V12 Diesel

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,050
Location
Australian
[In fact , it has been done in the real world with a real planes with a old primitive 1,4 diesel and 1,7 auto engines ! http://gazaile2.free.fr/History_of_my_developments.pdf and here:

http://gazaile2.free.fr/englishInformations.pdf
The information in that article is fictitious and dangerously incorrect. I know both the Peugeot TUD3 and TUD5 very well because the TUD3 is famously a "lemon" engine with many failures and was quickly replaced by the TUD5.

I did some of the failure TUD3 failure replacements not in cars, but in Toro golf-course equipment (Toro 3000 Groundmasters). Toros run hydrostatic pump, wheel drive and cutting heads at 2600rpm.

I had to record in the Workplace Health and Safety job book (welcome to Australia) the weights used on the engine lifter and the TUD3 is 108kgs while the TUD5 is 114kgs (drained of water and oil).

The TUD3 is most certainly NOT 80kgs and that is even a tough weight for a 1.4 SI (car) engine to meet let alone a 1980's designed 4 cylinder diesel. Add to that oil, water and radiator/hoses and you are over 120kgs.

I have no more to add to this 'discussion' and wasn't intending to, but post this info in the interest of helping someone who may consider the Peugeot diesel a choice, it's not.
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
The information in that article is fictitious and dangerously incorrect. I know both the Peugeot TUD3 and TUD5 very well because the TUD3 is famously a "lemon" engine with many failures and was quickly replaced by the TUD5.

I did some of the failure TUD3 failure replacements not in cars, but in Toro golf-course equipment (Toro 3000 Groundmasters). Toros run hydrostatic pump, wheel drive and cutting heads at 2600rpm.

I had to record in the Workplace Health and Safety job book (welcome to Australia) the weights used on the engine lifter and the TUD3 is 108kgs while the TUD5 is 114kgs (drained of water and oil).

The TUD3 is most certainly NOT 80kgs and that is even a tough weight for a 1.4 SI (car) engine to meet let alone a 1980's designed 4 cylinder diesel. Add to that oil, water and radiator/hoses and you are over 120kgs.

I have no more to add to this 'discussion' and wasn't intending to, but post this info in the interest of helping someone who may consider the Peugeot diesel a choice, it's not.
Hi Cheapracer, well it seems for once we agree on something! The TUD3 was a bad engine, being notorious for blowing the head gasket ! This was The PSA group´s first atempt to produce a all aluminium diesel engine . The block was too weak and couldn't deal with the loads it was subjected to, being built very similar to its SI brother . It was/is a much hated engine to overhaul because the threads on the block have the habit of striping off when you bolt on the head. My local shop where I do part time work still get one in now and then and hate to work on them, and sometimes even advise just getting a used TUD5 1,5 replacement !
As you correctly state it had short run , and learning from their mistake PSA replaced it with an upgraded version that is a fine engine, the TUD 5 . This was a valuable lesson that served well to avoid future problems with the next generation HDI family of aluminium engines .It was one could say, a "transition" engine, and as you say a lemon
! ( the engine Thielert used had similar issues in its run in Mercedes at the time, so it was also no surprise to me that it failed as it did)

This was also the last engine produced with a simple mechanical indirect injection. In fact it was that simplicity that made the constructor choose it in first place!

Given the choice I would not use that engine my self be it in the air or on in a car ( turned down a cheap offer recently, of a car that was powered by one).

I myself was surprised that it is doing well in the air having reached over a 1000 hours with no problems, but this seems to support my notion that a diesel engine has an easier life on an air plane then in a car, and in spite of the fact that I don't like it, the fact remains that its doing well, (so far) in a few aircraft built and being propelled by it!

As for the weight figures, Wouldn't stake my life on them, since I haven't checked them personally . But the fact remains that French authorities registered the aircraft , and that implies that whatever + or - weight here or there, it met the class/Type it was registered as.

Like it, or not, it also a fact that this aircraft/engine combination has set a new record for a combination of range, speed, and fuel consumption , so whatever I or you, anybody out there might think, its been done, can be done, so for me the question is not if, but how much can we improve on it with newer engines with better power to weight ratios and better fuel figures :gig:

I think a member on HBA is actually building one (Berridos I think) so we will get some first hand info in the future!
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Hi Ross, curious about the SOHC EJ 257 , can you post some more specs, like weight, rpm range !
SOHC EJ long block weighs 188 lbs. My complete powerplant with engine, gearbox, turbo, intercooler and piping, oil cooler, exhaust, alternator, starter, flywheel etc. weighs 306 lbs. With some lighter weight components (aluminum vs. steel), we can get this down to around 290 lbs. The EJ257/ SOHC can make an easy 250hp at 50 inches MAP on pump fuel for takeoff. Stock hp on the DOHC version is around 300hp at around 60-64 inches. The altitude performance is impressive. On the RV7s, we've seen over 200 knots TAS at 8,000 to 12,000 MSL on 40-45 inches and 4500 ish rpm. A new 257 shortblock is around $2500USD. Add the SOHC heads with stainless valves and you should be into the engine for under $5K US.
 
Last edited:

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
In regard to more boost reducing engine life, that is true for most SI engines, not so for Diesels, as they are built from the ground to include those factors so the reliability is built in which explains that they are normally heavier Ltr for Ltr when compared to SI !
I disagree. You'll note that VW marine and industrial versions of their auto diesels derate the hp substantially and the Austro and Centurion (Thielert) aero diesels also keep the hp very low. Me thinks the engineers know more about this than you. If they could keep the hp stock or raise it while retaining reliability and longevity, they would.

