Light weight Euro-diesels [Archive]

.Blueskies.

September 25th 05, 01:42 AM

> wrote in message ups.com...
>
> wrote:
>> Anybody know anything about that CH701 on Zenairs site that has a
>> mercedes smart Diesel in it?
>>
>> It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs
>> for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the figures
>> size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?
>>
>> http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/tech/2/112.htm
>>
>> -Matt
>
> Heres the smart engine, firewall forward minus prop and engine mount.
>
> http://www.ecofly.de/Prices_order.htm
>

Watch out, USA, our lead in technology is gone...

Morgans

September 25th 05, 05:17 AM

".Blueskies." > wrote

> Watch out, USA, our lead in technology is gone...

You say this over a diesel 4 banger? Give me a break!

The Europeans have good reason to make a good small diesel, with gas prices
high, and diesel prices low. Here in the US, the same can not be said.

Your statement may or may not be true, but I'm certainly not going to go
around wringing my hands over a 4 banger.
--
Jim in NC

dje

September 25th 05, 06:24 AM

Can't find any info regarding weight, but in my new VW 1.9 TDI PD the
performance is very good.

David

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Anybody know anything about that CH701 on Zenairs site that has a
> mercedes smart Diesel in it?
>
> It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs
> for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the figures
> size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?
>
> http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/tech/2/112.htm
>
> -Matt
>

Philippe Vessaire

September 25th 05, 07:19 AM

a écrit:

> It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs
> for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the
> figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?

These engines are "Light weight" only for automotive use.
The 1l4 is a Peugeot design, you may choose a 1l6 (DV6 TED4) with the
same weigt and power up to 110HP@4000rpm.

http://minilien.com/?krjU8zHgIx

I am not sure, but I read "around" 100kg for the engine. You still kneed
a PSRU.
I think you may have a 110HP engine for 120-130kg minimum. It is still
heavier than mogas engine.

Just for fun: with this type of engine, you may got 50mpg on car like
Toyota Corolla.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Philippe Vessaire

September 25th 05, 07:25 AM

a écrit:

>> Anybody know anything about that CH701 on Zenairs site that has a
>> mercedes smart Diesel in it?
>>
>> It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the
>> specs for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the
>> figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?

> http://www.ecofly.de/Prices_order.htm

It is mogas engine.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Montblack

September 25th 05, 07:43 AM

("Morgans" wrote)
> Your statement may or may not be true, but I'm certainly not going to go
> around wringing my hands over a 4 banger.

There is precedent.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=68272
Honda Civic history

Montblack

Morgans

September 25th 05, 10:09 AM

"dje" > wrote in message
...
> Can't find any info regarding weight, but in my new VW 1.9 TDI PD the
> performance is very good.

You have a "Mercedes" diesel in you VW?
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

September 26th 05, 01:10 AM

Philippe Vessaire wrote:
> a =E9crit:
>
> >> Anybody know anything about that CH701 on Zenairs site that has a
> >> mercedes smart Diesel in it?
> >>
> >> It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the
> >> specs for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the
> >> figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?
>
>
> > http://www.ecofly.de/Prices_order.htm
>
> It is mogas engine.
>
> By
> --
> Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
> Philippe Vessaire =D2=BF=D3=AC
>

Well the ecofly looks like they are selling 2 motors on the site, the
first is mogas the second is diesel. The power ratings are displayed
for both if you scroll down the page.

It _is_ pretty impressive technology. Though the European-ness of it is
really isn't that big of a deal. All the car companies are pan-global
entities these days.

Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? I've been too
afraid to go to the pump the past few days :-) At current prices
biodiesel does become cost effective if one could find a suitable
anti-gel agent.=20

-Matt

Morgans

September 26th 05, 02:31 AM

Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? I've been too
afraid to go to the pump the past few days

One thing I have to ask, is if that engine is rated to use Jet A? From what
I have read, many are not, because some injector pumps need the lubrication
that diesel provides, that Jet A does not have. If the pump is not able to
handle the Jet A, it will quit in fairly short order.
--
Jim in NC

Philippe Vessaire

September 26th 05, 07:51 AM

wrote:

> It _is_ pretty impressive technology. Though the European-ness of it is
> really isn't that big of a deal. All the car companies are pan-global
> entities these days.
>
> Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it?
Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is
good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump.

> I've been too afraid to go to the pump the past few days :-) At current
> prices biodiesel does become cost effective if one could find a suitable
> anti-gel agent.
No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the whole
tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel, the car
choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange.

