VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics


Go Back   VAF Forums > RV Firewall Forward Section > Alternative Engines
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 08-13-2012, 02:27 PM
johnjohnhere johnjohnhere is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Morris, IL
Posts: 14
Default engine choice

ok Now I know why only 140hp at full power. hmmm no thanks
__________________
RV-8 tail sold; RV-14 Idea being looked into.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-13-2012, 06:42 PM
LAMPSguy's Avatar
LAMPSguy LAMPSguy is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 374
Default Thielert

Thielert made them, went under. Diamond bought what remained and kinda went their own direction with it as I understand. Now they are made by Austro engines (who also make aviation rotary engines in fact).
__________________
RV-? in planning stages.
RV-14 #140050 SOLD

Permanently willing to contribute fuel for RV rides

Helicopter ATP/CFI(I)
ASEL/AMEL Commercial/Inst/CFI(I)
Aerobatic Instruction available

Atlanta based.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-14-2012, 02:07 AM
WAM120RV WAM120RV is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Coventry. England
Posts: 614
Default Only 140 HP

Its strange that people just look at one figure and think that they have the answer to the whole question.

The thin about the available power from Turbo diesels is that it is available throughout the flight envelope, from the ground to 12/15 thousand feet. Unless an engine has boost it will drop off power at higher altitudes so your 160 Hp lycoming is actually producing a lot less at 8k feet and above.

Most WAMs run on constant speed props, so full power on the ground on take off. So again set alongside a FP lyco the power available for the climb is similar at least until some airspeed is achieved.

Having run the diesel like Kurt for 5 years I love its simplicity/fuel economy. When the upgrade from 120 to 140 comes yes I will take the extra HP.......I think then we will be out performing 160 hp lyco powered 9's.
__________________
http://www.aerobuilder.blogspot.com


Steve Arnold
England

In completion stage of Loehle P5151
Built and now Flying G.BVLR Vans RV4
Rebuilt G.BDBD Tailwind
Rebuilt G BVTN Kitfox
Built G CDCD RV9A with WAM120
Riveted wings on Glastar G.LEZZ Now (G. SKUA)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-10-2013, 10:35 AM
Northernliving Northernliving is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 452
Default

I'm pretty sure the Continental TD-300 is a licensed SMA. I'm also interested in this for a -10, but don't think one will really be available for a another 5-10 years, tested at a competitive price. I'm in the camp of amateur built but not necessarily experimental!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-10-2013, 11:58 AM
paul330 paul330 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Mpumalanga, South Africa
Posts: 1,065
Default

I think you are right. Continental bought out the SMA rights - I think. Shame it's not available to the experimental market because I think it would be a great engine for the -10.
__________________
Paul
Mercy Air, White River FAWV
RV-10 ZU-IIZ - "Zeus"
Building Bearhawk Bravo - RV-18 not available
2019 Donation Made
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-10-2013, 07:09 PM
cujet cujet is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: West Palm Beach, Florida
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kgood View Post

With the diesel, there's no priming, boost pump, mags, mixture, carb heat, flooding, plug fowling, egt to worry about or mess with. Just get in, start up, cycle the prop, and fly.

You can do math any way you want, but in the real world, the diesel is much more efficient, especially when you consider the entire flight profile. An avgas engine running LOP may start to approach diesel efficiency at cruise, but never for the entire flight.
All good points, especially about "entire flight" efficiency. Diesels will use considerably fewer gallons per trip. And, certainly Jet-A is less prone to wildfire...

But a valid comparison is by weight of the fuel burned, any additional engine mass, etc. Cost is not a valid comparison, as costs vary wildly by location. the types of turbodiesels used in aircraft may suffer some efficiency losses when compared to the "ideal diesel".

AND, there is no reason not to produce a direct injection, high compression, electronically controlled, forced induction Avgas burning engine.

I feel that from an engineering standpoint, it's absurd to compare a turbocharged diesel engine (especially a modern one) to a normally aspirated gasoline engine of antiquated design.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:28 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.