AndyRV7

Well Known Member
What is the value of a TD engine? I've seen a few posts here and there discussing that we need turbo engine choices. I don't see why. Cessna just (coincidentally) came out with a TD Skyhawk. It makes less power and performance than the same plane with a 100LL engine in it. So what is the advantage of this technology? Is diesel fuel even available everywhere? And does it mean that we can continue to fly without being squeezed out of the hobby by operational costs?

Thanks. Andy
 
I occasionally run waste Jet A in my TDI VW Beetle diesel. Jet A is available at many airports and will run in the diesel engines that are starting to become available for general aviation aircraft.

The Turbo helps the diesel make much more power than it does without the turbo. On my 1.9L VW diesel, the turbo make my little 90 HP engine feel a lot like the 150 HP 2L gas engine. Acceleration is almost as good as the gas powered engines. The diesel has a lot of torque. Without the turbo, the diesel car is a DOG and very slow getting out of its way. If I were to let you drive my diesel car and did not tell you it was a diesel before hand, you would not know it were a diesel.

Gasoline engines must have the correct ratio of fuel to air for the mixture to ignite. Diesels begin combustion from the heat of compression. Diesel will burn all of the fuel in an air rich environment. In a gasoline engine, we call that lean of peak. If you put in too much fuel and not enough air into a diesel, you get incomplete combustion and black smoke. If you use a turbo, you can add more fuel thus making more power.

A turbo on a diesel is a great way to add more power without decreasing reliability. My VW TDI is 9-years old, has over 230,000 miles, get 51 MPG at 58 mph on the highway, and only used about 1/4 a quart of oil in 3,200 miles. BTW, the compression ratio is 19.5:1. As for reliability, VW will be starting an ad campaign in 2008 to reintroduce their CLEAN AIR 50 state legal diesel car to the US market. The ad will feature an older VW diesel that was found in Ohio that still has its original engine with over 585,000 miles.

Typically a diesel engine is 30 to 40% more efficient than a gasoline engine. Read that to mean that it will use less fuel to make the same power.

Sorry if this is more car related but I like my 9-year old TDI as much as my 10-year old RV. Hope I did an adequate job with the diesel explanation.
 
!00LL vs Diesel/Jet A

What is the value of a TD engine? I've seen a few posts here and there discussing that we need turbo engine choices. I don't see why. Cessna just (coincidentally) came out with a TD Skyhawk. It makes less power and performance than the same plane with a 100LL engine in it. So what is the advantage of this technology? Is diesel fuel even available everywhere? And does it mean that we can continue to fly without being squeezed out of the hobby by operational costs?

Thanks. Andy

The availability of 100LL is in question long term for two reasons. First, it is less than 1% of the gasoline produced in the US and requires special handling and distribution. Second, it contains tetraethyl lead, a super toxic substance (Google it, you will be amazed.) The Diesel can run on Jet A. Jet A will be around because it is produced in much higher quanities. The diesel will get better "mileage" because there is more heat (calories) in a gallon of diesel than in a gallon of 100LL. There is a slight trade-out in that Jet A is a little heavier than 100LL. Roughly 6 lbs for 100LL vs 6.82 lbs for Jet A, depending on the temperature.

John Clark
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
That actually clears up some of the things I didn't understand. That is, why some people were using TD and Jet A in the same sentence. Also, why a TD engine might be a good option (purely from an efficiency standpoint).

Any opinion why Cessna would not put a larger displacement, or whatever, in their new plane? I would think from a marketing standpoint, you wouldn't want to have it be negatively compared to the same plane in gas form. Maybe they will be able to say it has slightly lower cruise speed, but it also is significantly more fuel efficient?? Jet A seems to cost the same as 100LL, so no benefit there. But if they could be run on something comparible to car diesel, then I think that would also be a great benefit ($2.80 versus $5.00/gallon).
 
My Guess---------

Any opinion why Cessna would not put a larger displacement, or whatever, in their new plane? I would think from a marketing standpoint, you wouldn't want to have it be negatively compared to the same plane in gas form.

I suspect it was a lack of a certified engine availability.
 
Can't use diesel

At least i don't think so because the stuff gels up at low temperature. you can get additives but I don't know how effective an additive is down to say 10F.

Thats why the diesels will use JetA as that freezes at minus 60C I think.

Frank
 
More like -10C and -40C, for diesel and Jet A respectively, before additives - IIRC.
 
The Theilert diesels (used in the Cessna) are certified for auto diesel and Jet-A1 or any mixture of the 2. There is a temperature limitation for any mix containing >10% diesel because of the gelling issue.

Generally anything that will run on Jet-A1 will be fien on road diesel (gelling aside), but the reverse is not true as Jet-A1 has lower lubricity so may increasing wear in the injector pump if it designed to be lubricated by the fuel.

