Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:23 AM - Re: HHO (Bill Hamilton)
2. 04:28 AM - IL-18 aborted take-off (Barry Collman)
3. 05:15 AM - Re: HHO (Steve at Col-East)
4. 11:16 AM - FULL CIRCLE (peter bichier)
5. 11:53 AM - Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the L-3805 (Peter Bichier)
6. 12:28 PM - Re: Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the L-3805 (Barry Collman)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Don,
Sorry for any confusion, 5 to 8 litres per 100 km ---- In an almost 3 ton
car. By 5 to 8 lt/100 km, I am referring to standard city cycle (8) and
country cycle (5) tests. Small European cars that do 80 mpg ( Imperial) are
common, but the latest developments are really something, with petrol
catching up with diesel.
Mind you, they (Benz) have been working on direct injection since the
1930's, maybe earlier, remember the Me 109.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:19 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Bill.
Did I do the math right, that is almost 100 mpg?
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hamilton <mailto:wjrhamilton@optusnet.com.au>
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
Folks,
A friend of mine is involved in development testing with Mercedes.
Their new engine lines with direct petrol injection are producing
efficiencies that that translate into big sedans with plenty of performance,
ie the same power/weight ration as now, but reducing fuel consumption from
12/16 lt:100km, down to 5/8 lt.:100km, ie fuel consumption in already
reasonably efficient engines reduced by half.
It's all about increasing compression ratios, but chamber/injector design
reducing/eliminating pre ignition or detonation.
These engines will equal or better automotive diesels.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton.
If you want to do the maths, approx. 4 lt= 1 US Gallon, 1 km approx. Equals
5/8 of a statute mile.
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of willis
robison
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 7:44 AM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
>From an engineering and Thermodynamics standpoint, the internal combustion
engine (at least the Otto Cycle) is pretty maxed out. For regular
piston-gasoline pushrod or overhead cam engines the total efficiency is
dictated by the maximum pressure you can obtain. Lately, higher compression
and higher temperatures have pushed the efficiency to the limits obtainable
with current materials (aluminum blocks, nitrided steel cylinders etc).
computer control of the mixture took it to another level, but noone will
allow a micro controller on an AC without going through an extensive Qual
process.
Newer High Temperature materials may increase this but absolute "e" is still
= [T(high) - T(low)]/T(low).
Diesel's are less dependent on T(high) but are still dependent on the Max
pressure. Thats why they are so good at being turbocharged at high
altitude. Same goes for Brayton cycle engines (jets). in that case the
limits are [P(high) - P(low)]P(low).
Now you know why those old---GSO-480's are still popular. Lots of juice and
still efficient at high altitude if you roll back on the throttles. (but who
would?)
bud
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm@cox.net> wrote:
From: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Don wrote:
> I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a
> revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal
> combustions engine.
Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook. From a purely scientific
perspective, there are very few areas to improve a traditional Otto
cycle engine. Even if some new miracle material were to arrive that
would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic physics still apply.
Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is simply no room for
huge improvement. Energy out equals energy in minus losses. As long as
the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum products, you
are
limited by that reaction. Most likely, someone will eventually come up
with an efficient means of directly generating electricity from a
chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in transportation
will involve electric motors. I'm not aware of any ground-breaking
technology in that arena currently under development though.
cheers,
Chris
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List
http://forums.matronics.com
http://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.matronic
s.com/Navigator?Commander-List
href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com
href="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">http://www.matronics.com/c
_____
- Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:19 PM
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | IL-18 aborted take-off |
Hi Guys,
Here's a link to a video clip of an aborted take-off by an Angolan
IL-18.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Ogb69OBceRI
Best Regards,
Barry
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
Pretty sure GM is deep into direct injection now also, even for North
America.
I'll have to look that up.
Steve
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hamilton
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:22 AM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
Don,
Sorry for any confusion, 5 to 8 litres per 100 km ---- In an almost 3
ton car. By 5 to 8 lt/100 km, I am referring to standard city cycle (8)
and country cycle (5) tests. Small European cars that do 80 mpg (
Imperial) are common, but the latest developments are really something,
with petrol catching up with diesel.
Mind you, they (Benz) have been working on direct injection since the
1930's, maybe earlier, remember the Me 109.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Don
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 2:19 PM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
Bill.
Did I do the math right, that is almost 100 mpg?
Don
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Hamilton
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 11:24 PM
Subject: RE: Commander-List: HHO
Folks,
A friend of mine is involved in development testing with Mercedes.
Their new engine lines with direct petrol injection are producing
efficiencies that that translate into big sedans with plenty of
performance, ie the same power/weight ration as now, but reducing fuel
consumption from 12/16 lt:100km, down to 5/8 lt.:100km, ie fuel
consumption in already reasonably efficient engines reduced by half.
It's all about increasing compression ratios, but chamber/injector
design reducing/eliminating pre ignition or detonation.
These engines will equal or better automotive diesels.
Regards,
Bill Hamilton.
If you want to do the maths, approx. 4 lt= 1 US Gallon, 1 km
approx. Equals 5/8 of a statute mile.
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of willis
robison
Sent: Saturday, October 11, 2008 7:44 AM
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
From an engineering and Thermodynamics standpoint, the
internal combustion engine (at least the Otto Cycle) is pretty maxed
out. For regular piston-gasoline pushrod or overhead cam engines the
total efficiency is dictated by the maximum pressure you can obtain.
