|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

03-21-2012, 09:18 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 479
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfTech
This is very simple and can be summed up in one word!
.
LAWYERS!!!!!!!! 
|
Well said my friend
__________________
Rick from Fresno
RV-7A
The art to flying lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.
|

03-21-2012, 09:30 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: La Feria Texas
Posts: 3,822
|
|
That is impressive. Staying on the gasoline engines, my Honda Fit automatic does better than 40 mpg cruising in the 70's. The aircraft engine version don't do too bad either!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bret
I disagree on the 25 MPG, Honda I DTEC 2.2 Diesel is getting 63 MPG, one of their improvments was to inject the fuel at 1,600 BAR, thats 23,000,000 PSI, our comon rail systems are at around 30,000 PSI
|
|

03-21-2012, 11:03 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Sherwood, Oregon
Posts: 981
|
|
Data?
Hey Don,
If you are talking about Eggenfellner's Viking, is there real world data on efficiency?
__________________
Jerry Cochran
Sherwood, Oregon
RV-7a 707DD Bot from David Domeier 12/01/11
Lycoming IO-360 Catto 3 blade Panel upgrade in progress
RV6a 18XP 1st flite 03/21/07 sold to Dale Walter 10/22/2011
Superior IO-360, Hartzell Blended, GRT/Dynon
Happily "autopaying" DR
"Suppose you were an idiot, and suppose you were a member of Congress; but I repeat myself."
Mark Twain
|

03-21-2012, 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 174
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy
If you want to get into real meaningful data, let's talk about BSFC and ton-miles travelled per gallon.
|
I would argue that ton-miles per gallon is also meaningless if 90% of that weight is not required for the journey.
If I drive an escalade with only myself in it to work, I'm getting pretty good ton-miles per gallon vs a 75 lb moped. But which is more efficient?
|

03-21-2012, 11:50 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Douglas Flat, CA
Posts: 589
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerfTech
This is very simple and can be summed up in one word!
.
LAWYERS!!!!!!!! 
|
No, the problem isn't lawyers. The problem is a bunch of people with irrational fears about lawyers. There's a big difference.
__________________
Bob Kuykendall
HP-24 kit sailplane
EAA Technical Counselor
|

03-21-2012, 12:26 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 860
|
|
Technology
I find aviation to be a curious mix of conservatism and progressivism. If we look at the history of airframes they have gone from wood and fabric to tube steel, to semi monocoque aluminum to carbon fiber composite. And yet at each change point there were holdovers from the previous technology. If we look at avionics the changes are even more startling, going from mechanical instruments, to tube radios to solid state radios to computerized flight management systems. And engines as well, from IC gasoline engines to gas turbines.
However, in answer to the original question, I think the answer is in the market. We do have alternative powerplants, from auto conversions to electronic controls of traditional aircraft engines, to converted gas turbines, to compression ignition (diesel) engines. And yet how many engines have SMA (Renault diesel), Wilksch, or Innodyne sold. Why did Bombardier/Rotax axe their 300 hp V6 diesel. How many Precision Airmotive electronic management systems have been sold.
So the answer is you and me. If there were a cheaper (big emphasis on this), more reliable, more fuel efficient aircraft engine than the current Lycoming/Continental I would buy one. But after a survey of the market over many years, I have concluded that there is no better choice (Van apparently concluded the same).
Many years ago I watched with great interest when Curtiss Wright and John Deere spent millions on developing the Wankel engine for aircraft use. I thought it was the ideal replacement for the current piston engines. But it didn't turn out that way.
In any case, I think maybe we're on the cusp of as great a change in private aviation as the change from piston engines to turbine engines was in commercial aviation. The recent developments in electric motors driven by batteries or fuel cells may be that change. I think I will go out and buy an electric RC controlled park flyer to get up to speed with the new technology.
__________________
Terry Edwards
RV-9A (Fuselage)
2020/2021 VAF Contribution Sent
|

03-21-2012, 12:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 5,766
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by WingsOnWheels
Very well said. If you look at the BSFC of the Lycon vs most auto engines, the Lycon is very close. Our air-cool engines may look antiquated, but they generally out perform most auto engine on a power to weight ratio. Torque is king in aviation engines. The O-360 should be putting out around 350ftlbs or torque up to 100% continuous, for ~2000 hours or as much as 400,000 miles in the RV (at WOT 200mph Cruise).
That said, if there were a diesel out there with the same power-to-weight and well proven, I would mount one instead of the lycoming. I would love to have a diesel on my plane.
|
HP is actually the motivating factor on all vehicles. HP= work, torque = force.
You will notice that BSFC is rated against hp, not torque.
|

03-21-2012, 12:42 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,275
|
|
Terry is right on several counts. What do I want?
FADEC? You could not give me one.
Auto conversion? You could not give me one
Diesel? I don't know enough about them but the fact that they are not mainstream leads me to believe that they are not ready for prime time.
My one disagreement is that electric power is the future. Not anytime that will impact me. It is largely a failure with cars. It makes even less sense with aircraft.
My questionable opinion is that the biggest improvement is being discussed with cooling air/internal cowl mods in another thread.
|

03-21-2012, 12:46 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 5,147
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phlyan Pan
I would argue that ton-miles per gallon is also meaningless if 90% of that weight is not required for the journey.
If I drive an escalade with only myself in it to work, I'm getting pretty good ton-miles per gallon vs a 75 lb moped. But which is more efficient?
|
Ahhh, but that gets down into personal choice. Some people will prefer to carry an extra 3000 pounds of steel cage around them on the highway for impact protection, while others are perfectly happy riding around in a ball of tin foil. Going by a seat-miles rating would not be realistic because we would be comparing a Ford Focus to a Chevy Crew Cab.
It takes energy to move mass (as long as friction is considered, orbital mechanics are a different animal) so the ton-mile/gallon would be a truer measurement tool of energy efficiency.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2020 dues paid 
N16GN flying 700 hrs and counting; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, 430W
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
|

03-21-2012, 12:48 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Somerset VA
Posts: 77
|
|
See, with a liquid cooled diesel you would not even need to talk about that. You can build much more aerodynamic cowlings.
__________________
Michael Zimmermann
RV-8 Sold
Happy people don't necessarily have the best of everything,
But they make the best of everything they have.
German immigrant who's living the American dream!
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:45 AM.
|