V12 Diesel

Discussion in 'Volkswagen' started by gofastclint, Jan 2, 2009.

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes Forum by donating:

  1. Jan 2, 2009 #1

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    The Volkswagon group have released a light weight (for a diesel) V12 that produces 500hp and 738 lb-ft. it is in the Audi Q7 and one of the VW Touareg models.

    Eventually some people will crash these cars and the motors will becomes available on the secondhand market.

    Question is, who will be first to put one in an aircraft and what types of aircraft would best suit this engine?
     
  2. Jan 2, 2009 #2

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA
    Me!!

    Actually V12 is not an accurate term here - they call it a W12, since it resembles two narrow V6s stuck side by side. I want one .....
     
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2009
  3. Jan 2, 2009 #3

    Jman

    Jman

    Jman

    Site Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Pacific NW, USA!
    You mentioned it's relatively lightweight. Do you have any ball park numbers? Thanks.
     
  4. Jan 2, 2009 #4

    DaveK

    DaveK

    DaveK

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    344
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    Northern California
    The VW V10 diesel is aluminum block and head with a cast iron "bearing tunnel" thing supporting the crankshaft at the bottom. So for a diesel it is very lightweight, somewhere in the 400lbs range if I remember correctly. I haven't seen anything about a W12 diesel. 400-450lbs for 350hp isn't too bad.
     
  5. Jan 2, 2009 #5

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    Indiana
  6. Jan 3, 2009 #6

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia

    the W series of engines are the petrol engines, this ones a genuin V12.
     

    Attached Files:

  7. Jan 3, 2009 #7

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    around 240kg
     
  8. Jan 3, 2009 #8

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA

    I stand (sit) corrected. I still want the Diesel.
     
  9. Jan 3, 2009 #9

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Midniteoyl

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2003
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    501
    Location:
    Indiana
    530 pounds is quite a bit.. is that as pictured above??
     
  10. Jan 3, 2009 #10

    addaon

    addaon

    addaon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,686
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    1 lb/hp is quite good for a diesel, even in this high power range.
     
  11. Jan 3, 2009 #11

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Not sure, but that figure was thrown around on some forums. Apparently the race versions long block weighs 201kg (5.5L), the new engine shares the same construction basics as the race engine and i cant imagine just the basic accesories weighing too much. being the smart weight saving aero people that we are i bet the accessories could be custom built lighter, for example, centrifugal superchargers are alot lighter than turbo systems.
     
  12. Jan 3, 2009 #12

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    oh the joys of diesel, more than twice the engine life, great ecconomy and they can run on jet fuel, eliminating the whole ethanol debate.
    The perfect "take it easy" engine.
     
  13. Jan 3, 2009 #13

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA
    I love Diesels, but I doubt this one will see "twice the engine life" - it's all a function of how highly stressed an engine is and this one seems pretty much up there. Still, that would be a great engine on a fast, long range airplane where the saving in fuel weight makes up for any extra engine weight. And even with the addition of a propeller drive , that would not be a particularly objectionable weight for that power.
     
  14. Jan 3, 2009 #14

    jumpinjan

    jumpinjan

    jumpinjan

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    6
    Location:
    Dayton OH
    Redline = 4500rpm
    HP=500
    Torque = 583.5 lb-ft
    That's what I get; Not 738lb-ft
    Jan (Too good to be true)
    (Or its a flat torque of 738lb-ft, in the range of 1750-3250rpm; That range gives 245-456HP. I just don't understand how they get that fabulous performance?)
     
    Last edited: Jan 3, 2009
  15. Jan 4, 2009 #15

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    gofastclint

    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2008
    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    I don't understand manufactures claims of torque and power. Arm't they both linked by rpm. Quite possible that the marketing department and the engineers don't chat on these finer details.

    Someone once told me that Torque was and motors ability to maintain rpm under load. Is this true?
     
  16. Jan 4, 2009 #16

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA
    It's really quite simple - Torque, power and rpm are all linked :

    (Torque x RPM) / 5,252 = Horsepower

    You can re-write the equation any way you want, but in essence what it means that an engine that can produce , let's say, 100 hp at 2500 rpm has twice the torque of an engine that produces 100hp at 5000 rpm. They both produce the same power, will use the same amount of fuel and are capable of performing the same work.
     
  17. Jan 4, 2009 #17

    addaon

    addaon

    addaon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,686
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Caveats apply to the "same amount of fuel", of course.
     
  18. Jan 4, 2009 #18

    Jman

    Jman

    Jman

    Site Developer

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    1,881
    Likes Received:
    58
    Location:
    Pacific NW, USA!
    Does anyone have a Torque or HP curve for this engine?

    Also, what attributes are required in an engine that makes it's peak HP at direct drive RPMs vs. an engine that makes it's HP at much higher RPMs, like most Automotive engines? Is it just a matter of stroke length and bore size? Or is there more to it than that?
     
  19. Jan 4, 2009 #19

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    PTAirco

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,501
    Likes Received:
    1,013
    Location:
    Corona CA

    Well, yes, you could argue about that - a high RPM engine ought to see more frictional losses and some other factors come into it, but the bottom line is; making one HP for one hour will swallow about 0.45lbs of fuel (for gasoline engines) and about 0.35-0.4 for Diesels. If you look at the SFC figures for various engines since the dawn of time, it is amazing how little this figure has changed. The Wright 3350 from the late 40's is still one of the one most efficient gasoline engines (0.36lbs/hp/hr), and nobody has yet beaten the Napier Nomad ((0.34lbs/hp/hr) for Diesels. (Marine Diesels are differnet story - 0.24 has been achieved with some!)

    Every fraction of a percent of increase in efficiency since then has been hard fought for and it astounds me that once you strip off all the glitz and fancy computer stuff of modern engines the engine is underneath is really only a marginal improvement over 1940's technology.
     
  20. Jan 4, 2009 #20

    addaon

    addaon

    addaon

    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,686
    Likes Received:
    101
    Location:
    San Jose, CA
    Agreed. Just wanted to clarify, since your other equivalences were by definition, but the fuel usage one is based on similar (which, as you mention, is quite common!) efficiencies.
     

Share This Page

Group Builder
arrow_white