Diesel motors for planes?

zaitcev said:
The higher in power you go, the more attractive an equivalent turboprop becomes. Rolls-Royce has a turboprop (M250), which goes as low as 317 shp.
Click to expand...

But the fuel specifics are much worse than a recip Diesel.
 
Originally Posted by zaitcev
The higher in power you go, the more attractive an equivalent turboprop becomes. Rolls-Royce has a turboprop (M250), which goes as low as 317 shp.




Henning said:
But the fuel specifics are much worse than a recip Diesel.
Click to expand...


And so is the initial cost for the turbine.......:yikes:
 
Meanwhile, as Putin annexes Crimea, a drone is demonstrated to PM Medvedev, sporting... Raikhlin's diesel a.k.a RED!

http://militaryrussia.ru/blog/topic-719.html
http://www.red-aircraft.com/engines/red-a03-v12/

The fun part is, Raikhlin is a Russian emigrant based in Germany, who tried to sell his diesel into western aviation markets for a few years now. As such, his sales to Russian arms makers are vulnerable to sanctions.

Anyhow, I was keeping an eye on RED, which saw a few test flights, not quite unlike the Deltahawk. The high cost, however, was a hurdle. And just as Doehrs turned to the drone market, so did Raikhlin (and Lycoming, bless their hearts).
 
Last edited:
Well, here's something you don't see every day on the ramp-

A V-12 diesel Yak 52! This would no doubt be a popular variant. Supposedly, the conversion was done in conjunction with the Yakovlev Design Bureau.

aero10_yak52_1206.jpg
 
Piper Archer with Centurian 2.0 150HP introduced today.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I don't know how I'd feel about taking a converted, geared, and specially mounted automotive engine into the clouds. Do I have the wrong mindset or am I in need of more education on these engines? Were the engineered from the ground up to be mounted on an aircraft? Ever since that gentleman was killed in his Glasair III with the Corvette LS1 engine (due to powertrain failure) I've been turned off to this idea. Maybe someone can set me straight.
 
There's a member in this forum flying behind an automotive V8 engine I believe.
I've seen him calling it his "death trap" :goofy:
 
Having had involvement with development of aircraft engines, I have no problems with a properly engineered automotive conversion. There are very few experimental automotive conversions that do this properly. Remember that every turboprop/turboshaft has a gearbox, and that every new engine will have growing pains.

I wouldn't hesitate to fly a properly designed and developed one in the clouds. If I built an experimental plane, I'd do an automotive conversion engine. But I would do it myself.
 
austinglasair said:
I don't know how I'd feel about taking a converted, geared, and specially mounted automotive engine into the clouds. Do I have the wrong mindset or am I in need of more education on these engines? Were the engineered from the ground up to be mounted on an aircraft? Ever since that gentleman was killed in his Glasair III with the Corvette LS1 engine (due to powertrain failure) I've been turned off to this idea. Maybe someone can set me straight.
Click to expand...

Nobody can set you straight. It's a personal decision. You're either a risk taker or you're not. Putting an automotive engine in an airplane is an experiment. It's been done for decades, generally with poor results if you go by the statistics.

Many will tell you that it can be done with zero problems "if done right", whatever that means. I'm sure it's true, but you as the pilot consumer probably have little to no idea if it's really "done right" when you pay your money. You have to take a leap of faith. The certified airplane engine on the other hand has decades of data and experience behind it. It is well known and so may be the better choice for the risk adverse. It is the enemy you know.

On the other hand all engines will quit on you. It should be noted that the certified Theilert, Centurion, Austro and Onieda engines are all based on automotive engines. Their long term reliability has yet TBD however.
 
I thought we were talking about certified engines that were automotive conversions?
 
IIRC Thielert was originally a conversion, but then it was tweaked and even certified.

RED and Deltahawk are ground-up aviation diesels.

Lycoming DEL is rumored to start its life as FIAT auto diesel, but Lycoming management says that everything automotive was replaced in it step by step. So it's like a "restoration" where everything except the data plate is replaced. As such it straddles the spectrum of conversion and clean slate.
 
Last edited:
Keep in mind that the word "conversion" does not mean just taking the engine out of a Mercedes, bolting a gearbox to it, and putting it on a plane. They all did something different to them to be certified.
 
Johann said:
There's a member in this forum flying behind an automotive V8 engine I believe.
I've seen him calling it his "death trap" :goofy:
Click to expand...

Yup...... That's me.......

It could run another 30 seconds and kill me.... or it could run 30 years without a failure.....

