Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

Forums: 

From: Bryan Burr <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 09:56:17 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>


This would be a great engine installation for the ES and Legacy if it
fits under the cowling.  Does anyone
know if Thielert will sell to the open market (non O.E.M.)
and what the pricing would be?

 

As per the Theirlert Web Site:

 

“The Centurion 4.0 was certified by the EASA for the installation
in the Cirrus SR 22 on February
12, 2007 already. The certification of the 4.0 for the Cessna 206
is expected in the next days. These two certifications will open the market for
deliveries of the 4.0 engine.”

 

Aero
News.Net reports

“Thielert states it has worked with Cirrus
Design since mid-2005 to adapt the Centurion 4.0 to the SR-series. The STC is
valid for all European SR22s.

According
to Thielert, the 4.0-liter diesel V8 generates 310 bhp, and provides 698 ft.lb of
torque to the propeller. The engine sports single- lever throttle control, and
a fully electronic engine and propeller management system (FADEC). Common rail
technology, direct injection, turbo charging, liquid cooling and reduction
gearing round out the engine's advanced features.

Type-certified
by EASA in November 2004, the Jet-A-burning Centurion 4.0 is comparable to a
Continental TSIO-550-B in horsepower (350) and torque (680 lb/ft), but offers
considerably better fuel economy.

While
Cirrus remains mum on any plans to offer a diesel in its aircraft, it isn't
tough to see the significance here. After all... the mere possibility of a
future diesel engine option in the world's best-selling GA aircraft would
go a long way towards validating the technology.

 

 

Bryan J. Burr

N132BB

Lancair Super ES

Legacy under construction

 


Image


image001.jpg

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Kyrilian Dyer <kyrilian_av [at] yahoo.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:29:11 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Prices can be found at their website http://www.centurion-engines.com/
It indicates the Centurion 4.0 is 64,800 EUR (about $86K) and puts out 350 hp--a more direct replacement for the TSIO-550 than the IO in cost and performance.

Bryan Burr <bjburr [at] mwheli.com> wrote:


This would be a great engine installation for the ES and Legacy if it fits under the cowling.  Does anyone know if Thielert will sell to the open market (non O.E.M.) and what the pricing would be?

 


Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Craig Berland <cberland [at] systems3.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 11:29:50 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Bryan J. Burr
wrote:

This would be a great engine installation for the ES and
Legacy if it fits under the cowling. 
Does anyone know if Thielert will sell to the
open market (non O.E.M.) and what the pricing would be? 

 

As per the Theirlert Web
Site:

 

“The Centurion 4.0 was certified by the EASA for the
installation in the Cirrus SR 22 on February 12, 2007 already. The certification of the 4.0 for
the Cessna 206 is expected in the next days. These two certifications will open
the market for deliveries of the 4.0 engine.” 

 

Bryan, I can't find any reference to BSFC on the Thielert web site. 
My experience with diesel engines was they are not significantly better
than .38 BSFC and they are always heavier than a comparable gas engine for a
given power output.  Now there have been some significant diesel engine
improvements in the last few years.  A friend of mine has been working
intake ports on a diesel engine and he has flow rates very high with valve lifts
near one inch.  When you go to direct injection and no pre-chamber, the C/R
can go down and these big valve lifts are possible.  Add a couple of
big turbos and maybe you have something.  My intuition is, the main
advantage is that it can burn Jet A fuel.  If the airliners get their
way, gas engines will pay the FAA bill.

Craig Berland 

 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Bryan Burr <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:24:18 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message




Other advantages should be longer overhaul
periods, FADEC already incorporated, elimination of cooling problems, possibly run
on Jet A, Diesel 1 and 2, elimination of magneto ignition and 500 hour
overhaul.

 


Bryan

N132BB

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lancair Mailing List
[lml [at] lancaironline.net]">mailto:lml [at] lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Craig
Berland

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Thielert Diesel
Centurion 4.0

 

Bryan J. Burr wrote:

This would be a great engine installation for the ES
and Legacy if it fits under the cowling. 
Does anyone know if Thielert will sell to the open market (non O.E.M.)
and what the pricing would be? 

As per the Theirlert Web Site:

“The Centurion 4.0 was certified by the EASA for
the installation in the Cirrus SR 22 on February 12, 2007 already. The certification of
the 4.0 for the Cessna 206 is expected in the next days. These two
certifications will open the market for deliveries of the 4.0 engine.” 

 


Bryan, I can't find any reference to BSFC on the Thielert web
site.  My experience with diesel engines was they are not
significantly better than .38 BSFC and they are always heavier than a
comparable gas engine for a given power output.  Now there have been some
significant diesel engine improvements in the last few years.  A friend of
mine has been working intake ports on a diesel engine and he has flow rates
very high with valve lifts near one inch.  When you go to direct injection
and no pre-chamber, the C/R can go down and these big valve lifts are
possible.  Add a couple of big turbos and maybe you have something. 
My intuition is, the main advantage is that it can burn Jet A fuel.  If
the airliners get their way, gas engines will pay the FAA bill.

Craig Berland 

 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: colyncase on earthlink <colyncase [at] earthlink.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:24:55 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
a more direct replacement for the TSIO-550 than the IO in cost and
performance.
 
What is the power output at 25,000 feet?  The twinstar review I read
suggested that the power starts to seriously roll off in the mid-teens, which I
would call more "IO" like.   I wonder how the pressurization setup
would work with that installation?
 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: T Brand <tbrandetc [at] hotmail.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:25:43 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Talked with a representative about purchasing/ installing one of their engines in my Lancair 320 kit.  Was told they would not sell to any but the aircraft manufacturers who engineered their  whole plane to work with their diesel engines, ie insturments, fuel, electronics.




Tom Brand



The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Bill Wade <dhc1 [at] gwi.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:25:52 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
  There is a spec sheet that can be
downloaded. If you go to the tech data page for the 4.0 then "download the data
as PDF" the result contains graphs of the power curve, HP and SFC. If you click
on "Features" for the 4.0 the website pulls up a description of the
2.0, which threw me at first. Under "Prices" it does state that the 4.0 is
twin turbocharged.  -Bill Wade
 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: George Braly <gwbraly [at] gami.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:07:15 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message



Craig,

 

There is “another whole issue” 
with diesel engines .

 

One that NOBODY has discussed in
public.  It is so “silent” that it almost appears that to
bring up the subject may be  like breaking wind in church.

 

So… here goes - - you heard it here
- - first.

 

The diesel exhaust is cooler.   Is
THAT a problem?   No.  But lets think a little further.

 

Why?  

 

Because the CR is much higher.  So
the exhaust expansion is more.   OK….

