Would you buy a diesel?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Nottingham,UK
Posts: 236
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine management is a real culture shock when you first start flying. When I first learnt to drive, I had a car with a manual choke and a carburettor. It was built in 1980, but even by then it was starting to look archaic. The next car I drove had an automatic choke. The last three cars I've had were fuel injected. Since Honda introuduced the VTEC engine, not one of them has failed.
When I climbed into a PA28 for the first time, it had magnetos (when did a car last have magnetos), a mixture control, a carb that can get iced up in just about every weather situation you get in the UK, used leaded fuel that costs a fortune, and needed maintenance on a scale that made your eyes water. It had the excuse of being 20 years old, but if you were to buy a brand new PA28, it would be exactly the same. Frankly, it's a disgrace. It does the industry a huge disservice to inflict aging and substandard equipment that was abandoned 20-30 years ago by the car manufacturers on consumers.
When I climbed into a PA28 for the first time, it had magnetos (when did a car last have magnetos), a mixture control, a carb that can get iced up in just about every weather situation you get in the UK, used leaded fuel that costs a fortune, and needed maintenance on a scale that made your eyes water. It had the excuse of being 20 years old, but if you were to buy a brand new PA28, it would be exactly the same. Frankly, it's a disgrace. It does the industry a huge disservice to inflict aging and substandard equipment that was abandoned 20-30 years ago by the car manufacturers on consumers.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I climbed into a PA28 for the first time, it had magnetos (when did a car last have magnetos), a mixture control, a carb that can get iced up in just about every weather situation you get in the UK, used leaded fuel that costs a fortune, and needed maintenance on a scale that made your eyes water.
With an aircraft, using magnetos is favouable - I think people who have converted car engines in their A/C retro fit magnetos. They are lighter, more efficient and have lower fail-rates.
As for carbs - have you flown a C172SP? They use direct-injection technology not diss-similar to your Honda.
Carb-icing is something that really P***s me off as well. The A/C Manufacturers know this is an archaic system and are replacing it with a much more eficient component.
My Problem is with FADEC - apart from this I think these Diesel engines are fantastic, who would not want a £6 per hour drive?
WF.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: U.K.
Age: 46
Posts: 3,112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welshflyer,
Are you kidding? Magnetos lighter and more reliable than an electronic ignition system? I don't think so. If they were a better system, why on earth do we not still use them on cars?
Please have a proper look at the modern systems, you will see that apart from rumour and innuendo about computers taking over from pilots, I think you'll find that modern systems, ESPECIALLY FADEC, have made life much better in the commercial world in terms of operability and component life.
There will never be a system fitted that is completely fool proof, but it is extremely unlikely that there won't be any fail safes or redundancies built in.
People usually remove the ecu's from the car engines because there are many different and unnecessary systems in a car compared to an aviation installation, and instead of going to the expense of having an ecu reprogramed they just replace it. This also allows for redundancy, since car ecu's generally don't have any, unlike a similar system that would be specifically designed for an aircraft.
Are you kidding? Magnetos lighter and more reliable than an electronic ignition system? I don't think so. If they were a better system, why on earth do we not still use them on cars?
Please have a proper look at the modern systems, you will see that apart from rumour and innuendo about computers taking over from pilots, I think you'll find that modern systems, ESPECIALLY FADEC, have made life much better in the commercial world in terms of operability and component life.
There will never be a system fitted that is completely fool proof, but it is extremely unlikely that there won't be any fail safes or redundancies built in.
People usually remove the ecu's from the car engines because there are many different and unnecessary systems in a car compared to an aviation installation, and instead of going to the expense of having an ecu reprogramed they just replace it. This also allows for redundancy, since car ecu's generally don't have any, unlike a similar system that would be specifically designed for an aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WF
Cars don't really need the reliability of a magneto - much less a pair of magnetos. Take a look the ignition systems from cars from the last twenty years - lots of moving parts and dependent on the alternator.
This is true but in fact if an ignition system were to be duplicated (which on an aircraft it normally would be) the overall reliability (i.e. the probability of at least one working) goes up astronomically.
The dependency on a single power source is trivial to address: a small backup battery.