Someone has to (push the envelope)... same with automotive progress... If it was left stagnent.. we would all still be driving Model T's with a hand crank motor...;)
 
Did you do a write up of the results you are getting and all that?
I'd be interested to read it.
 
Johann said:
Did you do a write up of the results you are getting and all that?
I'd be interested to read it.
Click to expand...

it is an ongoing project / prototype...

Currently over 500 hours and maybe 100,000 miles and still working damn good.... Considering I am an idiot to even try it..:goofy:....;).....:no:

If you get Kitplanes magazine there here is a link...

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/26_12/exploring/9026-1.html

if you don't subscribe... PM me..
 
I like it!

I'd like it even more in a taildragger config....

Dav8or said:
Well, here's something you don't see every day on the ramp-

A V-12 diesel Yak 52! This would no doubt be a popular variant. Supposedly, the conversion was done in conjunction with the Yakovlev Design Bureau.

aero10_yak52_1206.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
The track record for auto engine conversions is just about zero.
Oh yeah, you can convert an auto engine. But by the time you replace the stressed internals with forged parts from the racing world and add the extra spark plugs and all the this-n-thats to make it work in an airframe you have spent the price of a brand new Lycosarus engine - one already proven reliable.
 
I would like to see if the FAA has agreed to their 3,000 hour TBO number. I would be surprised if they did for a brand new engine. It'll probably get there if it's in the market long enough, it just won't be there on day 1.

The EPS does look interesting, though.
 
Dr. O said:
The track record for auto engine conversions is just about zero.
Oh yeah, you can convert an auto engine. But by the time you replace the stressed internals with forged parts from the racing world and add the extra spark plugs and all the this-n-thats to make it work in an airframe you have spent the price of a brand new Lycosarus engine - one already proven reliable.
Click to expand...

Title of the thread is ( DIESEL MOTORS)......

They don't need spark plugs........:no::no:..

Nice try to spin your views though... :(
 
N801BH said:
Title of the thread is ( DIESEL MOTORS)......

They don't need spark plugs........:no::no:..

Nice try to spin your views though... :(
Click to expand...

You don't have to be quite so snarky. As I read it he was addressing a different issue. Thread drift, you know.
 
Dr. O said:
The track record for auto engine conversions is just about zero.
Oh yeah, you can convert an auto engine. But by the time you replace the stressed internals with forged parts from the racing world and add the extra spark plugs and all the this-n-thats to make it work in an airframe you have spent the price of a brand new Lycosarus engine - one already proven reliable.
Click to expand...

Where in the attached article does it say this a auto engine conversion? It sounds like to me that it is an all new engine designed for aviation.

This revolution will not be televised, or even occur if they can't get the total conversion price down to at least near the cost of a new Lycontinental. If it's the same $70-80,000 that the others are, there will be no revolution. People will continue to go same ol', same ol' and buy the extra gas with a fraction of the difference.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I would like to see if the FAA has agreed to their 3,000 hour TBO number. I would be surprised if they did for a brand new engine. It'll probably get there if it's in the market long enough, it just won't be there on day 1.

The EPS does look interesting, though.
Click to expand...

No, in fact it will not have an FAA 3,000 hour TBO. The TBOs are earned through experience in the fleet. Historically they set an arbitrary 600-1000 hour TBO as a starting point and as tear downs, inspections and lack of failure over time occur, the TBO gets raised. This is just the engine designers saying "It ought to go 3000 TBO." based on their judgement only. They always have to say stuff like this just to keep funding going and to create a buzz around the product. It has to be better then the existing product, or nobody even cares.

What TBO it eventually gets blessed with, only time will tell.
 
Dav8or said:
No, in fact it will not have an FAA 3,000 hour TBO. The TBOs are earned through experience in the fleet. Historically they set an arbitrary 600-1000 hour TBO as a starting point and as tear downs, inspections and lack of failure over time occur, the TBO gets raised. This is just the engine designers saying "It ought to go 3000 TBO." based on their judgement only. They always have to say stuff like this just to keep funding going and to create a buzz around the product. It has to be better then the existing product, or nobody even cares.
Click to expand...

Yes, I am very aware of all of that.
 
I wonder why no one is doing a multi fuel fuel engine. I used to have a deuce and half that would run on most anything flammable I could put in it. Contrary to popular belief, you can run Diesel fuel in a low compression spark plug engine.
 
olasek said:
This EPS Graflight V-8 promises something close, it will run on Jet-A, JP-8 or straight diesel.
Click to expand...

