Diesel engine and aviation

[zaitcev]

I'm guessing that until now, there hasn't been a new piston engine put in a certified US-built airframe in decades.

I see you want to exclude Predator, fine. Still, GT-500 and S-7 are certified in Primary category. But yeah, coming to two decades ago soon.

 

[Piloto]

I still don't see the advantage of a Diesel powered C182. After all one of the main advantages of a Cessna single is the accessibility to those short runway airports where there is no Jet fuel but there is AVGAS. When you look at the airport directory those with 2500 ft or less runways have no Jet fuel but many have AVGAS. Simply stated Jet fuel planes do not land at short runways.

If piston diesel engines were that good how come none were used in fighter or bomber planes during WWII. After all the technology existed at the time.

How come there is no diesel powered racing cars

Jet fuel may be popular at major airports but the most popular engine fuel in the world is gasoline, used by millions of cars.

To me a MOGAS engine would be more practical for the typical single engine plane.

José

 

[zaitcev]

When you look at the airport directory those with 2500 ft or less runways have no Jet fuel but many have AVGAS.

I understand that it may be hard to believe, but U.S.A. is not the only country in the world. And in most of the world avgas does not exist, but jet fuel is everywhere, because airliners and military use it.

 

[N801BH]

I still don't see the advantage of a Diesel powered C182. After all one of the main advantages of a Cessna single is the accessibility to those short runway airports where there is no Jet fuel but there is AVGAS. When you look at the airport directory those with 2500 ft or less runways have no Jet fuel but many have AVGAS. Simply stated Jet fuel planes do not land at short runways.

If piston diesel engines were that good how come none were used in fighter or bomber planes during WWII. After all the technology existed at the time.

How come there is no diesel powered racing cars

Jet fuel may be popular at major airports but the most popular engine fuel in the world is gasoline, used by millions of cars.

To me a MOGAS engine would be more practical for the typical single engine plane.

José

1- The Jet A motors will run on diesel.

2- Diesel powered race cars have won the 24 hours of Lemans the last 8 years. Won the 12 hours of Sebring several times too..

Diesel is the future for sure. IMHO.

 

[Piloto]

I understand that it may be hard to believe, but U.S.A. is not the only country in the world. And in most of the world avgas does not exist, but jet fuel is everywhere, because airliners and military use it.

AVGAS may not be that popular but MOGAS is. C182s typically do not mingle with airliners or fighter planes at the pump. There are several engines already that run on MOGAS that would be easier to get than jet fuel. The reality is that nobody is going to sell jet fuel at a 2,500ft rwy fields because no jet fuel plane lands there. Even at River Ranch (2RR) with a 5,000ft rwy they only sell AVGAS. I think a diesel C182 would have more refueling limitations than one that run on AVGAS.

José

 

[Piloto]

1- The Jet A motors will run on diesel.

2- Diesel powered race cars have won the 24 hours of Lemans the last 8 years. Won the 12 hours of Sebring several times too..

Diesel is the future for sure. IMHO.

Just three months after debuting its factory LMP1 entry at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, Toyota bagged its first victory in dominating fashion Saturday at Interlagos.

Alex Wurz and Nicolas Lapierre took their Toyota TS030 Hybrid to a flag-to-flag win in the Six Hours of Sao Paulo, despite its gasoline-powered prototype making an additional fuel stop than the pair of diesel Audi R18s.

Starting from pole, the No. 7 Toyota bridged out a 20-second gap to the No. 1 Audi e-tron quattro by the race's one-and-only safety car period of the race in the third hour, which also played into the hands of Wurz, who roughly doubled his advantage at that time.

Toyota scored its first factory prototype victory since 1992, with Alex Wurz and Nicolas Lapierre taking the TS030 Hybrid to a dominant win in Sao Paulo. (Photo: John Dagys)

With a large enough gap and a clearly quicker car, the Austrian managed to make a late splash for fuel with five minutes remaining and still cruise to victory, finishing 1 minute ahead of Audi's hybrid-powered entry of Andre Lotterer.

It marked the first defeat of a factory diesel-powered LMP1 car in more than four years. But more importantly, it gave the Japanese manufacturer its first FIA World Endurance Championship victory in only its third start, a feat not many would have predicted at the start of the year.

 

[BiffJ]

On top of the current racing cars and teams using TDi and other diesels to compete with the gas powered cars there is always the Junkers Diesel powered airliners from the late 20's and 30's. Diesels were used in other aircraft as well but at that time they didn't put out the power for the weight that gasoline engines did. Things have changed a bit with turbo chargers and electronic injection, common rail systems and all the new tech. My new(er) 2009 VW TDi puts out as much horsepower as similar gas engines in its size and class though it burns less fuel and has a lot more torque. Torque is what turns propellers...... I think the diesel idea is outstanding and with a bit of development in our field they can be as good if not better than any of the gas engines.

Frank

 

[Dan Thomas]

1- The Jet A motors will run on diesel......Diesel is the future for sure. IMHO.

The Jet-A SMA diesel is certified only for Jet-A, not diesel fuel. I don't think it would be too long before someone comes up with an STC to burn diesel in it. Some other diesels actually don't like jet fuel because it doesn't have the same lubricity and the injector pumps suffer.

The real beauty of the 182's diesel is its fuel economy. 8 GPH of cheaper jet A instead of 11 GPH of 100LL.

