I think someone wanted a sound video or something? Well here it is: ua-cam.com/video/qyyvwitOigQ/v-deo.html I honestly had no idea that plane nuts liked sound as much as car nuts.
There is a GREAT CD sound effects by Chuck Yeager about twenty years ago doing an instrument check before he cranks a P51f . Once controls are set flips last switches and 2500hps wake up through 12 shorty open stacks 6feet away from you,idles a bit then rolls and takes off .Each plane has it's own sound a squadron rolls by some a fast idle , the rest lope like a really fat cam 572 ci that can't run below 2500rpm. Each pilot bangs the throttle and takes off does fly by and joins formation .
Then you have never heard the iconic sound of a T-6 with the tips of that Hamilton Standard prop tips braking the sound barrier, or that beautiful voice from a Spitfire or Mustang with that Merlin 61 or Packard V1650 at full song
Constructive criticism, no disrespect; lose the background noise. The subject & your narration of it is great! The addition of distracting, monotonous & annoying mario bros music ruined the vid for me.
@@donkeightley8463 Yes it is. Torque X Rpm / 5,252 = horsepower. You cannot have horsepower without torque. You cannot turn a propeller without torque. The Diameter, number of blades, and RPM determine how much torque you need. You cannot even fly if your engine fails to meet that required amount of torque. Even the Merlin V-12 was geared down from 3,000 to 1,450rpm to double its torque to the propeller so it could swing a 10-12' prop.
With respect, I think we are getting torque , effect on handling mixed with torque in engine terms. This thing would be a surprise to a Cessna pilot, but not to someone used to flying what has always been a more graceful version of a tractor in the sky. That said, you blokes have balls of steel to fly the way you do. I have driven a mini Cooper at a hundred mph but am not going to go crop dusting any time soon😂
Actually LET Mike see this. I would like to see what prop he would match it up with on Scrappy. Or he may be interested in buyint one or two turbines off of these guys.
@@PistonAvatarGuy If I remember correctly, Scrappy is currently pulling about 600 horses, but there's no way it's putting out the 2,000 lb-ft of torque this this is making. Granted, we're comparing a thoroughbred to a Clydesdale here. Scrappy's engine would be a dog in an ag plane that needs to haul tons of weight up and around all day.
@@challengecompleted55 That's just not how hp and torque work. In an aircraft application, torque literally means nothing, and it barely means anything in any other application. The thrust produced by the propeller is directly proportional to the power output of the engine and the efficiency of the prop, it's not related to the torque output of the engine in any way. And, no, Scrappy's engine would not be a dog in an ag plane, the unmodified version of that same engine is even used in the Fletcher FU-24, which is a purpose-built ag plane.
@@PistonAvatarGuy torque literally means nothing in almost every application? Take a 400hp 5.7L hemi and stick it in place of a 400hp 14L Cummins in a heavy truck and try towing and let me know how little of a difference torque makes. HP is litterally torque multiplied by rpm. You need a balance of both but torque is far from unimportant in airplanes or otherwise... remember "HP is how fast you hit the wall, TORQUE is how far you take the wall with you"
500hp, wow. and that's right about the region where the piston engine starts to disappear and the turbine engine appears. just fantastic to see a diesel flying out there.
@@tgh223 nope, it's not "too heavy". you have to look at the package weight for a given mission. So usually it is powerplant plus fuel. Turbines lose out to piston in the efficiency department at lower altitudes because of the relatively high fuel burn by comparison. In this application with 6hrs of fuel it might just be light enough to be competitive. Also take into account that the propeller and the engine cost only a fraction of what a turbine costs. You could probably get the price down to the cost of a hot section inspection and rebuild, so it essentially becomes a throw-away-engine for a commercial operator.
For the love of diesel 👍. I came across a crop sprayer pilot when I was building racing cars in the late 80's in South Africa. We were already working with carbon fibre and kevlar. The pilot was nuts.
The V12 with that architecture sounds like the BMW 7 and 8 series V12s from the 80s & 90s. Two independent 6 cylinder engines sharing a block. Two ECUs, etc.
We have another Ag Pilot with a gorgeous Air Tractor, he runs a field next to our property. That thing sounds AMAZING. And holy dayum these pilots can fly those machines. The bank angles are incredible and the way they power out is impossible not to watch and cheer lol
@@DSAK55 You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The definition you gave in your comment is EXACTLY what makes it a diesel engine, and it running on Jet-A/A1 or diesel kind of gives that away. I've been an aircraft mechanic both in and out of the military for close to 30 years and have worked on standard recips, turbines, and aviation diesels and there is little difference between them and auto diesels except, well they are WAY more reliable than auto diesels. haha
@@ImpendingJoker Are you aware that when Rudolf Diesel invented his engine there was no diesel fuel. You could call his invention the peanut oil engine
@DSAK55 it's almost like the diesel engine was named for the diesel cycle of thermodynamics rather then the fuel. In theory any compression ignition piston engine is a diesel regardless of fuel source
That’s just genius and I’m surprised the aircraft industry hasn’t adapted this to more high volume hauling planes. This would be great in firefighting planes that haul large amounts of water the Diesel would give them more torque and power and longer run time.
The biggest thing holding them back is that diesels are a lot harder to make high revving compared to petrol engines which is more important then the added power a diesel can give. Which is why most aircraft that arent for personal use dont use piston engines in general they use some for of jet, even propeller aircraft use jets to spin the blades as they use less moving parts can rotate a lot faster and produce a lot more power (and use a lot more fuel).
For small, slow planes diesels can make sense since small turboprops are very inefficient. For bigger power turboprop efficiency gets close enough while being smoother and much lighter.
Red Aircraft is located at the Nürburgring nordschleife.. i Hear an See a lot of testings on it. Sounds Great, like a heavy modern Tractor on Full load. Great Company, fast growing and innovative. I think the Next Step is private watercraft Industrie ..
