Convert from Avgas to Jet-A Lindbergh Foundation Winner.

[Larry Dighera]

LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
avgas, and environmentalists are not happy with the ecological impact
of leaded fuel. To satisfy both concerns, inventor Tom Ehresman of
Colorado is working on an engine modification that would allow
avgas-burning engines to convert to diesel or Jet-A. That is just the
kind of innovation the Lindbergh Foundation seeks to support -- new
aviation technology that preserves the health of our natural
environment. The grant of $10,580 reflects the amount that Charles
Lindbergh spent to build the Spirit of St. Louis. Ehresman hopes the
award will help to attract more investors, and if he has the financial
support, he could have a working prototype in two or three years. The
retrofit kit could go to market for about $6,000 or so, he estimated.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734

[Robert M. Gary]

On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
> Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
> avgas,

Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
too.

-robert

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:03:23 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> wrote in
om>:

>On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
>> Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
>> avgas,
>
>Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
>too.
>

True. But the concept seems valid for piston aircraft.

What bothers me, is the potential for additional strain on the engine
when converted to diesel operation.

[[email protected]]

Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:03:23 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> > wrote in
> om>:

> >On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
> >> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
> >> Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
> >> avgas,
> >
> >Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
> >too.
> >

> True. But the concept seems valid for piston aircraft.

> What bothers me, is the potential for additional strain on the engine
> when converted to diesel operation.

As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.

Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Scott Skylane]

wrote:

> As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
>
> Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?
>

Jim,

Yeah, GM's very first line of passenger car diesels were merely
converted small block Chevys. It didn't work so well. But, I would
hope that in the ensuing decades some new technologies have developed
which might make this a more feasable option.

Happy Flying!
Scott Skylane

[[email protected]]

Scott Skylane > wrote:
> wrote:

> > As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
> >
> > Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> > engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?
> >

> Jim,

> Yeah, GM's very first line of passenger car diesels were merely
> converted small block Chevys. It didn't work so well. But, I would
> hope that in the ensuing decades some new technologies have developed
> which might make this a more feasable option.

AFAIK the only way to make a reliable diesel engine is to design it
to take the stress of a diesel from the start and gas engines aren't.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Jim Stewart]

wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:03:23 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> om>:
>
>>> On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
>>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
>>>> Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
>>>> avgas,
>>> Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
>>> too.
>>>
>
>> True. But the concept seems valid for piston aircraft.
>
>> What bothers me, is the potential for additional strain on the engine
>> when converted to diesel operation.
>
> As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
>
> Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?

The Olds 350.

To the best of my knowledge, *every* auto
manufacturer that tried a simple gas to
diesel conversion failed the first iteration
and ****ed off a bunch of customers. My
own personal experience centered around the
VW Rabbit diesel.

In all fairness, both Olds and VW both got
it right after a couple of years.

[[email protected]]

Jim Stewart > wrote:
> wrote:
> > Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:03:23 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
> >> > wrote in
> >> om>:
> >
> >>> On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> >>>> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
> >>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-full.html#195734)
> >>>> Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future availability of 100LL
> >>>> avgas,
> >>> Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
> >>> too.
> >>>
> >
> >> True. But the concept seems valid for piston aircraft.
> >
> >> What bothers me, is the potential for additional strain on the engine
> >> when converted to diesel operation.
> >
> > As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
> >
> > Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> > engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?

> The Olds 350.

> To the best of my knowledge, *every* auto
> manufacturer that tried a simple gas to
> diesel conversion failed the first iteration
> and ****ed off a bunch of customers. My
> own personal experience centered around the
> VW Rabbit diesel.

> In all fairness, both Olds and VW both got
> it right after a couple of years.

Yeah, after redesigning the engines as diesels.

The experience has been that everyone that tries to convert a gas
engine to diesel winds up with a blown engine.

If you start with a diesel design you have a working engine.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Don Tuite]

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:45:00 GMT, wrote:

>Scott Skylane > wrote:
>> wrote:
>
>> > As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
>> >
>> > Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
>> > engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?
>> >
>
>> Jim,
>
>> Yeah, GM's very first line of passenger car diesels were merely
>> converted small block Chevys. It didn't work so well. But, I would
>> hope that in the ensuing decades some new technologies have developed
>> which might make this a more feasable option.
>
>AFAIK the only way to make a reliable diesel engine is to design it
>to take the stress of a diesel from the start and gas engines aren't.

Maybe it's simply about preheating the fuel and retarding the spark.
People keep saying our engines are "just tractor engines."

Don

[[email protected]]

Don Tuite > wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 19:45:00 GMT, wrote:

> >Scott Skylane > wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> > As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
> >> >
> >> > Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> >> > engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to diesel?
> >> >
> >
> >> Jim,
> >
> >> Yeah, GM's very first line of passenger car diesels were merely
> >> converted small block Chevys. It didn't work so well. But, I would
> >> hope that in the ensuing decades some new technologies have developed
> >> which might make this a more feasable option.
> >
> >AFAIK the only way to make a reliable diesel engine is to design it
> >to take the stress of a diesel from the start and gas engines aren't.

> Maybe it's simply about preheating the fuel and retarding the spark.
> People keep saying our engines are "just tractor engines."

Retarding the spark on a diesel?

The problem is gas engines go bang and diesel engines go BANG!!!.

This puts greater stress on the engine parts which isn't a problem
if you designed for that stress level in the first place.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 18:03:23 -0000, "Robert M. Gary"
>> > wrote in
>> om>:
>
>>> On Jul 26, 10:33 am, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>>> LINDBERGH FOUNDATION GRANT GOES TO ENGINE INNOVATOR
>>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/919-
>>>> full.html#195734) Pilots of older aircraft worry about the future
>>>> availability of 100LL avgas,
>>>
>>> Man this guy doesn't know much about aviation. New planes use 100LL
>>> too.
>>>
>
>> True. But the concept seems valid for piston aircraft.
>
>> What bothers me, is the potential for additional strain on the engine
>> when converted to diesel operation.
>
> As it should for anyone contemplating doing it.
>
> Wasn't it GM a couple of decades back that had the big fiasco of blown
> engines when they tried to convert their existing gas engines to
> diesel?
>

Yes it was and it probably set auto-diesels back 10 years.