Dave
 
Diesels run just fine here in -35C or colder in the winter. Paraffin oil is mixed into the fuel according to the season. Diesels runs just fine on 100 % paraffin oil as well (basically jet A). Some put a small dash (a few dl) of synthetic two stroke oil in the tank every now and then to lubricate the pump.
 
This has been educational. At least I understand what everyone is talking about now!:)

It seems like the only issue with the 100LL is that it is a GA fuel and that means it is not utilized in large enough quantities for someone to want to ake it. Interestingly enough, if it was used in larger quantities, I'm sure the lead issue would have been the next hurdle to have to be dealt with. I guess with such a relatively small community, we are flying under the radar, so to speak.

Thanks for all the answers.
 
Diesels run just fine here in -35C or colder in the winter. Paraffin oil is mixed into the fuel according to the season. Diesels runs just fine on 100 % paraffin oil as well (basically jet A). Some put a small dash (a few dl) of synthetic two stroke oil in the tank every now and then to lubricate the pump.

One of the diesel forums paid to have tests run on different additives testing for lubricity. The inexpensive ASHLESS 2-cycle oil sold by Wal-Mart worked as well as many of the diesel additives sold to increase lubricity.

http://forums.tdiclub.com/showpost.php?p=1893926&postcount=43

Possible lack of lubricity in Jet A for the IP is my main concern about using waste Jet A in my VW TDI. 2 oz of Ashless 2-cycle per gallon of Jet A puts my mind at ease.

I though the heavy paraffin molecule is what made the fuel gel when it turned to wax. I did not know that the Brits call kerosene paraffin.
 
That's what I'm hoping to use, but since I've JUST finished my horizontal stabilizer, I've got some more time to see how they do. I really like what they have on their webpage though, and the basic design of the engine:)
 
That's where I've got my hopes hung at the moment. By running a larger displacement two-stroke diesel, they have avoided the high-rpm necessity of a gearbox. Though you only really lose a small percentage of your power from friction in the gearbox (show me real numbers - not rumors - if anyone believes otherwise), the weight penalty is real and can't be argued. The fuel of choice is relatively cheap and plentiful, full mixability between diesel and JetA, turbocharging for sealevel power up to 18k, water cooling for excellent power without overtemping cylinders on climbout on a hot day (and no worries about shock cooling), and ideal rpm/torque curves for direct drive constant speed props. The price is realistic and competitive, the horsepower range is just about right, and the extra weight (28 pounds full-up IIRC) is a small price to pay for a long-legged traveler like a 9A. It would be another story entirely for an aerobatic sprinter, but the Deltahawk is not approved for aerobatics in any case, so that's a null argument. I'm hoping they'll have thier production issues ironed out by the time I'm ready to hang an engine, but Plan B is an XPIO360.
 
... but Plan B is an XPIO360.
Only 2-3 years ago on gas stations, they typically had one single pump for diesel and 7 for gasoline. Today all 8 pumps have both diesel and gasoline. Maybe in another 5 years there will be 7 pumps for diesel and one for ethanol ?

I only had Plan A: IO320 running mogas. But when extending the current trend, I probably must have a plan B ready. Ethanol or diesel? All aircraft piston engines operating today can be modified to run on ethanol. For the -4, the only alternative in diesel is the (non-existant) WAM-160, and ethanol made from wood waste could actually be a viable alternative. Time will tell, for now I'll stick with plan A :)
 
Diesel and helicopters

This happened today. A helicopter crashed into a parked truck loaded with 7000 L of diesel. Luckily none of the 3 on board was seriously injured. (click on "Neste" to see all the pictures).
Heli-crash
 
Last edited:
This is but the first strike of many to be carried out upon aircraft worldwide by the terrorist forces of the diesel community. All diesel transport devices are upset with us for not using their fuel, and they will continue to punish us until we see the error of our ways.:D
 
Diesel/Avtur is the future. Single fuel and more performance!

Gents,

If I may add my two (or three) bits worth, comparing the Lycosaurus Cessnas with the Thielert versions is not quite like with like.

The diesel has a CS prop, where most Lycoming versions are fixed. Hence, the diesel will give it’s best wherever it finds itself in the speed range.

It is a common error to compare gph fuel burns between gas and diesel engines. What makes more sense would be a lb/hr comparison. This is because avgas sits at around 0.74 kg/l specific gravity and diesel (20-60) in the 0.82-0.95 range. Avtur is a light diesel at 0.82 with heavy fuel oil (ship bunker fuel) in the 0.95 region. This means that avtur is about 10% more dense than avgas and contains a similar % more energy per unit volume.