Always thought crop dusting would be a GREAT way to make a living. Always seemed like flyin under wires and tight turns would make a man look forward to goin to work everyday.
Very cool and informative video. Congrats on a great job!!! That is one bad A duster. Flown in a 602, but I like that better! I would like to see that power plant in a smaller version in a Mooney or Bonanza!
@@gmanchurch not contesting you, just trying to get clarification but how do they handle weight and balance calculations then? I never worked ag planes, just light general aviation 6 passengers or less, building several experimental kits (two passengers) plus working at Repair Facilities doing aircraft appliances (hermetic fire extinguishers and inflatables [Commercial: escape slides, life rafts and heli floats] ). Just relocating a battery can be problematic and look at how many crashes there are when a baggage compartment moves the CG aft. I On the experimental kits, based on the actual engine option used it could drastically change flight safety dynamics with just fractions of an inch forward or aft engine placement and before the FAA inspector signed off I had to show him all the weight and balance calculations. SOMETHING has to be done to compensate for the different engine so how are ag planes different physics?
Like damn, That is well thought out and super efficient. Wonder if you could use that engine in other applications...great work to the team that built it and thought of it
Sealand Aviation in Campbell River, British Columbia are installing this RED engine on a DHC-2 Beaver, they've been working on it for awhile. I don't think they've flown it yet.
I mean tbh I’ve ran diesel in turbine it’s nasty on start up but they interchange decent 😂 I love this, I’ve thought about this for years. Use the same refuel rigs for your tractors and crop dusters.
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq The only difference between offroad diesel and diesel #2 is the tax stamp, and the dye. If you're getting furnace waste oil as offroad diesel, you need to buy your shit from a better supplier.
@@jjohnson2553 Yeah burning Jet A in a turbine. Its pretty obvious that I'm using the word 'diesel' to refer to a piston engine, why else would I be mentioning 'V12'?
Great Conversion. The Diesel conversion is a bonus because Av Gas is so expensive. Would be nice to have more information on the Engine sourcing. Need one for my Tundra...
Av gas has been a scam for 80 years because of the Av unions. The US av industry propped up gasoline tech in Av engines to keep unionized workers employed and busy all the time servicing these obsolete gas engines.
The turbine runs on kerosene or Jet A1. The same fuel that your old McCormick Deering W30 Petrol/Kerosene tractor from 1939 ran on. It was the cheapest then, but not now. AV Gas is petrol or gasoline as you would call it.
Diesels for piston aircraft are starting to become a thing. There's been people trying to make it happen for a couple decades now, but it's really starting to happen for actual real and I'm *excited* for it. Not only are diesels tough, typically stupid reliable, and monstrously torque-y (which is terrific for a torque-based application like a prop plane), BUT the engine is capable of running with zero electrical power if designed and built properly. With gravity-fed fuel system and a mechanically-backed fuel pump an aircraft flying diesels could, in theory, fly completely electrically dead. Can't do that with a gas or turbine engine!
This is true but were there is a Diesel engine there is a turbine that can make more power, torque and better reliability due too the very few moving parts also diesel would have hard time operating at higher altitudes. And turbines can practically run off anything that burns that being said diesels do have better fuel economy at low power
A turbine dosent require any electrical power to run, my turbine has a mechanical fuel pump And a small generator for all the gauges. The throttle is also fully mechanical the only power needed is for start up. It actually dosent use any power one started
@@bolt2510correct, many smaller / simpler turboprops do not need any electrical power to run once going. And they are lighter than diesels… The main issue here is cost per hour. Western made turboprops simply cost a lot. That plus range are the only real benefits of diesel.
Any carburetor equipped aircraft gas engine does not require electricity either, they get their spark from 2 magnetos with 2 plugs per cylinder and 2 electrodes per plug. So 4 electrodes, and two separate ignition systems per cylinder. Being Diesel making more torque is only true because they can tolerate more boost. Apples to apples, with equal manifold pressures Diesel always comes up the looser, especially at low rpm. The main advantage is fuel efficiency. A GMC V6 478 ci N/A Diesel makes 170 hp and 266 ftlb @ 2000 rpm. The same engine as a gas engine with 7.5:1 cr and a 2 bbl makes 254 hp and 442 ftlb at 1400 rpm, is 150lb lighter, cheaper, simpler, and lasts just as long. But the gas engine got 7 mpg empty, the Deisel 28 mpg! But, it didn't have the power to replace the 478 gas engine, it replaced the 305 ci in HP. This is pretty typical. Adding a turbo to make up the difference in hp exacerbated the bottom end torque problem in service because now you installed it into a vehicle that needed 254 hp not 170 and trying to start a load required winding the crap out of it and waiting to get boost. The gas engine you dumped the clutch and let it lug up from about 350 rpm. The diesels fell flat on their faces and stopped turning at 800 because of having to bring up the pistons against 17:1 cr. True in every engine of similar ci or HP. Big ole gas luggers get down on their knees and PULL and have every bit as much durability. I have had some still pulling when the electric tachometer stopped reading! That's why large heavy duty gas engines weren't replaced as soon as the Diesel was invented. Until gas prices went up they were heavy, expensive, low revving, requiring more gears in the transmission, and had much narrower powerband. However, this is an amazing aluminum 372 ci V12 making 550 hp maximum takeoff. It has a continuous rating of 460hp. And weighs 800lb They are planning a marine version at 700hp at only 3900 rpm! When he says "torquey" he means throttle response compared to a turbine, very important in a crop duster these guys pull high Gs hundreds of times a day.
This man should take this idea to Air Tractor. This may be something they would want to pursue with their factory-new aircraft. Great fuel economy, rock-solid safety, hauls a big load, and is fast!
