A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » General Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Diesel aircraft engines and are the light jets pushing out the twins?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 17th 04, 08:22 PM
Roy Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
) wrote:

Think of it this way - a model airplane engine can be made to run with
1/20 of a cubic inch (.049 cu inch to even .010 cu inch), but piston
engine aircraft became impractical above a few thousand HP. That is
the range of practicality for a piston concept.


It is certainly possible to build much larger piston engines than that.
How about
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/
Ads
  #12  
Old September 17th 04, 09:04 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.owning wrote:
A gas turbine scales up easily and but is nearly impossible to scale
down. The auto manuacturers found that out in the 1940s - remember
the "car of the future" on the covers of Popular Science et al?
Turbines for cars are further away now than they were 55 years ago.
The turbine suffers from excessive fuel consumption at part throttle
(the piston engine is incredibly flexible that way)and in smaller HP
installations.


So much of the useful load of an aircraft is fuel, that fuel
efficiency is very important for overall mission performance.


The problem of an engine is to find the most efficient way to expand a
certain flow rate of compressed hot gas to atmospheric pressures. A
turbine can do this with large mass flow rates, but as the flow rates
become smaller, the turbine speeds (rpm) must increase enormously and
the centrifugal accelerations get out of hand. On the other hand, a
piston can process an expansion efficiently with small flow rates.


Think of it this way - a model airplane engine can be made to run with
1/20 of a cubic inch (.049 cu inch to even .010 cu inch), but piston
engine aircraft became impractical above a few thousand HP. That is
the range of practicality for a piston concept.


An engineering prof once said - if the gas turbine had been invented
first, the piston engine would have been looked on an ingeneous
solution to the turbine's material and speed and power range problems.


Diesels may eventually make it. They have a weight problem that may
be offset by a lower specific fuel consumption, but for a given
operating condition, spark ignition engines can nearly approach the
consumption of diesels by using turbo compounding and operation only
at full throttle.


While not quite a .049, here's a 3.7" in diameter, 2.6 lb turbine
that produces 16.5 lb of thrust.

http://jetcatusa.sitewavesonline.net/p70.html

Their biggest turbine is 5.12", 5 lb, and produces 45 lb of thrust.

Here's another outfit that sells a 3.5" diameter, 7.25" long, 1.9 lb
turbine with 11.4 lb of thrust.

http://www.swbturbines.com/model_turbines.htm

Now granted these are turbojets, not turboprops, but it appears to me
that making small turbines is possible...


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
  #15  
Old September 17th 04, 10:16 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning wrote:
A gas turbine scales up easily and but is nearly impossible to scale
down. The auto manuacturers found that out in the 1940s - remember
the "car of the future" on the covers of Popular Science et al?
Turbines for cars are further away now than they were 55 years ago.
The turbine suffers from excessive fuel consumption at part throttle
(the piston engine is incredibly flexible that way)and in smaller HP
installations.


So much of the useful load of an aircraft is fuel, that fuel
efficiency is very important for overall mission performance.


The problem of an engine is to find the most efficient way to expand a
certain flow rate of compressed hot gas to atmospheric pressures. A
turbine can do this with large mass flow rates, but as the flow rates
become smaller, the turbine speeds (rpm) must increase enormously and
the centrifugal accelerations get out of hand. On the other hand, a
piston can process an expansion efficiently with small flow rates.


Think of it this way - a model airplane engine can be made to run with
1/20 of a cubic inch (.049 cu inch to even .010 cu inch), but piston
engine aircraft became impractical above a few thousand HP. That is
the range of practicality for a piston concept.


An engineering prof once said - if the gas turbine had been invented
first, the piston engine would have been looked on an ingeneous
solution to the turbine's material and speed and power range problems.


Diesels may eventually make it. They have a weight problem that may
be offset by a lower specific fuel consumption, but for a given
operating condition, spark ignition engines can nearly approach the
consumption of diesels by using turbo compounding and operation only
at full throttle.


While not quite a .049, here's a 3.7" in diameter, 2.6 lb turbine
that produces 16.5 lb of thrust.

http://jetcatusa.sitewavesonline.net/p70.html

Their biggest turbine is 5.12", 5 lb, and produces 45 lb of thrust.

