Suzuki E08A 800cc Two-Cylinder Aluminum Diesel

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

TiPi

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2019
Messages
289
Location
Mackay (AUS)
A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.
 

wsimpso1

Super Moderator
Staff member
Log Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2003
Messages
6,778
Location
Saline Michigan
A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.
35 kW out of 89 kg is 47 hp and 196 lb. At 4 lb/hp, that is very heavy for the power. You can probably shave pounds with tube manifolds and a straight flywheel (sounds like they use a dual mass flywheel} but it is not like you will halve its weight. Then you most likely will still need to come up with a different turbo, different intercooler, different radiator, oil cooler and ducting all appropriate for the flight mission. It is not sounding like a decent starting point for an airplane engine to me.
 
Last edited:

sming

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
67
20191129_164545.jpg
Dang, last friday i went flying behind a not decent 350 lbs 80cv engine! Funny how I totally did not notice.
53cv for 100kg is the firewall-forward weight of the psa tu3d used in the next version of this airplane. It's 100% built with your mantra, WEIGHT IS THE ENEMY (so you can fly with a very economic boat anchor. Aircraft is 280kg empty, do the math without the engine ;) The fuel tank is about 10 gallons! Still fly 4-5 hours at 120 kts...)
Sorry for the snark... but yes diesel engines are heavy but you can fly with one just fine in the right, light and clean, airframe.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
668
Location
Jackson
sming,

Could you share with us barbarians what an '80cv engine' is? And what 53cv is, in barbarian terms? And the relationship that seems to be referenced between 350 lbs and 100kg?

Thanks,

Charlie
 

sming

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2019
Messages
67
Sorry, not used to imperial units. "cv" is "HP".
The picture I posted was taken from the Dieselis prototype F-PTDI cockpit, it's a wooden airplane powered by a ISUZU turbo diesel 1.5L of about 80HP and it weight around 350 lbs.
From this experience, the designer built another airplane with a smaller and lighter diesel engine, the PSA TU3D. This engine (fully wet with belt redrive) weight around 220 lbs and put out 53 HP.
All the informations here: http://gazaile2.free.fr/englishInformations.pdf
Nowadays, with all the small diesel engines available on our side of the pond, the latest trend is using the PSA-Ford DV6C for a 100 HP / 230 lbs engine package...

So yes, here in Europe, since we don't have cheap avgas (8.78$/gal...), like we drive small diesel cars, we fly small diesel airplanes ;)
 

Toobuilder

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
4,758
Location
Mojave, Ca
And that level of economic restriction is what drives some segment of the population to accept a powerplant with .25 HP/pound. Clearly, it can be flown, as that's the power density of the OX-5, but from our American perspective of cheap, readily available Avgas and a wide selection of dedicated aircraft engines, it's a bit of a rough sell to step back 100 years in performance.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
668
Location
Jackson
Thanks for the additional info; makes sense.

Toolbuilder,
While we're never going to try something like that in our RV-derivatives, it's great to see real world examples of stuff like this flying successfully. There are still guys building Ford Model A powered Pietenpols, so installing a small heavy diesel isn't total nonsense. For a low&slow flyer, if I could fly at Kolb/Cub speed on half the fuel burn of a Rotax 582, why would I care what the plane (or engine) weighed? Especially if I could do it for the price of a couple of a/c engine cylinders. There's cost, and then there's *value*. Cub style flying is fun, but it doesn't have $100K -$200K of *value* to me. But a 'second airplane' for a few thousand $ might make a lot of sense.

Charlie
 

Erik Snyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
55
Thanks for the additional info; makes sense.

Toolbuilder,
While we're never going to try something like that in our RV-derivatives, it's great to see real world examples of stuff like this flying successfully. There are still guys building Ford Model A powered Pietenpols, so installing a small heavy diesel isn't total nonsense. For a low&slow flyer, if I could fly at Kolb/Cub speed on half the fuel burn of a Rotax 582, why would I care what the plane (or engine) weighed? Especially if I could do it for the price of a couple of a/c engine cylinders. There's cost, and then there's *value*. Cub style flying is fun, but it doesn't have $100K -$200K of *value* to me. But a 'second airplane' for a few thousand $ might make a lot of sense.

Charlie
And that, sir, should still be one of the MAINSTAYS of experimental, cheap flying. Ultralights costing $100k+ with leather, etc. does not tickle me. I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.
 

Erik Snyman

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
55
And that, sir, should still be one of the MAINSTAYS of experimental, cheap flying. Ultralights costing $100k+ with leather, etc. does not tickle me. I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.
Ok, I know. Cert vs. self-do, etc. Not going there.
Erik in Oz.
 

rv7charlie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2014
Messages
668
Location
Jackson
[snip]I can buy 3 fairly decent C172`s for the price of 1 slightly used RV.
Wellll,
I think you need to be more specific. If you're comparing a 50+ year old 105 kt 172 with a 1700smoh O300 to a 3 year old 170 kt RV10 with a 300snew Lyc, then probably so.

If you're comparing a decade or two old 172 to a 20 year old RV4 (admittedly with lower payload, but still with the real-world same number of seats), then you might find it cheaper to buy the RV4. I know I did. Twice.
 

daveklingler

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
101
Location
Albuquerque
A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.
That doesn't seem to match Suzuki's news release, although "lightweight" could just be a relative term. :)

Do you happen to remember where you found the 89kg figure?
 

sotaro

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2011
Messages
135
Location
San Francisco
I found it is a 4 valve per cylinder, aluminum block and head and 15:1 compression ratio and it has an intercooler. Sounds nice...
 
Top