I just wait for a new design from daihatsu: a 2 cylinder, 2 strokes
superchared, turbocharged 85HP.
I'm waiting for weight info, the 2 strokes only may achieve same weight
than mogas engine.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Stuart & Kathryn Fields

September 26th 05, 05:28 PM

Just a point. On one 700 mile trip in my VW Jetta TDI, holding the speed to
between 55 and 60mph, I got 55mpg. Normal use is 45mpg or better.

--
Kathy Fields
Experimental Helo magazine
P. O. Box 1585
Inyokern, CA 93527
(760) 377-4478
(760) 408-9747 general and layout cell
(760) 608-1299 technical and advertising cell

www.vkss.com
www.experimentalhelo.com

"Philippe Vessaire" > wrote in message
...
> a écrit:
>
>
>
> > It got me to poking around on some european website. I found the specs
> > for the ford 1.4 litre diesel sold over there. Not sure how the
> > figures size up to gas engines currently in use. Any Opinions?
>
> These engines are "Light weight" only for automotive use.
> The 1l4 is a Peugeot design, you may choose a 1l6 (DV6 TED4) with the
> same weigt and power up to 110HP@4000rpm.
>
> http://minilien.com/?krjU8zHgIx
>
>
> I am not sure, but I read "around" 100kg for the engine. You still kneed
> a PSRU.
> I think you may have a 110HP engine for 120-130kg minimum. It is still
> heavier than mogas engine.
>
>
> Just for fun: with this type of engine, you may got 50mpg on car like
> Toyota Corolla.
>
> By
> --
> Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
> Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬
>

Philippe Vessaire

September 26th 05, 05:43 PM

Stuart & Kathryn Fields wrote:

> Just a point. On one 700 mile trip in my VW Jetta TDI, holding the speed
> to
> between 55 and 60mph, I got 55mpg. Normal use is 45mpg or better.

just googlise that:
diesel "2CDDI-II"
and you will see that
http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/frankfurt05/pdf/e.pdf

The most désirable diesel for light aircraft may be hide in the 2CDDI-II
name.
Just wait more news about weight.

By.
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[email protected]

September 26th 05, 10:47 PM

Philippe Vessaire wrote:
> wrote:
>
>
> > It _is_ pretty impressive technology. Though the European-ness of it is
> > really isn't that big of a deal. All the car companies are pan-global
> > entities these days.
> >
> > Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it?
> Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is
> good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump.
>
> > I've been too afraid to go to the pump the past few days :-) At current
> > prices biodiesel does become cost effective if one could find a suitable
> > anti-gel agent.
> No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the whole
> tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel, the car
> choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange.
>
> I just wait for a new design from daihatsu: a 2 cylinder, 2 strokes
> superchared, turbocharged 85HP.
> I'm waiting for weight info, the 2 strokes only may achieve same weight
> than mogas engine.
>
> By
> --
> Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
> Philippe Vessaire =D2=BF=D3=AC
>

Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would
expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about
fuel/oil ratios doing that!

Interesting thought on plumbing the coolant to the fuel tanks. Have you
heard of anybody doing this on an aircraft? (I know the car guys do it
all the time) That might make aircraft designed with header tanks more
appropriate for diesels. (Easier to build the heat sink)

It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and
turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route
several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane.
You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would
probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might
make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd
have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a
thought.=20

-Matt

Morgans

September 27th 05, 12:22 AM

> wrote

It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and
turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route
several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane.
You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would
probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might
make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd
have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a
thought.

Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems with
that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few of
the problems with the idea.

1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of
lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up.

2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a bunch
of weight.

3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of
the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning,
there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the
approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic efficiency
of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube
to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to melt
the ice by even more.

4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This
is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of the
wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing very
well, at all.

Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would
work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using
them. They are not.
--
Jim in NC

Bill Daniels

September 27th 05, 01:20 AM

Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling so
why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing type,
you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would cool
the engine if I ran out of fuel.)

Bill Daniels

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote
>
> It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and
> turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route
> several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane.
> You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would
> probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might
> make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd
> have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a
> thought.
>
> Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems
with
> that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few
of
> the problems with the idea.
>
> 1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of
> lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up.
>
> 2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a
bunch
> of weight.
>
> 3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of
> the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning,
> there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the
> approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic
efficiency
> of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube
> to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to
melt
> the ice by even more.
>
> 4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This
> is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of
the
> wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing
very
> well, at all.
>
> Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would
> work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using
> them. They are not.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

GeorgeB

September 27th 05, 01:56 AM

On 26 Sep 2005 14:47:36 -0700, "
> wrote:

>> Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is
>> good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump.
>>
>
>Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would
>expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about
>fuel/oil ratios doing that!

I recognize that they don't fly, but trucks have mixed kerosene
(sometimes called #1 fuel oil) and diesel (sometimes called #2 fuel
oil) in cold weather.