Here's another outfit that sells a 3.5" diameter, 7.25" long, 1.9 lb
turbine with 11.4 lb of thrust.

http://www.swbturbines.com/model_turbines.htm

Now granted these are turbojets, not turboprops, but it appears to me
that making small turbines is possible...


--
Jim Pennino



You are missing the point. Everyone agrees that small turbines can be
built, the issue is fuel consumption. What is the specific fuel consumption
per lb of thrust?

Mike
MU-2


  #17  
Old September 17th 04, 11:28 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:

wrote in message
...

While not quite a .049, here's a 3.7" in diameter, 2.6 lb turbine
that produces 16.5 lb of thrust.

http://jetcatusa.sitewavesonline.net/p70.html

Their biggest turbine is 5.12", 5 lb, and produces 45 lb of thrust.

Here's another outfit that sells a 3.5" diameter, 7.25" long, 1.9 lb
turbine with 11.4 lb of thrust.

http://www.swbturbines.com/model_turbines.htm

Now granted these are turbojets, not turboprops, but it appears to me
that making small turbines is possible...


--
Jim Pennino



You are missing the point. Everyone agrees that small turbines can be
built, the issue is fuel consumption. What is the specific fuel consumption
per lb of thrust?


Not quite "everyone" has signed on to that notion and you are one of few
that has wanted to talk about numbers as opposed to making sweeping
statements.

For the 16.5 lb thrust engine it is 1.8 lb/hr-lb thrust, but I doubt fuel
efficiency is a design criteria in a model airplane engine.

The question remains, at what HP level, based on the physics of the engines,
does the crossover from piston to turbine occur?

As additional criteria, assume specific fuel consumption is the most
important parameter and that the A/C spends the majority of its time in
flight not doing touch and goes.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
  #18  
Old September 17th 04, 11:31 PM
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:
About the size of the Caravan 900hp+


Mike
MU-2


According to the Cessna website, the current Caravan is 675hp.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.
  #19  
Old September 17th 04, 11:39 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:

wrote in message
...

While not quite a .049, here's a 3.7" in diameter, 2.6 lb turbine
that produces 16.5 lb of thrust.

http://jetcatusa.sitewavesonline.net/p70.html

Their biggest turbine is 5.12", 5 lb, and produces 45 lb of thrust.

Here's another outfit that sells a 3.5" diameter, 7.25" long, 1.9 lb
turbine with 11.4 lb of thrust.

http://www.swbturbines.com/model_turbines.htm

Now granted these are turbojets, not turboprops, but it appears to me
that making small turbines is possible...


--
Jim Pennino



You are missing the point. Everyone agrees that small turbines can be
built, the issue is fuel consumption. What is the specific fuel
consumption
per lb of thrust?


Not quite "everyone" has signed on to that notion and you are one of few
that has wanted to talk about numbers as opposed to making sweeping
statements.

For the 16.5 lb thrust engine it is 1.8 lb/hr-lb thrust, but I doubt fuel
efficiency is a design criteria in a model airplane engine.

The question remains, at what HP level, based on the physics of the
engines,
does the crossover from piston to turbine occur?

As additional criteria, assume specific fuel consumption is the most
important parameter and that the A/C spends the majority of its time in
flight not doing touch and goes.


--
Jim Pennino



I think that you can look at the market to see where the crossover occurs.
THere are currently no production piston aircraft engines over 450hp and
there are no aircraft turbines under 400hp.

Mike
MU-2


  #20  
Old September 17th 04, 11:58 PM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

The Caravan has a 940hp engine flat rated to 675hp. Turbines are typically
flat rated so that the engine can make rated power to reasonable altitudes
and temperatures without having to design the gearbox for the full
thermodynamic horsepower. To keep the comparison with piston engines apples
to apples you need to use thermodynamic ratings.

http://www.pwc.ca/en/3_0/3_0http://w.../3_0_2_1_2.asp

To put some numbers on things, the engines in my MU-2 have a specific fuel
consumption of .55lb/hp/hr and a piston engine is about .45 and diesels can
be under .40. Huge (ship) diesels can be under .30. Compare your model
aircraft engines with the TFE731-60 used on the Falcon 900EX which uses
..405lb/lb thrust/hr

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:
About the size of the Caravan 900hp+


Mike
MU-2


According to the Cessna website, the current Caravan is 675hp.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.