Also, car makers have had decades to learn exactly what tends to pack up, and they have been free to address it as necessary, with no certification issues. The only thing which has ever stopped them achieving aerospace reliability levels has been the fact that everything has to be dirt cheap.
I believe that the only reason we still fly this WW2 c**p is not certification or anything like that; it is the Cessna/Piper near-monopoly ensuring there is as little innovation as possible; the utterly conservative U.S. market, with their cheap fuel; pilots have long ago got used to this state of affairs, and anyone entering this field via a flying school (which is just about everybody) has never seen anything better, so they accept it.
Cars don't really need the reliability of a magneto - much less a pair of magnetos. Take a look the ignition systems from cars from the last twenty years - lots of moving parts and dependent on the alternator.
This is true but in fact if an ignition system were to be duplicated (which on an aircraft it normally would be) the overall reliability (i.e. the probability of at least one working) goes up astronomically.
The dependency on a single power source is trivial to address: a small backup battery.
Also, car makers have had decades to learn exactly what tends to pack up, and they have been free to address it as necessary, with no certification issues. The only thing which has ever stopped them achieving aerospace reliability levels has been the fact that everything has to be dirt cheap.
I believe that the only reason we still fly this WW2 c**p is not certification or anything like that; it is the Cessna/Piper near-monopoly ensuring there is as little innovation as possible; the utterly conservative U.S. market, with their cheap fuel; pilots have long ago got used to this state of affairs, and anyone entering this field via a flying school (which is just about everybody) has never seen anything better, so they accept it.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that the only reason we still fly this WW2 c**p is not certification or anything like that; it is the Cessna/Piper near-monopoly ensuring there is as little innovation as possible
Technology is profitable. Most of the adverts when the 172SP was launched made a big thing of the fuel-injection. It sold qite a few aircraft that's for sure!
I think when they get it into their numbskulls that compression-ignition is the way forward, i.e. when people start retrofitting with Thilert engines, they will jump on the band wagon. Cessna and Lycoming are part of the Trexton Cessna company - they will (of course) start fitting their own brand of compression ignition units.
While we're on the trend of ignition systems; dose the 172SP have electronic ignition? I was under the inpression it had a CDI system instead of mags.
WF.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 479 Likes
on
252 Posts
Shortstripper,
All you have to do then is to convince the CAA (and pay them) to approve your red diesel fuel and installation for aviation use and subsequently operate it to their requirements.
P.S. don't forget to tell HM Customs & Excise or they might confiscate and crush your aircraft, like what's recently happened to certain illegally operated cars near where I live... LOL
All you have to do then is to convince the CAA (and pay them) to approve your red diesel fuel and installation for aviation use and subsequently operate it to their requirements.
P.S. don't forget to tell HM Customs & Excise or they might confiscate and crush your aircraft, like what's recently happened to certain illegally operated cars near where I live... LOL
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I used to fly an AA5B until a few weeks ago. It uses 9.5 imp GPH at 75% power giving 120 – 125 k. Six years ago I was purchasing Avgas at 52 ppl, it is now 99 ppl. My AA5 was already costing just under £40 per hour in fuel. If the cost continued to increase over the next six years, which seems likely, I would end up paying £80 + per hour on fuel!
Almost exactly one year ago I started looking at alternatives. Converting the AA to diesel was possible, but the cost was about £40,000! Permit aircraft seemed to offer significant savings, but several very large problems appeared.
Firstly, I tend to get off the beaten track a lot. I soon noticed that very, very few of my common haunts had Jet A1. Almost all had Avgas, and an increasing number had petrol by arrangement.
Secondly, most of the engines did not seem to have been widely tested in the air. I was very unhappy about being somebody’s unpaid test pilot.
The Diesel engines were too heavy for the more modern designs. Even if they did fit, there were c of g and useful load issues.
Questions to PFA Engineering, showed that the Rotax 912 is the most reliable engine in the PFA fleet. My new 912S is arriving in 4 weeks, total cost £8500 inc. vat. It will burn £12 of petrol an hour at 125k in my late 90’s designed composite, which will also de rig to save on hangarage. It think it unlikely petrol will increase too rapidly in cost over the next 10 years, given that the last time they tried it, the country ground to a halt.