Also, the sfc of your average Lycoming, leaned for cruise, is around 0.44 lb/hr/hp. Small modern liquid cooled gas engines (Subaru, GM) can achieve a bit lower, but rarely below 0.40 lb/hr/hp at cruise and just barely below at full power. Large avgas burners (RR, P&W, Wright, Bristol) could get as low as the high 0.30s at full power and low 0.40s at cruise with the turbo-compounds picking up another 0.04 or so advantage.

However, diesels (NA and turbo) are a different kettle of fish completely. Even older diesels commonly run in the sub 0.40 lb/hr/hp range. As diesels are not throttled they suffer minimal pumping losses especially at part-power loadings. In addition, they run far higher compression ratios and stratified charge (ultra lean) so are inherently much more thermally efficient than an equivalent power gas engine. This advantage is further improved by common rail electronically regulated direct injection systems. Some small turbo diesels in cars can actually drop to as low as 0.28 lb/hr/hp sfc in certain conditions.

If you compare the Lycoming and Thielert engines in the Cessna case, you get 0.44 lb/hr/hp with the former and 0.33 lb/hr/hp with the second (as proven by Diamond with their Twin Star trans-Atlantic crossing in 2004). The diesel offers a 55% reduction in fuel burn (lb/hr) at the same power setting. As it is a turbo, it maintains power as DA increases compared to the Lycoming. Given the CS prop, as DA increases the power advantage of the Lycoming will disappear rapidly. Bear in mind, for the same endurance, you can load the diesel Cessna with 2/3 (weight) the fuel of the avgas burner. Less weight, more performance or same weight, more range. Finally, full tanks gives more fuel load and an additional 10% range over the 55% efficiency saving.

For the pure light GA guys out there, the constant trade of fuel vs. payload may seem foreign. However, for those of us that trade fuel and payload for a living, the diesel fits well into Van’s idea of total performance. More range or more payload is the choice with the diesel, similar to the RV’s Vstall to Vmax ratio. Total performance.

Sticking at 135hp diesel in a Cessna to replace a 160hp Lycoming may seem a bit weak, but Thielert now has the 155hp 2.0 Centurion available. With a CS prop, it’ll eat the LycoCessna for breakfast.

Here’s one for you. Calculate the power requirement for an RV-9 at 120kts TAS at 8000’ DA. Factor in 0.33 lb/hr/lb for the diesel. Work that against 0.82 kg/l (6.77 lb/USgal or 8.19 lb/Impgal) and go one up and fill the tanks. Be ready to stick a port-a-potty in the other seat as rare is the bladder with that endurance.

Just my thoughts.

Stew
 
Last edited:
We have to hope that the new Thielert 2L has better reliability than the 1.7 which has not been too good in the longevity field to date. Only time will tell.
 
Here's non-engineering explanation relating to your comment about lower horsepower on the diesels:

Note the high compression ratio of the diesel, 19:1, vs. 8 or 9:1 for gas engines. This is necessary in a diesel to get ignition from the heat of combustion; ya gotta smash that fuel air mixture down a lot to get it hot enough to light up. A side benefit however, is more torque. It gets that higher compression by having longer throws on the crankshaft, meaning more leverage.

Horsepower is more related to how fast you can turn the engine, not how strongly it twists the prop. Gassers turn the engines faster, diesels turn more slowly, but with more torque. Diesels generally max out at speeds where fixed props work more efficiently, but they have a narrower optimum speed range which is why trucks have so many speeds in their transmissions.

You need both horsepower and torque. You can turn that engine at 100,000 rpm, but if it can't twist against a load, it doesn't do you any good; that's where torque comes in. There have been some engineerspeak discussions here on the importance of torque vs. horsepower & little was said that makes sense to a non engineer. Anyway, the higher horsepower of the gas engine does not relate; it's an apples and oranges thing. Somewhere for a given aircraft and prop (and perhaps aircraft speed) combo there's an optimum mix of horsepower and torque. Which kind of engine provides the best mix is for those engineers to discuss; I hope they can do it in plain English.

I'm probably wrong on some aspect of this but this is how it makes sense to me.

Richard Scott
RV-9A Fuselage
 
If you compare the Lycoming and Thielert engines in the Cessna case, you get 0.44 lb/hr/hp with the former and 0.33 lb/hr/hp with the second (as proven by Diamond with their Twin Star trans-Atlantic crossing in 2004). The diesel offers a 55% reduction in fuel burn (lb/hr) at the same power setting.
I assume the 55% is a typo, and you really meant a 25% reduction in fuel burn.
 
Here's non-engineering explanation relating to your comment about lower horsepower on the diesels:

Note the high compression ratio of the diesel, 19:1, vs. 8 or 9:1 for gas engines. This is necessary in a diesel to get ignition from the heat of combustion; ya gotta smash that fuel air mixture down a lot to get it hot enough to light up. A side benefit however, is more torque. It gets that higher compression by having longer throws on the crankshaft, meaning more leverage.