Its drawbacks include poor cold-weather performance, especially in starting. It weighs around 30 pounds more, IIRC, eating into useful load, and the fuel also weighs more per gallon, but one doesn't have to pack as much along for a given trip.

Dan

 

[denverpilot]

Cessna isn't primarily building diesels for the U.S. market, IMHO.

They're going to mainly sell overseas where in many places, jets can get Jet-A but 100LL has to be brought in by the 55 gallon drum. It also gives another option in dual-fuel places, but I don't believe those are the primary intended markets.

Read the Earthrounders website sometime. Most of the logistics of those trips is in putting 100LL at airports and figuring out how to deal with Customs. A diesel Cessna would be far better suited for a round-the-world flight than a gas-powered one.

At a 70K premium, it can't pay for itself here.

 

[zaitcev]

Someone at SAON.ru reported the following experiences with SMA-305-230 without the "E" on an unknown aircraft (presumably a Cessna):

- Gained 400 hours thus far.
- The PCU burned out due to nearby lightning; Safran replaced it by warranty, the downtime was 2 months.
- At one time noticed smoking exhaust. Took out the injectors, tested on a stand (presumably automotive), found the broken one. Curently are waiting for the replacement.

Overall, positive impression. The best part is possibility to land in any airport, as those with gasoline are rare.

http://saon.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=112507#p112507

 

[rkdF250]

As a diesel truck owner I would much rather have a jet A plane then avgas. Power to weight ratio is great in some of the engines I have read about. I would love to see methanol injection for one of them.

 

[Brad Z]

OK, since I never weighed in last year when this thread started, the issues I had with Diesels were cost, weight, complexity, and operating temperatures. The traffic outfit I used to fly with had a 172 Theilert conversion. You had a dual fadec system, a turbo charger, a gearbox, and a constant speed three bladed composite prop, all to give a 172 135hp. It was ok for the type of flying we did, but I wouldn't want to own one myself. Hopefully Cessna's Diesel on the 182 turns out to be more reliable than the one I dealt with.

 

[Nostalgair]

Hi All,

I flew the Diamond DA42NG with the Austro AE300 diesel engines and I was quite impressed.

The aircraft also has rather interesting engine cowlings.

Cheers,

Owen

 

[N801BH]

OK, since I never weighed in last year when this thread started, the issues I had with Diesels were cost, weight, complexity, and operating temperatures. The traffic outfit I used to fly with had a 172 Theilert conversion. You had a dual fadec system, a turbo charger, a gearbox, and a constant speed three bladed composite prop, all to give a 172 135hp. It was ok for the type of flying we did, but I wouldn't want to own one myself. Hopefully Cessna's Diesel on the 182 turns out to be more reliable than the one I dealt with.

The issues you spelled out are valid....

Thielert had a good concept and the CEO totally drove that business into the ground with his greed....

For a diesel be be viable someone needs to do a clean sheet approach and the outcome would be favorable... If I were 10-15 years younger I would do it in a heartbeat.... And I bet I could pull it off with flying colors.... IMHO..

 

[Dan Thomas]

There's a 172 here with a Thielert Centurion in it. Sounds like an ultralight, and performance doesn't appear spectacular.

Dan

 

[jhausch]

I probably already posted this when this thread first came out, but I really like the Gemini "Junkers-Jumo interpretation". They've pretty much gone silent.

If I wanted to turn a large fortune into a small one, I'd work on a Junkers-Jumo like solution. It's a two stroke and I've wondered if the design suffers from uneven heating issues considering the exhaust path. I wonder if there would be a way to swap intake and exhaust "direction" every other cycle or so.

I would also take a long, hard look at using cam driven mechanical unit injectors like an old Detroit Diesel. It seems to make more sense to have the failure point be a single injector instead of the pump.

 

[rcpilot]

From what I hear the Thielerts had big troubles with the gearbox, something SMA is trying to get around with running direct-drive. Trying to run a pair of geared-turbocharged engines that most people have never seen before sounds like a maintenance nightmare.

Only problem with that really is the power pulse issue with the prop. Not sure what they're doing about that unless they want to throw a ton of weight into the flywheel.

 

[zaitcev]

Here's the advertisement video for Raikhlin's RED, including takeoffs and landings of the Yak-52 test bed:

I'll be darned. Irkut is assembling a test batch of Yak-152 with REDs. This article is in Russian, but contains a bunch of pictures:
http://www.take-off.ru/news/137-news02015/1044-irkutsk-yak-152
Irkut is the company that builds Su-30MKI, Yak-130, and MS-21. The Yak-152 is a bit of a small fish for them, so I'm not sure if they would be all that interested... The article says that they already subcontracted the empenage to Ulan-Ude plant that is a part of VR/Rosvertol. Irkut is a part of OAK (the state airplane-building monopoly) these days.

 

[midcap]

If they are common rails and will have egr coolers and dpf's on them they are going to be Mx pigs.

I would much rather a small turbine than a diesel.

With a diesel you keep all the negatives of a piston engine and then further complicate things with a high pressure fuel pump and piezo electric injectors. Having been around that injector tech, they don't like to sit.

 

[zaitcev]

RED A03 is a common rail engine. I don't know what technology the injectors use specifically. The duration of injection is controlled. It is, of course, turbocharged, and the turbines do not look water-cooled to me. In fact RED started way before this technology was common in cars. But then Raikhlin managed to get EASA certification somehow for A03, so you have at least that. It may be certified with 100 hours TBR, but it is certified

 

[yetti]

packard radial diesel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_DR-980