A year later, I remain certain I made the right decision. I can count the number of aircraft I have seen flying on diesel power on the fingers of one hand. In perhaps another 5 years or so, the numbers will have increased and the hours flown will be reasonable, but there still remains another problem. Most of the aircraft which will fit diesel engines over this period, will have been designed in the 50’s and 60’s. For diesel engines to come good, people need to design modern airframes around them or their weight needs to reduce, which would solve some of the design problems, but both of these scenarios seem some way off.
Rod1
Almost exactly one year ago I started looking at alternatives. Converting the AA to diesel was possible, but the cost was about £40,000! Permit aircraft seemed to offer significant savings, but several very large problems appeared.
Firstly, I tend to get off the beaten track a lot. I soon noticed that very, very few of my common haunts had Jet A1. Almost all had Avgas, and an increasing number had petrol by arrangement.
Secondly, most of the engines did not seem to have been widely tested in the air. I was very unhappy about being somebody’s unpaid test pilot.
The Diesel engines were too heavy for the more modern designs. Even if they did fit, there were c of g and useful load issues.
Questions to PFA Engineering, showed that the Rotax 912 is the most reliable engine in the PFA fleet. My new 912S is arriving in 4 weeks, total cost £8500 inc. vat. It will burn £12 of petrol an hour at 125k in my late 90’s designed composite, which will also de rig to save on hangarage. It think it unlikely petrol will increase too rapidly in cost over the next 10 years, given that the last time they tried it, the country ground to a halt.
A year later, I remain certain I made the right decision. I can count the number of aircraft I have seen flying on diesel power on the fingers of one hand. In perhaps another 5 years or so, the numbers will have increased and the hours flown will be reasonable, but there still remains another problem. Most of the aircraft which will fit diesel engines over this period, will have been designed in the 50’s and 60’s. For diesel engines to come good, people need to design modern airframes around them or their weight needs to reduce, which would solve some of the design problems, but both of these scenarios seem some way off.
Rod1
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"P.S. don't forget to tell HM Customs & Excise or they might confiscate and crush your aircraft, like what's recently happened to certain illegally operated cars near where I live... LOL"
You may be right? However, the law is quite specific when it comes to using red diesel in cars on the public highway. There is nothing specific in law about its use in aircraft with regard to tax so I think they'd have a hard time trying to nab your aeroplane for using it. The PFA (who would have to seek CAA approval)would have to approve its use for homebuilds I suppose to be properly legal. There is talk of a new experimental category coming in (this is a rumours network) if it does, then diesels in experimental a/c would be OK for sure.
IM
You may be right? However, the law is quite specific when it comes to using red diesel in cars on the public highway. There is nothing specific in law about its use in aircraft with regard to tax so I think they'd have a hard time trying to nab your aeroplane for using it. The PFA (who would have to seek CAA approval)would have to approve its use for homebuilds I suppose to be properly legal. There is talk of a new experimental category coming in (this is a rumours network) if it does, then diesels in experimental a/c would be OK for sure.
IM
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shortstripper
I,m not sure that red diesel is the way to go for your woodern airframe.
The red diesel oil would do a lot of damage if it soaked into the structure.
I have the feeling that Jet A1 would do a lot less damage but I dont know of any turbine engine woodern aircraft so cant be sure if this is a problem.
The red diesel oil would do a lot of damage if it soaked into the structure.
I have the feeling that Jet A1 would do a lot less damage but I dont know of any turbine engine woodern aircraft so cant be sure if this is a problem.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: London
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<The red diesel oil would do a lot of damage if it soaked into the structure.
I have the feeling that Jet A1 would do a lot less damage but I dont know of any turbine engine woodern aircraft so cant be sure if this is a problem.>
De Havilland Vampire?
On the subject of OX for high flight, would the new composite structured a/c lend themselves to pressurised cabins up to FL150?
I have the feeling that Jet A1 would do a lot less damage but I dont know of any turbine engine woodern aircraft so cant be sure if this is a problem.>
De Havilland Vampire?
On the subject of OX for high flight, would the new composite structured a/c lend themselves to pressurised cabins up to FL150?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: South Norfolk, England
Age: 58
Posts: 1,195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dehavilland Venom was wood skinned
I'd hope not to have a fuel leak bad enough to do damage in the first place! There was a Jodel fitted with a Citreon diesel in one of the popular flying mags last year ... or was it PFA mag? ... I can't remember now.
