|
|
Tracy,
That is the problem, cost. The idea of a heavy-fuel engine often comes up, but it rarely makes sense except in Europe where the cost of gas is higher than Jet-A by enough to make it viable. Then it would only work if you got the same or better mileage.
Bill Jepson
-----Original Message-----
From: Tracy Crook <tracy@rotaryaviation.com>
To: Rotary motors in aircraft <flyrotary@lancaironline.net>
Sent: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:07 pm
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Heavy Fuel?
I liked the Experimenter ezine but the article on heavy fuel was a bit lame. Yes, you can (with some difficulty) make a spark ignited heavy fuel engine but so what? What does it get you? The efficiency is no better, and the power is less. The fuel is more expensive.
The military is interested in this for the purpose of fuel commonality only.
Tracy (sorry to be a downer)
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 1:01 PM, Dale Rogers <dale.r@cox.net> wrote:
Hi all,
I just read a somewhat interesting article in the new EAA
electronic magazine, < http://eaa.org/experimenter/issues/ >.
http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/articles/2009-01_engine.asp
IIRC, the rotary has a bit of a reputation for being able to
run on darned near anything that will burn (100 proof?).
With direct injection - just after the intake ports are
obscured - a realistic possibility, I wonder if the 13B
couldn't be a star platform for a heavy fuel solution.
Hmm, I've got an extra engine, and if I can ever get the
"fly" engine on the airplane ... nah, just another distraction
to keep me from finishing the COZY. After that?
Dale R.
COZY MkIV #0497
Ch. 12 complete. ~still~ on Ch. 13 :(
--
Homepage: http://www.flyrotary.com/
Archive and UnSub: http://mail.lancaironline.net:81/lists/flyrotary/List.html
|
|