Piston engines are the second category of aviation engine in common use, and depending on their design may use ignition or compression fuels. This makes for drastic drag loses and noise issues. By comparison, the combustion engine converts the exhaust gas heat expansion into mechanical energy by driving a linear piston, and gains no mechanical energy by exhaust. And fuselage space is already consumed by passengers and cargo. Automotive engines have been designed genrator utilize a wide jet plane diesel generator of fuel qualities and tolerate a wide variety of additives to improve engine life generqtor jet plane diesel generator.

And there are good reasons like its atomic weight and high half-reaction potential why we're unlikely to do better than lithium.

You're forgetting that an electric car is about five times more efficient at turning stored watt-hours into movement as an ICE car. But in an airplane the battery mass is a much worse problem, because you have constantly spend energy to keep it airborne. Keeping the electric car and its battery rolling on the ground is not nearly as much of a load. Compare the cost of heating a house with gas v. Show 7 more comments. Active Oldest Votes. EDIT: Since so many people get excited about me omitting the energy density aspect of electric propulsion, even though the question did expressly desire to leave this out, here are two things to consider.

But this comparison is linear thinking - realistically, the current will be produced either by a high-efficiency turbine-generator combination, or by fuel cells, burning hydrogen at twice the efficiency of a conventional jet engine.

Since hydrogen packs MJ per kilogram, at twice the efficiency the electric airliner would need only kg of hydrogen for every ton of kerosene in a conventional jet. Yes, I know, even then its volume will still be a problem.

If any form of batteries is used, the fact that empty batteries weigh as much as full ones is the final nail in the coffin of battery-powered flight. To be competitive, those hypothetical batteries would need to have twice the energy density of kerosene. Improve this answer. And understand it. It is built for low weight - it is a car engine, not a stationary industry motor. After all, this motor needs to be certified just like any other component on the aircraft. Things would be different for Formula 1, but we are still looking at civil aviation here.

No analysis of the weight of the power supply is necessary for this particular question. Show 34 more comments. I see two problems: First - the sheer amount of energy consumed by the commercial airplane. As mentioned in my question I am aware of the battery technology issues.

I was wondering if there are any inherent characteristics that make electric motors unsuited for use as aircraft engines. The first paragraph of your answer indicates that this is not the case and we could build electric motors with the same capabilities as turbofans - the only admittedly huge problem is supplying those electric motors with enough energy.

They make their name not by storing a lot of energy, but by their ability to let all of that energy lose in a remarkably short period of time. It really isn't. The problem space is simple. Nuclear reactors are radioactive. Humans and radioactivity do not mix. Shielding is heavy scientific fact, they need to be to have a large cross-section.

Heavy planes don't fly [citation needed]. Don't get me started with neutron radiation and fusion. This is a problem for a number of reasons: The most obvious reason this is a problem is that more energy is required for the flight.

Of course, you could start jettisoning battery cells as they're depleted, but this also obviously has a lot of problems: In order to deplete some batter cells sooner than others, you won't be able to draw on all cells in parallel, which will mean higher power draw levels per cell and, thus, more heat produced per unit time per active cell, etc. I was aware of 1 and 2 but not 3. Adds an interesting perspective; I have no idea what the costs for a resurfacing or strengthened runway design could be.

However, I think if our civilization started using electric passenger jets the incentive to develop stronger runways would be big enough so that someone would come up with a solution for that particular problem e. Airports would have to have significant demand for it before they'd make the investment, especially in the case of airports where shutting a runway down to resurface causes major traffic headaches during the construction.

Also, why would you use an electric fan with fuel cells instead of just burning the fuel directly in the engine to start with? The latter is almost certainly more efficient, not to mention less complex to design and maintain.

Show 1 more comments. Then do away with the shroud and you end up with regular propellers. Then it all makes sense. Many in 30 minutes. I don't see this changing with increased energy density, so I don't see why power density would be an issue. But yeah, as Peter said, I would be interested in your thrust per kW at mach 0. Add a comment.

Max Max 51 1 1 silver badge 1 1 bronze badge. Thanks for a good first answer. Adding references to this answer would make it even better. Therac Therac Jason Hubbard Jason Hubbard 11 1 1 bronze badge. For any realistic condition your assumption is plain wrong and belongs in a field called ballistics. In this arrangement, it still may be energy efficient to recapture some of the energy with a turbine, but the turbine is not driving the engine, the electric motor is.

A ground launch assist would achieve similar effect, but reduce mass on the flight vehicle-- that launch-assist motor on the E-fan is dead weight for the rest of the flight. With ground launch assist, you might save more energy, and extend range, of an aerial EV. The Navy uses assisted launch for short takeoff, no reason it can't be used for energy efficiency.

On a comparable electrical aircraft you will be able to save 0. You will gain far more efficiency by e. What your question boils down to is, essentially: Ignoring power input, can an electrical engine produce equivalent output to a jet engine within the size and weight of that jet engine?

So: Is the power to weight ratio of a jet engine greater than electric engines? Adam Davis Adam Davis 2, 14 14 silver badges 22 22 bronze badges. Keegan Keegan 71 2 2 bronze badges. Carlo Felicione Carlo Felicione Just look at electric cars tesla, leaf, etc or smartphones with quick charging. However, as pointed out, the question was about engines assuming power supply is not a problem. It would be difficult it they were part of the wing structure.

And fuselage space is already consumed by passengers and cargo. Featured on Meta. State of the Stack Q1 Blog Post. Stack Overflow for Teams is now free for up to 50 users, forever. Linked 3. See more linked questions. Related 8. Hot Network Questions. This is necessary to ensure the fuel meets the necessary performance across the operating envelope of turbine aircraft. The slightly lower autoignition temperature allows for more reliable performance within the combustion chamber of the turbine engine itself.

