If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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¬ |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HOW MANY GLIDER PILOTS DOES IT TAKE TO CHANGE A LIGHT BULB | Mal | Soaring | 59 | October 4th 05 05:39 AM |
The light bulb | Greasy Rider | Military Aviation | 6 | March 2nd 04 12:07 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | November 23rd 03 11:43 PM |
New Military Aviation Books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 02:33 AM |
New WWII books from Germany | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 0 | October 13th 03 12:54 AM |