Anyone into aviation and MB diesels should look at this - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

The Warden · #1 07-09-2003, 02:43 PM

My dreams have come true.

For the first time that I know of since World War II, there is serious talk of a production airplane that's powered by a diesel engine. Diamond Star, who built the Katana light airplane, has joined forces with Thielert Aircraft Engines, who took a 1.7 litre Daimler-Benz turbo diesel and retrofitted it for aviation use, and they plan to start selling it in Europe pretty quick, and it sounds like they may bring it over to America next year. They also have retrofit kits available for both Piper Cherokees and Cessna 172's.

At max economical cruise speed (110 knots), the engine burns 3 gallons an hour, which translates roughly into 42 miles to a gallon. In contrast, a Cessna typically gets about 20mpg. Also, this engine'll run on either auto diesel fuel or Jet-A fuel. At WOT, the engine burns 10.7 gallons an hour, which makes for a cruising speed of 181 knots and 19mpg.

Here's the link to the story: http://machinedesign.com/ASP/viewSelectedArticle.asp?strArticleId=55900&strSite=MDSite&Screen=CURRENTISSUE

Gilly · #2 07-09-2003, 03:14 PM

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

Gilly

Thomaspin · #3 07-09-2003, 03:23 PM

Do these things bend con rods at 50k?

R Leo · #4 07-09-2003, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Thomaspin
Do these things bend con rods at 50k?

Only once.

mplafleur · #5 07-09-2003, 05:10 PM

Sorry. This is far too heavy for 135 hp. Deltahawk has a 2-stroke turbo-supercharged diesel that weighs 80 lb less and has 65 more hp.

http://www.deltahawkengines.com/specif00.htm

Teledyne Continental also is developing a 2-stroke diesel, but they aren't close to flying yet.

http://www.tcmlink.com/about/briefs.html

I don't know the weight of the Continental yet...

engatwork · #6 07-09-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Only once

- LOL

Chitownflyer · #7 07-09-2003, 07:37 PM

http://www.zoche.de

Another Diesel aircraft engine design

psfred · #8 07-09-2003, 07:46 PM

Aircraft engines usually operate at a relatively fixed RPM with constant speed props -- 1200 or 2500 (or something close) so that the prop speed plus airframe speed doesn't go supersonic. Should be a prefect match for a diesel engine, not that the horsepower to weight ratio is so high.

Someone used to make an aircraft version of the Chevy 454 aluminum block, too -- 950 or 1000 max horsepower depending on installation, supposedly they were superb.

Anybody for reviving the Napier Nomad?

Peter

nachi11744 · #9 07-09-2003, 09:18 PM

Hello,
Junkers had 2 stroke avation diesels around 1936-37 and throughout the war. This design eventually wound up as the engine for the British Cheiftain tank. IIRC, the Nomad was also a copy of a German wartime design.
Have a good week.

mplafleur · #10 07-09-2003, 11:54 PM

I didn't mention Zoche because I'd given up on him. He's been trying to develop that engine for 20 years. His .com website shut down and he quit coming to Oshkosh. I actually like his design very much, but I think he's turned it into a hobby of his instead of being serious.

I'd heard of the Junkers. Zoche mentions them as well.

As you can see. I like the 2-strokes and hope to put one in my homebuilt.

R Leo · #11 07-10-2003, 08:49 AM

Aircraft diesels sound like a pretty neat idea but for one thing, where would you get fuel? Or would they just go ahead and burn Jet A in them?

Never fly higher than you're willing to fall.
R

mplafleur · #12 07-10-2003, 10:49 AM

They are spec'd for Jet A (JP5) or #2 Diesel.

I wonder how biodiesel would work?

The Warden · #13 07-10-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by mplafleur
I wonder how biodiesel would work?

According to the article, the Centurion's not "approved" for biodiesel.

Maybe with further testing, that would change, though...

Regarding the power levels, psfred hit the nail on the head. In addition, there's a reduction gear set between the engine and the propeller, so torque's multiplied. I believe that the Centurion guys said that the engine can safely replace gas engines rated up to 180 horsepower without much (if any) of a loss in performance.

In WWII, the Russians also had a diesel bomber, but I think that this'll be the first high-production aviation diesel since the end of the war.

psfred · #14 07-10-2003, 11:51 PM

Nachi:

The Germans were working on a four stroke Diesel turbocompound? I thought turbocompounding was a later idea, circa '47-'48 or later. Most people had fits with simple turbos during WWII. I believe that Wright was the only US engine maker to actually sell a turbocompound, a version of the 18 cylinder Double Wasp with three turbines on the crank, used on the SuperConnie and the DC-7C. Lost out to jet engines in 1958.

Certainly the Nomad was a beast -- 12 cylinder horizontally opposed engine, 12:1 foustroke running at 8 atm (117 psi) boost, eight stage axial compressor on the turbo, three stage turbine, produced 3750 hp (I think) with the turbo coupled to the crankshaft and 750 lbs static thrust from the turbo exhaust. Rolls Royce ditched the Deisel part, took the turbocharger, lengthened the shaft, put combustion chambers in it, and sold it as the Avon, and later developed it into the Conway, the first Rolls bypass engine in the 60s.

By 1953 I'd have though the Germans would have "reclaimed" credit for wartime research, they did in everything else.

Peter

R Leo · #15 07-11-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Warden
In WWII, the Russians also had a diesel bomber...

This is true. However, a less well known fact is that the diesel powerplants for the Russian Er-2 aircraft were actually railroad locomotive engines that were installed by, what records uncovered in the post-Soviet era has revealed to be, an accident.

A minor bureaucratic oversight somehow caused the specification sheets for the Er-2 to accidentally become mixed-up with the specifications for a proposed, but never built trans-Siberian rail locomotive.

Because the penalties for making such a mistake were so severe during Stalin's regime, none of the individuals involved would step up to accept responsibility for the confused specifications and, consequently, the aircraft went into the design and engineering phase.

Later interviews with engineers revaled that they were actually quite perpelxed when confronted with the paradox of installing locomotive engines into an aircraft. But they also feared the threat of receiving one-way passes to Siberia, and pressed on with the engineering challenge. Russians, by nature, are a tenacious group and after much effort, successfully met the challenge of integrating the locomotive engines with the Er-2 airframe.

The Er-2 went on to be come one of the most unusual Soviet aircarft of WWII. It was easily recognized by both Axis and Allied forces because of it's distinctive exhaust note which was said to be uncannily similar to that of the EMD 16V-543 .

The Er-2 earned it's rightful place in aviation's record books on it's very first flight. Test pilot Captain Yuri Vladvostniovich managed to keep the cumbersome Er-2 in the skies over Moscow for 96 hours, 22 miuntes and 59.2 seconds when he discovered that not only had the powerplants from a railroad locomotive been installed in the Er-2 but, massive, cast-iron railroad wheels had been placed on the landing gear instead of rubber tires. Whether or not this exchange was a result of severe rubber shortages brought on by the war or, a simple mix-up in the plans will never be known.

Fully aware of the penalties for destroying state property, Vladvostniovich was unwilling to bring the corpulent Er-2 in for a landing knowing that the Er-2's massive iron wheels would leave deep ruts in the tarmac the second he touched down.

More here:http://www.enginehistory.org/

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode