---------------------------------------------------------- Commander-List Digest Archive --- Total Messages Posted Tue 10/14/08: 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:23:07 AM PST US From: "Bill Hamilton" 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 Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO Bill. Did I do the math right, that is almost 100 mpg? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Hamilton 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 wrote: From: Chris 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 _____________________________________ Time: 04:28:59 AM PST US From: "Barry Collman" Subject: Commander-List: 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 _____________________________________ Time: 05:15:04 AM PST US From: "Steve at Col-East" Subject: Re: Commander-List: HHO 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 wrote: From: Chris 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:16:24 AM PST US From: peter bichier Subject: Commander-List: FULL CIRCLE 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 _____________________________________ Time: 11:53:09 AM PST US Subject: Commander-List: Re: On a historical note and inquiry on the L-3805 From: "Peter Bichier" 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 _____________________________________ Time: 12:28:47 PM PST US From: "Barry Collman" Subject: Re: Commander-List: 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" Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 7:52 PM Subject: Commander-List: 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Other Matronics Email List Services ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post A New Message commander-list@matronics.com UN/SUBSCRIBE http://www.matronics.com/subscription List FAQ http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/Commander-List.htm Web Forum Interface To Lists http://forums.matronics.com Matronics List Wiki http://wiki.matronics.com Full Archive Search Engine http://www.matronics.com/search 7-Day List Browse http://www.matronics.com/browse/commander-list Browse Digests http://www.matronics.com/digest/commander-list Browse Other Lists http://www.matronics.com/browse Live Online Chat! http://www.matronics.com/chat Archive Downloading http://www.matronics.com/archives Photo Share http://www.matronics.com/photoshare Other Email Lists http://www.matronics.com/emaillists Contributions http://www.matronics.com/contribution ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.