A conversion using the SmartCar diesel" www.eco-fly.de/english

courierguy wrote:A conversion using the SmartCar diesel" http://www.eco-fly.de/english

I couldn't open the link but did find this about that. http://www.dieselair.com/2008/03/news-f ... craft.html

Winchester 73 wrote:Are all diesel engines water cooled?

No.

The British Lister Diesel is an aircooled series of stationary engines used all over the world for pumping water and generating electricity. I've owned two of them, 22 hp units. They weighed over six hundred pounds, and generated max power at about 2000 rpm. They stood about 36 inches high and were 30 inches wide and about 24 inches long, with two cylinders. With a monster flywheel / fan, they would idle at about a hundred rpm, so low you could count the power strokes. With an expected life in the tens of thousands of hours, a neat engine, but not what you would want in your plane!

tom

dirtstrip wrote:

courierguy wrote:A conversion using the SmartCar diesel" http://www.eco-fly.de/english

I couldn't open the link but did find this about that. http://www.dieselair.com/2008/03/news-f ... craft.html

Im sure there is more to this story but the words Dual ignition and carburetor don’t belong in a diesel article.

Video of a smart car diesel pusher in a amphibious trike:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nmqrNe3DIc

Two of those Smart diesel conversions could make for an interesting twin design, just saying.

They do have the Mercedes thing (rep) going for them, though I'm sure the company washes their hands of the use in aircraft. No doubt, like most all auto engine conversions, it is only as good as the reduction system and other sub components. The fuel economy sure sounds good, more then a gallon per less then the 912S, more or less, though diesel is higher. But, buying off road/nondyed/not road taxed diesel, would help out there.

I think it's long past time we had a viable diesel option.

Diesels have more compression, which means more forces trying to rip the cylinder off the crankcase, which means a lot more metal in the structure to hold it together, which means higher empty weight / less useful load, which means less take off and climb performance, which means larger wing area, which means a heavier airframe structure, which means more power needed, which means a bigger engine... round and round. This concept is affectionately called "the weight spiral" by airplane designers. It's never as simple as it ought to be.

Also, diesel fuel is a lot heavier than gas, although a lot of that is made up by the extra efficiency of the diesel.

All that being said, because of avgas problems and costs, it is indeed time for the diesel engine to emerge and become a viable airplane option... but there have been smart people trying to do this for a while now. The weight of the (inexpensive) automotive diesels is the barrier. As an amateur's guess, methinks that one solution is to make the crankcase or block out of plastic and carbon, or aluminum with the carbon embedded in it. There have been improvements in the carbon reinforced metal world, as well as high temp resins for plastic engines. Heck if you had to, you could machine an engine block out of Micarta with carbon straps around it in the right places. If and when they start to mass produce aluminum diesels for small/light cars, that might be the game changer.

I could put a Smart diesel in my S-7S tomorrow, couldn't be much tougher then the Subaru install I did on my first S-7, and that worked fine for 1300 trouble free hours. BUT, like the Soob, I'd have a higher empty weight, and more drag as the cowling would have to be "modified". As much as I hate to say it, the pricey little Rotax, backed by the somewhat snobby Rotax organization, does a damn good job. My second 7 cruises about 10 MPH faster and uses about 1 GPH less then the EA-81 Soob conversion. The Soob cost me $5300.00, ready to install/all converted, the Rotax "only" 14 K, as I got it before the price increase! If the Rotax gave it up tomorrow, having said the above, I'd look real hard at the Smart diesel AND the Viking/Honda Fit conversion. It would be kind of hard to wrap my mind around spending nearly 20K on another Rotax! I fully expect to make the 2000 hr TBO on the Rotax, so no worries for a while.

Recently, a friend asked me to look into a company witha new combustion technology. He's interested in investing and asked me wheather the claims were realistic. The engine is refered to as a Scuderi split cycle. The makers claim that it delivers diesel like performance (hi torque at lower RPM).

I looked into it and this seems like it could possibly be a tecknology for aircraaft use. The engine designe claims to be much smaller than a conventional engine for the same (or higher ) amount of HP.

