Hyabusa flat 8

wrote

but ANY 2 stroke engine, to
me, is suspect.
I know, in theory they are almost bulletproof because they have so few
moving parts - but in practice they are fragine.

Heck, I won't even take my chainsaw up a ladder, why would I fly
behind one????
TBO on the 2 stroke stuff is PITIFUL.

Yep. Yet they touted that crap as AIRWORTHY.

I wonder how many people are pushing up daisies, because of that attitude.
--
Jim in NC

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
saying something like:

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk - that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
lack of power, etc.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember saying
something like:

Yup, Thielert engines are used by Diamond aircraft.
http://www.centurion-engines.com/
Diesel engines running on aviation kerosene.

Only thing though - sooner or later, you can absolutely guarantee some
numpty ******* will fill it and run it (albeit briefly) on petrol.
TBO, iwt, for that, surely?

On 9 Mar, 07:49, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
saying something like:

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk- that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
lack of power, etc.

It wasn't the most successful application, it must be admitted.
Obviously you'd have had the inherent reliability of a diesel compared
with the petrol engines of the era (the Junkers 86 was a pre-war
design), but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
been valid, and for a warplane, lack of power is an absolute no-no[1].

There were some German wartime flying boats that used diesel engines,
too. Rather successfully, actually, but then flying boats can't really
be classed as combat aircraft, no matter how many defensive guns they
carried.

The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
engines.

The Graf Zeppelin used spark-ignition engines, but fuelled with
natural gas called Blaugas, stored uncompressed. This was a bit like
propane, and was named after its inventor rather than its colour. The
beauty of Blaugas for airships was that it weighed more or less the
same as air and so as the fuel was used up, it didn't affect the trim
of the airship. I think the engines also ran on, and the craft
carried, petrol but I cba to Google right now.

[1] Well, for any aircraft, I'd have thought[2]
[2] And motorcycle :-)

TOG@Toil schreef:
but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
been valid,

Would they really? Have you ever checked the power/weight ratio of the
JuMo diesels?

On Mar 9, 5:44*am, "TOG@Toil" wrote:
On 9 Mar, 07:49, Grimly Curmudgeon
wrote:

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember jan olieslagers
saying something like:

If you are really curious about diesels in airships, consult
www.dair.co.uk-that engine scales down the idea behind the JuMo diesels.

I recall a Rolls-Royce WW2 service manager told me he was utterly
gobsmacked when he saw the Krauts were using diesels in some of their
bombers. At the same time, he was quite impressed, although the diesel
story was spread around as some sort of negative propaganda - weight,
lack of power, etc.

It wasn't the most successful application, it must be admitted.
Obviously you'd have had the inherent reliability of a diesel compared
with the petrol engines of the era (the Junkers 86 was a pre-war
design), but the criticisms of weight and lack of power would have
been valid, and for a warplane, lack of power is an absolute no-no[1].

There were some German wartime flying boats that used diesel engines,
too. Rather successfully, actually, but then flying boats can't really
be classed as combat aircraft, no matter how many defensive guns they
carried.

The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
engines.

The Graf Zeppelin used spark-ignition engines, but fuelled with
natural gas called Blaugas, stored uncompressed. This was a bit like
propane, and was named after its inventor rather than its colour. The
beauty of Blaugas for airships was that it weighed more or less the
same as air and so as the fuel was used up, it didn't affect the trim
of the airship. I think the engines also ran on, and the craft
carried, petrol but I cba to Google right now.

[1] Well, for any aircraft, I'd have thought[2]
[2] And motorcycle :-)

Keep in mind that while the Jumo 205 was a successful diesel aero
engine, It was built at a time when titanium and other high strength,
light weight alloys weren't available.

Aero diesels under development today use titanium in many parts and
high strength aluminum alloys elsewhere to achieve a much better power-
to-weight ratio. Most better 1LB/HP. All will use universally
available JET A rather than diesel fuel - although they can use that
too if the temperature is high enough.

To return to the subject, the stock Hyabusa uses titanium valves and
rods.

On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 23:03:51 -0500, "Morgans"
wrote:


wrote

but ANY 2 stroke engine, to
me, is suspect.
I know, in theory they are almost bulletproof because they have so few
moving parts - but in practice they are fragine.

Heck, I won't even take my chainsaw up a ladder, why would I fly
behind one????
TBO on the 2 stroke stuff is PITIFUL.

Yep. Yet they touted that crap as AIRWORTHY.

I wonder how many people are pushing up daisies, because of that attitude.


If you totally ovehaul a Rotax 2 stroke every 300 hours and are VERY
carefull with what fuel and oil you run, they are unlikely to kill
you. Go 500 hours, run ethanol fuel or the wrong oil, have the mixture
off - and it's just a matter of WHEN.

bildan wrote:

To return to the subject, the stock Hyabusa uses titanium valves and
rods.

Hayabusa, ffs, Hayabusa.


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F SH50 Triumph Street Triple
If you don't know what you're doing, don't do it. Workshop manual?
Buy one instead of asking where the free PDFs are
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

"TOG@Toil" wrote:
The R101 airship used diesel engines, which were then really untried
technology as far as aircraft went, and they were unsuccessful. Had
the thing not crashed and the British airship programme continued,
it's almost certain the R101 would have been re-fitted with petrol
engines.

The thinking apparently was that the diesel was less flammable (for
whatever reason fire risk was at the back of the minds of the
designers). Although as I understand it this was all to no avail since
there were also separate engines for starting the diesels, which were
petrol.

You couldn't make this stuff up.