That's not even similar, those are all basically the same fuel. The engines I'm talking about would take gasoline, Naptha, kerosene, Diesel, I'd even take our drums of oil change oil, filter it, cut it 50/50 with gasoline and run that, if it didn't like a particular mix, I'd just dump in a quart or two of acetone per 20 gallons and that would fix it right up, same trick if I used Diesel to thin the oil. These were WII engines like the ones we fly on today.
 
Dav8or said:
No, in fact it will not have an FAA 3,000 hour TBO. The TBOs are earned through experience in the fleet. Historically they set an arbitrary 600-1000 hour TBO as a starting point and as tear downs, inspections and lack of failure over time occur, the TBO gets raised. This is just the engine designers saying "It ought to go 3000 TBO." based on their judgement only. They always have to say stuff like this just to keep funding going and to create a buzz around the product. It has to be better then the existing product, or nobody even cares.

What TBO it eventually gets blessed with, only time will tell.
Click to expand...


Ok, but TBO is of minimal consequence for part 91 operators, right? If the engine is in good shape, performing well, and passes inspections for 3000 hrs, who's going to care?

Of course if it actually _does_ remains to be seen.
 
Henning said:
I wonder why no one is doing a multi fuel fuel engine. I used to have a deuce and half that would run on most anything flammable I could put in it. Contrary to popular belief, you can run Diesel fuel in a low compression spark plug engine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but diesel in a piston usually doesn't work great. Factor in altitude considerations, endurance testing, consistent power output, just hard to legally do in a certified plane.
 
Dav8or said:
Where in the attached article does it say this a auto engine conversion? It sounds like to me that it is an all new engine designed for aviation.

This revolution will not be televised, or even occur if they can't get the total conversion price down to at least near the cost of a new Lycontinental. If it's the same $70-80,000 that the others are, there will be no revolution. People will continue to go same ol', same ol' and buy the extra gas with a fraction of the difference.
Click to expand...

You got all that right.

The right plan will involve applying series production efficiency and delivering an engine that can be sold for $50k, firewall-forward. Do that, and they'll sell enough of them for production efficiency to allow profitable operations (he said, hopefully).

Make a hundred grand a pop, and it remains a bit player
 
I may have posted this in here already, but I would think the right approach to fuel delivery in a compression ignition engine for aviation would be the mechanical unit injector as found on the old 2 stroke detroit diesels. Heck, might even make it possible to have two per cylinder.

The centralized high pressure fuel pump on most other diesels seems like a single point failure. Also, air in those HP lines is a bit of a bugger. I am speaking only from old experience, so maybe they've worked all that out.

Another point - since those mechanical unit injector systems have a low pressure rail and fuel is being constantly returned to the tank, would there by some "anti-ice" benefits to warm fuel in leading edge tanks of metal-winged aircraft? Not full FIKI, but maybe some help?

Also, with diesels, I wonder if the engine compression is great enough to essentially be "constant speed" with a fixed pitch prop? After all, isn't the "throttle" on a diesel actually a governor? Maybe that's only the old DD's, too.....

OK, last comment - too bad these guys seemed to have dropped off the map. I like this design and thought it might be even neater with the MUI approach....
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10381231/gemini-100
 
Henning said:
That's not even similar, those are all basically the same fuel.
Click to expand...
But probably more than enough flexibility for someone opening a wallet and looking for aviation fuel for such engine around the world.
 
jhausch said:
I may have posted this in here already, but I would think the right approach to fuel delivery in a compression ignition engine for aviation would be the mechanical unit injector as found on the old 2 stroke detroit diesels. Heck, might even make it possible to have two per cylinder.

The centralized high pressure fuel pump on most other diesels seems like a single point failure. Also, air in those HP lines is a bit of a bugger. I am speaking only from old experience, so maybe they've worked all that out.

Another point - since those mechanical unit injector systems have a low pressure rail and fuel is being constantly returned to the tank, would there by some "anti-ice" benefits to warm fuel in leading edge tanks of metal-winged aircraft? Not full FIKI, but maybe some help?

Also, with diesels, I wonder if the engine compression is great enough to essentially be "constant speed" with a fixed pitch prop? After all, isn't the "throttle" on a diesel actually a governor? Maybe that's only the old DD's, too.....

OK, last comment - too bad these guys seemed to have dropped off the map. I like this design and thought it might be even neater with the MUI approach....
http://www.aviationpros.com/article/10381231/gemini-100
Click to expand...