One of the company's that my father dealt with had a small kerosene
tank which they used before shutdown and to start.

It is interesting that #2 has more BTU/gallon than #1, so mileage is
slightly better on #2.

The lubricity issue is one that I asked a buddy of mine aobut when
Thielert said their "auto based" engine would run JetA ...

Enquiring minds would like to know more.

John Halpenny

September 27th 05, 05:10 AM

GeorgeB wrote:

> On 26 Sep 2005 14:47:36 -0700, "
> > wrote:
>
> >> Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil is
> >> good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump.
> >>
> >
> >Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would
> >expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about
> >fuel/oil ratios doing that!
>
> I recognize that they don't fly, but trucks have mixed kerosene
> (sometimes called #1 fuel oil) and diesel (sometimes called #2 fuel
> oil) in cold weather.
>
> One of the company's that my father dealt with had a small kerosene
> tank which they used before shutdown and to start.
>
> It is interesting that #2 has more BTU/gallon than #1, so mileage is
> slightly better on #2.
>
> The lubricity issue is one that I asked a buddy of mine aobut when
> Thielert said their "auto based" engine would run JetA ...
>
> Enquiring minds would like to know more.

I have a picture somewhere of a Twin Otter in a small arctic community being
fueled from a truck clearly marked "Furnace Oil". Apparently these areas get one
boatload of fuel each summer to last the year, and it is Arctic Diesel or "P-50",
suitable for aircraft, diesel generators, stoves and just about anything else.
Normal diesel is definitely not used in aircraft because it can get cold at
altitude and the fuel jells.

--

John Halpenny

Truth is stranger than fiction.
This is why writers and readers are more comfortable with fiction.

Philippe Vessaire

September 27th 05, 07:07 AM

wrote:

> Philippe Vessaire wrote:

>> > Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it?
>> Jet A1 is a little bit cheaper, but it need oil addition (2 strokes oil
>> is good but normal oil would be ok) for high pressure pump.

> Have you heard of anyone cutting Jet A like your describing? I would
> expect those engines are quite sensative. I'd be really nervous about
> fuel/oil ratios doing that!
0.5% to 1% works fine on the F-PTDI with an old Isuzu diesel.
http://membres.lycos.fr/dieselis/

oil may burn like jetA1, if you are afraid about the hight pressure pump,
you may add 2-3% of oil.

> No radiator hanging in the breeze
You are too optimistic.... just a little omount of heat is needed to acheive
20-30° tank temperature.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[email protected]

September 27th 05, 08:09 PM

Morgans wrote:
> > wrote
>
> It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and
> turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route
> several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane.
> You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would
> probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might
> make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd
> have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a
> thought.
>
> Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems with
> that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few of
> the problems with the idea.
>
> 1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of
> lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up.
>
> 2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a bunch
> of weight.
>
> 3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of
> the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning,
> there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the
> approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic efficiency
> of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube
> to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to melt
> the ice by even more.
>
> 4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This
> is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of the
> wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing very
> well, at all.
>
> Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would
> work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using
> them. They are not.
> --
> Jim in NC

I had considered the first 2 issues. Like I said, some numbers would
have to be crunched to determine viability. The upthread-post was
regarding running water lines to the tanks. So my post was based on the
assumption that the safety of running lines had already been resolved.
Given somebody is running a aero diesel added weight is a foregone
conclusion.

Regarding points 3 and 4: if the boundary layer acts as an insulator,
then heating the skin should be easier, not harder. Right? Less wicking
of heat should cause the skin to retain more heat. If ones primary
purpose was to take the radiator out of the equation and heat the
tanks, the gain in skin temperature is ancillary. It doesn't have to
solve icing completely, just be more resistant to it. Better is good
enough if it's free.

The other possibility would be to stick a radiator in each wing root
and funnel ram air through the radiator into the wing cavity. The
warmed air would then be the heating element. I wonder if that would be
sufficient to prevent gelling and also provide some minor wing heat
without all the complexity.

-Matt

Philippe Vessaire

September 27th 05, 08:18 PM

wrote:

> The upthread-post was
> regarding running water lines to the tanks. So my post was based on the
> assumption that the safety of running lines had already been resolved.

The fuel/water heat exchanger is standard on diesel cars. For an hombuilt,
juste take one and bolt in somewhere bear the engine.
The return fuel is able to do the job and the whole tank will be warmer
enought for safe operation.