 

But if the CR is much higher then - - so
is the peak internal cylinder pressure.

 

OK… but that means that the bulk
internal combustion gas temperatures are a lot higher.

 

And that means that you get a LOT more BTU’s
transferred into the cylinder head.

 

And, as everybody with some diesel
experience is aware - - they tend - - as a result to use rather large radiators.

 

Because that heat  has to be
dissipated - - - some way.

 

HOW ?   Either through air
cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiator.

 

EITHER WAY  - - -  you end up
with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around 0.36 to 0.37  (compared to
0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark ignition engine ) .

 

However - - whatever fuel efficiency is
realized - - - is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET  by the additional
cooling  drag requirements.

 

End result - - - it likely takes more
pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to get you the same
air speed.

 

Regards,  George

 

 

 

 

From: Lancair Mailing
List [lml [at] lancaironline.net]">mailto:lml [at] lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of Craig Berland

Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007
10:30 AM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Thielert Diesel
Centurion 4.0

 

Bryan J. Burr wrote:

This would be a great engine installation for the ES and Legacy if it
fits under the cowling.  Does anyone know if Thielert will sell to the
open market (non O.E.M.) and what the pricing would be? 

As per the Theirlert Web Site:

“The Centurion 4.0 was certified by the EASA for the installation
in the Cirrus SR 22 on February
12, 2007 already. The certification of the 4.0 for the Cessna 206
is expected in the next days. These two certifications will open the market for
deliveries of the 4.0 engine.” 

 


Bryan, I can't find any reference to BSFC on the Thielert web
site.  My experience with diesel engines was they are not
significantly better than .38 BSFC and they are always heavier than a
comparable gas engine for a given power output.  Now there have been some
significant diesel engine improvements in the last few years.  A friend of
mine has been working intake ports on a diesel engine and he has flow rates
very high with valve lifts near one inch.  When you go to direct injection
and no pre-chamber, the C/R can go down and these big valve lifts are
possible.  Add a couple of big turbos and maybe you have something. 
My intuition is, the main advantage is that it can burn Jet A fuel.  If
the airliners get their way, gas engines will pay the FAA bill.

Craig Berland 

 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: colyncase on earthlink <colyncase [at] earthlink.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:48:53 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

End result - - - it
likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to
get you the same air speed.
 
George,  
isn't there also an issue with short prop life (and maybe crank life)
?

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <marv [at] lancair.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:49:35 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Posted for "Chuck Jensen" <cjensen [at] dts9000.com>:

There's always a party-pooper in every parade.....questioning a 'good
story' with facts and logic--dang.

Chuck Jensen


Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Gary Casey <glcasey [at] adelphia.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:50:56 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
As usual, George hit the nail squarely on the head.  In order to get power up on a diesel the peak cylinder pressures are much higher than on a spark-ignition engine - something like 2,000 psi, compared to 1,000.  The structure of the engine is proportional to the peak pressure, so the engine almost has to be heavier.  Most of the combustion chamber is in the piston, so piston cooling becomes the limiting factor and a great deal of heat is rejected to the oil as a result.  Heat rejection during combustion is roughly proportional to the pressure TIMES the temperature difference, so the heat rejection into the cylinder head is also very high.  This means large heat exchangers and more cooling drag.  A diesel at full power requires about 10% excess air, so the filter (if any) and muffler (if any) has to be larger, as does all the associated plumbing.  There was a comment about the power of the engine rolling off above 15,000 ft.  The reason is that the engine is running very high manifold pressure - I'm guess at least 60 inches and more likely 90 inches or even more - in order to get the desired power.  Turbocharger technology just isn't up to the task of producing the required pressure ratios above a fairly low altitude.  You could go to series turbochargers, but that would add more weight.  It would certainly produce plenty of cabin pressure, except that the critical altitude would be even lower if some air is taken off for pressurization.  And then there is the fuel - it produces more BTU's per gallon, but fewer BTU's per pound than gasoline (about 5% in both cases).  Depends on whether you are buying the fuel (per gallon) or carrying the fuel (per pound).  Another little detail - many diesel fuel system really, really don't like air in the fuel and some don't self-prime.  And if you're flying in the flight levels, don't let the fuel get too cold (of course, that's why jet-A is different from diesel fuel).  I like diesels, but for a 300-hp aircraft application the big-bore air-cooled gasoline engines are remarkably good.

Gary Casey
ES N224SG 


There is “another whole issue”  with diesel engines .

 One that NOBODY has discussed in public.  It is so “silent” that it almost appears that to bring up the subject may be  like breaking wind in church.


...

Because that heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way.

HOW ?   Either through air cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiator.

EITHER WAY  - - -  you end up with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around 0.36 to 0.37  (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark ignition engine ) .

However - - whatever fuel efficiency is realized - - - is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET  by the additional cooling  drag requirements.

End result - - - it likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to get you the same air speed.

Regards,  George

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Craig Berland <cberland [at] systems3.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 16:51:54 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

George, there are several diesel attributes that I find less than
desirable, but one of the least desirable is its ability to make baby diamonds
in the oil.  OK, not really diamonds but carbon.  The carbon is
extraordinarily abrasive, requiring oil changes at very short intervals or a 55
gallon oil sump.  Finally, and a little humorous, a diesel does not have a
throttle or spark plugs.  Sounds good, right?  The only reason a
diesel makes more or less power is the result of turning a "fuel metering valve"
inside the injection pump.  I personally have seen a metering valve jam at
full power.  The car was setting on the emission lab floor in the GM Test
Lab in Denver, CO.  The engineer who started the car panicked, took the
keys out of the "ignition" (term loosely used), threw them and ran away. 
While the engine was rev limited by valve float, another engineer went over and
disconnected the fuel supply line.  No, it was not me.  I was hiding
under a desk. My point......there is only one way to shut down a diesel. 
Turn the fuel off.  Well I guess if you had a sleeping bag laying around
you could stuff it into the intake.  Doing so in flight might be a little
tricky. <grin>
Craig Berland

 

EITHER WAY  - -
-  you end up with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around 0.36 to
0.37  (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark ignition engine
) .

 

However - - whatever
fuel efficiency is realized - - - is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET  by the
additional cooling  drag requirements.

 

End result - - - it
likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to
get you the same air speed.

 

Regards, 
George

 

 

 

 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:49:51 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 3/29/2007 3:52:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, cberland [at] systems3.net writes:

My point......there is only one way to shut down a diesel.  Turn the fuel off.  Well I guess if you had a sleeping bag laying around you could stuff it into the intake.  Doing so in flight might be a little tricky. <grin>

Craig,
 
Typically, a diesel engine is equipped with an emergency shut down that closes a butterfly valve in the intake and is quite effective at shutting the engine down. This is an important feature as any source of oil like fuel introduced into the cylinder can result in a runaway condition.
 
