Diesel PA28
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Noodle Land !!!!
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel PA28
Working at Elstree today and came across a pa28 with a diesel lump in the front. I was told it was the first one of it's kind as far as he new ? Watched it take off and the thing was so quiet all I could hear was a "woooossshhh" as it climbed out. The owners (Cabair) are in the middle of building another so as they say "the future's bright, the future's diesel".
(it did come back after 10mins due to a warning light coming on)
(it did come back after 10mins due to a warning light coming on)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, all the current diesel engined aircraft get through a lot of warning light lamps.......
I wish the makers tested their engines a bit more before selling them to people. Then I could be optimistic about the technology. No way would I fly any diesel over water or mountains at present.
I wish the makers tested their engines a bit more before selling them to people. Then I could be optimistic about the technology. No way would I fly any diesel over water or mountains at present.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cheap fuel and not much of it but.... the motor weighs 125lb more so scuppers the Warrior as a 3/4 seater, poorer climb rate certainly to 2000 ft (despite a constant speed prop) and cruises 5 kts slower. These are the facts and figures straight from an Oxford based sales team!
Lycoming - still the reliable way forward......
Lycoming - still the reliable way forward......
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Places
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft engines are interesting. in the past 2 decades, aircraft engines have advanced very little or not at all. However, car engines have come a long ways as far as power and effiency in the past 2 decades. For example my Subaru Impreza has a boxer engine in it, Subaru uses the boxer because it began making planes before cars. When they started making cars they already had a good engine from the planes, and since then they have stayed with the boxer style. So essentially I have a modern day aviation engine in my car, but why havnt real aviation engines followed along?
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or more likely, development costs.
A new engine can cost millions to design, get through the rigorous testing and approvals procedure and then market,.
If you are putting it in a car or any other vehicle, more than likely you'll sell millions of them and get a rapid return on you investment.
If you put it in an aeroplane, you might, if you are very lucky, sell a few hundred eac year, and you'll be waiting a very long time to get your money back.
I mentioned this to a freind who was formerly a Lotus bodywork and engine design engineer and is now working on a brand new concept car with a new small but specialist firm.
He was suprised and intrigued that none of the aircraft manufacturers appear have attempted to work with the automotive industry (or vice verca) to reach a compromise, and intends to pass the idea on for further thought.
A new engine can cost millions to design, get through the rigorous testing and approvals procedure and then market,.
If you are putting it in a car or any other vehicle, more than likely you'll sell millions of them and get a rapid return on you investment.
If you put it in an aeroplane, you might, if you are very lucky, sell a few hundred eac year, and you'll be waiting a very long time to get your money back.
I mentioned this to a freind who was formerly a Lotus bodywork and engine design engineer and is now working on a brand new concept car with a new small but specialist firm.
He was suprised and intrigued that none of the aircraft manufacturers appear have attempted to work with the automotive industry (or vice verca) to reach a compromise, and intends to pass the idea on for further thought.
<snip>
For example my Subaru Impreza has a boxer engine in it, Subaru uses the boxer because it began making planes before cars. So essentially I have a modern day aviation engine in my car, but why havnt real aviation engines followed along?
For example my Subaru Impreza has a boxer engine in it, Subaru uses the boxer because it began making planes before cars. So essentially I have a modern day aviation engine in my car, but why havnt real aviation engines followed along?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Ultra conservative American market preventing innovation, basically”
I0540,
The truth is the reputation of diesel engines was destroyed in the U.S. by GM 20 years ago. (If you wish to know more, Google the 350 GM diesel engine) Even today with modern diesel engines so much better than ever, manufactures have, in the largest auto market in the world, a hard time selling just a few thousand nationwide for use in cars.
As not everyone has an artificial price difference between petrol and diesel fuel, and with the added weight of a diesel, and no power advantage, this is really no reason to change from what is working now.
But if you want to make equally cutting comments about the petrol aero engines most of us are forced to use, and ask the very reasonable question; why do the authorities insist we still use 1930’s technology and why do they make it so difficult to update, retrofit or modernize them?, then you’ll find you will have my full support, just as you do about GPS usage.