For biodiesel cars, some people juste run a copper tube near exhaut and the
same job is done. These cars still need a pure diesel start and stop.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

[email protected]

September 27th 05, 09:01 PM

Bill Daniels wrote:
> Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling so
> why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing type,
> you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would cool
> the engine if I ran out of fuel.)
>
> Bill Daniels
>
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > > wrote
> >
> > It might even be possible to just ignore the radiator completely and
> > turn the skin of the aircraft into the heat sink. Basically you'd route
> > several flows of 3/8" aluminum tubing strategically about the airplane.
> > You could end up with a deicing system instead of a radiator! It would
> > probably take more line/water than was in the radiator, but it might
> > make up for it in aerodynamics. (No radiator hanging in the breeze) I'd
> > have to crunch the numbers, it probably isn't feasable, but it's a
> > thought.
> >
> > Before you get carried away with that idea, there are a lot of problems
> with
> > that idea. You can google the threads on them, but I'll point out a few
> of
> > the problems with the idea.
> >
> > 1. A cooling system has to be reliable, to the max. Adding a bunch of
> > lines and fittings is a good place to have problems pop up.
> >
> > 2. Weight. You add all of the lines, and fluid, and you have added a
> bunch
> > of weight.
> >
> > 3. De-ice takes a lot of heat to do a decent job. Even if you used all of
> > the BTU's from burning 100% of the gas that the engine would be burning,
> > there is not enough heat in the gas to thaw out a wing. Take the
> > approximate 50% heat output of the engine, subtract the realistic
> efficiency
> > of getting all of that heat to the wing, (you would have to bond that tube
> > to the wing mechanically) and you have cut the amount of heat trying to
> melt
> > the ice by even more.
> >
> > 4. Heat transfer from the hot wing skins to the air is really poor. This
> > is because of the stagnant layer of air sitting right on the surface of
> the
> > wing. Simply put, the air is not carrying the heat away from the wing
> very
> > well, at all.
> >
> > Those are just the high points. Think of it this way; if this idea would
> > work well, lots of planes in the past and present would have been using
> > them. They are not.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >

I would guess you could have cooked oil in the engine block after shut
down. Isn't that what kills a lot of turbos? So you'd end up with
crusty bits in your go-juice. Which I understand is a fairly painfull
condition. :-)

Perhaps using an electric instead of mechanical coolant pump would do
the trick. That way you could keep coolant flow constant befure and
after shut down.

-Matt

Morgans

September 28th 05, 03:07 AM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
> Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling so
> why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing type,
> you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would cool
> the engine if I ran out of fuel.)

The real question is, how will the engine cool, once you have the fuel to
the boiling point, and also how rapidly can you boil off a tank of fuel.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

September 28th 05, 03:11 AM

> wrote

> The other possibility would be to stick a radiator in each wing root
> and funnel ram air through the radiator into the wing cavity. The
> warmed air would then be the heating element. I wonder if that would be
> sufficient to prevent gelling and also provide some minor wing heat
> without all the complexity.

You really need to take some physics and thermodynamics. Right now, you
need to buy a vowel.

I'm only kinda kidding. What you are proposing isn't being done, because it
won't work. Sorry.
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

September 28th 05, 03:13 AM

"Philippe Vessaire" > wrote

> The fuel/water heat exchanger is standard on diesel cars. For an hombuilt,
> juste take one and bolt in somewhere bear the engine.
> The return fuel is able to do the job and the whole tank will be warmer
> enought for safe operation.
>
> For biodiesel cars, some people juste run a copper tube near exhaut and
the
> same job is done. These cars still need a pure diesel start and stop.

Right. It is a good idea to warm the fuel, but you can not use the fuel to
get rid of all of the engine's waste heat.
--
Jim in NC

Bill Daniels

September 28th 05, 04:25 AM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling
so
> > why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing
type,
> > you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would
cool
> > the engine if I ran out of fuel.)
>
> The real question is, how will the engine cool, once you have the fuel to
> the boiling point, and also how rapidly can you boil off a tank of fuel.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

Why would the fuel boil? Glycol/water coolant doesn't boil if the engine
temps are normal. I seem to recall the boiling point of diesel is greater
than glycol/water. That would depend on the rate the heat was rejected by
the 'radiator' and the pressure of the cooling system. If heat input was
less than the heat rejection capacity of the radiator, then the fuel
"coolant" wouldn't overheat.

Using fuel as a coolant is a respected technique used by rocket engines and
the SR-71.

