Suzuki E08A 800cc Two-Cylinder Aluminum Diesel

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

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Sep 4, 2019 #1

    daveklingler

    daveklingler

    daveklingler

    Well-Known Member

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

    pwood66889

    pwood66889

    pwood66889

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,489
    Likes Received:
    162
    Location:
    Sopchoppy, Florida, USA
    Without a weight given, I doubt there will be much interest here.
     
  3. Sep 5, 2019 #3

    TiPi

    TiPi

    TiPi

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2019
    Messages:
    160
    Likes Received:
    155
    Location:
    Mackay (AUS)
    A figure that I found said 89kg, didn't specify what is included in that weight.
     
  4. Dec 1, 2019 #4

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    wsimpso1

    Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Messages:
    6,065
    Likes Received:
    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 #5

    sming

    sming

    sming

    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2019
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    10
    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.
     
    erkki67 likes this.
  6. Dec 17, 2019 #6

    Quiddle

    Quiddle

    Quiddle

    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2019
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Yeah without the exact weight, nothing we can do.
     
  7. Dec 18, 2019 #7

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    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 #8

    sming

    sming

    sming

    Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2019
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    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 #9

    Toobuilder

    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 #10

    rv7charlie

    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 #11

    Erik Snyman

    Erik Snyman

    Erik Snyman

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    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 #12

    Erik Snyman

    Erik Snyman

    Erik Snyman

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2019
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ok, I know. Cert vs. self-do, etc. Not going there.
    Erik in Oz.
     
  13. Dec 20, 2019 #13

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    rv7charlie

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2014
    Messages:
    478
    Likes Received:
    186
    Location:
    Jackson
    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.
     

Share This Page



arrow_white