Not much demand for piston engines on new ag planes anymore. Their place is in the market replacing 1340’s on older planes. Majority of ag planes in my area are 802 air tractors now. We do a massive amount of dry fertilizer work here and they need all the power they can get hauling big loads of fertilizer. A piston engine can’t deliver that power without adding too much weight.
@@boomerang379 That makes perfect sense. There's still a lot of nostalgia to seeing and hearing an old 600 or 450 round engine ag-cat going through the paces. The turbine Thrush and Ag-Cat see a lot of work still. What about the Turbine "fat cat" that can carry 500 gallons per load?
@@boomerang379 You have to consider the fuel quantity also. A turbine engine uses more fuel, so for a diesel piston engine you can make up for the extra engine weight by carrying less fuel.
It's not that pistons engines aren't in demand today, it's that there aren't really any good piston engine options. Your choices are what, a radial or a different radial? Those things are getting old and aren't being made anymore, so their days of reliable operation are closing fast. This engine will fit certain operators, not everyone has the work (or can afford) spending $1.5M on an 802, even though it's one of the most efficient ag planes out there as far as acres covered. If your operation only encompasses enough work to justify a single plane running a radial, then this 301 might fit much better than a 402 would. I've seen two operations nearly go under because they bought bigger airplanes than their area could handle. Right now I'm in a position on deciding whether I can find enough work to replace my 502 with a 602, there's just no way I'd be able to justify buying even a worn out 802 for my area. One other factor...that massive endurance is something very few turbine ag planes have. It's not really a benefit to most operators, but if your stuff is really spread out and you end up running out of fuel before chemical, this might be the ticket to make an uneconomical area feasible again. Low volume applications almost always end up being limited by fuel capacity rather than hopper capacity, so if you're spraying 1gal or less, this could potentially be more productive per hour than something like an 802 that might need to head back for fuel twice as often. If this engine was scaled up to 700-800HP, it might even replace a lot of turbines flying in ag today. What's going to ultimately decide whether this engine succeeds or not is the maintenance and parts availability, future support, and overhaul costs. If you have to shut down because the FADEC or whatever component is acting up and you need to send it to Germany for repair, it'll never succeed. GE was trying to get into the ag plane market with their turbine, and while it was a great engine, they wouldn't let anyone else work on it but them...which meant you were shut down until you took your engine off and sent it off to them for repair. Later on they started doing a loaner engine program to keep planes going, but that was a bandaid fix that never solved the problem. GE engines are regarded about as well as herpes these days, even though the engines themselves were on par if not better than a PT6. Orenda/Trace tried a big block V8, they lasted for quite a while but died off for similar reasons...lack of support and constant little teething problems that they never really fixed. If RED can address those problems, you'll likely see a lot more of these engines on yellow airplanes in the future.
Seeing how it will run on the same stuff as a tractor it makes sense, also diesel fuel is way easier and safer to store than Av-Gas which can be leaded.
It's always been a thing in the rest of the world. The American Av gas thing is just because they want you to have to service your aircraft engine every 150-200 hours to keep unionized Av gas techs busy all the time. The maintenance costs of having to change spark plugs every 400-500 hours, valve adjustments, and oil changes because your gasoline engine dumps fuel into the oil to keep the cylinders cool, is astonishingly high. Gasoline engines are obsolete, yet will never truly go away in America because of how industry has propped up gasoline engines.
I would think one advantage of this is keeping one fuel source. You can run your tractors, heavy equipment, and crop duster all on the same fuel (off road diesel).
all I flew was Grumman Ag Cat with R1340s . more than a few engine failures with one crash behind a R 985 due to blower seal failure. wonder how this fancy diesel will hold up?
The turbine engined versions of this are even more powerful. Air tractors carry a stupid amount of payload so there's a good reason they have so much power
The engine they ripped out would've been a 750hp, with the amount of money these planes are making per flying hour I'm not sure this type of huge swap is really worth the $$ compared to running it as a turbo-prop. Cool though
@@Eclipse1719 the top spec r1340s are 600hp. They'd be using a lot more fuel from drag with the frontal area of a radial (not to mention spray pattern). Overhaul interval on an ag plane 1340 is 1000hours. On this diesel they are saying 2000 - 4000 hours. In short, there's plenty of benefits for this engine.
Unless I am mistaken isn't that two of the old Mercedes 300SEL turbo diesels made into one 12 cylinder powerplant? Friend of mine works for Cessna and they were looking at something similar. The deal foundered on the demand that engines had to be returned to the factory in Germany for overhaul and also that they were to be the sole judge of what would constitute abuse or neglect (basically all failures were to be blamed on the installer, Cessna or the Operator)
less fuel means more payload.....its a win/win. Not only does it cost less to run, it gets more done per round trip. Modern diesels have lots of compression and 40+ pounds of boost (like a DD15 truck engine) and can put in huge hours.
I am 82 years old. When i was learning to fly and solo back in the late fifties and early sixties, one of my instructors who taught during WW2 and we allways talked about aircraft engines. He told me he saw a diesel engine on a crop duster and it was supposed to have been made by PACKARD MOTOR COMPANY ALSO the young fellow did not mention weather it was a 2 cycle or a 4 cycle?
All overhauls are expensive. This diesel engine will be cheaper to maintain than the radial it replaces. Turbines are very expensive in all facets but very productive too.
Wow, 372 ci, 550 hp! For over 2k hrs, that's impressive! They are planning a 700 hp @3900 rpm marine version. Much better throttle response than a turbine. That's required for the extreme high G maneuvering these pilots do. I don't know what they cost now but they were $170,000 in 2012!
I wonder do they have to run dpfs, def and mess with regen cycles? Most piston powered planes are still burning leaded gas so a diesel with no dpf or def would already be cleaner.