Bill Daniels

Tim Ward

September 28th 05, 06:14 AM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from gelling
> so
> > > why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing
> type,
> > > you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that would
> cool
> > > the engine if I ran out of fuel.)
> >
> > The real question is, how will the engine cool, once you have the fuel
to
> > the boiling point, and also how rapidly can you boil off a tank of fuel.
> > --
> > Jim in NC
> >
>
> Why would the fuel boil? Glycol/water coolant doesn't boil if the engine
> temps are normal. I seem to recall the boiling point of diesel is greater
> than glycol/water. That would depend on the rate the heat was rejected by
> the 'radiator' and the pressure of the cooling system. If heat input was
> less than the heat rejection capacity of the radiator, then the fuel
> "coolant" wouldn't overheat.
>
> Using fuel as a coolant is a respected technique used by rocket engines
and
> the SR-71.
>
> Bill Daniels
>

It doesn't boil because it's under pressure. You wanna pressurize your
Nimbus wings to, say, 32 feet of water pressure?

Tim Ward

[email protected]

September 28th 05, 01:09 PM

Morgans wrote:
> > wrote
>
> > The other possibility would be to stick a radiator in each wing root
> > and funnel ram air through the radiator into the wing cavity. The
> > warmed air would then be the heating element. I wonder if that would be
> > sufficient to prevent gelling and also provide some minor wing heat
> > without all the complexity.
>
> You really need to take some physics and thermodynamics. Right now, you
> need to buy a vowel.
>
> I'm only kinda kidding. What you are proposing isn't being done, because it
> won't work. Sorry.
> --
> Jim in NC

No need to apologise. I would first have to take you seriously in order
to be disappointed. This is usenet afterall, and a forum about
_experimental_ aircraft. I would think enthusiasm towards innovation
would be met with a slightly more positive attitude.

Can I buy an "A"?

-Matt

Bill Daniels

September 28th 05, 08:04 PM

"Tim Ward" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Bill Daniels" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Hey, you're gonna have to heat the diesel fuel to keep it from
gelling
> > so
> > > > why not use the fuel as a coolant. If the tanks are of the wet wing
> > type,
> > > > you're almost home free. (I actually had a guy ask me how that
would
> > cool
> > > > the engine if I ran out of fuel.)
> > >
> > > The real question is, how will the engine cool, once you have the fuel
> to
> > > the boiling point, and also how rapidly can you boil off a tank of
fuel.
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
> > >
> >
> > Why would the fuel boil? Glycol/water coolant doesn't boil if the
engine
> > temps are normal. I seem to recall the boiling point of diesel is
greater
> > than glycol/water. That would depend on the rate the heat was rejected
by
> > the 'radiator' and the pressure of the cooling system. If heat input
was
> > less than the heat rejection capacity of the radiator, then the fuel
> > "coolant" wouldn't overheat.
> >
> > Using fuel as a coolant is a respected technique used by rocket engines
> and
> > the SR-71.
> >
> > Bill Daniels
> >
>
> It doesn't boil because it's under pressure. You wanna pressurize your
> Nimbus wings to, say, 32 feet of water pressure?
>
> Tim Ward
>
>

Who said anything about carbon composite wings? If anyone tried this
scheme, they would use thick metal wing skins with enough stringers to
withstand a little overpressure.

Anyway, the 75 gallon tanks in my Nimbus wings will be used for Jet A when I
put the little retractable turbojet on it.

Bill Daniels

Morgans

September 28th 05, 10:38 PM

"Bill Daniels" > wrote
>
> Why would the fuel boil? Glycol/water coolant doesn't boil if the engine
> temps are normal.

How are the temps going to stay normal, once the fuel has gotten up to
engine operating temperature? Remember the premise that the skins will not
get rid of the heat fast enough? Someone has proven it here before. The
fuel will then get hotter and hotter, until it is boiling. The change of
state may then keep the engine from melting down, at least until all of the
fuel is gone.

> Using fuel as a coolant is a respected technique used by rocket engines
and
> the SR-71.

Rocket engines only use the fuel one time for cooling, and that is on the
way into the combustion chamber. If it had to recirculate to keep the
engine cool, the fuel would over pressure and over temp in a short period of
time.

The SR-71 does not use the fuel to cool the engine, but uses the fuel to
cool the hot parts of the airframe, or in other words, redistribute the hot
skin temps. It should also be noted that the fuel was very special, and
only available at a few sites around the world. Are you planning on cooling
your skins, and where are you going to get SR-71 fuel?

Sorry, but your examples are not valid. If it worked, racers would do it,
and so would some others. It does not work. those are my final words on
the subject. See ya. -)
--
Jim in NC

Morgans

September 28th 05, 10:41 PM

> wrote

>
> No need to apologise. I would first have to take you seriously in order
> to be disappointed. This is usenet afterall, and a forum about
> _experimental_ aircraft. I would think enthusiasm towards innovation
> would be met with a slightly more positive attitude.

