diesel engine microlight pendulum

Transport and new transport: energy, pollution, engine innovations, concept car, hybrid vehicles, prototypes, pollution control, emission standards, tax. not individual transport modes: transport, organization, carsharing or carpooling. Transport without or with less oil.
oiseautempete
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 848
Registration: 19/11/09, 13:24




by oiseautempete » 21/05/10, 00:07

Andre wrote:Go around the airfield and say month what propeller on the Cessna or Piper cherokée Money, Asteck ect ..
the production figures of MaCCauley or Sensenich alone exceeded all the production of the other small craftsmen, manufacturer put together.
Obviously if we talk about Rotax or Jaribu they are all contraindicated with a light propeller.
I tried on a ULM belt driven Subaru ULM engine, a metal propeller of cessna 140 a 1,78 m in diameter the plane was more recognizable when the performances had increased
compared the small carbon.
The adjustable Warp drive carbon propellers do not last a long time on a Lycoming even on the smallest O-235 115hp.

Andre


But I never said the opposite: the propellers you mentioned are mounted on CERTIFIED and AMERICAN planes, apart from American planes there are few in Europe and very few in France (the Cessnas have long been manufactured under license in France (Reims Aviation) and sold in the rest of Europe, but Reims aviation no longer exists for a long time and Apex (Robin) is liquidated, as "big" light aircraft manufacturers, in France only Socata remains and its "TB", and this one survives only because it subcontracts fuselage parts for Airbus, makes military training planes (Epsylon) and business planes with propeller ... he NEW light aircraft is almost dead in Europe, the only ones who sell a little make very high-end ultra-efficient all-carbon machines ... On the other hand, ULM manufacturers are developing, especially in the countries of the former Soviet Union who have a lot of know-how and salaries that are 4x lower than in France ... urs the most common French 3-axis ULM, the Skyranger, is built in Ukraine by former Antonov employees.
As there are a lot of advanced propellers in Europe, we do not need to get supplies in the USA, even the propellers of the new A400M with 4 11000hp engines, are manufactured at RATIER in France (the Russians and the Ukrainians do 15000hp turboprop engines and counter rotating propellers with a performance as staggering as they are noisy (A tu95 flew over my home a few months ago, and although flying visibly at least 10000m, I could hear it very well ... but the consumption of a Tupolev tu95 is almost half that of a B52 with comparable performance and age) ...
Warp drive propellers have a bad reputation in France and do not sell much (a lot of trouble on ULMs (vibrations and blade breakage in flight), not used at all on planes in Europe): those who want quality carbon propellers and despite everything not too expensive, buy Ukrainian propellers and those who want the "top level" for powerful engines (up to 450hp Vedenyev radial), buy German "MT propeller" propellers (high-end variable pitch)

But it is certain that with a very large propeller which turns slowly, the efficiency will be excellent, the limit is often the ground clearance or the engine RPM ... the planes of the First World War had enormous "threshers" , but often very noisy because the speed of sound curled at the end of the blades, suddenly their performance was often very poor, moreover it was by manufacturing a very powerful propeller ("flash" propeller for the SPAD VII of 1917) that 'a certain Marcel Bloch (Marcel Dassault after 1945) began his career as an aircraft manufacturer ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 21/08/10, 00:06

To see and read:

Flying motorcycle: A GSX-R to get laid!

Without knowing it, maybe you are regularly flown over by a GSX-R ??? Do not see in these remarks the consequences of an evening too drunk ... but the discovery of a new life for the famous four-cylinder Suzuki cooled by air and oil, orchestrated by the no less amazing company VIJA Aircraft Engines. Fasten your seatbelts..

Image


http://www.moto-station.com/article9151 ... _air-.html

See also the gigantic fox papa site!

ps: only remains to find a GSXR Diesel : Mrgreen:
0 x
RG
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 16/02/12, 17:40

Do not confuse volume and mass consumption ...




by RG » 19/02/12, 13:33

Hello !
I fully agree with this point of view which is set out here: http://www.forum-ulm-ela-lsa.net/viewto ... =88&t=2426
Diesel engines are certainly more efficient than petrol engines, but not much more. The extra mass of a diesel engine is not sufficiently compensated by the gain in consumption in terms of mass gain. In aeronautics you have to reason with masses, not with volumes. A distinction must be made between liters consumed and kg consumed. The quantity consumed in terms of volume is a decoy, because the densities of the 2 fuels are different! 0,72 for premium fuel, and 0,85 for diesel. In the end we will have burned roughly the same amount of material (especially with the performance of the new small gasoline engines with turbo direct gasoline injection that are arriving in 2012: they will most likely consume the same as diesel ).
Kind regards.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 19/02/12, 14:53

Hi and welcome RG,

a) The forum that you quote is protected in reading:

TO ACCESS ALL THE ITEMS OF THIS FORUM, YOU MUST BE REGISTERED AND CONNECTED


can you copy / paste here the main info you thought about?

b) Your remark is quite judicious (I don't remember if we mentioned it above, the subject being a bit old) but when a diesel engine consumes 5 L (= 5 * 0.85 = 4.25 kg), its petrol equivalent will be more towards 7L (= 7 * 0.74 = 5.18 kg) than towards 4.25 / 0.74 = 5.8L ...