Horsepower is more related to how fast you can turn the engine, not how strongly it twists the prop. Gassers turn the engines faster, diesels turn more slowly, but with more torque. Diesels generally max out at speeds where fixed props work more efficiently, but they have a narrower optimum speed range which is why trucks have so many speeds in their transmissions.

You need both horsepower and torque. You can turn that engine at 100,000 rpm, but if it can't twist against a load, it doesn't do you any good; that's where torque comes in. There have been some engineerspeak discussions here on the importance of torque vs. horsepower & little was said that makes sense to a non engineer. Anyway, the higher horsepower of the gas engine does not relate; it's an apples and oranges thing. Somewhere for a given aircraft and prop (and perhaps aircraft speed) combo there's an optimum mix of horsepower and torque. Which kind of engine provides the best mix is for those engineers to discuss; I hope they can do it in plain English.

I'm probably wrong on some aspect of this but this is how it makes sense to me.

Richard Scott
RV-9A Fuselage

HP, or rather just power (in W) is rotational speed multiplyed with torque:
P = T*omega
There is no optimum mix of power and torque, just this simple relation. However, you do want to have max torque somewhere close where you have your cruise RPM. This is the main difference between a diesel and a gasoline engine. A modern TDI has max torque already at 1500 RPM, and it stay there to 2-3000 RPM or even higher. A gasoline engine has max torque around 4000 RPM. Driving normally a 4 cyl 2L TDI feels like a 6 cyl 3L gasoline engine, simply because it has about the same amount of HP up to 3-4000 RPM. From 3-4000 RPM and up, the gasoline engine has much more HP.

Steam engines has (or had) an insane amount of torque already at 0 RPM :)
 
There is no magical RPM at which a gasoline engine must develop its torque peak...so this statement that gasoline engines develop max torque at 4000 rpm is simply an observation of what some engines produce and how, but it is certainly not a rule. Various combinations of stroke, cam, compression ratio, etc. influence the torque peak

What is generally true, is that a gasoline engine is at peak volumetric efficiency at its torque peak. You do want to be at torque peak during cruise for that reason. Lycomings torque peak, at least in the dyno sheets I have seen are generally in the 2400-2500 rpm range. This is why they can achieve some pretty good fue flow/power numbers.

Diesels can have a torque peak in a number of places too, based on design. The fact that torque peak stays the same from its peak to a higher number on the turbo engines is largely a factor of the turbo. A VW 1.8T gas engine has a torque peak at around 2500 RPM and the curve is flat from there...mostly as a result of tuning and the turbo.
 
A side benefit however, is more torque. It gets that higher compression by having longer throws on the crankshaft, meaning more leverage.

Horsepower is more related to how fast you can turn the engine, not how strongly it twists the prop. Gassers turn the engines faster, diesels turn more slowly, but with more torque. Diesels generally max out at speeds where fixed props work more efficiently, but they have a narrower optimum speed range which is why trucks have so many speeds in their transmissions.

You need both horsepower and torque. You can turn that engine at 100,000 rpm, but if it can't twist against a load, it doesn't do you any good; that's where torque comes in. There have been some engineerspeak discussions here on the importance of torque vs. horsepower & little was said that makes sense to a non engineer. Anyway, the higher horsepower of the gas engine does not relate; it's an apples and oranges thing. Somewhere for a given aircraft and prop (and perhaps aircraft speed) combo there's an optimum mix of horsepower and torque. Which kind of engine provides the best mix is for those engineers to discuss; I hope they can do it in plain English.

Richard,

Here's the engineer's (simple?) description of how this works.

Diesels don't generate higher compression through longer strokes. They simply have less space between the piston and the head (smaller squish volume). The only reason diesels can be found with longer stroke/bore ratios in many cases is that the lower rpm charactoristics of the diesel engine mean that the big valves, found in large bore/short stroke engines, don't offer any flow advantage so there is no point in throwing a heavier piston around as the con-rod already has to deal with higher pressures.

Torque : torque is rotary force and is dependant entirely on cylinder pressure and volume. If you take two single cylinder 100cu.in engines, one with a small piston and long stroke and one with a big piston and short stroke, provided the cylinder pressure is the same, the torque is the same. The small piston (say 4sq.in) has the same psi (say 400psi) pushing on a small area giving 1600 lbs of force but on a long lever. The big piston (say 16sq.in) produces 6400lbs of force but on a short lever. Same torque.

Power: power is force over distance. In an engine, the force is torque and the distance is rpm.

