
> object. The weight issue is too much to overcome, along with the
> complexity. Still, the whole thing comes back around to the fact that it
> demands more energy than is available.
>
> Give it up. I know you won't; you just want to tilt at windmills. That's
> OK, if that is your thing. It is not mine.
>

This is nonsense of the highest degree.

Everything that has ever been done has been done a first time.

In the piston world, no one is going to throw a lot of money at this unless
they think they can do it cheaply. Otherwise, they are wasting their money.
So to say that someone would have done it regradless of cost seems wrong to
me. The market potential is pretty small, so unless something is obvious,
it won't get done for profit. It will get done by someone who wants to know
how, why, or what if.

If you know how a jet can do it, then all you have to do is find out how
much you have to lighten the system, and how much energy you need to add to
the system.

You are helping by pointing out the problems that need solving, but not by
saying they are unsolvable.

LCT Paintball

February 24th 05, 06:53 PM

This has been very interesting to me, a novice. But, my original intent was
to create enough heat to keep the fuel from jelling, not to de-ice the
wings. With that goal in mind, the wings could actually be insulated to help
hold the heat. There would be very little added cost, or weight. A fuel
pump (which is already on the aircraft) could simply pump more fuel that is
needed to the engine. Some of the fuel would be burnt, while some of the
fuel would run through a heat exchanger from the radiator, or engine oil,
then simply return to the tanks.

Morgans

February 24th 05, 09:58 PM

"LCT Paintball" > wrote in message
news:qopTd.22302$zH6.12927@attbi_s53...
> This has been very interesting to me, a novice. But, my original intent
was
> to create enough heat to keep the fuel from jelling, not to de-ice the
> wings. With that goal in mind, the wings could actually be insulated to
help
> hold the heat. There would be very little added cost, or weight. A fuel
> pump (which is already on the aircraft) could simply pump more fuel that
is
> needed to the engine. Some of the fuel would be burnt, while some of the
> fuel would run through a heat exchanger from the radiator, or engine oil,
> then simply return to the tanks.

Sorry you got lost in the rush of absurdity. Your problems are solveable.

Yes, the fact that the tanks you are using will be fiberglass over foam,
instead of aluminum, would give you a pretty good chance of your idea
working. Keep in mind that you will not always be able to get auto diesel.
Be sure that your engine will be able to burn jet A.

There was some talk about auto engines, and jet A. Seems the injection
pumps on most auto engines can not stand up to jet A. The auto diesel has
good lubrication qualities, while jet A has no lubricating qualities. The
seals wear completely out, and the pump stops injecting. The diesel engines
now flying, like the Thielert, (or however it is spelled) have seals that do
not depend on lubrication from the fuel, so no problem. I recall that it
can burn auto fuel, also, but I'm not sure on that one. Perhaps someone out
there knows that answer.

If I were going to do what you are thinking about, I would put a thermometer
in the tank(s), and also include a heat exchanger bypass, so when you are
burning jet fuel, you can stop heating the fuel.
--
Jim in NC

Dude

February 24th 05, 11:48 PM

.. I recall that it
> can burn auto fuel, also, but I'm not sure on that one. Perhaps someone
> out
> there knows that answer.
>

The Thielert can run auto diesel in europe, but the american mixtures are
not recommended due to high sulfur and other contaminants. This will likely
change in 2006.

LCT Paintball

February 25th 05, 04:33 AM

>
> Sorry you got lost in the rush of absurdity. Your problems are solveable.
>

I'm not sorry. I haven't been around long enough to even ask good questions,
so this kind of discussion really gets me thinking. I love to invent new
things. I have the skills and tools to do so, but I don't have the expertise
in the aircraft industry, yet.

Ernest Christley

February 26th 05, 02:25 AM

Morgans wrote:
> "Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
>
>>If you're really interested, the FlyRotary mailing list archives will
>>reveal that quite a few planes are flying with this setup now.
>>Unfortunately, I'm not one of them yet. Most had overheating problems
>>initially, and had to make a modification or two to get things under
>>control, but there are now quite a few examples of how to get 170Hp out
>>of a rotary without overheating using a couple GM condenser cores. It
>>the last few to report first flights have not had heating problems.
>
>
> Wow, I never would have guessed that they have that much area. I'm actually
> a little bit skeptical. <g>
>
> I'm curious. Other than availability, why has that GM condenser become so
> popular? Any clues?

Tracy Crook used a couple from a junkyard, 'cause he got them for $5
each. He was going to just use them for sizing purposes, but they had
the unfortunate quality of working very well, so he just kept them.

Most builders have just sort of followed a proven design. It's cheap.
It fits. It's lightweight. It works. I don't know if there is a better
deal in aviation.

Ernest Christley

February 26th 05, 02:29 AM

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Yes, I'm sure weight is another reason, although this could be minimized
> if the coolant channels were formed integrally with the leading edge
> skins. However, that would then bring back the cost issue.
>
>
> Matt

Heh, Matt. Why build the complexity of a channel. Use a coolant that
doesn't evaporate and just spray the coolant on the inside of the wing.
Collect it in a sump at the wing root. Considerable dihedral would be
beneficial.

Morgans

February 26th 05, 03:09 AM

"Ernest Christley" > wrote
>
> Tracy Crook used a couple from a junkyard, 'cause he got them for $5
> each. He was going to just use them for sizing purposes, but they had
> the unfortunate quality of working very well, so he just kept them.
>
> Most builders have just sort of followed a proven design. It's cheap.
> It fits. It's lightweight. It works. I don't know if there is a better
> deal in aviation.

Yea, makes sense. Don't break it if it ain't fixed! <g>

I got to talk to Tracy a couple years ago, at OSH, and checked out his
setup. Can't beat success. I was also impressed with some of his solutions
of sealing and strengthening the hose attach fittings on the GM AC
condensers. <g>
--
Jim in NC