Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 04:20 AM - Re: Death of the RV-12] (Tom & Cathy Ervin)
2. 06:48 AM - Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) ()
3. 07:18 AM - Re: Death of the RV-12] (Charlie England)
4. 10:08 AM - Re: Death of the RV-12] (mike humphrey)
5. 11:08 AM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (mike humphrey)
6. 01:09 PM - Re: Alternative engines (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
7. 01:17 PM - Re:Alternative engines (Jerry2DT@aol.com)
8. 04:19 PM - Re: Re: Alternative engines ()
9. 05:13 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (c.ennis)
10. 06:03 PM - Re: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) (Rob Prior)
11. 06:26 PM - Re: Re: Alternative engines (Charlie England)
12. 06:47 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (Charlie England)
13. 07:34 PM - Alternative engines ()
14. 08:07 PM - Re: Re:Alternative engines (John W. Cox)
15. 08:16 PM - Re: Alternative engines (Richard E. Tasker)
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
I agree with Sam but would also add the following: If the RV-12 can't be built
E-AB his market for the kit will be so low I predict it will be eventually
be phased out.
Tom in Ohio (RV6-A)
----- Original Message -----
From: jhstarn@verizon.net
Sent: Saturday, March 8, 2008 2:26:10 AM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory" and
produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>From: Sam Buchanan <sbuc@hiwaay.net>
>Date: 2008/03/07 Fri PM 09:14:08 CST
>To: rv-list@matronics.com
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
>jhstarn@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> Subject: Death of the RV-12
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: | Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
First the Lyc is perfectly adapted to
aircraft use. It's like a Alligator, may
be prehistoric but its design is made
for the mission. A "Honda" will be
heavier, more cooling drag, cost more
and in the end will NOT have better
economy or performance. True, read on.
>From: "mike humphrey"
><mike109g6@insideconnect.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>Then why did Honda buy 53% of
>Continental stock? I believe that is
>the last % that I saw. According to
>Honda's own press release they were
>going to use the Continental as their
>springboard. The release of the 'Honda
>engine' was going to be in three phases:
>1. conventional engine based on the
> Continental but with Honda
>manufacturing techniques, ie improved
>metals, air cooling, etc.
Mike no offense but your comments are
based on myth and miss information. WHAT
modern metals and materials? Really I
have to hear this? The fact is the low
production is what cost money. The
"metals" used are STATE OF THE ART. There
is nothing BETTER. Manufacturing? Well the
detailed high precision Grade class A1
castings are complicated x 100 than a car
engine. The crank materials, forgings and
QC is beyond what a car engine part
needs.
>2. was to be still Continental based but
>with EFI, EI, better pistons,
>higher TBO,
Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
in a car. This IDEA that there is
something OLD or inadequate with a
Lycoming and Continental is ignorance.
Car engines run around at 25% power most
of the time. A Ly or TCM can fly along at
75% for 2000 hours. A car engine can not
do that. Why do race cars rebuild there
engine ever 1/4 mile or 200 or 500 miles?
>3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4
>and 6, all the above improvements, even
>better manufacturing techniques-more
>like auto engines, and the biggie, water
>cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more
>air cooled engines, improved cabin
>heating ability, no CO threat at all,
>noise reduction, interchangeable auto
>parts right off of the shelf.
Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
every year? Big air cooled radials from
the 40's and 50's. There is SOOOO much
air available and we never park and run
the engine at high power water cooling is
a JOKE JOKE JOKE. Yes IN A CAR, water
cooling makes the engine mechanical noise
quieter, yes reduces emissions due to
tighter piston/cylinder wall clearances.
COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
AIRPLANES. Look at all the Subaru's and
rotaries. There are flying R&D, test
pilots all. They are heaver, tend to go
slower AND/OR burn way more gas. Air
cooling is IDEAL for aircraft. WHY. Noise
is not an issue because with prop and
exhaust and slip stream nose the
clacking of the valves is a small part of
the noise signature. When you put water
jackets on a Lyc (Like the "cool jugs", a
Lyc sounds like a Subaru. Emission? Not
and issue. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE
RADIATORS? Well the P-51 was made around
the engine. The P-38 Lightning? Same
thing. Most tractor GA planes or kit
planes are a Jury RIG of stuff radiators
somewhere to make it work. Most under size
the radiator and run hot. I'll admit that
cooling on a HOT HOT day and tight cowl
with gross weight climbs to 8,000 feet
might mean you have to watch CHT, but
with time in 3 or 4 types of
experimentals and 40 GA piston planes
from C-152 to several turbo charged twins
I can tell you engine management is NOT
HARD. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS A MIXTURE
KNOB, WHAT DO I DO? Move it about 4-5
times a flight.