All V12s have a potential capacity to run on one bank. It's because the firing order is 1,5,3,6,2,4 per bank in essence 2x inline 6 engines. Nothing's new there. In fact in the mid 90s there was a notorious fault with an Italian ignition system that would allow a particular V12 to run on one bank but not turn the injectors off on that bank when the fault occurred causing a catastrophic fire. What made the fault more notorious was the fact that V12 engines still run smoothly on one bank and this engine was no exception.
So, the range has at least doubled and the machine could be made whisper-quiet - this could then perhaps be avery interesting modification for those who envision an "alternative use" for the Air Tractor...
What's the weight difference between the two engines? The diesel must be heavier. If so, what are they doing about payload? Do they plan on getting this conversion certified, or are they going the experimental rout? If they go experimental, what kind of restrictions does that place on contracting the plane out for crop dusting jobs? How much does it cost to get it certified? So many question not answered in this video.
The diesel was type approved by EASA about 10 years ago and the specs put the diesel at around 100lbs lighter than the 1340. This could be a winner for utility aircraft.
@@studiotube6033 The weight savings in fuel is also that much more that can be put in a hopper. I don't know what pesticides weigh per gallon but it's going to have to be close to a 1 to 1 trade I'd think.
@@nickidewet7711 That's why it has a carbon fiber prop, he mentions the leading edge material but not that it's basic construction is carbon fiber, that's the only type of prop that the FAA allows to be run on diesel aircraft engine's because that's the only material that won't crack from a diesel engine's vibrations, most likely that's also why that intake and cowling is also carbon fiber, as he says they're bolted to the engine. But, since the prop is 3× cheaper as it turns out that's a bonus (who'd have ever thought something carbon fiber would be cheaper than anything? That's gotta be a first.) I'm curious about the prop reduction gear if indeed it even has one, given diesel's generally turn so much slower than gasoline engine's and the small diameter of the prop on it I wonder if it even needs a prop reduction in the first place and if it does it's probably smaller and lighter than it's gasoline counterpart, that would explain at least partially why these engine's come in at 100 lbs lighter than what came out, being a diesel you'd think it would be heavier, although that 100 lbs probably doesn't include the weight if the cooling system and coolant, I suppose because of the variations between applications that weight is always omitted in the weight specs of liquid cooled engine's be it aircraft or automobiles and people often forget about it as a result.
I think someone wanted a sound video or something? Well here it is: ua-cam.com/video/qyyvwitOigQ/v-deo.html
I honestly had no idea that plane nuts liked sound as much as car nuts.
There is a GREAT CD sound effects by Chuck Yeager about twenty years ago doing an instrument check before he cranks a P51f . Once controls are set flips last switches and 2500hps wake up through 12 shorty open stacks 6feet away from you,idles a bit then rolls and takes off .Each plane has it's own sound a squadron rolls by some a fast idle , the rest lope like a really fat cam 572 ci that can't run below 2500rpm. Each pilot bangs the throttle and takes off does fly by and joins formation .
oh YEAH! if we wanted music? we'd listen to pandora.
Then you have never heard the iconic sound of a T-6 with the tips of that Hamilton Standard prop tips braking the sound barrier, or that beautiful voice from a Spitfire or Mustang with that Merlin 61 or Packard V1650 at full song
Constructive criticism, no disrespect; lose the background noise.
The subject & your narration of it is great! The addition of distracting, monotonous & annoying mario bros music ruined the vid for me.
Especially older guys like me, RADIALS!!
As a heavy diesel tech and a man of culture....Hell yeah brother. There ain't no torque like diesel torque.
Torque is not the friend of prop driven planes
@@donkeightley8463
Yes it is.
Torque X Rpm / 5,252 = horsepower.
You cannot have horsepower without torque.
You cannot turn a propeller without torque. The Diameter, number of blades, and RPM determine how much torque you need. You cannot even fly if your engine fails to meet that required amount of torque.
Even the Merlin V-12 was geared down from 3,000 to 1,450rpm to double its torque to the propeller so it could swing a 10-12' prop.
With respect, I think we are getting torque , effect on handling mixed with torque in engine terms. This thing would be a surprise to a Cessna pilot, but not to someone used to flying what has always been a more graceful version of a tractor in the sky. That said, you blokes have balls of steel to fly the way you do. I have driven a mini Cooper at a hundred mph but am not going to go crop dusting any time soon😂
@@donkeightley8463 Yes it is. Torque is power in a propeller driven airplane. The more toque it can safely generate the better the performance.
@@donkeightley8463it absolutely is, specifically under heavy load
Don't let Mike Patey see this. Just wow. Love the work gone into this.
Actually LET Mike see this. I would like to see what prop he would match it up with on Scrappy. Or he may be interested in buyint one or two turbines off of these guys.
@@edfrawley4356 It's too heavy and it probably doesn't even make as much power as the engine that's already on Scrappy.
@@PistonAvatarGuy If I remember correctly, Scrappy is currently pulling about 600 horses, but there's no way it's putting out the 2,000 lb-ft of torque this this is making. Granted, we're comparing a thoroughbred to a Clydesdale here. Scrappy's engine would be a dog in an ag plane that needs to haul tons of weight up and around all day.
@@challengecompleted55 That's just not how hp and torque work. In an aircraft application, torque literally means nothing, and it barely means anything in any other application. The thrust produced by the propeller is directly proportional to the power output of the engine and the efficiency of the prop, it's not related to the torque output of the engine in any way.
And, no, Scrappy's engine would not be a dog in an ag plane, the unmodified version of that same engine is even used in the Fletcher FU-24, which is a purpose-built ag plane.
@@PistonAvatarGuy torque literally means nothing in almost every application? Take a 400hp 5.7L hemi and stick it in place of a 400hp 14L Cummins in a heavy truck and try towing and let me know how little of a difference torque makes. HP is litterally torque multiplied by rpm. You need a balance of both but torque is far from unimportant in airplanes or otherwise... remember "HP is how fast you hit the wall, TORQUE is how far you take the wall with you"
500hp, wow. and that's right about the region where the piston engine starts to disappear and the turbine engine appears. just fantastic to see a diesel flying out there.
500 hp not enough diesel to heavy
@@tgh223its probably making 1500 ftlb of torque it's got lots of power
@@tgh223 But also more Fuel Efficient.
@@tgh223 nope, it's not "too heavy".
you have to look at the package weight for a given mission. So usually it is powerplant plus fuel. Turbines lose out to piston in the efficiency department at lower altitudes because of the relatively high fuel burn by comparison.
In this application with 6hrs of fuel it might just be light enough to be competitive. Also take into account that the propeller and the engine cost only a fraction of what a turbine costs. You could probably get the price down to the cost of a hot section inspection and rebuild, so it essentially becomes a throw-away-engine for a commercial operator.
@@tgh223 How does it feel to be so wrong?
For the love of diesel 👍. I came across a crop sprayer pilot when I was building racing cars in the late 80's in South Africa. We were already working with carbon fibre and kevlar. The pilot was nuts.
nice to see the stuka found its peacetime role
😂😂😂
The V12 with that architecture sounds like the BMW 7 and 8 series V12s from the 80s & 90s. Two independent 6 cylinder engines sharing a block. Two ECUs, etc.
Yeah, it looks like a custom job based on the same ideas but with the dohc m57
and the Toyota Century V12.....
We have another Ag Pilot with a gorgeous Air Tractor, he runs a field next to our property. That thing sounds AMAZING. And holy dayum these pilots can fly those machines. The bank angles are incredible and the way they power out is impossible not to watch and cheer lol
Still way cheaper and more fuel efficient than a PT6 😜 Awesome swap gents.
Keeping the profession alive and stepping it up ! Awsome
It likes farm diesel! Now that's cool.
off road and un taxed!
JetA (kerosene) just doesn't quite have the same lubrication properties that diesel has, so it would make sense that the injectors like diesel more.
That's why I'm running my old diesel with highly filtered sump oil with a touch of petrol to thin it out for the stator motors sake
it's NOT a diesel engine, it's a compression ignition engine designed for aircraft
@@DSAK55 You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. The definition you gave in your comment is EXACTLY what makes it a diesel engine, and it running on Jet-A/A1 or diesel kind of gives that away. I've been an aircraft mechanic both in and out of the military for close to 30 years and have worked on standard recips, turbines, and aviation diesels and there is little difference between them and auto diesels except, well they are WAY more reliable than auto diesels. haha
@@ImpendingJoker Are you aware that when Rudolf Diesel invented his engine there was no diesel fuel. You could call his invention the peanut oil engine
@DSAK55 it's almost like the diesel engine was named for the diesel cycle of thermodynamics rather then the fuel. In theory any compression ignition piston engine is a diesel regardless of fuel source
Great video, Thanks!
No lead in there too! A real big upgrade.
A couple of those engines in a mahogany haul might make a pretty cool boat
Am I the only one who wanted to hear it start and tick over?!!!
Hell no you're not!
That’s just genius and I’m surprised the aircraft industry hasn’t adapted this to more high volume hauling planes. This would be great in firefighting planes that haul large amounts of water the Diesel would give them more torque and power and longer run time.
The biggest thing holding them back is that diesels are a lot harder to make high revving compared to petrol engines which is more important then the added power a diesel can give. Which is why most aircraft that arent for personal use dont use piston engines in general they use some for of jet, even propeller aircraft use jets to spin the blades as they use less moving parts can rotate a lot faster and produce a lot more power (and use a lot more fuel).
For small, slow planes diesels can make sense since small turboprops are very inefficient. For bigger power turboprop efficiency gets close enough while being smoother and much lighter.
The smallest firefighting airplanes run engines with 3x the HP of this 500HP diesel. This is a pretty small modern ag plane.
Oh, Lord have mercy on me! I just did my transition to the Air Tractor 402 this summer, now I wanna fly this Diesel Beast!
Red Aircraft is located at the Nürburgring nordschleife.. i Hear an See a lot of testings on it. Sounds Great, like a heavy modern Tractor on Full load. Great Company, fast growing and innovative. I think the Next Step is private watercraft Industrie ..
I talked to the owner at the NAAA convention and he was telling me he was going to put this in his 402 as well
From a car guy perspective, it’s very cool! I did a promotional piece for these guys for the convention which is how I found out about it
I laughed out loud when you referenced stopping at Buccees for fuel!😂😂😂. Love it
Always thought crop dusting would be a GREAT way to make a living. Always seemed like flyin under wires and tight turns would make a man look forward to goin to work everyday.
That cowling is a work of art, I mean everything else is also but the cowling.....ooooofda
For sure. Probably a very expensive part, though.
@@SolarWebsite bespoke carbon fabrication is pretty time intensive. Cool as though. Bet it’s a feather
if anyones interested: its a red aviation a03. its the same engine they are gonna use on the Ju 52 Remakes.
Very cool and informative video. Congrats on a great job!!! That is one bad A duster. Flown in a 602, but I like that better! I would like to see that power plant in a smaller version in a Mooney or Bonanza!
I think it’s incredible. Know a little about flying and the Air Truck. Awesome
As a retired A&P the first thing I wondered was what the conversion had done to the CG.
Same
I would thing an ag plane has a wide cg.
I too am a retired master aircraft mechanic and I have worked on several different ag planes and they have no empty weight cg.
@@gmanchurch not contesting you, just trying to get clarification but how do they handle weight and balance calculations then? I never worked ag planes, just light general aviation 6 passengers or less, building several experimental kits (two passengers) plus working at Repair Facilities doing aircraft appliances (hermetic fire extinguishers and inflatables [Commercial: escape slides, life rafts and heli floats] ).
