Diesel powered aircraft?

An interesting engine, have a look at www.zoche.de

Best regards,

Mathieu

..whcih at this rate won’t ever make it into production! AIUI the bloke likes to fiddle too much.

An interesting engine, have a look at www.zoche.de

Interesting, certainly, but he has been flogging this engine for about a dozen years now and it has still not entered production…

Dambuster trip by diesel

Had a “Dambuster” trip from Sheffield City Airport down Howden, Derwent and Ladybower Dams a few weeks ago in a Diamond Star. Once you got over it sounding like a taxi it was a good ride. Also overflew Finningley (or should that be Doncaster-Sheffield – Robin – Hood- International – Airport.)

Last flight I had in an aircraft of that size was a 7 AEF Chippie out of Newton 30 years ago. Interestingly there’s a RAF schemed Chippie based at Sheffield City at the moment which gave the trip some synchronicity as it was parked in front of the terminal when we took off

TempestNut, Your post woke up some of my grey cells. Not so easy nowadays.

If memory serves me right, the initial development of the Nomad displayed all the features you mention, and I think the reciprocating half of the engine powered one prop, while the interconnected axial flow compressor/turbine section drove the other prop.

This version also employed reheating of the exhaust gases for maximum power extraction.

I believe this format of the Nomad gave the lowest specific fuel consumption for a piston engine, although this has probably now been bettered.

The second development version was a little less exotic.

There can be no doubt that RAF crews were relieved the Nomad lost the race for the Shack. With Griffons and overload bomb bay tank fitted giving a total fuel load of 3684 UK gallons, the shack could fly for 24 hours plus. One shudders to think how long trips could have been with the Nomads fitted.

As an aside, I seem to remember that the initial version of the nomad enjoyed boost pressures in excess of 100 inches of mercury, or 35 pounds of boost. (Or was it 100 psi???)The Griffon 58 topped out at 81 inches (25 psi boost) with water methanol injection.

An interesting engine, have a look at www.zoche.de

Best regards,

Mathieu

Key Publishing magazine featured Diamond Twin star a super looking modern twin that used about 5 gph of diesel. glass cockpit, bubble canopy and 4 seats.

the figures look very healthy, it will fly for miles and cost peanuts.

apparently.

very nice

http://www.diamond-air.at/en/products/DA42/index.htm

Well I’m now enlightened…. thank you guys.

This thread has produced some interesting results for me – thanks to those that enlightened me… It’s a product I knew very little about, as I said, but now I have a feel for it, and can look deeper on the www...

I run diesel vehicles anyway (love em), and an interesting possibility now arises with regards fueling aircraft engines: Vegetable Oil…

I won’t go into details because this is the wrong forum but I use it in a 4×4 Diesel quite legally, and it’s dirt cheap, so maybe the technology can be translated to Aviation too?

There’s food for thought (yes the pun is intended…lol)

Once again, thanks to all who enlightend me about this

Heavy Russian bombers of WWII changed engines later in the war to diesels. Didn’t effect speed but increased range by about 50%.

Diesel power is nothing new. The world’s first diesel power airplane was the Stinson SM-1DX powered by a Packard R-980 producing 225 hp. Basically a re-enginbed SM-8 “Junior”…it first flew on Sept 19, 1928 and was awarded a type certificate for production. Two were built including one converted from a conventional engine (a Lycoming 215).

Ah diesels. It may come as a surprise to everyone but the Shackleton was to be Diesel powered with the exquisite Napier Nomad. This engine was a 12 cylinder horizontally opposed 2 stroke engine, turbo supercharged and using a axial flow power recovery turbine to harness the high exhaust energy inherent in the 2 stroke design and drive one half of the contra rotating prop. The benefit of this beast promised to be unprecedented fuel economy for long endurance in the intend role of the aircraft. Unfortunately, Napier’s ambitions where ahead of their ability to develop the technologies in a timely manner, and the Shack ended up with the safe option of Griffons. Shades of the Sabre. The Nomad was not at all similar to the Junkers engines, or the Deltic that powered trains and boats, but was similar to a Detroit Diesel, or as they were called during the war GM Diesels

Moggy

Are you then suggesting the diesel would require a much coarser prop, or a gearbox?