If you have two 200hp engines, one giving power at 2500rpm and one at 5000rpm, they will do the same work. However, the second has half the torque of the first. If you put a 100% efficient PSRU with a 2:1 reduction on engine 2, you end up with two packages with identical performance. This is why you can get 200+ hp from an H-6 Subaru (3.0L) and spin the same prop as a IO-360 (5.9L). You simply spin the engine faster to get the power (but with less torque) and use a gearbox to get the torque back, equalling the bigger Lycoming crank output.

Diesel burns slower than gas but has more energy and the engines have much higher compression. The slower burn requires lower piston speeds (directly reducing rpm potential) but the higher cylinder pressures result in more torque. That is why a 2.0L turbo diesel can produce the same torque at 2700rpm as a 5.2L (O-320) normally aspirated gas engine.

To keep it simple, any engine producing the same power can also develop the same torque, you just need to gear it up/down to the same rpm. A 300hp/1500rpm engine geared up (1:2) to 3000rpm will give the same torque out of the box as a 300hp/6000rpm engine geared down (2:1) to 3000rpm.

In simple terms, for an aero-conversion, pick the power you want, find out what rpm the engine produces it at and get a psru that gears it down to the prop rpm. It will give the same performance as the same power Lycosaurus driving off the crank.

As a last note, the narrow power band of a diesel is less of an issue on an aircraft than in a car. This is especially true where a constant-speed prop would allow the pilot to select the point in the power band most suitable for his/her flight conditions and fly on MAP, leaving the prop to keep the engine at the best performance rpm.
 
Many people think diesels engines make a lot of torque because they are diesels. This is not true. These mainly make a lot of torque these days because they are turbocharged and run a lot of boost. Remove the turbo and you have a complete dog.

An example was the original 1.6L VW diesel used in Rabbits. 52hp and only 71 ft./lbs. of torque without the turbo. Many similar gasoline 1.6L engines of that era were around 100-110hp and 100 ft./lbs.

One of our clients built a 600 cubic inch Ford V8. With no turbo- 803 ft./lbs. and 724 hp. Easily comparable to many 450 cubic inch diesels running 30+ psi boost.

The big advantage of diesels is their low SFC not their high torque. Any decent turbocharged gasoline engine will easily exceed the torque and hp output of a similarly sized diesel. Diesels have an advantage at high hp levels when compared to gasoline engines operating on low octane fuel but this would not enter into the aviation equation where specific outputs are relatively low and engine life is important.
 
Go Green!

And of course having a diesel really opens up the possibilities of going green and running biodiesel. Not going to find it at any field, so it'll have to be brought in, but I sure love the stuff. I've been running Willie Nelson's "Willie D" B100 canola in the truck for some time now with no noticable difference in power...

Fewer Emissions
No Alcohol or future availability worries as with 100LL
Higher Lubricity and Higher Cetane than DinoDiesel
No sulphur - doesnt stink - exhaust smells like clean hot cooking oil
Supports Domestic Farm production
 
And of course having a diesel really opens up the possibilities of going green and running biodiesel. Not going to find it at any field, so it'll have to be brought in, but I sure love the stuff. I've been running Willie Nelson's "Willie D" B100 canola in the truck for some time now with no noticable difference in power...

Fewer Emissions
No Alcohol or future availability worries as with 100LL
Higher Lubricity and Higher Cetane than DinoDiesel
No sulphur - doesnt stink - exhaust smells like clean hot cooking oil
Supports Domestic Farm production

BUT - be very careful about temperatures and gel points. Biodiesel in general tends to gel or fog at warmer temperatures than pump diesel - you would not want this happening in your wing tanks during high-altitude cruise. Eitiher run JetA or an anti-gel additive, or run your return fuel from the injectors to the tanks via an oil cooler on the firewall to pick up a little heat, in order to keep the fuel temp above the gel point.
 
Last edited:
As a last note, the narrow power band of a diesel is less of an issue on an aircraft than in a car. This is especially true where a constant-speed prop would allow the pilot to select the point in the power band most suitable for his/her flight conditions and fly on MAP, leaving the prop to keep the engine at the best performance rpm.

Change MAP to "fuel flow" and you've got me nodding in agreement. Diesels are not throttled, so MAP equals whatever the boost pressure is (or ambient pressure). Diesel power is not controlled by MAP as a gas engine is - the "throttle" does not exist, it's always running WOT, and the injector pumps simply spray in sufficient fuel for the desired power output. Eliminating the throttle plate also eliminates pumping losses for all phases of engine operation and makes more sense for a turbocharged powerplant.
 
Good point

Airguy,

I stand corrected, "fuel flow" is indeed correct for a diesel. Higher fuel flow may result in higher MAP for a Turbo D (more energy through the turbo so higher boost), but the true indication of power is fuel flow.

rv6ejguy,

Good point about the turbos. I am putting a normally aspirated 2.5L diesel in my '69 Land Rover. While I wouldn't call it a "dog", it will definitely be "relaxed". After attempting to control a 88" SIIa Land Rover at 75+mph, you soon accept that relaxed is fine.