Right but experiments are take on,, when models and calculations show that
the proposed idea might work. It has been shown via well respected
concepts, that the numbers will not let it work. Sure, try it if you want,
but I would not want to waste my time and mones=y on something that falls
way short by the numbers.

> Can I buy an "A"?

Sure! ;-)
--
Jim in NC

Bill Daniels

September 28th 05, 11:29 PM

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Daniels" > wrote
> >
> > Why would the fuel boil? Glycol/water coolant doesn't boil if the
engine
> > temps are normal.
>
> How are the temps going to stay normal, once the fuel has gotten up to
> engine operating temperature? Remember the premise that the skins will
not
> get rid of the heat fast enough? Someone has proven it here before. The
> fuel will then get hotter and hotter, until it is boiling. The change of
> state may then keep the engine from melting down, at least until all of
the
> fuel is gone.

You know, I just don't buy the "skin radiators won't work" theory. The
pre-war Schneider Cup Seaplane racers did use skin radiators to cool some
really big engines. There are LOTS of reasons skin radiators weren't used
on WWII fighters - bullet holes being one. Since then, piston aero engines
have been air-cooled.

About 10 years ago I did a crude experiment. The fuel tanks on a PA-28 are
wet leading edge cells with only the wing skin between the fuel and the
airstream. I filled the tanks on my Archer II from a fuel truck that had
been sitting in the summer sun all day, measured the fuel temperature in the
right tank and went flying in the cool evening air using the fuel in the
left tank. 15 minutes later, after landing, I measured the right tank fuel
temperature again. It was a LOT cooler than when I started. This is an
experiment that anybody can do.

Using the tank wetted area, the before and after fuel temperature, the OAT
and the specific heat of AVGAS, I calculated the heat rejection of the tank
as if it were used as a radiator. There was huge heat flow from the fuel in
the tank to the airstream. It looked as if it would be larger than the
heat rejection of the O-360 in the Archer's nose if the fuel temperature
were as high as coolant would be.

Now maybe if the fuel were at 200 F, the heating of the boundary layer would
trip it to turbulent flow and create a lot of drag but I doubt that an
Archer has much laminar flow anyway. If the fuel tank/radiator were in the
propeller slipstream where it belongs there wouldn't be any laminar flow to
trip.

Bill Daniels

Alan Petrillo

October 1st 05, 10:46 PM

Montblack wrote:

> ("Morgans" wrote)
>
>> Your statement may or may not be true, but I'm certainly not going to go
>> around wringing my hands over a 4 banger.
>
>
>
> There is precedent.
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Features/articleId=68272
> Honda Civic history

Oh, heck, the Untied States has a history of resting on its laurels
while foreign competitors eclipse its technology.

Just look at Airbus.

As far as engine systems go, Ford and GM could have had a 6 year head
start on hybrids, but they determined that hybrids "were not
economically feasable". The result? Now Honda and Toyota have a firm
lead in hybrid technology and Ford and GM are playing catch up.

And this is something that has happened over and over and over again.

If you aren't wringing your hands over this 4 banger then you should be.
Four bangers grow up.

AP

Alan Petrillo

October 1st 05, 10:49 PM

Morgans wrote:

> Diesel is still cheaper than jet fuel. Or isn't it? I've been too
> afraid to go to the pump the past few days
>
> One thing I have to ask, is if that engine is rated to use Jet A? From what
> I have read, many are not, because some injector pumps need the lubrication
> that diesel provides, that Jet A does not have. If the pump is not able to
> handle the Jet A, it will quit in fairly short order.

Not if you mix in 2% biodiesel. That replaces the lubrosity lost by
eliminating the sulfides in the diesel fuel.

AP

Alan Petrillo

October 1st 05, 10:51 PM

Philippe Vessaire wrote:

> No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the whole
> tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel, the car
> choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange.

I've never seen this. All of the biodiesel/vegoil cars I've seen have
used coolant/fuel heat exchangers.

AP

Alan Petrillo

October 1st 05, 11:02 PM

Philippe Vessaire wrote:

> For biodiesel cars, some people juste run a copper tube near exhaut and the
> same job is done. These cars still need a pure diesel start and stop.

Biodiesel does _not_ require a petrodiesel start/stop fuel. You're
thinking of straight vegetable oil systems.

The only thing you need to do to convert a diesel vehicle to biodiesel
is pour it into the tank.

AP

Alan Petrillo

October 1st 05, 11:05 PM

Morgans wrote:

> > wrote
>
>
>>The other possibility would be to stick a radiator in each wing root
>>and funnel ram air through the radiator into the wing cavity. The
>>warmed air would then be the heating element. I wonder if that would be
>>sufficient to prevent gelling and also provide some minor wing heat
>>without all the complexity.
>
>
> You really need to take some physics and thermodynamics. Right now, you
> need to buy a vowel.
>
> I'm only kinda kidding. What you are proposing isn't being done, because it
> won't work. Sorry.