I've been running big industrial Diesels for over 25 years and had the first set of DDEC engines in a work boat, a part of GM 16-149s 16 cylinders of 149 CI. The company got a great deal on them because others thought as you, but Stewart Stevens and GM promised to keep their techs onboard until we were happy. We had about a month of teething issues but they all got worked out and GO made some mods from what they learned. What we got was engines that made the claimed power, ran smother, didn't smoke, and used nearly 30% less fuel (when you do a lot of close quarters handling at the rig, you're always changing gear forward to reverse, often using a lot of throttle making a lot of black smoke which is straight up wasted fuel, the DEC system wouldn't give it more than it could burn.) I have run tens of thousands of hours an over a million miles on electronic and common rail engines in the years since as well as mechanical injection engines with pump/nozzle units on old GM Jimmies as you describe as well as Bosch and Lucas pumps, and my personal experience says that the electronic systems are more reliable than the mechanical injection systems. The main point about them though is that the electronic systems run much smoother and have more power for the fuel because they can dwell the injection time smoothing the power pulse and not wasting as much fuel. This is what allows them to make these light weight extremely reliable Diesel engines.

Common Rail is the way to do it, and there is no reason it need BA a single point of failure system, in fact, it's much simpler to build a redundant fuel system with common rail, and extremely difficult to do with a mechanical system, and pretty much impossible to do with individual cam driven injection pumps on each cylinder like the old Detroit to which you refer.
 
Henning said:
I've been running big industrial Diesels for over 25 years and had the first set of DDEC engines in a work boat, a part of GM 16-149s 16 cylinders of 149 CI. The company got a great deal on them because others thought as you, but Stewart Stevens and GM promised to keep their techs onboard until we were happy. We had about a month of teething issues but they all got worked out and GO made some mods from what they learned. What we got was engines that made the claimed power, ran smother, didn't smoke, and used nearly 30% less fuel (when you do a lot of close quarters handling at the rig, you're always changing gear forward to reverse, often using a lot of throttle making a lot of black smoke which is straight up wasted fuel, the DEC system wouldn't give it more than it could burn.) I have run tens of thousands of hours an over a million miles on electronic and common rail engines in the years since as well as mechanical injection engines with pump/nozzle units on old GM Jimmies as you describe as well as Bosch and Lucas pumps, and my personal experience says that the electronic systems are more reliable than the mechanical injection systems. The main point about them though is that the electronic systems run much smoother and have more power for the fuel because they can dwell the injection time smoothing the power pulse and not wasting as much fuel. This is what allows them to make these light weight extremely reliable Diesel engines.

Common Rail is the way to do it, and there is no reason it need BA a single point of failure system, in fact, it's much simpler to build a redundant fuel system with common rail, and extremely difficult to do with a mechanical system, and pretty much impossible to do with individual cam driven injection pumps on each cylinder like the old Detroit to which you refer.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Isn't DDEC MUI with solenoid gates on each MUI? DDEC did away with the "rack", but still basically concentrated on rpm governing, right (albeit in a much more sophisticated manner)

The point I was getting at was the cam and MUIs handled the pressurization and injection at each cyl rather than other systems which seem to be more akin to "high pressure timing pumps".
 
jhausch said:
I'm confused. Isn't DDEC MUI with solenoid gates on each MUI? DDEC did away with the "rack", but still basically concentrated on rpm governing, right (albeit in a much more sophisticated manner)

The point I was getting at was the cam and MUIs handled the pressurization and injection at each cyl rather than other systems which seem to be more akin to "high pressure timing pumps".
Click to expand...
I wouldn't want to lose a pump/nozzle combo in a plane, you'd probably have to shut down from the vibration, I've lost them before in boats and it shakes them pretty good, and our engine beds are a hell of a lot tougher than an aircraft mount. With Common Rail, it's very easy to run redundant pumps and electronic nozzles. With individualized cam driven cylinder pumps, this is much more complex, and heavy, than CR.
 
Henning said:
I wouldn't want to lose a pump/nozzle combo in a plane, you'd probably have to shut down from the vibration, I've lost them before in boats and it shakes them pretty good, and our engine beds are a hell of a lot tougher than an aircraft mount. With Common Rail, it's very easy to run redundant pumps and electronic nozzles. With individualized cam driven cylinder pumps, this is much more complex, and heavy, than CR.
Click to expand...

DDEC on the 70' Hatt I ran (12V92) had a button for maneuvering that would shut down 6 cylinders (the solenoids would go to "full spill"). Worked pretty well. I don't see how losing an MUI would be any more vibration than losing spark on a cylinder.

Just to make sure I follow:
MUI - low pressure rail, HP made at the MUI, elec control possible
CR - Hi pressure rail, electronically fired injector
(Other) - single hp pump individually piped to each injector. Not sure how elec control works on these.

Those are the methods currently on the market, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top