# Suzuki E08A 800cc Two-Cylinder Aluminum Diesel

Discussion in 'GEO / Suzuki' started by daveklingler, Sep 4, 2019.

1. Sep 4, 2019

Joined:
Jan 23, 2013
Messages:
58
20
Location:
Albuquerque
2. Sep 5, 2019

### pwood66889

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Feb 10, 2007
Messages:
1,489
162
Location:
Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
Without a weight given, I doubt there will be much interest here.

3. Sep 5, 2019

### TiPi

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Aug 25, 2019
Messages:
160
155
Location:
Mackay (AUS)
A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.

4. Dec 1, 2019

### wsimpso1

#### Super ModeratorStaff Member

Joined:
Oct 19, 2003
Messages:
6,065
3,351
Location:
Saline Michigan
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: Dec 2, 2019
5. Dec 2, 2019

### sming

#### Member

Joined:
Apr 10, 2019
Messages:
23
10

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.

erkki67 likes this.
6. Dec 17, 2019

### Quiddle

#### New Member

Joined:
Dec 17, 2019
Messages:
1
0
Location:
Dallas, Texas
Yeah without the exact weight, nothing we can do.

7. Dec 18, 2019

### rv7charlie

#### Well-Known Member

Joined:
Nov 17, 2014
Messages:
478
186
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

8. Dec 19, 2019

### sming

#### Member

Joined:
Apr 10, 2019
Messages:
23
10
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 Hephaestus likes this. 9. Dec 19, 2019 ### Toobuilder ### Toobuilder #### Well-Known Member Joined: Jan 20, 2010 Messages: 4,537 Likes Received: 3,383 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. 10. Dec 19, 2019 ### rv7charlie ### rv7charlie #### Well-Known Member Joined: Nov 17, 2014 Messages: 478 Likes Received: 186 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 likes this.
11. Dec 20, 2019

### Erik Snyman

#### Active Member

Joined:
Oct 9, 2019
Messages:
26
4
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.

12. Dec 20, 2019

### Erik Snyman

#### Active Member

Joined:
Oct 9, 2019
Messages:
26
4
Ok, I know. Cert vs. self-do, etc. Not going there.
Erik in Oz.

13. Dec 20, 2019

Joined:
Nov 17, 2014
Messages:
478