Big piston engines
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: UK
Age: 68
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally I like a bit of thread drift when it broadens my knowledge and I too enjoyed the additional information provided here. Ideally I do prefer things when the first post is answered before the drift starts, and I too was interested in what engines are available nowadays, cheers!
Two more engines that come to mind are the radials fitted to Airtractor 401s Pratt & Whitney R-1340 radial and PZL Dromader's ASz-621R , take a look on a google, most impressive beasts to watch spraying.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, OK then.
The only firm that I'm aware of that is/was still producing big pistons is the one evansb mentioned in an earlier post... WSK 'PZL-Kalisz'.
Their engines are licence-manufactured Shvetsov and Ivchenko designs.
I don't know what their current offerings are, though.
The only firm that I'm aware of that is/was still producing big pistons is the one evansb mentioned in an earlier post... WSK 'PZL-Kalisz'.
Their engines are licence-manufactured Shvetsov and Ivchenko designs.
I don't know what their current offerings are, though.
Amazing that the most powerful engine was made by Lycoming and not Wright or Pratt.
Imagine where big pistons would be by now if jets hadn't come along. Based on car development, I guess fuel consumption would be 30% of what it was and I dare say there would have been big improvements in weight and cooling drag, not to mention reliability. Maybe they would all have been two-stroke diesels? And as we complain about modern jets sounding like bland vacuum cleaners, I bet my 'alternative future' big pistons would sound like characterless sewing machines
Imagine where big pistons would be by now if jets hadn't come along. Based on car development, I guess fuel consumption would be 30% of what it was and I dare say there would have been big improvements in weight and cooling drag, not to mention reliability. Maybe they would all have been two-stroke diesels? And as we complain about modern jets sounding like bland vacuum cleaners, I bet my 'alternative future' big pistons would sound like characterless sewing machines
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: 40nm east of BLL
Posts: 151
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The change in todays automobile engines are four valves; DOHC; electronic injection and turbocharging - All details that were in use in WW2 aircraft engines!
As propellars directly demands torque rather than horsepower (wich in difference (just) is a figure for ability to accelerate (the cranckshaft)), the remarkably higher torque at low RPM's as delivered by modern Common Rail turbo-diesels for cars, might have caused development in direction of turbo-diesel aviation engines instead. Actual, I wonder when diesel will take the leap to the sector of private airplanes!
Both Germany and the Soviet Union used diesel engines for the purpose of longer range during WW2: Germany, primarely for the use in (patrolling) flying boats and Soviet with the aim of bombers reaching to Berlin.
Two-stroke diesel might be the choise due to higher liability, but I have the impression that the turbocharged fourstroke diesel might produce higher torque with a remarkable better consumption.
Earlier diesel engines worked without any other input than the fuel and should actual be forcely actuated to shut-down and IMO should this incorporated liability have been a heavy argument for the use of dieselengines in aircrafts long time ago :-/
In difference does modern diesel engines work by electric HP dieselpumps; likely eletric actuated inlet-jets and is fully eletronic supervised, but doesn't show signs of lesser liability for that reason.
As argued for the use in tanks, the lesser flammability of diesel would be more comfortable to have aboard the plane than petrol :-/
As propellars directly demands torque rather than horsepower (wich in difference (just) is a figure for ability to accelerate (the cranckshaft)), the remarkably higher torque at low RPM's as delivered by modern Common Rail turbo-diesels for cars, might have caused development in direction of turbo-diesel aviation engines instead. Actual, I wonder when diesel will take the leap to the sector of private airplanes!
Both Germany and the Soviet Union used diesel engines for the purpose of longer range during WW2: Germany, primarely for the use in (patrolling) flying boats and Soviet with the aim of bombers reaching to Berlin.
Two-stroke diesel might be the choise due to higher liability, but I have the impression that the turbocharged fourstroke diesel might produce higher torque with a remarkable better consumption.
Earlier diesel engines worked without any other input than the fuel and should actual be forcely actuated to shut-down and IMO should this incorporated liability have been a heavy argument for the use of dieselengines in aircrafts long time ago :-/
In difference does modern diesel engines work by electric HP dieselpumps; likely eletric actuated inlet-jets and is fully eletronic supervised, but doesn't show signs of lesser liability for that reason.
As argued for the use in tanks, the lesser flammability of diesel would be more comfortable to have aboard the plane than petrol :-/
