Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 00:12:31 -0500 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from imo-r10.mx.aol.com ([152.163.225.106] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0.5) with ESMTP id 2002510 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:02:22 -0500 Received: from StarAerospace@aol.com by imo-r10.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id q.75.872b209 (4418) for ; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:02:15 -0500 (EST) From: StarAerospace@aol.com X-Original-Message-ID: <75.872b209.2b68ac47@aol.com> X-Original-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 23:02:15 EST Subject: Re: diesels X-Original-To: lml@lancaironline.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 124 << As a rule of thumb diesels reject more heat to both the coolant and the oil than do spark-ignition engines. >> Heat rejection is far more of a function of specific fuel consumption, EGT, and the exhaust placement vs. the cooling flow than any comparison of engine type. I can definitely assure you that a TIO-540U2A at 263 HP rejects far more heat and requires far more cooling than a modern 300 HP compression ignition engine at the same power simply because of the difference between a .59 SFC and the C-I's .36. For given amount of output HP, the lower the SFC the lower the rejected heat. Since C-I requires high compression ratios to work, this leads to higher expansion ratios and lower EGT's. Lower EGT also leads to lower cooling requirements so the nod goes away from the S-I engine in that area. If the exhaust is placed close to the intake or in the way of the cooling flow to vital components, more air (and drag) must be used to keep things cool. So arranging the engine in the fashion of the TSIO-550N is better than the TIO-540 U2A. Best of all (for opposed engines) is the TIO-540S1AD with updraft cooling, intake on the bottom, and exhaust on top; this allows convection to aid cooling instead of fight it. A C-I engine will reject a higher percentage of its waste heat to the coolant and oil that an equivalent S-I engine due to the low amount of heat rejected in the exhaust. However, modern S-I engines are so much more efficient than our current Lycoming and Continental offerings that the cooling load would likely be less for a properly designed aircraft C-I engine with an SFC of .36 or less. Whether any given cooling load equates to less cooling drag is far more a function of system design, and the GA aircraft industry is rife with bad system design. Eric Ahlstrom