IM
I'd hope not to have a fuel leak bad enough to do damage in the first place! There was a Jodel fitted with a Citreon diesel in one of the popular flying mags last year ... or was it PFA mag? ... I can't remember now.
IM
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Crowthorne
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would I buy an Aero Diesel absolutely.
The better question is why would you fit an Avgas engine.
There is absolutely no advantages, only disadvantages.
On a 200hp Lycoming burning 35/40 ltrs/hour with a
2000hour TBO, the saving is about £60,000 pounds over this period and that's only on the fuel.
Most of the new Diesels will probably go to 3000 TBO, with field experience, even more savings.
Range increases will be 50 to 100% on the same tank size also.
There are 5 Aero Diesels I know off, flying or in development.
SMA, Thielert, Zoche, WAM, Diesel Air, Delta Hawk(USA), Continental (been dropped)
and some French automotive conversions.
Two of these designs have a FADEC, SMA and Thielert and are 4 stroke units the rest are 2 strokes with straight mechanical controllers.
4 stroke is not the way to go, really on any Diesel engine, even cars. The marine industry has been using 2 stroke diesels for at least 70 years. So the SMA, for a newly developed engine is really a stupid way to go.
That's why its over weight, has high harmonics and is difficult to cool, as air cooled. Just looks like a high compression 4 cylinder turboed Lycoming and costs 80,000 dollars.
The best is a direct drive 2 stroke, with external scavenging,(no air goes through the crank case) and liquid cooling.
I think the most promising is the Delta Hawk, these are direct drive, liquid cooled, 90 degree V4 turbo/supercharged, 180 degree phased crank shaft, piston ported, loop scavenged 2 strokes (no valves). Comes in upright, inverted and vertical (for Helicopters) configurations
They are priced between $25,000 to $35,000 dollars.
They have 160/180 and 200HP models. Note Lycoming IO360 costs about $32,000 new.
The 200hp weights in at about the same as a 200hp Lycoming IO360. Also will be certified
As this is a US engine, I think it is the most important,
they have a demonstrator flying and are in a similar position in the development programme as WAM.
The Zoche, German is a radial 2 stroke all above of the Delta but air cooled.
The twin row 8 cylinder 300hp model looks fantastic, very low harmonics, 8 impulses per rev. Small round frontal area, these engines need no electrics what's so ever, uses store compressed air through the supercharger for start up. Can go from start, to full revs in 1 second, so has a preoiler fitted as standard.
The 300hp weights about the same as an IO360.
Trouble is, has been in development for 20 years.
We all know about the WAM, inverted inline 2 stroke uniflow scavenging (exhaust valves in the cylinder head, piston ported inlets) all mechanical, electric start. Comes with electronic engine monitor, not needed for operation.
Only concern on the 200hp 5cyl model gives a long crank shaft, could be a bit twisty
Diesel Air UK, have taken the old 1930s Jumo concept, a 2 stroke,
with two opposed pistons in one cylinder, so requires two geared together crank shafts and only has a supercharger at moment, Piston ported inlet and exhaust, but interesting problems with the fuel injectors and burn patterns. Has two injectors each side of the cylinder to give an even fuel burn.
The 100 hp is a 2 cylinder four piston model. Flying in airships and one aircraft.
The Theilert is a 4 cylinder liquid cooled 4 stroke, (means harmonics).
Has a reduction gear box and harmonic damper.
This has to be changed every 1000 hours cost at least £1000, price of two mags.
I believe they went down this route to slave of all the
development in automotive engines and be faster to market. Which they have been, 70 aircraft flying, so there are at least 80 Diesel air power aircraft operational.
Not the count on one hand as mentioned.
So with Diesels you can say good bye to.
Burnt valves, cracked heads, carb ice, spark plug failures, magneto failures, shock cooling, high engine management work load, leaking fuel pumps, cracked exhaust systems and high overhaul costs, just don't buy an SMA if you want to save money.
So again why would you fit an Avgas engine.
The better question is why would you fit an Avgas engine.
There is absolutely no advantages, only disadvantages.
On a 200hp Lycoming burning 35/40 ltrs/hour with a
2000hour TBO, the saving is about £60,000 pounds over this period and that's only on the fuel.