Just relocating a battery can be problematic and look at how many crashes there are when a baggage compartment moves the CG aft.
I
On the experimental kits, based on the actual engine option used it could drastically change flight safety dynamics with just fractions of an inch forward or aft engine placement and before the FAA inspector signed off I had to show him all the weight and balance calculations.
SOMETHING has to be done to compensate for the different engine so how are ag planes different physics?
Wow, one side operates independent of the other that's awesome
Like damn, That is well thought out and super efficient. Wonder if you could use that engine in other applications...great work to the team that built it and thought of it
Yes that is cool.
Sealand Aviation in Campbell River, British Columbia are installing this RED engine on a DHC-2 Beaver, they've been working on it for awhile. I don't think they've flown it yet.
Love the innovation!
Ok
Who's gonna be first to market with a 750-hp Duramax aviation conversion??
Game changer!
I mean tbh I’ve ran diesel in turbine it’s nasty on start up but they interchange decent 😂 I love this, I’ve thought about this for years. Use the same refuel rigs for your tractors and crop dusters.
Run off road red diesel...I mean....really off road......
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq The only difference between offroad diesel and diesel #2 is the tax stamp, and the dye. If you're getting furnace waste oil as offroad diesel, you need to buy your shit from a better supplier.
Man I bet thats a blast to fly!
Never would have a thought a diesel had any place in an aircraft, let alone a V12 of all things
Diamond uses diesel engines in many of their aircraft
Jet A is just high grade diesel and there's a whole lot of aircraft out there burning Jet A.
Jet fuel is literally refined diesel
@@jjohnson2553 Yeah burning Jet A in a turbine.
Its pretty obvious that I'm using the word 'diesel' to refer to a piston engine, why else would I be mentioning 'V12'?
Ever heard of the WW2 Junkers Jumo engines? Check them out.
Great Conversion. The Diesel conversion is a bonus because Av Gas is so expensive.
Would be nice to have more information on the Engine sourcing. Need one for my Tundra...
Av gas has been a scam for 80 years because of the Av unions. The US av industry propped up gasoline tech in Av engines to keep unionized workers employed and busy all the time servicing these obsolete gas engines.
The turbine runs on kerosene or Jet A1. The same fuel that your old McCormick Deering W30 Petrol/Kerosene tractor from 1939 ran on. It was the cheapest then, but not now. AV Gas is petrol or gasoline as you would call it.
Is that an AUDI Q7 engine?!
Great video. Pilot is a cool man. Thanks 🇺🇸
Great video. Much better than most Airplane UA-cam stuff.
That sounds like the engine that's in my 2006 VW Touareg, except V12 vs V10 in the T-reg. Love it!
The same Red aviation diesel V12 also powers "The Egg" Celera 500L.
@richardharrold9736it was designed by an immigrant from russia. They are putting it into yak-152 and a military drone that never flew .
There's a turbo beaver converted to use this engine up in Campbell River BC. SeaLand Flight I believe. Same v12 red engine.
Turbo beaver... I've got to file that one away
Diesels for piston aircraft are starting to become a thing. There's been people trying to make it happen for a couple decades now, but it's really starting to happen for actual real and I'm *excited* for it.
Not only are diesels tough, typically stupid reliable, and monstrously torque-y (which is terrific for a torque-based application like a prop plane), BUT the engine is capable of running with zero electrical power if designed and built properly. With gravity-fed fuel system and a mechanically-backed fuel pump an aircraft flying diesels could, in theory, fly completely electrically dead. Can't do that with a gas or turbine engine!
This is true but were there is a Diesel engine there is a turbine that can make more power, torque and better reliability due too the very few moving parts also diesel would have hard time operating at higher altitudes. And turbines can practically run off anything that burns that being said diesels do have better fuel economy at low power
A turbine dosent require any electrical power to run, my turbine has a mechanical fuel pump And a small generator for all the gauges. The throttle is also fully mechanical the only power needed is for start up. It actually dosent use any power one started
@@bolt2510correct, many smaller / simpler turboprops do not need any electrical power to run once going. And they are lighter than diesels… The main issue here is cost per hour. Western made turboprops simply cost a lot. That plus range are the only real benefits of diesel.
Any carburetor equipped aircraft gas engine does not require electricity either, they get their spark from 2 magnetos with 2 plugs per cylinder and 2 electrodes per plug. So 4 electrodes, and two separate ignition systems per cylinder. Being Diesel making more torque is only true because they can tolerate more boost. Apples to apples, with equal manifold pressures Diesel always comes up the looser, especially at low rpm. The main advantage is fuel efficiency. A GMC V6 478 ci N/A Diesel makes 170 hp and 266 ftlb @ 2000 rpm. The same engine as a gas engine with 7.5:1 cr and a 2 bbl makes 254 hp and 442 ftlb at 1400 rpm, is 150lb lighter, cheaper, simpler, and lasts just as long. But the gas engine got 7 mpg empty, the Deisel 28 mpg! But, it didn't have the power to replace the 478 gas engine, it replaced the 305 ci in HP. This is pretty typical. Adding a turbo to make up the difference in hp exacerbated the bottom end torque problem in service because now you installed it into a vehicle that needed 254 hp not 170 and trying to start a load required winding the crap out of it and waiting to get boost. The gas engine you dumped the clutch and let it lug up from about 350 rpm. The diesels fell flat on their faces and stopped turning at 800 because of having to bring up the pistons against 17:1 cr. True in every engine of similar ci or HP. Big ole gas luggers get down on their knees and PULL and have every bit as much durability. I have had some still pulling when the electric tachometer stopped reading! That's why large heavy duty gas engines weren't replaced as soon as the Diesel was invented. Until gas prices went up they were heavy, expensive, low revving, requiring more gears in the transmission, and had much narrower powerband. However, this is an amazing aluminum 372 ci V12 making 550 hp maximum takeoff. It has a continuous rating of 460hp. And weighs 800lb They are planning a marine version at 700hp at only 3900 rpm! When he says "torquey" he means throttle response compared to a turbine, very important in a crop duster these guys pull high Gs hundreds of times a day.
There's no way someone is going to make a completely mechanical diesel fly.
It is more than okay!
This man should take this idea to Air Tractor. This may be something they would want to pursue with their factory-new aircraft. Great fuel economy, rock-solid safety, hauls a big load, and is fast!
Not much demand for piston engines on new ag planes anymore. Their place is in the market replacing 1340’s on older planes. Majority of ag planes in my area are 802 air tractors now. We do a massive amount of dry fertilizer work here and they need all the power they can get hauling big loads of fertilizer. A piston engine can’t deliver that power without adding too much weight.
@@boomerang379 That makes perfect sense. There's still a lot of nostalgia to seeing and hearing an old 600 or 450 round engine ag-cat going through the paces. The turbine Thrush and Ag-Cat see a lot of work still. What about the Turbine "fat cat" that can carry 500 gallons per load?
@@boomerang379 You have to consider the fuel quantity also. A turbine engine uses more fuel, so for a diesel piston engine you can make up for the extra engine weight by carrying less fuel.
It's not that pistons engines aren't in demand today, it's that there aren't really any good piston engine options. Your choices are what, a radial or a different radial? Those things are getting old and aren't being made anymore, so their days of reliable operation are closing fast. This engine will fit certain operators, not everyone has the work (or can afford) spending $1.5M on an 802, even though it's one of the most efficient ag planes out there as far as acres covered. If your operation only encompasses enough work to justify a single plane running a radial, then this 301 might fit much better than a 402 would. I've seen two operations nearly go under because they bought bigger airplanes than their area could handle. Right now I'm in a position on deciding whether I can find enough work to replace my 502 with a 602, there's just no way I'd be able to justify buying even a worn out 802 for my area. One other factor...that massive endurance is something very few turbine ag planes have. It's not really a benefit to most operators, but if your stuff is really spread out and you end up running out of fuel before chemical, this might be the ticket to make an uneconomical area feasible again. Low volume applications almost always end up being limited by fuel capacity rather than hopper capacity, so if you're spraying 1gal or less, this could potentially be more productive per hour than something like an 802 that might need to head back for fuel twice as often. If this engine was scaled up to 700-800HP, it might even replace a lot of turbines flying in ag today. What's going to ultimately decide whether this engine succeeds or not is the maintenance and parts availability, future support, and overhaul costs. If you have to shut down because the FADEC or whatever component is acting up and you need to send it to Germany for repair, it'll never succeed. GE was trying to get into the ag plane market with their turbine, and while it was a great engine, they wouldn't let anyone else work on it but them...which meant you were shut down until you took your engine off and sent it off to them for repair. Later on they started doing a loaner engine program to keep planes going, but that was a bandaid fix that never solved the problem. GE engines are regarded about as well as herpes these days, even though the engines themselves were on par if not better than a PT6. Orenda/Trace tried a big block V8, they lasted for quite a while but died off for similar reasons...lack of support and constant little teething problems that they never really fixed. If RED can address those problems, you'll likely see a lot more of these engines on yellow airplanes in the future.
@@Skinflaps_Meatslapper You don't want something that is going to be high failure rate. What if the engine dies 8n flight?
crop spraying and aerial photography/surveillance are going to get some serious competition from drones methinks.
Seeing how it will run on the same stuff as a tractor it makes sense, also diesel fuel is way easier and safer to store than Av-Gas which can be leaded.
Wow so fancy. The videographer is cute.
Some of the German fighter aircraft in WW2 were diesel and the few running today are still well within specs on bearing tolerances and flown.
Extremely interested in knowing more about this engine, and details on the installation of please !
This only makes sense. Would like to see more about the engine, application and conversion.
Looks lovely! Wish I could do that as a living
Thanks! It truly is so much fun to get to do what I do!
Good work. Amazing that it took so long for a high speed Diesel engine conversion on a crop duster. Eighty to ninety years?
It's always been a thing in the rest of the world. The American Av gas thing is just because they want you to have to service your aircraft engine every 150-200 hours to keep unionized Av gas techs busy all the time. The maintenance costs of having to change spark plugs every 400-500 hours, valve adjustments, and oil changes because your gasoline engine dumps fuel into the oil to keep the cylinders cool, is astonishingly high. Gasoline engines are obsolete, yet will never truly go away in America because of how industry has propped up gasoline engines.
That is very interesting!
I would think one advantage of this is keeping one fuel source. You can run your tractors, heavy equipment, and crop duster all on the same fuel (off road diesel).
Thankfully, closed captions are available!
So cool! if only we had any sound clips...
I loaded spray planes for a while, I love the smell of burning jet a in the morning 🤤
That's impressive. Awesome
Which company built this diesel engine?
all I flew was Grumman Ag Cat with R1340s . more than a few engine failures with one crash behind a R 985 due to blower seal failure. wonder how this fancy diesel will hold up?
That was quite interesting.
This is just insane for a cropduster! So much power in a small airplane
The turbine engined versions of this are even more powerful. Air tractors carry a stupid amount of payload so there's a good reason they have so much power
The engine they ripped out would've been a 750hp, with the amount of money these planes are making per flying hour I'm not sure this type of huge swap is really worth the $$ compared to running it as a turbo-prop. Cool though
@@Eclipse1719 the top spec r1340s are 600hp. They'd be using a lot more fuel from drag with the frontal area of a radial (not to mention spray pattern). Overhaul interval on an ag plane 1340 is 1000hours. On this diesel they are saying 2000 - 4000 hours.
