Viking Engines In Aus

[diesel]

The SG of a fuel gives a good indication of the energy. A diesel engine built to a certain standard (light high strength materials ) will always have more mass then an equally exotic petrol engine, as there are higher combustion and compression loads. When the moving parts are heavier there are increased problems ( Dynamic loads) with high revs which is one of the ways of getting high POWER.Cycling high loads spell fatigue in metals eventually. Nev

Actually no so bad.

 

Landrover used the same block and just changed the heads.

 

PSA did as well with minor revamp.

 

A typipical eurodiesel is lighter than a petrol subaru.

 

A diesel subaru goes well but complex and as heavy as an elephant.

 

Lots of people trying with this engine but what they are doing will make tears.

 

 

[facthunter]

A well engineered radial gets over a lot of the flywheel problems for diesels. A few have been built but not cheap or small. None of this done properly will be cheap. Small number of cylinders is always going to be rough when shutting down and idle and hard on any redrive and prop with a compression ignition motor. Heavy flywheels are part of the deal with a diesel. This proposal is not new any more. Aircooled diesels are very noisy and some very developed (direct injection ) petrol engines will run crook fuel and specific fuel consumptions near those of a diesel. ALL reciprocating engines are inclined to be unreliable compared with turbo jet. I'm over adapting other engines and spending a lot of money, on what is always a massive compromise. A "proper " engine needs to be developed for the special purpose of powering an aeroplane and the requirements are rather unique. Light weight makes reliability and cost factors come to the fore. On an out and out sport plane, (aerobatic or Pylon racer) your engine life is extremely low. People have to accept these things, not expect their engines to go 2,000 hours without any work being done on them. You are flying an aeroplane not driving the local golf club mower. Nev

 

 

[Camel]

Actually no so bad.Landrover used the same block and just changed the heads.

PSA did as well with minor revamp.

 

A typipical eurodiesel is lighter than a petrol subaru.

 

A diesel subaru goes well but complex and as heavy as an elephant.

 

Lots of people trying with this engine but what they are doing will make tears.

Thankyou very much and am very interested, the Subaru diesel interest me a lot and have looked at weight, revs and power curve , I realize that it is not ideal without modification of motor or reduction, the weight is a problem and really don't know what you can chuck away to lighten, I don't know anyone who is playing with one but the style of engine is ideal for an aircraft, very interested in your thought and ideas. Thanks in advance. I'm a diesel man for sure but not a test pilot.

 

 

[diesel]

[quote="bexrbetter, post: 593495, member: 8594for your reply Chas, appreciated.

 

Yup, flywheel weight is something people shouldn't muck around with on an auto conversion (petrol can trim a little off), especially diesel. The big fan is not a suitable substitute for a flywheel. I grimace every time I see an auto driveplate only aero engine come to a sudden stop.

 

Not sure what you're saying with the direct drive and not at max torque comments though?

 

Thankyou very much and am very interested, the Subaru diesel interest me a lot and have looked at weight, revs and power curve , I realize that it is not ideal without modification of motor or reduction, the weight is a problem and really don't know what you can chuck away to lighten, I don't know anyone who is playing with one but the style of engine is ideal for an aircraft, very interested in your thought and ideas. Thanks in advance. I'm a diesel man for sure but not a test pilot.

Thankyou very much and am very interested, the Subaru diesel interest me a lot and have looked at weight, revs and power curve , I realize that it is not ideal without modification of motor or reduction, the weight is a problem and really don't know what you can chuck away to lighten, I don't know anyone who is playing with one but the style of engine is ideal for an aircraft, very interested in your thought and ideas. Thanks in advance. I'm a diesel man for sure but not a test pilot.

Thankyou very much and am very interested, the Subaru diesel interest me a lot and have looked at weight, revs and power curve , I realize that it is not ideal without modification of motor or reduction, the weight is a problem and really don't know what you can chuck away to lighten, I don't know anyone who is playing with one but the style of engine is ideal for an aircraft, very interested in your thought and ideas. Thanks in advance. I'm a diesel man for sure but not a test pilot.

I feel very safe flying the diesel. Just solid uncomplicated power.

Torsional vibration is the price we have for having compression. Dont idle the diesel slow.

 

1000 rpm ok but mine best at 1400. Smoother than lycombing. On shutdown kill the air as well as fuel. No air equals no compression.

 

I cruise mine at 3300 which is only mid range.

 

3000 is good. 3800 equals 2750 propeller.

 

A light propeller and full flywheel mass.

 

Intercooler is essential to control charge temps.

 

No engine mod required. You fly OEM.

 

A small oddessy battery starts it fine.

 

Glow then switch off as you hit the starter.

 

Early direct injection hdi can have mechanical pumps put back on.

 

Engineers in France said the old engine is safe for 10,850 hrs flight.

 

Dont get carried away with hp numbers.

 

Duty cycle is the one.

 

Thats how long can it be expected to last at that power.

 

Its not for everyone but if you know diesel you will be fine.

 

Remember corperates stop thinking at five and are not spending their own money.

 

Do your own thinking.

 

Chas

 

 

[jetjr]

Raptor Aircraft plans on using turbo Audi diesel

 

Raptor Aircraft Diesel GT - Audi 3.0L V6 TDI

 

 

[Oscar]

jj: surely you don't believe that this absolute WANK will ever come to fruition?

 

I guess if Bex can produce kits for a two-place aircraft for $10k, then a five-place, pressurised, composite 300 kts master-blaster for $130k is as likely. Also, Santa Claus has got a bar of gold for your sock this Christmas and the theory that the Earth is a globe is comprehensively incorrect.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

jj: surely you don't believe that this absolute WANK will ever come to fruition?

On that we agree 100%. I have said enough about it elsewhere, sickens me the damage they are doing along the way.

 

I guess if Bex can produce kits for a two-place aircraft for $10k

Difference is Oscar I'm hurting no one and taking no one's money, they are and will do damage to the industry. Like the B/S "Synergy" project that took $100K of the public's money.

 

Synergy Aircraft Project

 

If I fail I'm just a harmless "Wank" who provided you with some entertainment.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Well Oscar I would assume that would be US dollars so probably 180-190k would be more realistic for Aus dollars, with that eventually ending up at around 250k aus$ in the long run by the look of what is written on their website. For an experimental build I would say that probably isn't too far off the mark.

 

130k Aus dollars would do a lot of others out of business but I don't think that is what they are claiming.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's always gullible people who let wishful thinking cloud their reason. There's no shortcuts to the fantasy world of the jetsons. The law of gravity applies equally to all projects. Good basic construction, materials and aerodynamics rules. Unless you are going "bloody" fast where things have to be really correct most of what we are relating to was done before and after the last war. You can make just about anything fly if you have more time than sense. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Bex, I give you all credit for not solicitng any punter's money. That's a heap in front of too many out there..

 

 

[bexrbetter]

130k Aus dollars would do a lot of others out of business but I don't think that is what they are claiming.

There's another side to it as I see it, it makes a lot of promise and I see from various angles that this project is not going to fly - successfully in the specified configuration anyway, and the amount of time it will take to get it to a decent relevant spec is, I believe, out of a reasonable development time scope.

 

In the meantime they are taking deposits (Escrow), miniscule money for sure, about 700 of them, most of them would be of crowd funding input waiting to get a T shirt and mug out of it, but a minority would be genuine.

 

The issues for me is, A/ They are taking potential sales away from genuine companies, and B/ When the realisation of failure comes, some of the genuine purchases will feel bitten, merely go buy a Porsche or a fast boat instead and be seriously peeved off at the aircraft industry, and that includes the ones who won't get their T shirts - we all lose, IMO.