Lately, higher compression and higher temperatures have pushed the
efficiency to the limits obtainable with current materials (aluminum
blocks, nitrided steel cylinders etc). computer control of the mixture
took it to another level, but noone will allow a micro controller on an
AC without going through an extensive Qual process.
Newer High Temperature materials may increase this but
absolute "e" is still = [T(high) - T(low)]/T(low).
Diesel's are less dependent on T(high) but are still dependent
on the Max pressure. Thats why they are so good at being turbocharged
at high altitude. Same goes for Brayton cycle engines (jets). in that
case the limits are [P(high) - P(low)]P(low).
Now you know why those old---GSO-480's are still popular.
Lots of juice and still efficient at high altitude if you roll back on
the throttles. (but who would?)
bud
--- On Fri, 10/10/08, Chris <cschuerm@cox.net> wrote:
From: Chris <cschuerm@cox.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Date: Friday, October 10, 2008, 12:18 PM
wrote:> I try and keep and open mind, one day I firmly believe, a >
revolutionary change will happen to greatly improve our internal >
combustions engine. Well Don, I applaud your positive outlook. From a
purely scientific perspective, there are very few areas to improve a
traditional Otto cycle engine. Even if some new miracle material were
to arrive that would allow unlimited temperature operation, basic
physics still apply. Small efficiency gains could be had, but there is
simply no room for huge improvement. Energy out equals energy in minus
losses. As long as the "energy in" part involves oxidation of petroleum
products, youare limited by that reaction. Most likely, someone will
eventually come up with an efficient means of directly generating
electricity from a chemical reaction and the next "great advancement" in
transportation will involve electric motors. I'm not aware of any
ground-breaking technology in that arena currently under development
though. cheers,Chris
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-List">http://www.mat
ronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhref="http://forums.matronics.com">h
ttp://forums.matronics.comhref="http://www.matronics.com/contribution">
http://www.matronics.com/c
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
- Release Date: 10/8/2008 7:19 PM
http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?Commander-Listhttp://forums.matronics.
comhttp://www.matronics.com/contribution
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
I'm like Tom, never heard of those doors, can anyone enlighten us? or
best a quick picture from N6863S door, and heck why not the rest of
it! would be greatly appreciated!
unless Barry also has some example in his photo collection, of course!
thanks!
On Oct 13, 2008, at 11:01 AM, Tom Fisher wrote:
> I never heard of the "Swearingen gear doors" how are they different
> from the factory ones?
>
> Tom
> C-GISS
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Barry Collman
> To: commander-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 4:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: FULL CIRCLE
>
> Hi JimBob,
>
> My guess is that it's N6863S, s/n 380.
> It was converted from a 680 to a 680E on April 14th 1972.
>
> I know it had the Swearingen gear doors installed, but don't know
> when.
> Anything in the paperwork to help nail that date?
> Has it still got them?
>
> Very Best Regards,
> Barry
>
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the L-3805 |
Now that Sir Barry is back I'll throw this question again:
I was surprised to see that on the handout to employees -May 1951 at the end of
the Chicago Tribune column they mentioned "... the right motor -a 260 hp Lycoming..."
Did the prototype already had the O-435 in 1951? could it really get that much
power on a single engine without the geared engines? Or did she actually fly with
the 190HP?
According to our FGNews July'08 it's only in 1955 that the O-435-A were signed
off as installed on June 3rd. You would thing the journalist would get it right
since he was there!... may be he confused his notes and was just talking about
future plans...
Anyway I am thrilled to have seen this great prototype and just trying to make
sense of this remarkable feat and clarify the story.
--------
560 Dreamer
Read this topic online here:
http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8771#208771
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the L-3805 |
Hi Peter,
There is a problem in ascertaining the early history of the L-3805
prototype, in that the FAA file has no Certificate of Airworthiness
papers until one dated September 9th 1955, by which time it had accrued
938 hours of flying.
This showed that the previous CofA was issued on May 19th 1955 in the
Experimental - R&D category.
However, it is understood to have had Lycoming GO-435-C2 engines
installed "early in 1951".
Indeed, there is photographic evidence of what appears to be a
suitably-modified nacelle to house the reduction gearing that is known
to have been taken at Wright-Patterson AFB.
The L-3805 is known to have been there sometime prior to May 1951.
A Form 337 dated June 3rd 1955 detailed some changes to the L-3805,
including installation of Lycoming O-435-A engines with Hartzell
HC-12X20-9C/8433-6 propellers.
Whether the GO-435 engines were removed at that time isn't known, due to
the afore-mentioned lack of paperwork.
Best Regards,
Barry
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Bichier" <pbichie@UTNet.UToledo.Edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:52 PM
Subject: Commander-List: Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the
L-3805
<pbichie@UTNet.UToledo.Edu>
|
| Now that Sir Barry is back I'll throw this question again:
|
| I was surprised to see that on the handout to employees -May 1951 at
the end of the Chicago Tribune column they mentioned "... the right
motor -a 260 hp Lycoming..."
|
| Did the prototype already had the O-435 in 1951? could it really get
that much power on a single engine without the geared engines? Or did
she actually fly with the 190HP?
|
| According to our FGNews July'08 it's only in 1955 that the O-435-A
were signed off as installed on June 3rd. You would thing the journalist
would get it right since he was there!... may be he confused his notes
and was just talking about future plans...
|
| Anyway I am thrilled to have seen this great prototype and just trying
to make sense of this remarkable feat and clarify the story.
|
| --------
| 560 Dreamer|
| Read this topic online here:
|
| http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p 8771#208771
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|