P.S. I loved your last rant about the CAA; I particularly enjoyed your use of ‘still flying rag winged aircraft’, wonderful stuff!
Captind,
As for Subaru manufacturing aero engines, well Nakajima did do so, but I am not aware of any flat 4 or flat 6 engines, plenty of radials, but they aren’t the same thing. So where this story of Subaru having a “aero engine available so they used it in their cars” came from I don’t know. By the way IMHO “flat” engines and “boxer” engines may look vaguely alike, but once again they are not the same thing. In a true “boxer” 2 pistons come together from opposite directions, in the same cylinder, to form the combustion chamber, and have 2 crankshafts.
Regards,
W.B.
I0540,
The truth is the reputation of diesel engines was destroyed in the U.S. by GM 20 years ago. (If you wish to know more, Google the 350 GM diesel engine) Even today with modern diesel engines so much better than ever, manufactures have, in the largest auto market in the world, a hard time selling just a few thousand nationwide for use in cars.
As not everyone has an artificial price difference between petrol and diesel fuel, and with the added weight of a diesel, and no power advantage, this is really no reason to change from what is working now.
But if you want to make equally cutting comments about the petrol aero engines most of us are forced to use, and ask the very reasonable question; why do the authorities insist we still use 1930’s technology and why do they make it so difficult to update, retrofit or modernize them?, then you’ll find you will have my full support, just as you do about GPS usage.
P.S. I loved your last rant about the CAA; I particularly enjoyed your use of ‘still flying rag winged aircraft’, wonderful stuff!
Captind,
As for Subaru manufacturing aero engines, well Nakajima did do so, but I am not aware of any flat 4 or flat 6 engines, plenty of radials, but they aren’t the same thing. So where this story of Subaru having a “aero engine available so they used it in their cars” came from I don’t know. By the way IMHO “flat” engines and “boxer” engines may look vaguely alike, but once again they are not the same thing. In a true “boxer” 2 pistons come together from opposite directions, in the same cylinder, to form the combustion chamber, and have 2 crankshafts.
Regards,
W.B.
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: UK
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current crop of aviation diesels would be more reliable if they ran on Diesel instead of trying to run them on Kerosene (Jet A1). But then you'd have to pay diesel prices for the fuel and that would negate the cost benefits.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Scotland
Age: 38
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example my Subaru Impreza has a boxer engine in it, Subaru uses the boxer because it began making planes before cars. So essentially I have a modern day aviation engine in my car
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current crop of aviation diesels would be more reliable if they ran on Diesel instead of trying to run them on Kerosene
You may be right; I have no idea.
The debate about car engines in planes is much older than I've been flying. I am not convinced car engines would be reliable in planes. A car engine rarely runs at more than about 30% power. At 75% power most decent cars will go fast enough to land the driver in jail on first offence and few roads are good enough for more than a minute or two of say 140mph. Most of the time the engine is doing say 10-20% power. No wonder they are super reliable. Those that get properly thrashed (rallying, racing) don't last long.
Lycomings are reliable, and are efficient in as much any engine will only deliver the fuel's chemical energy, and if one can run it just after peak EGT that is the best one can get. What Lycos don't have is good thermal design, so they need careful management otherwise one gets cracks... they also suffer from poor QA nowadays.
Diesels in GA stand and fall almost entirely according to fuel taxation. I do long flights into Europe and can see other factors: One can get tax-free AVGAS in most places upon the production of an AOC, levelling the price with Avtur (and any serious operator can get an "AOC" if he wants to). One cannot really get Avgas outside Europe, but avtur is everywhere - this doesn't bother the average Euro PPL who does short burger runs! Spain will sell you tax free Avgas if plane is business owned. Etc.
So the pro-diesel factors are even fewer that one might think.
And given the poor reliability, I can't see why anybody would bother. OK in a twin I suppose.