Anyone else heard of this?

http://www.scuderigroup.com/the-scuderi ... le-design/

Oxbushpilot,

I have not heard of this engine but the combining of compressed air and internal combustion is not new. There is an engine that is already through testing called the CAT 34 engine. I saw the car on a 20/20 type news program last year.
http://www.aircarcompressedairtechnolog ... ne-eng.php

When compressed gases, even air, are reused there is a cooling effect as they expand. Putting this compressed air back to use presents problems to be overcome. In the CAT 34 it is pre heated as it is reused in order not to rob the heat from the combustion cycle. Your engine design is different in that it does not send the compressed gases back through combustion but is letting exhaust gas cross over to a different cylinder at the bottom of the power stroke letting the combustion piston return to fire again. That in itself is an efficiency of mechanical motion similar to a two stroke cycle. The exhaust gas is then compressed by the separate piston to a storage tank to be used directly for reverse powering of the compressor side of the engine when the combustion side is off and no fuel is being burned. I wonder how much cooling the expanding gas coming back from the storage tank affects rapid cool down of the engine while in the off mode and only the compressor side is being used. Rapid cool downs with the engine side shut down could present a longevity problem to be overcome.

I like the idea of this engine and it may have potential but the investment history in new engine designs usually end up parting investors from an enormous amount of capital. I speak from having been involved in an engine development with an engine manufacturer footing the bill. (Not my engine.) Even when successful, it takes a lot of time and money and if the economy changes mid project, or fuel costs change, it could make a competing design more attractive. I say this not to discourage anyone from pursuing this design, but only to discourage your friend or you from investing. My advice to him/or you is keep your money and your friend or risk losing both.

My advice for the owner of the engine is to:

1. Protect his intellectual property with a patent.

2. Get the working example up for demonstration.

3. Get an OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) interested so that they provide the engine testing capital/manufacturing/ tooling and the marketing outlet (demand) for the finished product. They have the advantage of scale and being already established which cuts all of these costs.

4. The owner of the engine then is no longer going to be in the engine manufacturing business but now is only marketing his intellectual property right for the right to produce the engine. He then receives payment for that but also includes a sunset clause in the contract that expires after so many years if it they do not produce it. All rights then come back to him that way rather than just selling the right to produce forever.

Look at Delta Hawk, ten years or more and how they have struggled with getting the capital to develop, test, manufacture (with suppliers) and market their engine themselves through the constantly changing economy during that time. With the end in sight for Avgas, it should have been a no brainer to support their diesel but between the wanting and the getting is years of drought that the company must survive. I have come to the conclusion that this part should be left to those with large pockets playing with house money, OEM money.

courierguy wrote:Two of those Smart diesel conversions could make for an interesting twin design, just saying.

They do have the Mercedes thing (rep) going for them, though I'm sure the company washes their hands of the use in aircraft. No doubt, like most all auto engine conversions, it is only as good as the reduction system and other sub components. The fuel economy sure sounds good, more then a gallon per less then the 912S, more or less, though diesel is higher. But, buying off road/nondyed/not road taxed diesel, would help out there.

Actually the off road diesel is dyed red..... Taxed diesel fuel is natural in color.... I think .

Ben.

EZFlap wrote:Diesels have more compression, which means more forces trying to rip the cylinder off the crankcase, which means a lot more metal in the structure to hold it together, which means higher empty weight / less useful load, which means less take off and climb performance, which means larger wing area, which means a heavier airframe structure, which means more power needed, which means a bigger engine... round and round. This concept is affectionately called "the weight spiral" by airplane designers. It's never as simple as it ought to be.

Also, diesel fuel is a lot heavier than gas, although a lot of that is made up by the extra efficiency of the diesel.

All that being said, because of avgas problems and costs, it is indeed time for the diesel engine to emerge and become a viable airplane option... but there have been smart people trying to do this for a while now. The weight of the (inexpensive) automotive diesels is the barrier. As an amateur's guess, methinks that one solution is to make the crankcase or block out of plastic and carbon, or aluminum with the carbon embedded in it. There have been improvements in the carbon reinforced metal world, as well as high temp resins for plastic engines. Heck if you had to, you could machine an engine block out of Micarta with carbon straps around it in the right places. If and when they start to mass produce aluminum diesels for small/light cars, that might be the game changer.

while this is generally true I think the advances in design and manufacturing since GA engines where designed and the new deisels is more then enough to offset the diesel's need to be stronger.

take a look at some of vw's line up

3 cylinder 260-280lbs
1.2 TDI BlueMotion 1,199 cc (73.2 cu in) turbo I3 75 PS (55 kW; 74 hp) @4200 180 N·m (130 lb·ft) @2000

1.4TDI 66 kilowatts (90 PS; 89 bhp) @ 4,000 rpm; 230 newton metres (170 ft·lbf) @ 1,900-2,300 rpm (280lbs)

1.6 TDI 1,595 cc (97.3 cu in) turbo I4 90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp) @4200 230 N·m (170 lb·ft) @1500-2500

1.6 TDI BlueMotion 1,595 cc (97.3 cu in) turbo I4 90 PS (66 kW; 89 hp) @4200 230 N·m (170 lb·ft) @1500-2500

4 cylinder 2.0 R4 16v TDI

125 kilowatts (170 PS; 168 bhp) @ 4,200 rpm; 350 newton metres (258 ft·lbf) @ 1,800-2,500 rpm(IIRC weight is around 360)and I've seen them running the gas aluminum block that saves close to another 60-65 lbs with no durability issues even at INSANE power levels.