As for oil life, most of the cars sold in Briton today use diesel engines and they seem to live quite well with similar oil change intervals as used on spark engines in the US. Oh and by the way George, the radiators on those cars aren't noticeably larger than comparable cars in the US.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <Sky2high [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:21:25 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Ponder this puzzlers:
 
At my airport, here in fly over country, 100LL self serve is
$3.79/gal  and JetA (hand delivered to your personal fuel sucking jet) is
$4.15/gal.
 
Europe is trying to phase out 100LL and it seems that the price of 100LL is
far greater than JetA across the pond.  Diesel engines make all the sense
in the world for those overseas aircraft.  Not yet, not here, not
now.
 
 
 
Scott
Krueger
MotorMouth, Charlatan, Bon Vivant, Escapee, Etcetera...
/files/LML/40986-01-01-02-R/X.MA1.1175210781 [at] aol.com" sandbox="" height="98" width="98" border="0" datasize="3353" id="MA1.1175210781">





See what's free at AOL.com.


Image


images[1].jpg

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: George Braly <gwbraly [at] gami.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2007 22:21:49 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message


 

 

Rob,

 

Have you seen one of the  intercoolers for the SMA diesel ?

 

Would you care to hazard a guess as to about what size the intercooler
is for that diesel engine ?

 

Regards,  George

 

 

 

From: Lancair Mailing
List [lml [at] lancaironline.net]">mailto:lml [at] lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of REHBINC [at] aol.com

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 4:50
PM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel
Centurion 4.0

 

In a message dated 3/29/2007 3:52:36 PM Eastern Standard
Time, cberland [at] systems3.net writes:

My point......there is only one way to shut down a
diesel.  Turn the fuel off.  Well I guess if you had a sleeping bag
laying around you could stuff it into the intake.  Doing so in flight
might be a little tricky. <grin>

Craig,

 

Typically, a diesel engine is equipped with an emergency
shut down that closes a butterfly valve in the intake and is quite effective at
shutting the engine down. This is an important feature as any source of oil
like fuel introduced into the cylinder can result in a runaway condition.

 

As for oil life, most of the cars sold in Briton today use
diesel engines and they seem to live quite well with similar oil change
intervals as used on spark engines in the
US. Oh and by the way George, the
radiators on those cars aren't noticeably larger than comparable cars in the
US.

 

Rob




See
what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <marv [at] lancair.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 01:32:24 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Posted for "Bryan Burr" <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>:

Unless you could burn NO 1 offroad diesel @ about $2.60.

"""
Ponder this puzzlers:

At my airport, here in fly over country, 100LL self serve is $3.79/gal
and JetA (hand delivered to your personal fuel sucking jet) is
$4.15/gal.

Europe is trying to phase out 100LL and it seems that the price of 100LL
is far greater than JetA across the pond. Diesel engines make all the
sense in the world for those overseas aircraft. Not yet, not here, not
now.

"""

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <Sky2high [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:35:21 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

In a message dated 3/30/2007 12:32:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
marv [at] lancair.net writes:

Posted
for "Bryan Burr" <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>:

Unless you could burn NO 1
offroad diesel @ about $2.60.

"""
Ponder this puzzlers:

At my
airport, here in fly over country, 100LL self serve is $3.79/gal
and JetA
(hand delivered to your personal fuel sucking jet)
is
$4.15/gal.

Europe is trying to phase out 100LL and it seems that
the price of 100LL
is far greater than JetA across the pond. Diesel engines
make all the
sense in the world for those overseas aircraft. Not yet, not
here, not
now.

Of course, available at every airport you might
visit.





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: bob mackey <n103md [at] yahoo.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:46:23 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
George says:
 
> OK… but that means that the bulk internal combustion gas temperatures are a lot higher.
>
> And that means that you get a LOT more BTU’s transferred into the cylinder head.
>
> And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware - - they tend
- - as a
> result to use rather large radiators.
>
> Because that heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way.
>
 
There is an assumption in here that is worth questioning.
Heat transfer rates from the combustion gases to the piston and cylinder
do indeed
increase with gas pressure and temperature *difference* between
the gas and surface. The solution to the problem is simple... increase the
temperature of the surface to match that of the gases.
 
How to do that?
 
Thermally insulate the surface.
 
That's the idea behind ceramic coatings for the piston
crown, combustion chamber,
and valve faces. The insulator needs to be able to run hot on one side, and cool
enough on the other side to
1) not melt or weaken the metal
2) not burn or polymerize the oil
3) not transfer so much heat that the benefits of high compression are
   lost to cooling drag.
If that is worked out, then engine BSFC improves, and cooling losses
are reduced.
 
Just as in a gas turbine, the cooling drag is minimized by allowing the
hot section to actually run hot. High temperature, high strength alloys, and
insulating ceramics are the key to an efficient aircraft diesel engine.
FWIW, Aluminum is just about the worst material to use in a diesel head:
low strength at high temperatures, high thermal conductivity, poor fatigue life, etc.
The argument that "...heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way." really boils
down to "because we let the heat get into the aluminum, we need to get it
back out before the piston melts."
 
 
Bored stiff? Loosen up...
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Bryan Burr <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:46:51 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

No, but certainly
available in the back tank of my Chevy pickup equipped with a Velcon filter.

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Lancair Mailing List
[lml [at] lancaironline.net]">mailto:lml [at] lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Sky2high [at] aol.com

Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:35
AM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel
Centurion 4.0

 

In a
message dated 3/30/2007 12:32:46 A.M. Central Daylight Time, marv [at] lancair.net
writes:

Posted
for "Bryan Burr" <bjburr [at] mwheli.com>:



Unless you could burn NO 1 offroad diesel @ about $2.60.



"""

Ponder this puzzlers:



At my airport, here in fly over country, 100LL self serve is $3.79/gal

and JetA (hand delivered to your personal fuel sucking jet) is

$4.15/gal.



Europe is trying to phase out 100LL and it seems that the price of 100LL

is far greater than JetA across the pond. Diesel engines make all the

sense in the world for those overseas aircraft. Not yet, not here, not

now.

Of
course, available at every airport you might visit.




See
what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Lancair <lancair [at] USTEK.COM>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 10:47:08 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Cars in general run at a low power setting for cruise - I believe at 20%

max output, so the heat dissipated would be much lower compared to

aircraft use where we start at 65% and go up from there.  