Well, again, has anyone done the engineering on this?

As I understand it, what he's talking about is simply using underwing
radiators and ducting the exhaust air from the radiators through the
interior of the wings before allowing it to flow out of exhaust ports.
I can see how it might work, the question is how well it would work.
Would it provide enough heat to the wing skin to keep ice from adhering
to it?

AP

Philippe Vessaire

October 2nd 05, 07:04 AM

Alan Petrillo wrote:

>> No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the
>> whole tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel,
>> the car choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange.
>
> I've never seen this. All of the biodiesel/vegoil cars I've seen have
> used coolant/fuel heat exchangers.

Just a copper tube along the exhaust tube do the job in homebuilt
conversion.
Other people do two rounds on the exhaust tube.

By
--
Pub: http://www.slowfood.fr/france
Philippe Vessaire Ò¿Ó¬

Accessory Section 8

October 3rd 05, 02:17 AM

Bill Daniels wrote:

>
> You know, I just don't buy the "skin radiators won't work" theory. The
> pre-war Schneider Cup Seaplane racers did use skin radiators to cool some
> really big engines. There are LOTS of reasons skin radiators weren't used
> on WWII fighters - bullet holes being one. Since then, piston aero engines
> have been air-cooled.

I don't either.

A diesel fuel-cooled plant would NOT use raw fuel in its coolant
passages. It would have a conventional glycol "primary loop", with a
radiator-behind doors or (in front of) cowl flaps, a cabin heat
exchanger ("heater core" in autoese), and an intercooler with fuel
circulated through it and returned to tanks. It would be designed so
the fuel loop could be shut off-bypassed- when the rad had its doors
open as would be done when the aircraft was very low on fuel, or in
high thermal load situations.

At altitude (this is a turbodiesel and flies at high FL) the ambient
temperature is very cold and the normal radiator could be blanked off
largely or entirely. If the tanks are designed with a lot of surface
area they will cool a large percentage of the engine's total heat
rejection and additionally provide anti-icing.

The main requirement as I see it is the system has to be default
failsafe and provide single lever power control. Unless you want to
make it a two person flight crew aircraft and haul a FE along.

Accessory Section 8

October 3rd 05, 02:45 AM

GeorgeB wrote:
> On 26 Sep 2005 14:47:36 -0700, "
> > wrote:

>
> The lubricity issue is one that I asked a buddy of mine aobut when
> Thielert said their "auto based" engine would run JetA ...
>
> Enquiring minds would like to know more.

Detroit Diesel sent out a notice recently that their Series 50 and 60
engines are now authorized to use DF-1, DF-2, JP-5/Jet-A and JP-8 with
full warranty support.

Airports have always run ramp tugs, fuel trucks (the Brits call them
"bowsers"), and start carts on Jet-A. Jet-A is NOT K-1 Kerosene, it has
a lubricity standard which is higher, and it's fine in most diesel
pumps. Adding some SAE 30 nondetergent oil to the fuel, or filtered
drain oil NOT contaminated with lead deposits, helps lubricity and will
offer added protection. I would not use two cycle oil because it has
octane improvers in some cases-octane improvers are cetane killers!

There is good reason to find a far higher percentage of diesel car
ownership among airline and corporate A&P's than one would expect.

[email protected]

October 3rd 05, 09:11 PM

Alan Petrillo wrote:
> Philippe Vessaire wrote:
>
> > No anti-froze agent needed, just an fuel/water heat exchange and the whole
> > tank become warmer when the engine is runnig. For pure biodiesel, the car
> > choice is an exhaust/fuel heat exchange.
>
> I've never seen this. All of the biodiesel/vegoil cars I've seen have
> used coolant/fuel heat exchangers.
>
>
> AP

A lot of the car retrofits bypass the fuel return. The piston-pump
diesels typically have 2 fuel lines, one up and one back. If you had a
consistently high flow you potentially could use the return line to
feed heated oil to to the tank. In the case of biodiesel this would
probably be sufficient to heat the tanks. Though it would make plumbing
fuel tank selector a bit more complicated.