5 cylinder 2.5L comes in at 540 pounds but this is full dressed marine version with wet manifolds,heat exchanger etc etc,from experience they arent much heavier then a 4cyl 16 v motor when stripped down.

128 kilowatts (174 PS; 172 bhp) @ 3,500 rpm; 400 newton metres (295 ft·lbf) @ 2,000 rpm is how it comes in the toureg and transporter,but from experience they are WAY underrated from the factory due to EU taxes on hp.I've scene stock toureg's put down crank shaft numbers on a chassis dyno at the wheels


And last but least the 3.0 V6 24v TDI
195 kilowatts (265 PS; 261 bhp) @ 4,200 rpm (65.7kW/l, 89.3PS/l); 550 newton metres (406 ft·lbf) @ 2,000 rpm — Volkswagen Marine

weight is 219 kilograms (483 lb) (automotive), 325 kilograms (717 lb) (Marine)

and again supposed to be underrated,but no firsthand experience other then driving.


now these are almost all auto weights and that includes,ac comp,alt,power steering,emissions stuff,etc etc.I honestly think there is a good chance that these weights could be trimmed down quite a bit.

I just sent a email with a link to this thread to a friend who is a engineer at VAG,he was involved in the marine program and a few of the industrial applications VW produced.While his english isn't the best I hope he will chime in as he is a master of all things VW and modern diesels.

Stol wrote:

courierguy wrote:Two of those Smart diesel conversions could make for an interesting twin design, just saying.

They do have the Mercedes thing (rep) going for them, though I'm sure the company washes their hands of the use in aircraft. No doubt, like most all auto engine conversions, it is only as good as the reduction system and other sub components. The fuel economy sure sounds good, more then a gallon per less then the 912S, more or less, though diesel is higher. But, buying off road/nondyed/not road taxed diesel, would help out there.

Actually the off road diesel is dyed red..... Taxed diesel fuel is natural in color.... I think .

Ben.

Ben, I don't know, as I buy road diesel only. BUT, I was at a place in Idaho Falls the other day that sold reg. diesel, bio-diesel, and non road taxed-off road diesel. All at the same price, which was about 14 cents cheaper then anywhere else. Like an idiot I didn't top the crane off, but only put the 75 bucks the credit card shut offs on. BTW I noticed since, at least where I buy my fuel in Poky, they raised the credit card limit to $100.00, a real sign of the times! I filed (again) this year for the mo-gas I ran through the plane, to get back the road tax, seems only fair!

Speaking of strange pricing structures........

I stopped at my local Smiths grocery that has a fuel station in the parking lot... I scanned my card to get my 10 cents per gallon discount. The pump displayed 3.59 for reg and 3.89 for premium. I push the button that prompts you to elect to receieve the discount and the pump price drops to 3.05 a gal, since I was just filling up my truck instead my usual premium purchase for the plane. Before I started to fill I walked up the the attendants booth and asked. WTF ? For a minute I thought I was on candid camera. She said Smiths has a new ' gimmick' were the discount is now a floating number based on store purchases... Needless to say I quickly filled the truck and when paying the attendant I told her I would be right back to fill my 55 gallon fueling rig I use to add go jiuce to the beast.... Never got back yesterday as I ran out of time, so maybe if the snow holds off today I will try to score some 3.29 a gal premium stuff...

Ben.

Bob wrote:while this is generally true I think the advances in design and manufacturing since GA engines where designed and the new deisels is more then enough to offset the diesel's need to be stronger.

I honestly think there is a good chance that these weights could be trimmed down quite a bit.

I hope you're correct, and I truly would love to be wrong about the weight of automotive diesel airplane conversions.

The Future
I don't mean to burst any bubbles or be the bearer of bad news or anything, butttt the state of Kalefornia in conjunction with the EPA here recently has engaged in a battle with any industry that has anything to do with any equipment that is powered by diesel. They have deemed "diesel particulate matter" as a very dangerous substance. Here is an excerpt from one section of there web page.

