kumaros

Hoog76, Going back to your original post, which I cursorily replied to before. First of all, no question is stupid, we all learn from each other. As you say, lurking and learning from all these websites of people that have done before us what we are still dreaming of, is an inspiration. As I said in my previous post, the root of your reasoning is sound. While power is important in an aviation engine, torque from low RPMs is essential too, if you want to turn a big, efficient propeller. Gas engines, especially auto-conversions, tend to have peaky torque curves and are thus unable to turn the ideal propeller to the RPMs where they would produce their maximum power. It's like trying to climb a hill in fourth gear. It would help if you'd have an in-flight adjustable prop; that would be like having a gearbox, shifting from take-off pitch to cruise pitch. It's with a fixed pitch prop, however, where diesels come onto their own. Tending to have flat torque curves from 1500 to 3000 RPMs, and peaking in power close to conventional prop turning speeds (like less than 3000 RPM) makes them ideal. What was less than ideal until recently was their weight due to their robust construction, their tendency to knock and vibrate in low RPMs and smoke at high power settings. I went to the URL you gave and saw mostly heavy duty engines from trucks, tractors, earth-moving equipment etc. In my classification of diesel engines: first and second generation of engines. First generation, plain old clunkers. Second generation, turbodiesels, common until about 5 years ago. Third generation, common-rail 4-stroke turbodiesels, currently being used in more than 50% of new cars bought in Europe (the HDI's from PSA, the TDI's from VW, the D4D's from Toyota etc.) Fourth generation, supercharged and turbocharged common-rail 2-stroke turbodiesels, for the time being in development as future aviation engines, or in miniature form used in K-cars in Japan. First and second generation you already know. For some beautiful examples of the third generation go to: http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2041216.002/page/2/lang/eng/mercedes/1.html and from there take a look at the link with the 30 photos of the Mercedes Benz V6. Also: http://www.germancarfans.com/news.cfm/newsid/2041117.004/page/1/lang/eng/volkswagen/1.html Now, to address your point about redundancy using more small diesels, you could take two smaller (like 1,3 to 1,7 liters, producing about 100HP) common-rail turbodiesels and stick them together turning a common or two counter-rotating props, as the brothers Leon have done: http://www.infortel.com/cozy/article_english.htm Daihatsu, a subsidiary of Toyota, has produced some beautiful fourth generation engines. Imagine engines producing a HP per cubic inch (like 50HP from a 40 cubic inch, and 61HP from a 61 cubic inch engine), while burning (in automobile application) less than a gallon per 100km (imagine fuel economy of more than 90 mpg). Take a look at the third one in this engine line-up: http://www.daihatsu.com/motorshow/tokyo02/eco/ As for myself, being in the initial stages of home-building, I can begin building the airframe and keep my options open, waiting to see what is available in two or three years time. Kumaros It's all Greek to me

Hoog, the root of your reasoning is sound, as the future of aviation is in diesels. You seem to forget, however, that the recommended engine for a Cozy is the O or IO-360 Lycoming with about 180 HP. You would need to put together quite a few of your 30 HP diesels to make it work. What I'm planning to do, is use one of the new V6 turbodiesels currently being used in most modern cars in Europe, like the VW 3.0 liters V6, or the Mercedes Benz 3.0 liters V6, etc. In stock form they put out 225 HP at about 4000 RPM. Slightly derated to 205 HP at 2800 RPM they would both make superb aircraft engines. Keep thinking outside the envelope, that's what experimental aviation is for. Kumaros It's all Greek to me

Hi John, as stated at their site, the Bateleur was test-flown by the German "Flieger Magazin" and the results published in their January 2002 issue. The main points of the article, positive + Light, strong construction + STOL, capable of operating out of unimpoved strips + Difficult to stall canard configuration + Reliabe (but expensive) Rotax 912/914 power and negative - Delta Dart derivative, the prototype of which crashed killing the designer - Very expensive at EUR 68.000 ex VAT at 2002 prices (would be something like USD 100.000). I would very much prefer a RangeR by DAC, EUR 40.000, reliable diesel power, cheap fuel. I'm still looking, but will probably end up with an Aerocanard, powered by a Mercedes Benz 3 liters V6 turbodiesel. With friendly greetings Kumaros

No objection from me. I like this layout very much.