Cheers,
I have opted for the Wilksch WAM120 diesel. This comes from a
long and deepseated belief that petrol/gas engines have evolved as much as
they are going to, that diesel has been ignored excessively and that the
science of metallurgy has made significant strides in the last decade or
two.
I am not ignoring the belief that Mark has played a major part in advancing
diesel's attractiveness. Several others seem to have made a stab at it and
not come through, or are aimed at higher power levels where more esoteric
designs reign.
There are very few of us who have committed - and thus we cannot
expect a large audience(?) but I believe that it will grow for a number of
reasons, not the least of which is universal lack of high-octane fuel in the
future. There are already rumblings of reduced 100LL on the books.
I posted an "imaginery" list of advants/disadvants of the ideal
diesel several weeks ago and met with crashing silence. But one of
'declared' wrote and said: "Please feel free to repost your messages on
the list. "
So for my own as well as the others benefit, I invite discussion on either
the specific Wilksch (I understand Mark is monitorring) or the general
topic.
I have opted for a Wilksch diesel. The manufacturer aside, the reasons are:
1 I believe that the industry (perhaps at government urging) will abandon
highoctane product within ten years. There are indications rumbling already;
2 Diesel fuel carries more energy per unit volume than 100LL;
3 Compression-ignition negates a usual ignition system and its
complications;
4 Thus much ignition-caused signal noise is eliminated;
5 Carburettors disappear with all their complex settings;
6 Similarly carb icing is gone;
7 An inline inverted form of engine in my case allows for a 2-inch higher
prop centreline which in turn allows for a 2-inch larger prop with a 1-inch
greater prop clearance;
8 Diesels are considered reliable, and predominate north of 60;
9 Two-stroke diesels are more efficient in fuel use, and cause less
pollution;
10 Narrower width may give better frontal efficiency;
11 Diesel may make use of turbofuel availablity (increasing);
12 Metallurgy has lightened diesel design;
13 Graham reports the tested unit is smooth as a 6-cyl gas equivalent;
14 Diesel runs more coolly (especially with turbo exhaust) than gas;
15 Ghoulish as it may seem, I prefer diesel dripping (higher flashpoint)
after a prang;
16 Diesels don't need speed reducers - they run at prop speeds;
17 Diesels are simpler, contain less parts;
18 One might more easily incorporate a compressed-air inlet to spin up the
engine (and turbo?) for starting, USSR-WW II-style.
There are three major disadvantages as I see it:
1 You can smell a diesel leak from the other shore;
2 Diesel fuel injectors are notoriously susceptible to water, or aerated
fuel;
3 Weight penalties mean less gas with passengers, but the wife can only
stand 2-1/2 hours anyway.
I (we) invite comment on the above or upon any other topic
related to compression-ignition ambition.
Happy landings
Ferg
P.S: I am repeating this to the Matronics/AeroElectric aviation net
for those who follow the threads on homebuilt electrics/electronics and
might watch some fur fly.
|