Finally, the thermodynamic output of the fuel must also be consistent in order to ensure that flight planning manuals provide accurate data, as lower heating values produce lower thrust output, and reduced cruise performance. The criticality of consistent performance drives these tighter tolerances. While a typical aircraft turbine would burn generic kerosene, engine performance would be reduced and unpredictable.

The difference between diesel fuel and Jet-A is similar to that between Jet-A and kerosene, but of an even greater magnitude. Diesel fuel is designed and refined for use in diesel piston engines; it contains higher concentrations of impurities, and does not tolerate the wide temperature extremes needed in aviation. Reviewing the data in Error! Reference source not found. These differences are tied to the chemical makeup of the two fuels, with Jet-A being refined at higher temperatures, thus removing the sulfur compounds and providing a more uniform set of carbon molecules.

Jet-A is essentially an extremely high-quality diesel fuel, and indeed running a typical automotive diesel engine on Jet-A is likely possible. However, the chemical compounds within diesel fuel have lubricating properties that ensure proper operating of fuel injectors, pumps and other mechanical components; the higher chemical purity of Jet-A strips away these lubricating compounds, resulting in more consistent performance, and a wider useful temperature envelope, but poorer mechanical properties.

Additionally the higher vapor pressure of diesel fuel may interfere with proper atomization of the fuel within the combustion chamber leading to a host of other issues. There are turbine engines designed to use diesel fuel, but these engine have distinct design requirements from aviation turbines. The base chemical components of these fuels are virtually identical, as both are fundamentally gasoline and are extracted from the refining process at the same point.

AvGas contains tetraethyl lead TEL , to improve engine component lubrication, and boost the octane rating of the fuel. This type of octane boosting was common in automotive engines until , when environmental concerns surrounding lead contamination resulted in the phase-out of lead in automotive gas. Detonation is an operating condition in which the fuel ignites spontaneously under compression prior to normal firing of the spark plug. This results in severe pressure and temperature spikes within the engine, and quickly leads to severe engine damage.

Tetraethyl Lead reduces wear in valve assemblies with the engine. The build-up of lead on valve guides and seats helps to lengthen the service life of these components. A wide range of aviation engines are compatible with unleaded fuels such as MoGas, presuming the engine manufacturer has approved the use of unleaded fuel and the associated octane rating is met. Typically, these engines have fairly low horsepower outputs and low compression ratios, as such the aircraft they are installed in are typically small, lightweight aircraft.

The greatest hazard for aircraft engines using unleaded fuel is typically engine knock during climb at high altitudes, where the fuel air mixture is generally leaned to maximize engine performance, and where engine temperatures are highest. The tighter quality control processes required for aviation fuels ensures that greater uniformity is present within AvGas. One example of this is the use of ethanol as a fuel additive.

Ethanol is increasingly mixed with automotive fuel to raise the octane rating and improve fuel economy at reduced cost to fuel refiners, but the precise mixture ratio is rarely placarded sufficiently to ensure safe aviation use. Unfortunately, ethanol is incompatible with nearly all aviation piston engines and their fuel systems. The rubberized components used in aircraft fuel systems, from tanks, to hoses to Jet Plane Name List Generator seals are not compatible with ethanol and quickly deteriorate when ethanol laced fuel is used.

Automotive engines have been designed to utilize a wide range of fuel qualities and tolerate a wide variety of additives to improve engine life and durability. The effect of these additives is numerous, but in particular, these additional chemicals raise the vapor pressure of MoGas, meaning that it evaporates from liquid to gaseous at a higher rate relative to AvGas.

This higher evaporation rate makes MoGas susceptible to vapor lock at high altitudes and at high temperatures, making engine starts more difficult and engine failures at low power settings more likely. Check it out here. Piston engine powered aircraft continue to rely on AvGas as a fuel source because the design requirements of diesel engines incur an inherent weight penalty, and new engine development is expensive and prolonged.

Diesel engines are typically heavier than their gasoline equivalents to meet the strength requirements associated with compression engine cycles.

Automotive and aviation diesels alike nearly exclusively require turbocharging to be effective power plants as throttle response is a primary design consideration in both industries. Additionally, aviation diesels are, primarily, derived from automotive diesels and thus must be geared down to drive a propeller. These gearboxes are failure prone, and often result in expensive replacement costs over dramatically shorter time intervals than is typical for gasoline engines. These additional mechanical systems drive up the weight and complexity of the engine, a serious detriment to the implementation of diesel engines as a primary powerplant for piston powered aircraft.

This resultant increase in weight generally results in an engine that develops less power for the same basic engine size and weight, resulting in lower aircraft performance. Lower performance is not a detriment for certain segments of the aviation industry, particularly in the training sector and Asian and African markets, but sufficient sales have not yet materialized to justify the development costs and timelines necessary to certify new piston aircraft under current regulatory burdens.

The automotive roots of these engines do provide some benefits however, much of the research and development costs of the engine itself have been amortized by the automotive industry, and the engine control systems are typically electronic i. FADEC controlled just like many turbine engines. Electronic controls simplify engine operation and allow for extremely efficient operations. However, there is not yet sufficient net operating cost benefit for these engines to make significant sales gains within the piston aircraft fleet, either with OEMs or as aftermarket STCs.

One of the leading generator manufacturing company. Aditya Shriwastav. One of the most leading diesel general supplier ,very good and value your business and comittment, Management is very good and they are too much concerned about customer satisfaction. Rylan Hoffman. I bought the Genset generator and its good at running and the company's service is good. Emali Jhon. Jubaili Bros a trusted generator supplier in UAE with efficient quality products and maintenance team.

Diy Wood Projects Australia Journal Letter J In Malayalam 42 Grizzly Combination Belt And Disc Sander Test