>Doesn't that sound like exactly what all
>of us want and have complained about
>Lyco's forever?
What complaints? I have 16,000 hours and
made, most in jets now but spent 1000's
and 1000's of hours behind one or two
Lycs and they where rock solid dependable
all going to or past TBO?
>They anticipated the TBO to be in excess
>of 10k hrs. Instead they go after an
>even smaller market - The Honda Jet.Mike
>H 9A/8A
Look both Honda and Bombardier tried to
come out with engines. Honda got as far
as a picture. Bombardier got as far as
pictures and some specs for a few model.
THEY WHERE HEAVY! They where expensive
and they where better? Look when these
engines are cheaper than a Lyc or Lyc
clone, where I can go out and buy a BRAND
NEW O-360 or IO-360 for $21,000 and get
and engine as light, reliable and simple
than I'll look at it.
Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
based engines are at least several or all
of the following:
-heavier
-More noise
-low on power
-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
-more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
Most auto engine conversions are 100 lbs
more. The Mazda rotary is loud. The
others are spinning fast are have a higher
pitch noise and vibration. Different yes
but better? No.
Auto engines advertise the peak HP as
at near red line, but in airplanes operate
will below peak HP. Most of the car
engines do not get any better fuel
consumption than a Lyc or TCM. Well
because Lycs/TCM have a mixture control
and usually EGT gauges. Some even run
LOP. The AUTO engine EFI with O2 sensor
(which last a few hours with avgas) and
open/closed loop does nothing at high
power settings. I'd rather have manual
mixture control.
The Lyc has:
two cables - Mixtures and Throttle
One fuel line and a mechanical pump
Two P-leads to self powered mags
So two push-pull cables, two single wires
and one fuel line is all that is needed
and NON requires electrical power. The
MODERN engine needs computers and has
one spark plug & needs dual electric pumps,
two batteries and blaa blaa blaa.
There is something elegant in a simple
air cooled engine independant engine.
Honda bought TCM because it was cheap.
Honda engines are just 4 stroke piston
reciprocal "otto cycle" engines just like
a Lycoming. THERE IS NOTHING NEW.
4 valves per cylinder or water cooling is
NOT NEW. It has been around since the
20's. The Lyc does not use any of this
because its NOT NEEDED or desirable.
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
jhstarn@verizon.net wrote:
>
> I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more than
two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA will still
allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA for paying customers...the
very thing this whole change was to prevent. Why should Vans continue
to fight for an E-AB when there will be those who set up their "factory"
and produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying the parts. After all he is in the
business of selling kits. KABONG
>
>
My take was a little different. 1st, what wasn't said: Think about why
the 51% rule came into play. It wasn't about safety; it was (and is)
about protecting existing certified manufacturers. Why is there this
sudden attention to build percentage after decades of allowing more &
more prefab & assistance? Could it be that the Big Dog manufacturers see
high performance homebuilts cutting into their sales and potential big
bucks from LSA & want to limit competition? Lunch with a few Senators,
Senators write a few letters to the FAA, & suddenly there's a big
'problem' with assisted EAB.
Next, what seemed to be buried between the lines of the article I read
was the possibility of an additional category of experimental, where
there is a less restrictive percentage allowing more professional
assistance. This might not be such a bad thing, if existing EAB rules
are kept. It would still allow us to build & allow those with more money
than time or skills to pay for help.