 

Robert M. Simon

ES-P N301ES



________________________________



From: Lancair Mailing List [lml [at] lancaironline.net (mailto:)

] On Behalf Of

REHBINC [at] aol.com

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0





 the radiators on those cars aren't noticeably larger than comparable

cars in the US.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Gary Fitzgerald <gbfitz [at] swbell.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:35:37 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Why don't you just throw on one of those bio-diesel
conversions, then the price drops to zero.
 
Tower: "..well, Billy Bob's Flying Service has BP, and the
self-serve pump has Phillips 66, so whaddaya want?"
 
Pilot:  "There a McDonald's around here?"
 
Unless you could burn NO 1
offroad diesel @ about $2.60.

"""
Ponder this puzzlers:

At my
airport, here in fly over country, 100LL self serve is $3.79/gal
and JetA
(hand delivered to your personal fuel sucking jet)
is
$4.15/gal.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:39:05 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 3/29/2007 9:22:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, gwbraly [at] gami.com writes:

Rob,

Have you seen one of the  intercoolers for the SMA diesel ?

 

Would you care to hazard a guess as to about what size the intercooler is for that diesel engine ?

 

Regards,  George

 

George,
 
I've seen many intercoolers, both diesel and gas. However, you stated that diesels require much larger radiators than spark/ottocycle engines. This just isn't so. I have a 30 hp gas tractor and a 50 hp diesel tractor. Both are naturaly aspirated. The diesel radiator is the same width and thickness but about 20% taller. Yet the diesel makes 40% more power. Granted there is more to the heat transfer capacity of a radiator than its physical dimensions; fin spacing and materials are two examples.
 
Of course a 500 hp diesel engine in an earth mover or tractor trailer rig would have a substantially larger radiator than a 500 hp gas engine in a Viper sports car. But there are two major reasons for this that have nothing to do with the fuel used. On the street, the Viper will have a hard time using 500 hp for more than 20 seconds at a time. Most of its life it will operate at 10% or less of its rated power. The earth mover utilizes well over half of its its rated power most of its working life and may operate at full power for tens of minutes without a break. Asuming around 30% of the fuel energy is lost to the cooling system, it is pretty obvious that the engine operating at the higher power setting will need the bigger radiator.  Also, the penalty for carrying an additional 50 lbs of excess radiator and coolant on an earthmover or semi truck is inconsequential, where as for the Viper this would negate the weight savings of 50 lbs of aluminum used in the car.
 
The principle efficiency advantage of a diesel is found in part throttle operation because there is no throttling loss as compared to a gas/ottocycle engine. At full power operation, there is very little efficiency advantage to be found for the diesel.
 
At full power, the diesel exhaust energy is close to that of the gas engine. Yes, the diesel exhaust is cooler, but this is primarily due to its operation with excess air, which is required for complete combustion and increases the mass flow rate. If the diesel engine is to have the same or slightly better thermal efficiency, the cooling loss cannot be substantially higher than that of the gas engine. Thus, in a simillar application the radiators of a gas and diesel engine should not be dramaticly different. This is just what we see in the real world.
 
Personally, I am not a huge proponant of diesels for aircraft. The big reason is the additional weight of the assembly. On a longer flight, operating at substantially reduced power, the efficiency might offset the weight penealty.  Of course this ignores future fuel availabillity issues. Each application/flight profile needs to be evaluated individually.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Craig Berland <cberland [at] systems3.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 16:40:36 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

 Bob Mackey
wrote:
 How to do that?
Thermally
insulate the surface.
That's the idea
behind ceramic coatings for the piston crown, combustion chamber,
and valve faces.
The insulator needs to be able to run hot on one side, and cool
enough on the
other side to
1) not melt or
weaken the metal
2) not burn or
polymerize the oil
3) not transfer so
much heat that the benefits of high compression are
   lost
to cooling drag.
If that is worked
out, then engine BSFC improves, and cooling losses
are reduced.
Just as in a gas
turbine, the cooling drag is minimized by allowing the
hot section to
actually run hot. High temperature, high strength alloys,
and
insulating
ceramics are the key to an efficient aircraft diesel engine.
FWIW, Aluminum is
just about the worst material to use in a diesel head:
low strength at
high temperatures, high thermal conductivity, poor fatigue life, etc.
The argument that
"...heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way." really
boils
down to "because
we let the heat get into the aluminum, we need to get it
back
out before the piston melts." 
 
Bob, your theory is correct, however the execution is
difficult and expensive.  I think the expense is the big problem in
aviation.  The volume is not there to justify the cost of
development.  I worked at Oldsmobile in the '80's and we made 3600 engines
every day.  That volume must be compared to aviation volumes.  Some of
the development costs I am talking about follow.  I made a set of titanium
rods and found out you must not let titanium rub against anything else.  I
made a set of inconel 718 pistons and found out the benefits did not justify the
costs. They were for a diesel engine by the way. I have made titanium
valves.  These work pretty well, but the rubbing observation applies. 
Personally, I have used ceramic coatings in several areas of my IV-P gasoline
engine.  The new coating technology is something I believe can help every
engine.  I think I mentioned this here before.....Pro Stock drag cars are
currently using about $40,000 worth of "coatings" in their engines,
transmissions and axels.  At work, we are looking into producing pistons
for NASCAR engines.  The piston design running successfully today is
light years from what was running just a few years ago.  I was told a few
years ago that a commercial jet cost was 1/2 engines and 1/2 everything
else.  Assuming what I was told is true, and GA owners were willing to
spend this kind of money, maybe the research could be paid for.  For
example, take a IV-P that would sell for $700,000 where $350,000 was for
the engine.  This would compare to the current $80,000 engine and
$350,000 everything else for $430,000.  I would accept going slower (280
kts) and burning more fuel with the "trailing edge of technology"
stuff.
Craig Berland
 
 
Bored
stiff? Loosen up...
Download and
play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Lorn H Olsen <lorn [at] dynacomm.ws>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 18:12:18 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

George,



I would like to ask a question about cooling a hot running engine. When the P-51 had to be cooled, I have heard that by allowing the heated exhaust to come out in the opposite direction from the aircraft's motion that the expanded air compensated for the area that it took to cool the engine. Was this wrong? Could an exhaust be designed to use the heated, expanded air to compensate for the cooling drag?



For the Thielert, this is a moot point because we as experimental pilots can't buy the engine but I am interested anyway.



Lorn


From: "George Braly" <gwbraly [at] gami.com>

Date: March 29, 2007 1:07:15 AM EDT



Craig,



There is “another whole issue”  with diesel engines .

.

.

Because the CR is much higher.  So the exhaust expansion is more.   OK….



But if the CR is much higher then - - so is the peak internal cylinder pressure.



OK… but that means that the bulk internal combustion gas temperatures are a lot higher.



And that means that you get a LOT more BTU’s transferred into the cylinder head.



And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware - - they tend - - as a result to use rather large radiators.



Because that heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way.



HOW ?   Either through air cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiator.

.

.



Regards,  George





--

Lorn H. 'Feathers' Olsen, MAA, DynaComm, Corp.

248-345-0500, lorn [at] dynacomm.ws (mailto:)



LNC2, FB90/92, O-320-D1F, 1,300 hrs, N31161, Y47, SE Michigan

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:22:58 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 3/30/2007 9:47:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, lancair [at] USTEK.COM writes:

Cars in general run at a low power setting for cruise - I believe at 20%
max output, so the heat dissipated would be much lower compared to
aircraft use where we start at 65% and go up from there. 

Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES

Robert,
 
That's correct. What's more, when comparing thermal efficiency between the two engines at part throttle, the diesel is quite a bit better due to the pumping losses of the throttle body on a gas engine. This increased efficiency would reduce the radiator size requiremnet somewhat more on the diesel than the gas engine.
 
I was simply pointing out that in comparable applications, the radiator sizes aren't greatly different. I've only made one tape measure comparison and that was on two tractors and the gas tractor actually had more cubic inches of radiator per hp than the diesel. Tractors typically operate at high output levels just like airplanes.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:23:23 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 3/30/2007 9:46:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, n103md [at] yahoo.com writes:
Just as in a gas turbine, the cooling drag is minimized by allowing the
hot section to actually run hot. High temperature, high strength alloys, and
insulating ceramics are the key to an efficient aircraft diesel engine.
FWIW, Aluminum is just about the worst material to use in a diesel head:
low strength at high temperatures, high thermal conductivity, poor fatigue life, etc.
The argument that "...heat  has to be dissipated - - - some way." really boils
down to "because we let the heat get into the aluminum, we need to get it
back out before the piston melts."
From a standpoint of power/efficiency, an aluminum head on an automotive gas engine works against you as well. As I recall from the days of big lizards, aluminum Bow Tie heads for a small block chevy gave up 10 hp compared to iron Bow Tie heads. In a race car, the reduction in weight for the aluminum heads more than offset the power loss.
 
Also, you can get away with running a diesel a little hotter with or without coatings since you don't have to worry about preignition or detonation as you would on gas.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <marv [at] lancair.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 23:24:40 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly [at] gami.com>:

Rob,



Ok... I'm not trying to be difficult. I am trying to interject a bit of
reality into the "Joy of Diesel".



You really didn't answer my question about the size of the intercooler
for the SMA 230 Hp diesel intercooler.



So let me go ahead and give you a "reality check" on that issue.



The air to air heat exchanger is about the size of a standard mid sized
car radiator. A little thicker and not quite as wide and high. But if
you think of a car radiator executed in aluminum - - then you will get
the picture.



It is a monster. I can't imagine the drag that is associated with that
thing. Along with the cooling drag for the air cooled diesel cylinder
heads on the SMA - - and the oil cooler drag.



Why is it THAT big ? Because they need to get a LOT of cooling done
for the diesel at altitude where the boost pressure ratio is rather
extreme and the temperature rise is likely in the 400 d F range (yes,
induction temperatures up in that range - - before the intercooler.)



Regards, George



Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 13:59:46 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 3/30/2007 10:24:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, George writes:

Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly [at] gami.com>:

Rob,


Ok... I'm not trying to be difficult. I am trying to interject a bit of
reality into the "Joy of Diesel".

You really didn't answer my question about the size of the intercooler
for the SMA 230 Hp diesel intercooler.

So let me go ahead and give you a "reality check" on that issue.

The air to air heat exchanger is about the size of a standard mid sized
car radiator. A little thicker and not quite as wide and high. But if
you think of a car radiator executed in aluminum - - then you will get
the picture.

It is a monster. I can't imagine the drag that is associated with that
thing. Along with the cooling drag for the air cooled diesel cylinder
heads on the SMA - - and the oil cooler drag.

George,
 
You've drifted way of the mark here. I was only pointing out that for like installations, the size of the radiators that I have seen are not greatly different between diesel and gas engines. You implied that there is a substantial difference and based on my observations I respectfully disagree.
 
As for the size of an intercooler on a certain engine, who cares? If you really want to see a big one go look at a large marine diesel. I have seen AIR TO WATER intercoolers the size of big dog houses. Of course I could also crawl through the cylinders. The SMA unit you describe is relatively tiny. For what it is worth, I have also seen much smaller air to air intercoolers than the SMA, installed on even higher hp diesels.
 
 


Why is it THAT big ? Because they need to get a LOT of cooling done
for the diesel at altitude where the boost pressure ratio is rather
extreme and the temperature rise is likely in the 400 d F range (yes,
induction temperatures up in that range - - before the intercooler.)



As we have discussed previously, the principle reason for an intercooler is to increase the density of the intake air and thereby provide increased power capacity.  Even more so for a diesel, were detonation is essentially the ignition system. Higher temperatures aid evaporation and increase combustion speed, which are beneficial in terms of power and efficiency. Since detonation is not an issue for a diesel, its combustion chamber temperature limits are defined by material properties alone. At high altitude, you might want to close all cooling airflow to the intercooler. While the mass flow through the engine would be reduced, at least there would be adequate energy in the combustion chamber to keep the engine running.
 
As long as we're on the subject, what is the typical cooling drag as a percentage of the total airframe drag? My memory from undergrad aerodynamics is fading but it seems like it is in the 5 to 10% range. For the moment lets assume it is 7%. If a diesel engine rejects 10% more heat through its cooling system than a similar otto cycle engine, this would result in an increase in total airframe drag of just 0.7%. If the x hp diesel engine gets 6% better fuel economy at 60.7% cruise power than the x hp Lyconental does at 60%, then which engine would likely go the farthest on 100 gallons of fuel?
 
The big downsides of the diesel compared to a similarly equipped and power capacity otto cycle are its preference for consistent mass flow through the engine and it's increased mass, which effects both center of gravity and payload. If the airframe presently has excess payload capacity and your goal is to fly it farther at moderate altitude and the same part throttle speed, yet maintain short runway performance and short climb times, the diesel may be the way to go. If you want to win races at Reno, I suspect there are better alternatives. 
 
Fundamentally, diesels make a lot more sense in cars than they do in aircraft. But, given the right flight profile requirements, a diesel may be the best choice for a specific airframe.
 
It's kind of like putting a turbine in an LIV. With the TSIO 550 you have a fast vehicle that you can fly half way across the U.S. with your wife and all of her luggage. Replace the TSIO with the turbine, add larger tanks and you and your brief case can fly just as far in about 45 minutes less time. Of course your better half is PO'd, but maybe you're happier. There are always trade offs.
 

Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <Sky2high [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 15:31:11 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

In a message dated 3/31/2007 1:00:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
REHBINC [at] aol.com writes:

As long
as we're on the subject, what is the typical cooling drag as a percentage
of the total airframe drag? My memory from undergrad aerodynamics is fading
but it seems like it is in the 5 to 10% range. For the moment lets assume it
is 7%.

Rob,
 
Diesels aside, "typical" isn't typical anymore.  I.E. Lancairs do not
exhibit airframe drag anything like those that you studied.  With slick,
efficient airframes and laminar flow wings, the relative impact of drag inducing
components changes dramatically.  The reduction of cooling drag is free and
contributes a great deal to performance.  Maybe we should assume a diesel
scenario where the cooling drag contribution is more like 20% of the total
drag.
 
The reduction of cooling drag is one of the ways that I can achieve the
speeds that I do (exceeding 200 Kts with a 320 CI spark ignition
engine). 
 
Gee, I once programmed 1950's era computers and they work the same
way today, only they are a bit faster and smaller.  Your undergrad
course, relating data from textbooks written in the middle of the last
century, is merely an artifact, nay, even a relic from the dark past -
before laminar plan forms, carbon fiber and polymer snot-slick coatings were
widely available and used in or about every-man's airplane....
 
OK, let the diesel discussion continue apace.
 
Grayhawk
 
 





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 22:14:35 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Scott,
 
Now that's what I like about the LML. I asked a question and in less than an hour someone provides an answer. Thanks.
 
So using this info in the previous scenario, a 10% change in cooling load would result in a 2% change in total drag. I like fast with payload, so I probably wouldn't be a diesel candidate. But 2% more drag is certainly not the end of the aviator's world. Even at full power a diesel is typically 3-5% more efficient than gas.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Walter Atkinson <walter [at] advancedpilot.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 12:09:20 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Ya think? <g>


The cooling drag increase can be in the 15-20% range.  Now, calculate the increased HP required to overcome that increase in drag.  It's not insignificant.  Were this simple to address the diesel aircraft would be faster and more efficient than they are.

Walter


On Mar 31, 2007, at 9:14 PM, REHBINC [at] aol.com

wrote:


Scott,
 
Now that's what I like about the LML. I asked a question and in less than an hour someone provides an answer. Thanks.
 
So using this info in the previous scenario, a 10% change in cooling load would result in a 2% change in total drag. I like fast with payload, so I probably wouldn't be a diesel candidate. But 2% more drag is certainly not the end of the aviator's world. Even at full power a diesel is typically 3-5% more efficient than gas.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.


Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:42:29 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 4/1/2007 12:09:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, walter [at] advancedpilot.com writes:

Ya think? <g>


The cooling drag increase can be in the 15-20% range.  Now, calculate the increased HP required to overcome that increase in drag.  It's not insignificant.  Were this simple to address the diesel aircraft would be faster and more efficient than they are.

Walter
Sorry Walter,
 
I didn't intend to talk over anyones head. Here's how you calculate the power change. We'll use Scott's estimate of 20% for cooling drag as a fraction of total drag and your upper range estimate of 20% increase in cooling drag for a diesel compared to a gas engine. The increase in total drag due to cooling for the diesel installation is then 20% * 20%, which yields a total drag increase of 4%.
 
Power is a function of drag * velocity. Assuming velocity is held constant, then the power requirement will vary directly with the change in drag. Thus the required power increase for the additional drag will be 4% as well.
 
If you need help with any other concepts, just ask. I'm sure someone on the list here will be happy to help you.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <marv [at] lancair.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:46:07 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Posted for "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth [at] mindspring.com>:

What about cooling on the ground (long taxi and perhaps waiting for an IFR
release on a hot day)? A typical air cooled aircraft engine is far from
perfectly suited for this, but most cars use fans with the liquid radiators.
I've seen ground fans on many liquid cooled experimentals as well. Looks
like extra weight and another potential failure point (but perhaps not an
in-flight failure mode). Old Av Proverb: trying to cool an aircraft with
liquid is like trying to cool a submarine with air {g}.


[It's a good thing Reginald Mitchell wasn't aware of that "Old Av Proverb" otherwise he might not have designed the Spitfire, arguably one of the finest aircraft built during WWII.  <Marv>
]

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <marv [at] lancair.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:47:02 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly [at] gami.com>:

Rob,



I'm still not trying to be difficult. Just realistic.



Lets assume that the engine cooling drag on a 200 knot airplane is in
the neighborhood of 15% of total airframe drag.



And lets suppose that the heat rejection issues increase the total
airframe drag by 1.5%.



Then we need to ask, how much additional Brake horsepower will it take
at the engine to overcome that 1.5% increase in total airframe drag?



Since the cruise BSFC numbers appear to be around 0.365 (diesel )
and 0.39 (LOP turbocharged piston engine) - - - then the increased Bhp
must not exceed the ratio of 0.39/0.365 = 1.07 or you have gone
backwards in terms of NM/lb of fuel consumed.



And then - - to be realistic one does have to consider that
"intercooler" that you want to ignore. As I said, in the case of the
SMA 230 Hp engine - - - it is huge. So you may want to ignore it - -
and claim it is unnecessary - - but then the best engineers at SMA sort
of thought it was essential.



And then - - if you want a pressurized diesel - - one has to plan on
the weight and complexity of an add on gear / belt driven compressor.
That system and its associated complexity and power losses extracts
another 5 to 10 Hp or more from the engine. How heavy is that system?



And the engine ?



DRY it is claimed to be around 620 lbs.



So... wet? How much coolant ? 25 to 30 lbs minimum?



Oil ? 12 lbs?



And the weight of the gear

Driven cabin pressure compressor ? 15 lbs?



Without even getting started on the details one is up to 675 lbs.
At sea level, that is a pwr/weight of about 350 / 675 = .52 Hp/lb



That compares to a wet TSIO-550 of about 585. Or about .60 Hp/lb.
So there is at least a 90 lb weight penalty - - 15% off of the
power/weight ratio.



And at 25000 feet - - there is a loss of a lot of horsepower.



The 25000 feet pwr/wt of the TSIO-550 is around .45 at high power
cruise.



For the diesel it will probably be around .33. That is a huge step
backwards in real world cruise performance for the aircraft.



Am I missing something here ?



Regards, George

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: John Schroeder <jschroeder [at] perigee.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:34:48 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

I would also add the P-51 to the list of superb liquid cooled aircraft.



John Schroeder





On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:46:07 -0400, <marv [at] lancair.net> wrote:


 Old Av Proverb: trying to cool an aircraft with

liquid is like trying to cool a submarine with air {g}.





[It's a good thing Reginald Mitchell wasn't aware of that "Old Av Proverb" otherwise he might not have designed the Spitfire, arguably one of the finest aircraft built during WWII.  <Marv> ]





--

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Skip Slater <skipslater [at] verizon.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 21:35:48 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
This thread debating George about diesels reminds
me of a quote Brent said awhile back likening arguing with an engineer to mud
wrestling with a pig.  After awhile you realize that the pig likes
it.
 
 

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Walter Atkinson <walter [at] advancedpilot.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:01:16 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Until a single, small bullet when through the cooler!







On Apr 1, 2007, at 8:34 PM, John Schroeder wrote:



I would also add the P-51 to the list of superb liquid cooled aircraft.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: George Braly <gwbraly [at] gami.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:01:34 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

The P51 was a superb aircraft.



But the engines do well to go 3-500 hours in field service.



And the world record speed run for a recip is held by an air cooled

engine.







-----Original Message-----

From: Lancair Mailing List [lml [at] lancaironline.net (mailto:)

] On Behalf Of

John Schroeder

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 8:35 PM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0



I would also add the P-51 to the list of superb liquid cooled aircraft.



John Schroeder





On Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:46:07 -0400, <marv [at] lancair.net> wrote:



>  Old Av Proverb: trying to cool an aircraft with

> liquid is like trying to cool a submarine with air {g}.

>

>

> [It's a good thing Reginald Mitchell wasn't aware of that "Old Av

Proverb" otherwise he might not have designed the Spitfire, arguably one

of the finest aircraft built during WWII.  <Marv> ]

>

>

> --









--

For archives and unsub

http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/lml/List.html

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Tom Gourley <tom.gourley [at] verizon.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2007 23:45:55 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

"And the world record speed run for a recip is held by an air cooled

engine."



And the course record at Reno is held by a liquid cooled engine.  However both of these engines were extensively modified and pushed well beyond their original design parameters so I don't think we can really use them to draw conclusions about air cooled vs. liquid cooled.



But it sure is fun to watch them run and listen to the awesome sounds they make.



Tom Gourley

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Steve Colwell <mcmess1919 [at] yahoo.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:33:16 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
George and others,

The Zoche Aero Diesel  http://www.zoche.de/  that was at Oshkosh for many years (and always "2 years from production") seemed to be such an elegant design.  It answered many of the concerns of the Thielert and others with light weight, low frontal area, simple design, claimed low fuel consumption, etc..  I heard it had a fatal design flaw, was it cooling or what?

Steve Colwell

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: colyncase on earthlink <colyncase [at] earthlink.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:34:35 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Which air cooled engine has the world record speed run?

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Lancair <lancair [at] USTEK.COM>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:36:02 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

The P-51 was purpose built.  I would suggest that the P-51 was more of

a unique aircraft than an example of good use of technology.  Otherwise

the industry would have continued with and improved upon that design.  



Robert M. Simon

ES-P N301ES

  



-----Original Message-----

From: Lancair Mailing List [lml [at] lancaironline.net (mailto:)

] On Behalf Of

John Schroeder

Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 9:35 PM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0



I would also add the P-51 to the list of superb liquid cooled aircraft.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Mark Sletten <marknlisa [at] hometel.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:36:17 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message



A diesel installation with heat exchangers up front has a built in fan...

it's called a prop!



Mark





________________________________________

Posted for "rtitsworth" <rtitsworth [at] mindspring.com>:



What about cooling on the ground (long taxi and perhaps waiting for an IFR

release on a hot day)?



Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:36:38 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Walter,
 
The P-51 had a compartmentized, self sealing radiator. It would actually take several bullets to stop it from performing its intended mission. That said, the location was prone to encouters with debris on low level strafing runs that didn't exactly increase longevity.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:36:48 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Skip,
 
Who are you calling a pig?
 
;)
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Scotty G <WarbirdAeroPress [at] cox.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:57:33 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Rare Bear holds the current 3kM record at 528+ mph
with a Wright R-3350 and a Douglas Skyraider prop. Engine was running nitrous
(supposedly) and 145 octane race gas.
 
 
Scotty G
Warbird Digest Magazine
September
Pops Air Racing

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Scotty G <WarbirdAeroPress [at] cox.net>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:58:42 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
Robert wrote:
 
The P-51 was purpose built.  I would suggest that the P-51 was
more of
a unique aircraft than an example of good use of technology. 
Otherwise
the industry would have continued with and improved upon that
design. 

Robert M. Simon
ES-P N301ES
Oh boy.
 
Purpose built? Aren't all airplanes purpose-built?
Escort. Fighter. Attack. Dive Bomber. Recon... Man, I just have to disagree with
you on these counts... The P-51, for it's time, used two new pieces of
'technology' that made it head and shoulders above the rest. The airfoil and the
cooling system were marvels of aeronautical advnacement that still stand today.
The original design was improved upon - the British Merlin and a two-stage
supercharger really 'made' the airplane. Until the demise of one current Merlin racing engine builder, we continued
that tradition with Dago Red. We still hold the course record at Reno with a hot
lap of 511 mph and a race average of 507. (Now I'll agree THAT ONE is a one
purpose airplane! (Okay, two... It burns money really fast...)
 
Industry moved on to jets. The Mustang (among a
few others) still represents the epitome of piston-engine airplane design.
Plus... chicks dig them.
 
Scotty G
Warbird Digest Magazine
September
Pops Air Racing

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Walter Atkinson <walter [at] advancedpilot.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:02:54 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message


On Apr 2, 2007, at 9:58 AM, Scotty G wrote:


Plus... chicks dig them.



Scotty:

All of that and you FINALLY got to the the most important part!

Walter

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: <REHBINC [at] aol.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:03:55 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message
In a message dated 4/1/2007 3:47:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, marv [at] lancair.net writes:

Posted for "George Braly" <gwbraly [at] gami.com>:

Rob,

I'm still not trying to be difficult. Just realistic.

Lets assume that the engine cooling drag on a 200 knot airplane is in
the neighborhood of 15% of total airframe drag.

And lets suppose that the heat rejection issues increase the total
airframe drag by 1.5%.