FADEC on a Lyco would be interesting! A turboprop is THE way to go though.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Places
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wbryce-
Where did you get that information from about the subaru engines? If that is happening, these must be people who mod their engines. Subaru is one of the most reliable vehicles in the US, for 2004 in reliability it was Subaru, then Honda, then Toyota. I'm sorry you must be thinking of another car. Not to mention my mothers 1986 subaru GL is running on the original engine with 535,000 miles and her "newer" subaru a forester with 218,000 miles on her... original engine, all original parts. Do some serious research before posting something like that
Where did you get that information from about the subaru engines? If that is happening, these must be people who mod their engines. Subaru is one of the most reliable vehicles in the US, for 2004 in reliability it was Subaru, then Honda, then Toyota. I'm sorry you must be thinking of another car. Not to mention my mothers 1986 subaru GL is running on the original engine with 535,000 miles and her "newer" subaru a forester with 218,000 miles on her... original engine, all original parts. Do some serious research before posting something like that
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Down at the sharp pointy end, where all the weather is made.
Age: 74
Posts: 1,684
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
A turboprop is THE way to go though.
Dunno about a turboprop in a PA28 - is there one small and light enough, gearbox & all? What would the total cost of ownership per hour look like, the only meaningful figure in my opinion?
Cheers,
The Odd One
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theoddone
Flying in the UK, you would save up most of the HSI cost from the fuel price differential. Is it really £100k? £50k was what I've heard for a PT6.
Smaller engines seem better than a PT6. The Grob 140 uses an Allison (R/Royce) 450hp turbine, and being unpressurised the airframe maintenance costs are far lower. The Extra 500 looks good too.
The purchase prices are high though and I agree about utilisation. But... look at the huge operating costs of a piston twin, over many years, and a single turboprop gives you about 5x the reliability of a piston twin
Flying in the UK, you would save up most of the HSI cost from the fuel price differential. Is it really £100k? £50k was what I've heard for a PT6.
Smaller engines seem better than a PT6. The Grob 140 uses an Allison (R/Royce) 450hp turbine, and being unpressurised the airframe maintenance costs are far lower. The Extra 500 looks good too.
The purchase prices are high though and I agree about utilisation. But... look at the huge operating costs of a piston twin, over many years, and a single turboprop gives you about 5x the reliability of a piston twin
There is no reason that I can think of why you cannot run diesel engines on Jet A1. When I was in the RAF (30 years ago) I used to run the station gliding club in my spare time.
My nextdoor neighbour was a boffin for Esso at Harwell. I asked him to seriously research using Jet A1 in diesel engines. His conclusion was that all we had to do was to add ½% by volume of any old oil, just enough to ensure lubrication of the injector pumps, and that was all we had to do.
We ran tractors, winches and retrieve vehicles on this concoction for years and years without a single murmer.
I wonder if the new aircraft diesel engines are adjusted to do without the "½% by volume" of any old oil requirement?"
PS. Have the CAA forked out for the prop they bent on the diesel PA28 at Shoreham yet?
My nextdoor neighbour was a boffin for Esso at Harwell. I asked him to seriously research using Jet A1 in diesel engines. His conclusion was that all we had to do was to add ½% by volume of any old oil, just enough to ensure lubrication of the injector pumps, and that was all we had to do.
We ran tractors, winches and retrieve vehicles on this concoction for years and years without a single murmer.
I wonder if the new aircraft diesel engines are adjusted to do without the "½% by volume" of any old oil requirement?"
PS. Have the CAA forked out for the prop they bent on the diesel PA28 at Shoreham yet?
Last edited by JW411; 15th Oct 2005 at 12:02.
I am well aware that they run on Jet A1 - that is the whole point.
I was responding to an earlier poster who suggested that they should run them on diesel fuel and stop trying to make them work on Jet A1.
I am merely trying to point out that there is no earthly reason NOT to run them on Jet A1.
I was responding to an earlier poster who suggested that they should run them on diesel fuel and stop trying to make them work on Jet A1.
I am merely trying to point out that there is no earthly reason NOT to run them on Jet A1.