However, turbo/intercooling allows a further improvement in thermal efficiency (read sfc) and as a diesel theoretically has no detonation limit, provided it is built strongly enough, can be boosted to the moon. Of course, mechanical limitations come in here but while you can turbo a gas to insane power levels, for the power/longevity limits that we're looking at, it becomes a fuel burn/hp issue, not a potential performance issue.

In addition, the slow burn of diesel means that for two equally powered turbo engines of the same displacement, the diesel will produce the power at a lower rpm. Not necessarily important from a performance standpoint, but requiring different psru considerations at least.

Another, not insignificant, point is that within the power outputs we are discussing, the modern TurboD is usually capable of much greater longevity than the equivalent gas engine. A number of factors create this effect (stronger construction due to cylinder pressures, diesel/stratified charge not washing oil film from cylinder walls, lower piston speeds, etc). While a turbo gas has some of these charactoristics, not all apply.

I agree that the most significant advantage of the diesel is the reduction in sfc for the same power output. I'd try to discourage any enthusastic tuner from boosting his 2.0L TDi aero-converstion to 300hp for the same reasons that I'd consider it foolish to fly in moderate turbulence with a vial of nitro-glycerine in the baggage compartment. Something will go bang, it's just a question of when!

As an aside, how is your Marcotte PSRU? Still performing well? It seems like a pretty robust unit and possibly a solid choice for a turbo-diesel conversion. Any thoughts?

baja,

I am also a biodiesel fan (with limits) but I wouldn't consider it for an aircraft. Too much possibility of gelling etc at reduced temps. In fact, I'd be cautious to use auto-diesel in an aircraft without careful consideration of temperature. Avtur (with or without added lubes for the pump depending on engine) with FSII is definitely the best bet. I'm building my Land Rover to be biodiesel friendly, but am putting a tank heater circuit into it so I can start up on petro-diesel in cold weather and switch across when the engine is warm and heating the tank. Twin tanks necessary for winter operation.

As a point of interest, biodiesel should be capable of producing better mpg than petro-diesel. This is because methel-esters (biodiesel) have even more energy per unit volume than petro-diesel.

Pick a warm day, fill up your oil burning RV-9 with biodiesel and head off at 120 TAS/8000 DA and you'll definitely be stopping for a pee break before the tanks are dry!
 
Last edited:
Marcotte is performing well.

How many hours on your EJ25? Any problems to date?

I don't see diesels today lasting any longer than modern gasoline engines. They both usually go longer than most of us own the vehicles for.

Diesels are subject to the same mechanical limitations as any other engine, extreme boost lowers life just like on anything else. I've seen broken cranks and head gaskets on diesels running a lot of boost. Thielert has had lots of piston/ ring land problems on their 1.7Ls well before TBR. Diesels will have to be conservatively rated in aviation use to ensure longevity just as gasoline engines are.
 
Thielert

They're getting a 2000 hr TBO for the 2.0L. The 1.7L seems to be stuck with 1000hrs.

No flying hours on EJ yet, just ground hours. Pulled from a rollover Outback and stripped, checked and rebuilt. However, the more I read, the happier I am with the Subie on my machine. Unfortunately career and location putting a stop to using it at the moment but I'll be back.

It's east of Red Deer by the way, parked in my Dad's barn. Once it's airborne, the RV-8 project can start.

To many projects, only one me. Story of my life!

Glad to hear you're having good luck with the Marcotte.
 
sfc info

Everyone is saying the sfc on avgas engines is .42. I would say that this number can be much lower if you run LOP and carefully manage your engine. I run a IO-550 LOP all the time in my Legacy and I believe i am getting something around .37 at its best SFC power setting. (no i havent put it on a dyno to check this!) Still not the .34 that diesels claim, but much closer.

Also -- we should be looking at MPG if your concerned about efficiency (which i am.) My best MPG is 24 at a TAS of 180 knts. I wish it were higher but that's not too bad.

dave t.
lancair legacy
 
Running an IO550 in a Legacy, that's not bad at all. The nice thing about the diesel is that it runs with that low SFC in ALL operating phases, not just LOP cruise. You don't even have to think about it, it's inherently going to be there. Likewise, you can't screw it up and damage the engine by doing it incorrectly.
 