Also, with single stage turbocharging, the critical altitude on most aero diesels is pretty low compared to turbo SI engines because of the very high boost the diesel has to run to make decent power. Most diesels are limited by the turbo's N1 limit is this regard.

It's utter nonsense to think that any engine has an easier life on the street than in an aircraft. One look at the average duty cycle will tell you that.
 

RJW

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2011
Messages
708
Location
Wisconsin and Kansas
Who was that guy who wrote pages and pages arguing that an inverted direct drive SBC is the best possible engine arrangement for aero use? Everybody was very patient with him. He kept at it so long that his thoughts eventually became orderly. He became so systematic in fact, that he finally abandoned the idea—just like all the annoying people he was arguing against who were well studied or had actually tried it.

Rob
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Who was that guy who wrote pages and pages arguing that an inverted direct drive SBC is the best possible engine arrangement for aero use? Everybody was very patient with him. He kept at it so long that his thoughts eventually became orderly. He became so systematic in fact, that he finally abandoned the idea—just like all the annoying people he was arguing against who were well studied or had actually tried it.

Rob
Like many of the cast here. Lots of dreamers and not so many doers. Of course we can use an auto diesel in an aircraft- it's been done before numerous times, but it's best to take off the rose colored glasses and look at the actual facts. It's going to be heavier than an SI engine and it will probably burn less fuel. If these facts work on your design- do it. The Pietenpol flew with low powered and grossly heavy Ford Model A engines. It was no performance king but it did fly. A modern turbo diesel will be a lot better than that.

Don't speculate, participate. I am always interested to see any auto conversion- SI or CI and how it performs in the real world.
 

cheapracer

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2013
Messages
6,050
Location
Australian
There you go again, wanting to use facts in a discussion about opinions and desires. :)


BJC
I hope the crazy ideas never stop, I love seeing them and have made a few discoveries myself from the discussions surrounding them as should the OP by looking at different paths that inevitably get suggested - just gets a bit tedious when the OP stands solid ground in the face of facts, both in physics and hands on experience.
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
I hope the crazy ideas never stop, I love seeing them and have made a few discoveries myself from the discussions surrounding them as should the OP by looking at different paths that inevitably get suggested - just gets a bit tedious when the OP stands solid ground in the face of facts, both in physics and hands on experience.
I agree. Once in a while, some legitimate new ideas comes from left field here on HBA. Without dreams and new ideas, nothing new will happen.

More than once, I've also learned some new things myself while researching to rebuttal or comment on some questionable post or topic. :)
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
I hope the crazy ideas never stop, I love seeing them and have made a few discoveries myself from the discussions surrounding them as should the OP by looking at different paths that inevitably get suggested - just gets a bit tedious when the OP stands solid ground in the face of facts, both in physics and hands on experience.
Finally! spoken like a true inventor! Anyone who has had anything to do with inventing or developing anything new knows that one gone idea does not come from a single eureka moment, but it almost always the result of many failed, and sometimes crazy ideas! Tedious indeed when we cherry pick our facts too! But denial and has historically been linked to closed minds, and questioning and challenging the established insanity and transgression....so I suppose I´m stubborn and crazy :gig: So be it ! the future will tell !
 

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
3,749
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Finally! spoken like a true inventor! Anyone who has had anything to do with inventing or developing anything new knows that one gone idea does not come from a single eureka moment, but it almost always the result of many failed, and sometimes crazy ideas! Tedious indeed when we cherry pick our facts too! But denial and has historically been linked to closed minds, and questioning and challenging the established insanity and transgression....so I suppose I´m stubborn and crazy :gig: So be it ! the future will tell !
At that, I'll rest on this one and wait for one of the dreamers to put his ideas into the air so we can all see their opinion turned into fact...
 
Last edited:

BJC

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Messages
11,056
Location
97FL, Florida, USA
I've known two people who made extremely good livings as full-time inventors. Both were creative, but both were firmly grounded in physics and dealt with facts, not fantasy.


BJC
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
At that, I'll rest on this one and wait for one of the dreamers to put his ideas into the air so we can all see their opinion turned into fact...
Hi Ross You are right ! But some have ! And you announced it !

[h=2]Diesel 1.9 TDI in a 172[/h]
OH-XCD Cessna 172 Diesel 1.9 TDI 180 hp Silver Hawk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMMRWOO0bmc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgI4vJZZv48

This is a thread started by YOU !

So we should indeed wait not as you say, "wait for one of the dreamers to put his ideas into the air so we can all see their opinion turned into fact...[/QUOTE]

Or you should change that to ; " wait for MORE of the dreamers to put his ideas into the air so we can all see their opinion turned into fact...[/QUOTE]


Dixit!
 

Kingfisher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2013
Messages
448
Location
Perth, WA, Australia
I disagree. You'll note that VW marine and industrial versions of their auto diesels derate the hp substantially and the Austro and Centurion (Thielert) aero diesels also keep the hp very low. Me thinks the engineers know more about this than you. If they could keep the hp stock or raise it while retaining reliability and longevity, they would.

Also, with single stage turbocharging, the critical altitude on most aero diesels is pretty low compared to turbo SI engines because of the very high boost the diesel has to run to make decent power. Most diesels are limited by the turbo's N1 limit is this regard.

It's utter nonsense to think that any engine has an easier life on the street than in an aircraft. One look at the average duty cycle will tell you that.
Something is wrong here with the quotes, I did not say these things about "built in reliability" on a Diesel. I know Diesel is built heavier because of higher pressures, so it's not necessarily more durable.
 

B100

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
66
Location
Albufeira , Portugal
Hi Kingfisher! You are something is wrong! the words in the quote are Rv6ejguy`s , not mine .

Lol... we all heard of lost in translation, but this seems to be a case of lost in "quotation":gig:
 
Top