Moggy

I would thikn it could stand a higher ratio with maybe a turbocharger fitted, have you ever felt the pull on a 150 b.h.p. Golf TDi in 6th gear, I think, can’t remember the Golf pulls about 1100 rpm at 50 mph, and still pulls likes a train, unbeleivable really
rob

.
I have not gone into it but I would bet a diesel in a plane would probably cruise at maybe 1200 to 1600 rpm/low down power, so, and I am only guessing if a continental engine in a Cessna cruises at 2400 to 3200rpm in reality the log burner should last twice as long and use less fuel. :rolleyes:

Rob

Are you then suggesting the diesel would require a much coarser prop, or a gearbox?

Moggy

PS I’ll leave this in Historic briefly, but I fear it now really belongs in GA

Doesn’t Jet A also have a higher calorific value and requires less energy input to refine than avgas?

High Lift Camlobe

Rob Beard, you are spot on with most of your observations. There is one point that some people are not necessarily aware of. Most aeroengines rev out between 2600 and 3000, be they petrol or modern diesel. There are exceptions, but they are few. And no doubt people will post what they are. (Rotax two and four strokes, Jabiru, etc)

How about this then if someone is brave enough.

Cessna 172

Fit Turbocharged Diesel engine

Fit 14 foot 4 bladed HAMILTON STANDARD PROP

Extend the undercart abit

And there you have it

CESSNA 172 TDi

Rob Beard, you are spot on with most of your observations. There is one point that some people are not necessarily aware of. Most aeroengines rev out between 2600 and 3000, be they petrol or modern diesel. There are exceptions, but they are few. And no doubt people will post what they are. (Rotax two and four strokes, Jabiru, etc)

CLONK CLONK

.

. And with certain manufacturers, there isn’t a TBO (time between overhauls) but a TBR (time between replacement) which are again more expensive.

The diesel engine produces alot more torque at a lower RPM, if you run a diesel car yourself have a look at the rev counter on the dash, normally it will cut out at about 5,000 RPM all the power is lower down, where as in a petrol car you normally have to rev the Haddon Halls off it to keep it on song, diesels have a much longer life span, I have not gone into it but I would bet a diesel in a plane would probably cruise at maybe 1200 to 1600 rpm/low down power, so, and I am only guessing if a continental engine in a Cessna cruises at 2400 to 3200rpm in reality the log burner should last twice as long and use less fuel. :rolleyes:

Rob

And I thought diesel was a scouser expression. e.g. diesel do for the kids, diesel do for the wife.

Back onto a serious note, there are a number of aeronautical diesels out there now. A certain Mr Wilsch has produced an efficient, light weight three cylinder with a four cylinder on the cards – and its BRITISH. There are also others.

The DeltaHawk is a V4 which can be installed inverted.

The DieselAir is an opposed, two cylinder, four piston, twin crankshaft (ala Jumo) 100 HP.

Teledyne Continental in the US have been working on one.

Centurian discussed above fitted to the previously mentioned and to Piper PA28’s and Cessna 172’s.

SMA (French) who have produced a working 230 HP four cylinder as fitted to CSE’s 182 demonstrator.

The major interest at present for these powerplants is the UK and Europe due to the artificially high price of Avgas due to greedy governments. Although the running costs of these engines are very low, the initial installation costs are very high. And with certain manufacturers, there isn’t a TBO (time between overhauls) but a TBR (time between replacement) which are again more expensive.

As with most things in aviation, it will cost to change, but it is the future.

… if 100LL AVGAS gets withdrawn…

Surely you mean when it gets withdrawn…? By the way, one advantage with these engines (at least the Thielert engine) is that they also run on Jet A1.

Yes, but the problem of power applies to turboprops also.

Not sure of other Allied types that are diesel powered. But this isnt new. The idea has been worked on for many years, Its now that companys are mass producing these aircraft. The biggest problem is that they are computer controlled, you do have 2 computers incase of one failing, but if you lose all electrics, you lose your engine!!