I run a IO-550 LOP all the time in my Legacy and I believe i am getting something around .37 at its best SFC power setting. (no i havent put it on a dyno to check this!)
I'm curious what evidence you have that you are getting an SFC of 0.37. If I wanted to attempt to estimate the SFC while running LOP, I would do something like the following:

  1. Calibrate the fuel flow, tachometer, MP and OAT indications. The fuel flow can be calibrated by recording indicated fuel used vs actual fuel used over many flights. The MP gauge can be calibrated with a pitot-static test set. The OAT is more difficult. I'm not sure of the best way to handle it.
  2. Pick a day with smooth, stable conditions at altitude.
  3. Record the IAS, altitude, OAT and fuel flow while running LOP. Fly in level flight at a stable power setting for several minutes, to be sure the speed has stabilized.
  4. Establish the exact same altitude, IAS and RPM while leaned for best power, using the leaning method specified in the power charts, using whatever MP is required to keep the IAS the same. Record altitude, IAS, fuel flow, RPM, MP and OAT. Keeping the IAS the same ensures the same thrust horsepower for the two runs. Keeping the RPM the same ensures the prop efficiency is the same, so the engine power is the same. If the altitude, IAS, OAT or RPM differs between the LOP and best power runs, the test is invalid and the data should be discarded.
  5. Using the manufacturer's power charts, and the recorded data for the run while leaned for best power, determine the predicted power.
  6. Knowing that if the speed was the same for the LOP and best power runs, the power had to be the same. Take that power, and the recorded LOP fuel flow to calculate SFC.
  7. Conduct the above test on at least three days to see if you get a repeatable result.

There may be other valid ways to determine the SFC. How did you do it?
 
Or just get a GRT

I'm curious what evidence you have that you are getting an SFC of 0.37. If I wanted to attempt to estimate the SFC while running LOP, I would do something like the following:
  1. Calibrate the fuel flow, tachometer, MP and OAT indications. The fuel flow can be calibrated by recording indicated fuel used vs actual fuel used over many flights. The MP gauge can be calibrated with a pitot-static test set. The OAT is more difficult. I'm not sure of the best way to handle it.
  2. Pick a day with smooth, stable conditions at altitude.
  3. Record the IAS, altitude, OAT and fuel flow while running LOP. Fly in level flight at a stable power setting for several minutes, to be sure the speed has stabilized.
  4. Establish the exact same altitude, IAS and RPM while leaned for best power, using the leaning method specified in the power charts, using whatever MP is required to keep the IAS the same. Record altitude, IAS, fuel flow, RPM, MP and OAT. Keeping the IAS the same ensures the same thrust horsepower for the two runs. Keeping the RPM the same ensures the prop efficiency is the same, so the engine power is the same. If the altitude, IAS, OAT or RPM differs between the LOP and best power runs, the test is invalid and the data should be discarded.
  5. Using the manufacturer's power charts, and the recorded data for the run while leaned for best power, determine the predicted power.
  6. Knowing that if the speed was the same for the LOP and best power runs, the power had to be the same. Take that power, and the recorded LOP fuel flow to calculate SFC.
  7. Conduct the above test on at least three days to see if you get a repeatable result.
There may be other valid ways to determine the SFC. How did you do it?

I admit that the GRT EFIS is probably not quite as accurate, but it does give constant read-out of SFC if you ask it to. I've made some observations and comparisons of the various parameters to see if it makes sense and it does, within about .02 SFC. Mine reports .38 while running LOP. It reads correctly with no "error" according to the Superior engine manual which gives SFC for peak and 75 deg ROP. The GAMI guys estimate .40 for an engine in good condition when LOP. Is it unreasonable that my engine with 120 hours can do better than the GAMI average? Anyhow, if you are lucky enough to have a GRT already, you have the ability to monitor this and watch for changes either during a flight or over the life of the engine.
 
I admit that the GRT EFIS is probably not quite as accurate, but it does give constant read-out of SFC if you ask it to. I've made some observations and comparisons of the various parameters to
I'd love to know how the GRT EFIS calculates SFC, and what assumptions it uses. It certainly doesn't measure power, as it has no way to measure the torque. It might be using some assumed SFC, with the assumed SFC varying depending on how far lean of peak you are. But without knowing what the assumptions are, and under what conditions those assumptions are valid, we really don't know how accurate that SFC number is.

If you stay at a constant IAS, altitude and rpm, using various MP and leaning points, it would be interesting to take the indicated fuel flow and SFC to calculate power, and see how constant that calculated power was. If the IAS, altitude and rpm remain constant, the power you calculate from the fuel flow and SFC should be essentially constant (ignoring the effect of weight reduction as you burn fuel).
 
If you're getting sub 0.40 with that 540, don't let anyone steal that engine from you. That's awesome performance for a small air cooled engine.

I know people talk about the Thielert diesels getting 0.36, but on their trans-atlantic crossing in the Twin Star, they AVERAGED 0.33.

As for mpg vs sfc, I disagree. Mpg is good if you are comparing two identical aircraft.

Even if you take two RV-8s, one might be running a different cowl, plenum cooling and every fairing and speedy wingtip on the market. The other could have everything stock and be dragging bare wheels around the sky.