In short, there's plenty of benefits for this engine.
It should be a RED A03, 363 kg, 210 Diesel g/KWh.
Germans know their engines.
Rudolph Diesel enters the chat...
@@JohnSmith-yv6eq *Preußens Gloria starts playing*
Very interesting, greetings from Havana Cuba.
Wow, I never knew there could be a diesel engine for planes.
Unless I am mistaken isn't that two of the old Mercedes 300SEL turbo diesels made into one 12 cylinder powerplant? Friend of mine works for Cessna and they were looking at something similar. The deal foundered on the demand that engines had to be returned to the factory in Germany for overhaul and also that they were to be the sole judge of what would constitute abuse or neglect (basically all failures were to be blamed on the installer, Cessna or the Operator)
It would have been nice to actually listen to the start up and it running without any generic music.
ua-cam.com/video/qyyvwitOigQ/v-deo.html
This is wicked. I want one
less fuel means more payload.....its a win/win. Not only does it cost less to run, it gets more done per round trip. Modern diesels have lots of compression and 40+ pounds of boost (like a DD15 truck engine) and can put in huge hours.
I am 82 years old. When i was learning to fly and solo back in the late fifties and early sixties, one of my instructors who taught during WW2 and we allways talked about aircraft engines. He told me he saw a diesel engine on a crop duster and it was supposed to have been made by PACKARD MOTOR COMPANY ALSO the young fellow did not mention weather it was a 2 cycle or a 4 cycle?
Awesome job🏁🏁
Seems like a viable alternative to leaded avation fuel.
Stephen is the man and so is Cam!
You the man
This is one incredible powerhouse.! Mike Patey will check this out
What about Wand B?? It is probably heavier than the PT6 I guess. Does it affect the payload??
Is that Dusty from Planes
Do the overhauls offset the fuel savings? Overhaul on a 12 is probably a pretty big deal.
All overhauls are expensive. This diesel engine will be cheaper to maintain than the radial it replaces. Turbines are very expensive in all facets but very productive too.
I always put a little two stroke oil in my low Sulpher Diesel
badass
Could you give an update on the 301
Wow, 372 ci, 550 hp! For over 2k hrs, that's impressive! They are planning a 700 hp @3900 rpm marine version. Much better throttle response than a turbine. That's required for the extreme high G maneuvering these pilots do. I don't know what they cost now but they were $170,000 in 2012!
I wonder do they have to run dpfs, def and mess with regen cycles?
Most piston powered planes are still burning leaded gas so a diesel with no dpf or def would already be cleaner.
I still like the old 301 radials. They’re a rough ride but still😂
Why run Jet A in it and not just run diesel?
Diesel will gel when it gets cold, and Jet A will not.
I want to know how much heavier it is
Not much if any otherwise it couldn't swap in????
All V12s have a potential capacity to run on one bank. It's because the firing order is 1,5,3,6,2,4 per bank in essence 2x inline 6 engines. Nothing's new there.
In fact in the mid 90s there was a notorious fault with an Italian ignition system that would allow a particular V12 to run on one bank but not turn the injectors off on that bank when the fault occurred causing a catastrophic fire.
What made the fault more notorious was the fact that V12 engines still run smoothly on one bank and this engine was no exception.
So, the range has at least doubled and the machine could be made whisper-quiet - this could then perhaps be avery interesting modification for those who envision an "alternative use" for the Air Tractor...
This would be badass for the fire service.
I remember when Jim Mills built the first M-18 with a PT6 in 1986. We all thought he was goofy.
Jim mills terre haute Indiana yep crazy bastard he is....
Amazing how German engineering can take something so simple and combined with a crop duster
So now I have to be an APIA diesel technician.😮💨
Isn't this the same airframe as the US special forces are going to be using as air support soon?
That bank out capability is wild
Dusty Crophopper!
Question, are these 2 v6 end to end engines or 2 i6 side by side engines
V12 VW TDI conversion or is it an in-house design?
What's the weight difference between the two engines? The diesel must be heavier. If so, what are they doing about payload? Do they plan on getting this conversion certified, or are they going the experimental rout? If they go experimental, what kind of restrictions does that place on contracting the plane out for crop dusting jobs? How much does it cost to get it certified?
So many question not answered in this video.
Plus vibrations from diesel is more.
The diesel was type approved by EASA about 10 years ago and the specs put the diesel at around 100lbs lighter than the 1340.
This could be a winner for utility aircraft.
@@studiotube6033 It was type certified for this aircraft?
@@studiotube6033
The weight savings in fuel is also that much more that can be put in a hopper.
I don't know what pesticides weigh per gallon but it's going to have to be close to a 1 to 1 trade I'd think.
@@nickidewet7711
That's why it has a carbon fiber prop, he mentions the leading edge material but not that it's basic construction is carbon fiber, that's the only type of prop that the FAA allows to be run on diesel aircraft engine's because that's the only material that won't crack from a diesel engine's vibrations, most likely that's also why that intake and cowling is also carbon fiber, as he says they're bolted to the engine.
But, since the prop is 3× cheaper as it turns out that's a bonus (who'd have ever thought something carbon fiber would be cheaper than anything? That's gotta be a first.)
I'm curious about the prop reduction gear if indeed it even has one, given diesel's generally turn so much slower than gasoline engine's and the small diameter of the prop on it I wonder if it even needs a prop reduction in the first place and if it does it's probably smaller and lighter than it's gasoline counterpart, that would explain at least partially why these engine's come in at 100 lbs lighter than what came out, being a diesel you'd think it would be heavier, although that 100 lbs probably doesn't include the weight if the cooling system and coolant, I suppose because of the variations between applications that weight is always omitted in the weight specs of liquid cooled engine's be it aircraft or automobiles and people often forget about it as a result.