Diesel requires less maintenance and presents less risk of failure in flight due to auto ignition (less true with the new highly electronically injected direct injections, but this is also the case with the new petrol injections ...). .

The risk of fire in the event of an incident / crash is also very greatly reduced with diesel (this was a serious problem with petrol engines used in the navy at the very beginning!)

The price has nothing to do, I believe that some aerodromes sell the 100LL more than 2 € / L? On a diesel ULM you can imagine flying red, right?

The main disadvantages of the diesel engine in aviation are, I think, the overweight of the engine as well as the risks of paraffinisation of the fuel in flight (preheating or maintaining in T ° obligatory) ...

But personally I would feel more secure in a diesel ULM ... than petrol ... (that's the theory because in practice I fly in 2-stroke petrol ULM on paramotor then ...:D :D )
0 x
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264




by chatelot16 » 19/02/12, 15:12

for road vehicles diesel has a big advantage: the efficiency increases at low power ... unlike gasoline whose efficiency drops a lot when the power is reduced

so with car engines in general too powerful and always used at too low power the diesel is much better

for an airplane whose cruising power is at the optimum of the engine there is not this advantage

there are only large diesel which have a really better performance ... too big for ulm

the problem with good diesel is that diesel is injected into the air just at the last moment after compression: combustion is not very fast and it limits the speed of rotation: to turn faster you need tips like combustion chamber ricardo comet which decreases the yield ... or very complicated hdi injection ... more or less reliable ... with combustion chamber in the piston quite expensive in total engine weight, increase in piston weight, therefore proportional increase in weight connecting rods and crankshafts

the only way to approach the performance of large diesel is to make a single cylinder to have the largest cylinder possible: it is good enough for cars without a license with the big teuf teuf which have very interesting performance ... better that some 4 cylinder too small ... but it is impossible to put on an airplane

I sometimes think of a 2-stroke solution, 2 piston oposed in the same cylinder, and with 2 crankshaft rotating in opposite direction to cancel the torsional vibration
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 19/02/12, 15:35

About the start, it is not entirely false but it concerns less the yield than the couple, am I wrong?

To be convinced, see the specific consumption / load / speed curves ...

It is illusory to rely on a diesel with indirect injection to study an ULM engine because it penalizes mass and performance!

I am wrong?
0 x
RG
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 2
Registration: 16/02/12, 17:40




by RG » 19/02/12, 15:59

chatelot16 wrote:I sometimes think of a 2-stroke solution, 2 piston oposed in the same cylinder, and with 2 crankshaft rotating in opposite direction to cancel the torsional vibration

It exists. This is the Gemini: http://www.forum-ulm-ela-lsa.net/viewto ... t=202#p722
Tecnam would have tried it and failed. "too many problems" it seems. It is certainly a case of lack of mastery of technology. The company in question certainly does not have the means for its ambitions. However ...
It is certainly the 2T diesel with direct injection which is the most promising.
0 x
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 19/02/12, 19:18

Hi guys, for flying in Mr. Ballot’s gazebo and wanting to build one.
http://www.aerobuzz.fr/spip.php?article896
I can tell you that it's a great technical solution to fly diesel.
compare the cost of an AX motor at € 300 and a rotax 912 motor at € 15

just making the plane costs less than € 10 t consumes 000L / 2,5km at 100Km / h.
who says better?
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.
Down the talkers and ceiling fans!
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79304
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 11037




by Christophe » 19/02/12, 19:36

antoinet111 wrote:just making the plane costs less than € 10 t consumes 000L / 2,5km at 100Km / h.
who says better?


The Airbus A380 provided it is fully filled ^^

I good?
0 x
User avatar
antoinet111
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 874
Registration: 19/02/06, 18:17
Location: 29 - Landivisiau
x 1




by antoinet111 » 19/02/12, 19:45

no, it cracks! : Mrgreen:

it seems that it is not advised.
0 x
I vote for the writing of concrete post and practicality.

Down the talkers and ceiling fans!

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "New transport: innovations, engines, pollution, technologies, policies, organization ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 184 guests