Most of the new Diesels will probably go to 3000 TBO, with field experience, even more savings.
Range increases will be 50 to 100% on the same tank size also.
There are 5 Aero Diesels I know off, flying or in development.
SMA, Thielert, Zoche, WAM, Diesel Air, Delta Hawk(USA), Continental (been dropped)
and some French automotive conversions.
Two of these designs have a FADEC, SMA and Thielert and are 4 stroke units the rest are 2 strokes with straight mechanical controllers.
4 stroke is not the way to go, really on any Diesel engine, even cars. The marine industry has been using 2 stroke diesels for at least 70 years. So the SMA, for a newly developed engine is really a stupid way to go.
That's why its over weight, has high harmonics and is difficult to cool, as air cooled. Just looks like a high compression 4 cylinder turboed Lycoming and costs 80,000 dollars.
The best is a direct drive 2 stroke, with external scavenging,(no air goes through the crank case) and liquid cooling.
I think the most promising is the Delta Hawk, these are direct drive, liquid cooled, 90 degree V4 turbo/supercharged, 180 degree phased crank shaft, piston ported, loop scavenged 2 strokes (no valves). Comes in upright, inverted and vertical (for Helicopters) configurations
They are priced between $25,000 to $35,000 dollars.
They have 160/180 and 200HP models. Note Lycoming IO360 costs about $32,000 new.
The 200hp weights in at about the same as a 200hp Lycoming IO360. Also will be certified
As this is a US engine, I think it is the most important,
they have a demonstrator flying and are in a similar position in the development programme as WAM.
The Zoche, German is a radial 2 stroke all above of the Delta but air cooled.
The twin row 8 cylinder 300hp model looks fantastic, very low harmonics, 8 impulses per rev. Small round frontal area, these engines need no electrics what's so ever, uses store compressed air through the supercharger for start up. Can go from start, to full revs in 1 second, so has a preoiler fitted as standard.
The 300hp weights about the same as an IO360.
Trouble is, has been in development for 20 years.
We all know about the WAM, inverted inline 2 stroke uniflow scavenging (exhaust valves in the cylinder head, piston ported inlets) all mechanical, electric start. Comes with electronic engine monitor, not needed for operation.
Only concern on the 200hp 5cyl model gives a long crank shaft, could be a bit twisty
Diesel Air UK, have taken the old 1930s Jumo concept, a 2 stroke,
with two opposed pistons in one cylinder, so requires two geared together crank shafts and only has a supercharger at moment, Piston ported inlet and exhaust, but interesting problems with the fuel injectors and burn patterns. Has two injectors each side of the cylinder to give an even fuel burn.
The 100 hp is a 2 cylinder four piston model. Flying in airships and one aircraft.
The Theilert is a 4 cylinder liquid cooled 4 stroke, (means harmonics).
Has a reduction gear box and harmonic damper.
This has to be changed every 1000 hours cost at least £1000, price of two mags.
I believe they went down this route to slave of all the
development in automotive engines and be faster to market. Which they have been, 70 aircraft flying, so there are at least 80 Diesel air power aircraft operational.
Not the count on one hand as mentioned.
So with Diesels you can say good bye to.
Burnt valves, cracked heads, carb ice, spark plug failures, magneto failures, shock cooling, high engine management work load, leaking fuel pumps, cracked exhaust systems and high overhaul costs, just don't buy an SMA if you want to save money.
So again why would you fit an Avgas engine.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that 2-stroke engines are the best kind of engine (blame a motocross enthusiast!) And for diesel (compression ignition) don't need to be the publics perception of belching blue smoke.
Two-strokes with out FADEC excites me - I'm a traditionalist when it comes to "digi drives"
It's supprising to some that the 2-stroke can be really efficient - and less moving parts so greater life.
$25,000 dollars is very reasonable for an engine that's going to cost pennies to run - the Thilert is way too expensive. The WAM is relatavely cheap and is a very viable option for permit machines.
I'm quite excited that there are five manufacturers of compression-ignition engines. Unlike Lycoming, who have the majority of most spark-ignition engines, so many different manufacturers should promote engineering excelence that aviation engines have not had since world war II.
WF.
Two-strokes with out FADEC excites me - I'm a traditionalist when it comes to "digi drives"
It's supprising to some that the 2-stroke can be really efficient - and less moving parts so greater life.
