Has anyone ever heard of a Diesel engine being used to power an Aircraft of any type?
Diesel Engin used in an Airplane?
- Thread starter Cycle Freak
- Start date
- Status
Next time you are at The Henry Ford Museum, in Dearborn, there is an exhibit of a Diesel Radial Engined, Powered by Packard, Monoplane.
The Russians used a 4 engined, Diesel Powered Bomber, to bomb Berlin, during WWII.
Do a google search on them and it will take a while.
The Russians used a 4 engined, Diesel Powered Bomber, to bomb Berlin, during WWII.
Do a google search on them and it will take a while.
There are modern ones either just certified or under development. The ultimate goal this time is to use Jet A instead of 100LL gasoline. The problem is initial cost, lifespan, overhaul cost and mechanic training. Not that gasoline engines are cheap, just well understood.
I found this at the USAF Museum site;
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng32.htm
At least this is a picture of one.
http://www.wpafb.af.mil/museum/engines/eng32.htm
At least this is a picture of one.
Diesels are the aero engines now and for the future. They don't even have to use diesel fuel. They use about about half the fuel non diesel aero engines use. Check Deltahawk Aero Engines, Zoche, DieselAero-Engines Ltd, Wilksch Airmotive, SMA, Thielert, Detroit Diesel & Textron Lycoming joint development. An SMA SR305-230 powered Cessna 182 flew across the Atlantic averaging 7.5 gallons per hour, 42% lower than the 13 gallons an hour usually used by a gasoline engined equipped C-182.
It makes sense since most aircraft engines turn a constant speed, and at a low RPM. Also, I assume they can simply burn existing Jet Fuel, so the fuel supply is already in place (jeft fuel and diesel are very similar).
I think the major problem with piston aero engines is when you build them with big enough displacement (and # of cylinders) to get a lot of power out of them, reliability begins to suffer, and maintenance/overhaul costs go through the roof.
Look at the guys today who are restoring old 40s/50s era transports, they are spending a fortune overhauling and maintaining the R2800s and R3350s. Turbine engines are much more reliable.
Seems if diesel aero engines become popular, they will be of the smaller 4 and 6 cylinder variety, displacing 600 cubic inches or less. I doubt we'll see any diesel 14 or 18 cylinder radials over 1500 cubic inches.
Look at the guys today who are restoring old 40s/50s era transports, they are spending a fortune overhauling and maintaining the R2800s and R3350s. Turbine engines are much more reliable.
Seems if diesel aero engines become popular, they will be of the smaller 4 and 6 cylinder variety, displacing 600 cubic inches or less. I doubt we'll see any diesel 14 or 18 cylinder radials over 1500 cubic inches.
The prewar German zeppelins used diesel engines. Except for the Hindenburg factor, this was an ideal application for a diesel.
Try this web site http://dieselair.com/2005/06/thielert-sma-and-delta-hawk-same-old.html
diesel in aircraft is alive !!
Diamond Aircraft DA20 Diamond Star Multiengine.
Yeah, you beat me on this one. I think is was a Junkers Jumo 205 design if I am not mistaken. I remember reading about it in an original German engineering schematic that I stumbled upon in a university library once. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the blown-up schematic for the first time. Twelve pistons, six cylinders, two cranks...
John.
The diesel/aero thing all comes down to weight vs. range. The diesel engine weighs more and uses less fuel. At some range, the diesel airplane will weigh less because it carries less fuel to go a given distance than a gasoline airplane.Why diesels have not been more popular for aircraft has primarily been the extra weight of the diesel engine, especially in air cooled form.
The current crop of avgas fueled aviation engines are quite fuel efficient. There are a few models with BSFC numbers a tick below 0.4 pounds fuel per hour, 0.39 to be exact. Most are around 0.41.
Those are better numbers than ANY automotive engine I know of, or any other conventional engine I can think of. Air cooled aircraft engines achieve this due to large displacement, low RPM, high operating temperatures and low friction.
While diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, you may be surprised at the small BSFC differences between gas and diesel aircraft engines.
In fact the engines in the Diamond Star are low powered engines turning high RPM's with a reduction gearbox. This impacts BSFC numbers in a negative way. They also use Jet A, a fuel with about 7% less energy than Diesel #2.
The BSFC numbers of the Thielert are not all that great. What is great about those engines is the turbocharging. It allows high power output at altitude, and therefore competitive cruise speed with a normally aspirated large gasoline engine. However the initial low altitude climb performance and OEI performance suffers.
Nearly every diesel conversion uses a lower powered diesel to replace a non modern, high powered gas engine. In addition, some have less cooling drag due to modifications. I suggest that in many cases, fuel consumption numbers are not truly comparable. I think this because performance numbers do not compare in many cases. In addition, modern turbocharged aircraft engines of any sort always provide better BSFC and cruise fuel burn numbers. They simply fly at higher altitudes.
I like the diesel idea, especially the turbo diesel. But there are many claims "out there" in aviation that clearly fall short. Half the fuel burn is one of them. The number is much more likely to be closer to 20% less.
Please understand, I like the diesel idea. In fact, I am giving some thought to the design and/or construction of a 6 cylinder turbodiesel aircraft engine.
Chris
Those are better numbers than ANY automotive engine I know of, or any other conventional engine I can think of. Air cooled aircraft engines achieve this due to large displacement, low RPM, high operating temperatures and low friction.
While diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines, you may be surprised at the small BSFC differences between gas and diesel aircraft engines.
In fact the engines in the Diamond Star are low powered engines turning high RPM's with a reduction gearbox. This impacts BSFC numbers in a negative way. They also use Jet A, a fuel with about 7% less energy than Diesel #2.
The BSFC numbers of the Thielert are not all that great. What is great about those engines is the turbocharging. It allows high power output at altitude, and therefore competitive cruise speed with a normally aspirated large gasoline engine. However the initial low altitude climb performance and OEI performance suffers.
Nearly every diesel conversion uses a lower powered diesel to replace a non modern, high powered gas engine. In addition, some have less cooling drag due to modifications. I suggest that in many cases, fuel consumption numbers are not truly comparable. I think this because performance numbers do not compare in many cases. In addition, modern turbocharged aircraft engines of any sort always provide better BSFC and cruise fuel burn numbers. They simply fly at higher altitudes.
I like the diesel idea, especially the turbo diesel. But there are many claims "out there" in aviation that clearly fall short. Half the fuel burn is one of them. The number is much more likely to be closer to 20% less.
Please understand, I like the diesel idea. In fact, I am giving some thought to the design and/or construction of a 6 cylinder turbodiesel aircraft engine.
Chris
Last edited:
I read a article in the local paper about a year ago that there was a business in Frederick, MD (which is close to me) that is doing diesel engine retrofit's in small aircraft. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the company though.
Did a little searching online and found the company in Frederick. It's SMA Engines which from what I see on their website is a French company. www.smaengines.com
The British make a diesel engine that takes the opposed piston (two crankshafts, one common combustion chamber) engine design to its next level, the Napier "Deltic" engine. Three crankshafts form the "corners" of this compact and complicated diesel engine. Measured on a horsepower per pound basis this engine configuration is the diesel's highest. The military had applications for this engine and the only one I have actually seen is in New York City Fire Department used to drive a huge pump mounted on a trailer to provide the necessary water volume and pressure to fight high rise fires. I would have liked to have heard it run full tilt.
Didn't the Wright R-3350 turbo compound have very good BSFC?
The idea of the opposed piston diesels is not new. Fairbanks-Morse made large 10 cylinder, 2-stroke opposed piston engines that were used in locomotive and marine propulsion applications, back in WW2.
The idea of the opposed piston diesels is not new. Fairbanks-Morse made large 10 cylinder, 2-stroke opposed piston engines that were used in locomotive and marine propulsion applications, back in WW2.
- Status
Similar threads