-Matt

[email protected]

October 3rd 05, 09:52 PM

Alan Petrillo wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
>
> > > wrote
> >
> >
> >>The other possibility would be to stick a radiator in each wing root
> >>and funnel ram air through the radiator into the wing cavity. The
> >>warmed air would then be the heating element. I wonder if that would be
> >>sufficient to prevent gelling and also provide some minor wing heat
> >>without all the complexity.
> >
> >
> > You really need to take some physics and thermodynamics. Right now, you
> > need to buy a vowel.
> >
> > I'm only kinda kidding. What you are proposing isn't being done, because it
> > won't work. Sorry.
>
> Well, again, has anyone done the engineering on this?
>
> As I understand it, what he's talking about is simply using underwing
> radiators and ducting the exhaust air from the radiators through the
> interior of the wings before allowing it to flow out of exhaust ports.
> I can see how it might work, the question is how well it would work.
> Would it provide enough heat to the wing skin to keep ice from adhering
> to it?
>
>
> AP

Thanks Allan,

One of the remaining issues of course is that it is my understanding
that it typically isn't the wing ice that kills you. It is the ice on
the elevator and horizontal stab. Doh! You end up trimming out the
effect of the ice until there is no more trim left and... Bonzai!

I only have 250 hours, and have never experienced icing personally.

Given that cabin heaters are only a foot or two of exhaust pipe, I to
have to second guess Jims assessment of the situation. Though I do
remember being a little frosty at 10K MSL in the winter in my M20E, I
did at least get _some_ heat.

1. With a liquid cooled engine you _have_ to have an auxillary heat
sync of some kind.

2. If waste heat can be used to improve safety or performance it should
be.

3. Using biodiesel presents additional safety hazards related
specifically to loss of thermal energy that _have_ to be engineered out
for the fuel to become suitable for aviation use.

>From where I stand all of that kind of goes together.

Wait... let me get my rain coat. I hear Jim comming.

-Matt

[email protected]

October 3rd 05, 10:02 PM

Well you see, there are these things called electric heating elements.
And low and behold some are even certified to install in real live
flying machines! And if we are really quite and sneak up on the guys
who manufacture them...

Can I buy an "o"

-Matt

Morgans

October 3rd 05, 10:39 PM

> wrote

> A lot of the car retrofits bypass the fuel return. The piston-pump
> diesels typically have 2 fuel lines, one up and one back. If you had a
> consistently high flow you potentially could use the return line to
> feed heated oil to to the tank. In the case of biodiesel this would
> probably be sufficient to heat the tanks.

It would seem to cause a problem if the tank were sitting for a period of
time in the cold, yes? What then?
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

October 6th 05, 10:02 PM

Here is the VW tdi as an industrial engine.

Given the application I would expect there is a big honkin flywheel on
this thing that would be removed for aviation purposes. Then after
replacing the the alternator etc etc. It would still be heavy, but
potentially doable.

http://www.maesco.com/products/vwp/vwp_19tdieselpto/vwp_19tdieselpto.html

Anyway, it's something interesting to look at.

-Matt

Morgans

October 7th 05, 12:46 AM

> wrote in message

> Here is the VW tdi as an industrial engine.
>
> Given the application I would expect there is a big honkin flywheel on
> this thing that would be removed for aviation purposes. Then after
> replacing the the alternator etc etc. It would still be heavy, but
> potentially doable.

I would wonder about the potentially doable part. It is nearly 300 lbs, and
only 78 HP. Even if you could get 100 lbs off of it, (doubtful) that would
still be 200 lbs, for less than 80 HP. That is bad in anybody's book.
--
Jim in NC

[email protected]

October 7th 05, 02:11 AM

If I had said "spectacular" I would understand your beef.

Here are the respective weights of a few engines for comparison.

Engine HP Weight(lbs) Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Continental A-65 65 173
Limbach L 1800 66 154
Limbach L 1700 66 161
Rotax 618 74 136 Includes 20 lbs radiator, etc.
Great Plains VW 2180CC 75 165
Franklin 225 75 230
_______________________________________________

"doable". It wouldn't be efficient. But it would fly. If one fiddled
with the wastegate or injection computer they could probably get more
power. The guys with the powerstrokes are doing some crazy things these
days and some of that tech would probably carry over to the TDI.

What do you fly by the way Jim?

Can i get an "s" ?

-Matt

dje

October 7th 05, 05:14 AM

Maybe some of these will help. Seem to be working well in the cars.

http://dieseltuning.ca/
http://www.upsolute.com/eng/index.html

Some talk about the rocket chip:

http://www.upsolute.com/eng/index.html

Some controls can be programed with this:

http://www.ross-tech.com/

David Ervin

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here is the VW tdi as an industrial engine.
>
> Given the application I would expect there is a big honkin flywheel on
> this thing that would be removed for aviation purposes. Then after
> replacing the the alternator etc etc. It would still be heavy, but
> potentially doable.
>
> http://www.maesco.com/products/vwp/vwp_19tdieselpto/vwp_19tdieselpto.html
>
> Anyway, it's something interesting to look at.
>
> -Matt
>