Then we need to ask, how much additional Brake horsepower will it take
at the engine to overcome that 1.5% increase in total airframe drag?

Since the cruise BSFC numbers appear to be around 0.365 (diesel )
and 0.39 (LOP turbocharged piston engine) - - - then the increased Bhp
must not exceed the ratio of 0.39/0.365 = 1.07 or you have gone
backwards in terms of NM/lb of fuel consumed.

OK, so far the required power has in creased by a factor of 1.015 vs 1.07 for the engine efficiency. Looks pretty good.


And then - - to be realistic one does have to consider that
"intercooler" that you want to ignore. As I said, in the case of the
SMA 230 Hp engine - - - it is huge. So you may want to ignore it - -
and claim it is unnecessary - - but then the best engineers at SMA sort
of thought it was essential.

Those engineers at SMA also thought a diesel engine made sense as an aircraft power plant. You seem to be arguing both sides of this point.
 
Ordinarily, the cooling drag number encompasses all of the cooling drag associated with the power plant installation. In other words all of the drag created between the cowl entrance and the cowl flaps. If you want to add the intercooler in separately, you can still increase the cooling drag an additional 36.7% before you reach the break even point with regard to engine efficiency. Or to look at it the usual way, using your numbers one could increase cooling drag by 46.7% before the efficiency was reduced by the engine change.



And then - - if you want a pressurized diesel - - one has to plan on
the weight and complexity of an add on gear / belt driven compressor.
That system and its associated complexity and power losses extracts
another 5 to 10 Hp or more from the engine. How heavy is that system?

There is no reason one couldn't increase the compressor capacity to handle cabin pressure the same as used on the TSIO 550 in the IVP. The additional weight and power loss become negligible with this approach.



And the engine ?

DRY it is claimed to be around 620 lbs.

So... wet? How much coolant ? 25 to 30 lbs minimum?

Oil ? 12 lbs?

And the weight of the gear

Driven cabin pressure compressor ? 15 lbs?

Without even getting started on the details one is up to 675 lbs.
At sea level, that ! is a pwr /weight of about 350 / 675 = .52 Hp/lb

That compares to a wet TSIO-550 of about 585. Or about .60 Hp/lb.
So there is at least a 90 lb weight penalty - - 15% off of the
power/weight ratio.

And at 25000 feet - - there is a loss of a lot of horsepower.

The 25000 feet pwr/wt of the TSIO-550 is around .45 at high power
cruise.

For the diesel it will probably be around .33. That is a huge step
backwards in real world cruise performance for the aircraft.

Am I missing something here ?

On the contrary. It looks like you reread some of the previous posts on this subject and found the answers.
 
The main negative performance issues with the diesel are loss of payload, increased sensitivity to altitude and slightly slower speed for a given power and gross weight.
 
Rob





See what's free at AOL.com.

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: Lancair <lancair [at] USTEK.COM>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:04:34 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Scotty,

 

I think that we do not disagree and I do not demean the aircraft by

referring to it as purpose built.  It was designed to carry one highly

trained and motivated individual very far and very fast in the

horizontal, climb and dive directions.  That was a very good thing.  And

yes it had some then new technology and the damn thing was put into

production in, what was it, less than a year from initial design?  A

heck of a feat.  My point was that it did that job well but we do not

find a fleet in current production.  Other modern technologies can fly

just just as much on less fuel and lower cost.  So the P-51 was a great

plane for tits purpose and time but is not to be emulated in today's

market.  (Unless one is prospecting for a trophy wife.)

 

Robert M. Simon

ES-P N301ES

 



________________________________



From: Lancair Mailing List [lml [at] lancaironline.net (mailto:)

] On Behalf Of

Scotty G

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:59 AM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Re: Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0





Robert wrote:

 

The P-51 was purpose built.  I would suggest that the P-51 was more of

a unique aircraft than an example of good use of technology.  Otherwise

the industry would have continued with and improved upon that design.  



Robert M. Simon

ES-P N301ES



Oh boy.

 

Purpose built? Aren't all airplanes purpose-built? Escort. Fighter.

Attack. Dive Bomber. Recon... Man, I just have to disagree with you on

these counts... The P-51, for it's time, used two new pieces of

'technology' that made it head and shoulders above the rest. The airfoil

and the cooling system were marvels of aeronautical advnacement that

still stand today. The original design was improved upon - the British

Merlin and a two-stage supercharger really 'made' the airplane. Until

the demise of one current Merlin racing engine builder, we continued

that tradition with Dago Red. We still hold the course record at Reno

with a hot lap of 511 mph and a race average of 507. (Now I'll agree

THAT ONE is a one purpose airplane! (Okay, two... It burns money really

fast...)

 

Industry moved on to jets. The Mustang (among a few others) still

represents the epitome of piston-engine airplane design. Plus... chicks

dig them.

 

Scotty G

Warbird Digest Magazine

September Pops Air Racing

Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0

Submitted by Anonymous on

From: John W. Cox <johnwcox [at] pacificnw.com>
Sender: <marv [at] lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: [LML] Thielert Diesel Centurion 4.0
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 12:04:46 -0400
To: <lml [at] lancaironline.net>
Message Header


Undecoded Message

Lack of production development money.

 

John Cox

 

From: Lancair Mailing List [lml [at] lancaironline.net]">mailto:lml [at] lancaironline.net] On Behalf
Of Steve Colwell

Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:33
AM

To: lml [at] lancaironline.net

Subject: [LML] Thielert Diesel
Centurion 4.0

 

George and others,



The Zoche Aero Diesel  http://www.zoche.de/ 
that was at Oshkosh for many years (and always "2 years from
production") seemed to be such an elegant design.  It answered many
of the concerns of the Thielert and others with light weight, low frontal area,
simple design, claimed low fuel consumption, etc..  I heard it had a fatal
design flaw, was it cooling or what?



Steve Colwell

Pages

Post a Reply

More information about text formats

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or, if JavaScript is enabled, replaced with a spam resistent clickable link. Email addresses will get the default web form unless specified. If replacement text (a persons name) is required a webform is also required. Separate each part with the "|" pipe symbol. Replace spaces in names with "_".
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <h1> <h2> <h3>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or, if JavaScript is enabled, replaced with a spam resistent clickable link. Email addresses will get the default web form unless specified. If replacement text (a persons name) is required a webform is also required. Separate each part with the "|" pipe symbol. Replace spaces in names with "_".
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Attachments
Files must be less than 512 MB.
Allowed file types: jpg jpeg gif png txt doc docx xls xlsx pdf ppt pptx pps ppsx odt ods odp mp3 mov mp4 m4a m4v mpeg avi ogg oga ogv weba webp webm.