"Diesel engines emit a mixture of air pollutants, which are composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter and includes carbon particles or "soot." Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer-causing substances. In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. In addition, diesel soot causes visibility reduction and is a potent global warmer". This diatribe goes on for pages if you've got the patience to continue to read it.

I've been to several CARB workshops over the past couple years and am assured that this too will be coming to a state near you soon compliments of U.S. EPA. We're just going to ruin the Kalifornia economy first. I don't know for a fact but I would bet to get a diesel engine certified for an airplane without a DPF (diesel particulate filter) here in Kali or the U.S.A. will be a major challenge.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/legis/legis.htm

I think it's long past time we had a viable diesel option.

it is indeed time for the diesel engine to emerge and become a viable airplane option...

I am surprised this has not been mentioned yet in this thread-

Maule is/was testing a diesel setup. I am a "fan" of their facebook page and they announced it last week. I just revisited the page, but the comment that they were "testing" the diesel setup is gone...
There was no specific information on the setup. And I can't find anything at the official website.
Perhaps testing did not go too well?

Glidergeek wrote:The Future
I don't mean to burst any bubbles or be the bearer of bad news or anything, butttt the state of Kalefornia in conjunction with the EPA here recently has engaged in a battle with any industry that has anything to do with any equipment that is powered by diesel. They have deemed "diesel particulate matter" as a very dangerous substance. Here is an excerpt from one section of there web page. I suppose part of the appeal of having a diesel under the cowl is that you could pay $.10 less per gallon at the airport and run Jet A.

"Diesel engines emit a mixture of air pollutants, which are composed of gaseous and solid material. The visible emissions in diesel exhaust are known as particulate matter and includes carbon particles or "soot." Diesel exhaust also contains a variety of harmful gases and over 40 other cancer-causing substances. In 1998, California identified diesel PM as a toxic air contaminant based on its potential to cause cancer, premature death, and other health problems. In addition, diesel soot causes visibility reduction and is a potent global warmer". This diatribe goes on for pages if you've got the patience to continue to read it.

I've been to several CARB workshops over the past couple years and am assured that this too will be coming to a state near you soon compliments of U.S. EPA. We're just going to ruin the Kalifornia economy first. I don't know for a fact but I would bet to get a diesel engine certified for an airplane without a DPF (diesel particulate filter) here in Kali or the U.S.A. will be a major challenge.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/legis/legis.htm

I think "diesel" has become a bad word associated with dirty combustion. Few laymen realize that Jet A or "jet fuel!" is just kerosene, a less refined crude product that is for most practical purposes, diesel fuel. Its main characteristic being lower volatility, which prevents autoignition at pressure. Apparently this is desirable for turbine applications. I would like to learn more about that.

Anyway, CARB are the bastards who play the bad guy in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" which can be found on Netflix. No love lost there.

Rob Burson has a newer Dodge diesel pickup. One day he had the ass end pointed into the hangar, running while he unloaded some stuff. Normally, diesel fumes are gagarific, but I smelled NOTHING. It was blown away. Who knows how much the emissions gear to accomplish that weighs, but it was impressive. I am positive that his big ass truck is more economical than my slightly smaller early-model gasoline Tundra (18 mph.)

Zane wrote:I think "diesel" has become a bad word associated with dirty combustion. Few laymen realize that Jet A or "jet fuel!" is just kerosene, a less refined crude product that is for most practical purposes, diesel fuel. Its main characteristic being lower volatility, which prevents autoignition at pressure. Apparently this is desirable for turbine applications. I would like to learn more about that.

Anyway, CARB are the bastards who play the bad guy in the movie "Who Killed the Electric Car?" which can be found on Netflix. No love lost there.

Rob Burson has a newer Dodge diesel pickup. One day he had the ass end pointed into the hangar, running while he unloaded some stuff. Normally, diesel fumes are gagarific, but I smelled NOTHING. It was blown away. Who knows how much the emissions gear to accomplish that weighs, but it was impressive. I am positive that his big ass truck is more economical than my slightly smaller early-model gasoline Tundra (18 mph.)

Just picking up here at Zane's post. Might have missed the point of the OP, but I'll add that we run several Dodge/ Freightliner/ Mercedes Sprinter vans and box trucks, and the fuel economy positively destroys that of our late '90's gas Econoline vans. And I'd have to say that Rob could run one in his hangar with similar results. What imperceptible but insidious effects are there? Beyond me to say, but given the choice I guess I'd still choose fresh air over the end of a tailpipe.