$25,000 dollars is very reasonable for an engine that's going to cost pennies to run - the Thilert is way too expensive. The WAM is relatavely cheap and is a very viable option for permit machines.
I'm quite excited that there are five manufacturers of compression-ignition engines. Unlike Lycoming, who have the majority of most spark-ignition engines, so many different manufacturers should promote engineering excelence that aviation engines have not had since world war II.
WF.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mk. 1 desk at present...
Posts: 365
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GTOTO:
In other words, you're saying the Germans got it right 60 years ago :-)
e.g. http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/tech/2/120.htm
R1
The best is a direct drive 2 stroke, with external scavenging,(no air goes through the crank case) and liquid cooling
e.g. http://www.histomobile.com/histomob/tech/2/120.htm
R1
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Bath
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WelshFlyer
There doesn't seem to be a lot happening on the Jet A front with Lycoming and Continental right now. They seem to be concentrating on MOGAS solutions.
Most airframe manufacturers are working on diesel options though.
I would happily buy a diesel engine for my aeroplane if/when the price and performance were right.
Ian
There doesn't seem to be a lot happening on the Jet A front with Lycoming and Continental right now. They seem to be concentrating on MOGAS solutions.
Most airframe manufacturers are working on diesel options though.
I would happily buy a diesel engine for my aeroplane if/when the price and performance were right.
Ian
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Crowthorne
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes it would appear so on the German Jumos.
In the 50s the Jumo idea was expanded for trains to be 3 cylinders in a triangle with 6 pistons and 3 crankshaft called Deltic class, if I remember correctly.
On two stroke petrol, the marine out board two strokes now directly inject into the cylinders, so no wasted fuel. So really there is no need for 4 stroke petrol either.
History shows large established companies never innovate.
Only play with what they know about and are scared of killing their own markets. When Lycoming & Continental final wake up, it will be to late for them.
Evolution show, a new concept from a start up will come a long and eat them lunch. Look at Cirrus and Cessna.
And the future 20 years out is a product that will be just on the market now, the problem is guess which one's.
In the 50s the Jumo idea was expanded for trains to be 3 cylinders in a triangle with 6 pistons and 3 crankshaft called Deltic class, if I remember correctly.
On two stroke petrol, the marine out board two strokes now directly inject into the cylinders, so no wasted fuel. So really there is no need for 4 stroke petrol either.
History shows large established companies never innovate.
Only play with what they know about and are scared of killing their own markets. When Lycoming & Continental final wake up, it will be to late for them.
Evolution show, a new concept from a start up will come a long and eat them lunch. Look at Cirrus and Cessna.
And the future 20 years out is a product that will be just on the market now, the problem is guess which one's.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,613
Received 479 Likes
on
252 Posts
Commer, an English company who made buses, made their own diesel engine in the 1960s, similar to the Jumo design.
It was a supercharged 2 stroke, 3 cylinder, horizontally opposed piston engine. Each horizontal cylinder had two pistons working in opposition to each other, like two boxing gloves coming together with the combustion space between them (a true "boxer" engine, a bit like a VW Beetle engine, but working inwards on itself).
The two crankshaft were connected together under the crankcase into a common output shaft.
A big advantage of this design is that there is no cylinder head and hence no gasket to fail, critical in a very high compression ratio engine.
Perhaps it will be resurrected again one day.
It was a supercharged 2 stroke, 3 cylinder, horizontally opposed piston engine. Each horizontal cylinder had two pistons working in opposition to each other, like two boxing gloves coming together with the combustion space between them (a true "boxer" engine, a bit like a VW Beetle engine, but working inwards on itself).
The two crankshaft were connected together under the crankcase into a common output shaft.
A big advantage of this design is that there is no cylinder head and hence no gasket to fail, critical in a very high compression ratio engine.
Perhaps it will be resurrected again one day.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: North Wales
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an entry on the Commer in a book I bought at a car boot sale. The book was from the '60s and concentrates on, as the title suggests "2-stroke engine, design and tuning"
Like I said before, two-stroke engines can be very efficient if tuned/engineerd properly.
WF.
Like I said before, two-stroke engines can be very efficient if tuned/engineerd properly.
WF.