Modern diesel engines, in things like tanks, are often said to be multi-fuel and they can, like a turbine, can run on anything that can be vapourised and ignited by compression. Problem is, it often affects the lubrication of the engine and may ruin it, such as trying to run a modern car diesel on kerosene or biodiesel. Older diesels, with mechanical fuel injectors can routinely run on alternate fuels, ie, if you are stuck, you can fill up with waste oil or kero or filtered chip fat to get you home.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Cessna Replacement - The Options
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View PostModern diesel engines, in things like tanks, are often said to be multi-fuel and they can, like a turbine, can run on anything that can be vapourised and ignited by compression. Problem is, it often affects the lubrication of the engine and may ruin it, such as trying to run a modern car diesel on kerosene or biodiesel. Older diesels, with mechanical fuel injectors can routinely run on alternate fuels, ie, if you are stuck, you can fill up with waste oil or kero or filtered chip fat to get you home.
- Likes 4
Comment
-
Originally posted by WhingeNot View Post... I thought that it would have been the other way around, with the more jet like fuel for turboprops been more expensive but, with the advantages of been more high performance allowing for more powerful engines.
Lets hope that whoever is going to be adding up the pro's and cons' - select something that gives the best utility, and not just pick something that is expensive and 'sexy'!
- Likes 2
Comment
-
A. Ok, besides being powerful, running on cheap fuel, spread worldwide and taking a long time between servicing - what have Turboprops ever done for us?!
vs.
B. Really, the advantages of Piston engines are?.. (e.g. Cessna still sells five models of its traditional 'Cessnas' - all with piston engines,.. while its larger brethren are all turboprops)... I'm guessing again, cheaper purchase up-front with simple engines, take more abuse, more frequent maintenance but more simple servicing, and smaller airfields can store the (?) less dangerous (?) Avgas?
(sounding a bit like a comparison between AC and DC motors now...).
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Avgas is more volatile and dangerous to store and has lead in it, so it has to have dedicated transport and storage. Avtur lasts longer, requires treatment for microbiological growth in warm countries and is much safer to store. Piston engines can be finicky creatures and will never have the length of overhaul life that a turbine will have. PT-6s are unbeatable engines and are even used as industrial engines as the ST-6 model. They power helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, power stations and probably hovercraft and are simple to service and keep running.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
is there much point linking to articles that sit behind paywalls?
is there much point linking to articles that are so badly researched that they claim that the RAF used an aircraft that got turned into razorblades 5 years ago?
with respect, this has been happening for the best part of a decade - if a new policy is called for, why?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Galloglass View PostThese are nice....https://twitter.com/garethjennings3/...59037117079553
This might just be the ticket actually http://www.vulcanair.com/userfiles/f...0_A-Viator.pdfLast edited by Graylion; 27 September 2016, 00:46.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment