kumaros Posted February 16, 2005 Posted February 16, 2005 It is my firm belief that modern common-rail turbo-diesels are inherently suitable for aviation applications. The only problem is that V6 ~ 200HP engines, suitable for a Cozy, tend to be rarer and of course more expensive than the more common, in-line-four-cylinder ~ 100HP ones. Given the plentiful availability in Europe of ~ 100HP common-rail turbo-diesels at prices around EUR 500 (US$ 650) for very low mileage examples, their torque curves flat to around 2800 RPM just like "normal" aviation engines, thus obviating the need for a PSRU, their very low thirst for fuel making up for their slightly higher weight, etc., one could buy three to five engines and never care for major overhauls ever again. Even exchanging engines at let's say 500 hours, it would only cost ~ 1 EUR per hour for an, almost, new engine. Newly acquired engines would go on an airboat for testing and breaking in for ~ 50 hours, then they would go on the aircraft for the next 500 hours, then they would be spares in a crate, should the need arise. Sharing engines with the family car, the owner/pilot/mechanic would build a wealth of experience on the specific engine, its management and its maintenance. A good commercial example would be the Centurion engine, which is based on the Mercedes-Benz A-Class 1.7 liter common-rail turbo-diesel engine, and is already certified. The Diamond line of aircraft use it with excellent results, as evident by the return trip of their light twin, that was exhibited at Oshkosh, from Newfoundland to the Azores over the Atlantic, using something like 60 gallons of fuel. Try doing that with a gas engine of whatever configuration. Other good auto-conversion candidates would be the Isuzu family of engines used by Opel and Saab, the HDI engines used in PSA group cars, the VW TDI engines, etc. A beautiful conversion of an Isuzu engine is used in the Dutch RangeR. It's a pity that I 1) cannot afford a kit-built aircraft, 2) am hopelessly in love with canard designs. I would welcome the opinion of builders more knowledgeable than I, people that would know how to extrapolate similarities and differences between Defiant and Cozy, relative sizes of wings and canards, center of gravity issues etc. An X-Plane simulation would be excellent. Please don't forget that the Defiant is designed with a fuel capacity of 115 gallons, more than double that of the Cozy, and is "beefed-up" to support the two O-320's it is designed for. All this would be unnecessary in a twin diesel push-pull Defiant/Cozy. Kumaros Quote It's all Greek to me
karoliina Posted February 16, 2005 Posted February 16, 2005 Yes, indeed, the Diamond turbodiesel plane is very nice. If money would not be an issue, I think I could buy a brand new Diamond DA-42 Twin Star and be happy. I have been thinking of dual engine Cozy where the engines would be Thielert turbodiesels (the same as used in the Diamond). That is of course easier said than done as it would require the engines placed to the wings instead of back. Anyway, for me, a three to five place Starship with big tanks full of Jet-A1 would be quite much a dream machine. Actually I have been also thinking that three seats plus a mini-toilet would be very nice, I think I will never really need more than three seats. When flying with my partner, the other one of us could pilot the aircraft while the another is in toilet . That way long trips without landing could be feasible, otherwise it is not the need of retanking which limits the endurance but the necessarity to go to pee. Currently our TL-96 Star has more endurance (about 5 hours) than is the frequency of the need to go to toilet. I could prefer traditional twin engine configuration over push-pull configuration because I have a feeling that it might have less drag. I am not completely sure though. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.