Mpg is a figure describing total engine AND airframe performance. Sfc describes just the engine, independant of other factors.

This means that a guy wanting to build a Harmon Rocket Evo can look at the performance of your 540, get one of identical spec and then work out what it'll give him in his airframe. The engines will do the same thing, but the airframe they're dragging around will differ.

More importantly, when one is comparing a IO-360 to a Subaru H-6 or an O-320 to a Thielert 2.0 Diesel, you get figures independant of airframe drag issues.

For example, it is possible, although difficult, for someone to build a clean EJ25 (165hp) RV-8, cooled by a pressure recovery belly scoop system (ala P-51) that actually produces cooling thrust, or at least no drag. The P-51 produces cooling thrust at cruise (about 65lbf if memory serves me correctly).

Such an installation would have the potential to embarrass a stock IO-360 installation when both wear the same prop. Even if the Subie has 10% worse sfc, it'll probably still get better mpg.

So, sfc is valuable. Mpg is great when comparing like with like or when shopping for your next project (if travelling is your thing). However, Jon Johansen admitted that his RV-4 wasn't the best choice for flying around the world, but it was the aeroplane he wanted so that's where sfc comes into play. Lower sfc = get better mpg (all other things being equal).
 
Stew -- yea MPG takes into consideration the airplane -- thats exactly my point. It is one figure that tells you which airplanes are most efficient -- it combines all the factors -- easy!

About computing SFC on your engine, we are kind of being silly talking about it unless you put in on a dyno and measure it. I said i am getting .37 on my IO-550 in my Legacy.

We are really talking bout the Thermal Efficiency of the engine when we talk about SFC, which is how much energy from the fuel the engine converts to power. SFC is just how much fuel you need to make one HP. The thermal efficiency of piston engines is typically from 27 to 33%. I know from George Bralys work at GAMI with the IO-550 at LOP at lower power (ie 60%) settings that they are getting a SFC in the .37 range on their dyno. I am operating my engine in the same manner and from my power measurments (taken from thrust needed for a given airspeed) I think I am that range also.

I love diesels as much as anybody and am pulling for Deltahawk bigtime, but I need to see some numbers (dyno numbers) to verify how great it is.

So, like i said we're being silly here a little without dyno numbers.

But we can measure MPG easily! And mine is more like 26 at 170 knots at 8000 ft.
 
I guess I'm looking at this from an engineering viewpoint. When comparing airframes, I actually work out the drag profile of the airframe, power output of the engine, efficiency curves of props and then work from there. That's why I prefer sfc.

If you're going to build, bolt in an engine and fly, then mpg does make sense as it's simple and easy. However, I'm one of those guys frustrated by some of the Subie development out there. I understand that Jan Eggenfellner is selling packages to bolt on and fly and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, for the true "experimenter", the drag reduction potential of the liquid cooled engine package is great. If you start looking at that type of thing (thrust recovery cooling systems for example) then you're stepping out of the crowd and things like sfc become part of the picture for working out theoretical peformance. SFC and thermal efficiency are directly related. However, sfc is the aeronautical industry standard for measuring an engine's efficiency.

Lots of homebuilts out there, but few "experimentals". Van's aircraft may carry the experimental tag, but in stock form, they're far from experimental. In fact, they're more proven than some "production" machines. Probably safer too!

I'm glad you're a diesel fan though. Modern diesels blow that 27-33% thermal efficiency away. Most decent designs now in the 40+% region. That'll give you some quality mpg improvement!
 
Last edited:
The cooling drag thing has been discussed at length here on VAF if you do a search. Given the research I've done on WW2 aircraft, it is unlikely at the sub 200 knot speeds RVs go, that liquid cooled engines will ever produce zero drag and even more unlikely thrust.

I am instrumenting our RV10 belly rad duct to prove or disprove the Meredith Effect so we'll have some solid data to end that argument once and for all.

Historical research shows that most liquid cooled powered versions of the same airframe were faster than their air cooled counterparts. I list these in some other posts as well. A dedicated diverging/ converging rad duct will be required on an RV to get cooling drag comparable to or less than a Lycoming installation IMO.
 
Stew -- did you put your engine on a dynamometer? Because if you didnt then you have absolutely no way of knowing its power output with any accuracy. Any engineer will tell you this. There are just too many variables on a flying airplane. Pilots have enough trouble measuring their TAS. Most in fact dont know how fast they are flying. They read TAS off their GRT or Chelton and tell everyone thats their speed, but it is NOT -- unless they have specifically callibrated it by doing speed runs and correcting for wind and finding TAS and finding the difference from what is shown and then entered this into the callibration tables in the units. (Mine was reading 5 knots high at 200 knots.)

Dave T.
Lancair Legacy