I follow one of the ultralite lists, & everyone there was terrified that
LSA would end ultralites. Well, they lost 2 seat 'trainers' but nothing
changed with single seaters & everyone got LSA making 2 seaters
available legally to folks that might not be able to get a medical under
existing (overly restrictive) medical requirements.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Charlie
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 |
|
| Subject: | Re: Death of the RV-12] |
Excellent point about the 'Big Dogs' and their political impact on GA. With
the FAA getting so twitchy so quickly, I bet if I was a fly on the wall,
some very Big Dogs brought this whole process about. Is it coincidence that
Cessna is wanting to get into the LSA market and launched their concept
entry at OSH this past year and then 6 months later the FAA stops
conditionals just when Van's is about to launch it's LSA entry into the
market? Being overly skeptical of any government interference in our lives,
I suspect that the 'smoking gun' is LSA - NOT the 51% rule. If a study was
performed, I suspect that 'professionally' built aircraft probably have a
safety record equal to or better than certified aircraft, excluding pilot
error as the cause of an accident/incident. The FAA is simply using it as
an excuse. When the FAA admits, that prior to their suspension of
conditional inspections for manufacturers, that they DID NOT do an economic
impact study on the effects of the suspension, when they do said impact
study for every other FAA change prior to implementing said change, it
speaks volumes as to what is going on 'Behind' the scenes, that we, the
private citizen are not privy to. Don't forget that the FAA still wants
'user fees' for GA. This current round of FAA infringement may only be a
gambit, bargaining chip so to speak, to accomplish that end. Life is
compromise, we are taught, who better knows that than government. Clouded
issues, clouded agendas, all is not what it seems on the surface of the mill
pond when you are dealing with government agencies. The eddies, currents,
below the surface are what is really at stake here. The FAA is flexing it's
sizable muscle, letting us know who is REALLY in charge; government - not
the citizen. If you really are upset by the FAA's current actions, and you
are fearful of the future of GA-Experimental-CALL/WRITE you congressman and
senator. Express your concerns in WRITING-encourage them to intervene on
your behalf. You are the taxpayer, electorate. GET PRO-ACTIVE and protect
yourself.
Don't wait for someone else to do it for you. Our voice was heard and
stopped the 'FAA User Fees' proposal. WE CAN DO IT AGAIN.
'nuff said'
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charlie England" <ceengland@bellsouth.net>
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 10:13 AM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Death of the RV-12]
>
> jhstarn@verizon.net wrote:
>>
>> I guess that I may jumped a little quick BUT I have been waiting for more
>> than two years to start an RV-12. But what really gets me is that the FAA
>> will still allow the 51% violators to continue to build the RV-12 S-LSA
>> for paying customers...the very thing this whole change was to prevent.
>> Why should Vans continue to fight for an E-AB when there will be those
>> who set up their "factory" and produce RV-12 S-LSA's with Vans supplying
>> the parts. After all he is in the business of selling kits. KABONG
>>
>>
>
> My take was a little different. 1st, what wasn't said: Think about why the
> 51% rule came into play. It wasn't about safety; it was (and is) about
> protecting existing certified manufacturers. Why is there this sudden
> attention to build percentage after decades of allowing more & more prefab
> & assistance? Could it be that the Big Dog manufacturers see high
> performance homebuilts cutting into their sales and potential big bucks
> from LSA & want to limit competition? Lunch with a few Senators, Senators
> write a few letters to the FAA, & suddenly there's a big 'problem' with
> assisted EAB.
>
> Next, what seemed to be buried between the lines of the article I read was
> the possibility of an additional category of experimental, where there is
> a less restrictive percentage allowing more professional assistance. This
> might not be such a bad thing, if existing EAB rules are kept. It would
> still allow us to build & allow those with more money than time or skills
> to pay for help.
>
> I follow one of the ultralite lists, & everyone there was terrified that
> LSA would end ultralites. Well, they lost 2 seat 'trainers' but nothing
> changed with single seaters & everyone got LSA making 2 seaters available
> legally to folks that might not be able to get a medical under existing
> (overly restrictive) medical requirements.
>
> It will be interesting to see how it shakes out.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
So was the Model T Ford. It's called - Progress. When is the
production of 100LL supposed to be stopped? Another US manufacturer
that can't keep up with times-like the auto industry. What kind of car
do you drive? Where is it built? Not US, is it, I bet? The 'issues'
pointed out as to reasons against, are simply based in conjecture.
There is absolutely no data to support: heavier, more drag, increase
cost and not better economy or performance. Zip, Nada. Those are not
constructive arguments, only opinions.
With regards to that rant following, the person has never built/flown a
Full Fadec IO Lyco-it needs everything that he states that it doesn't.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But one should leave the
emotional outburst for the pulpit. What I was trying to point out is
that if US A/C engine manufacturers don't look past today, tomorrow will
make them extinct.
I'd be the first to admit that I hate change. But sometimes it's
necessary for survival.
Enough on this subject, it's like beating a dead horse,
Mike H
----- Original Message -----
From: gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com
To: rv-list@matronics.com
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 9:45 AM
Subject: RV-List: Re: Honda Piston Engine (never happen)
First the Lyc is perfectly adapted to
aircraft use. It's like a Alligator, may
be prehistoric but its design is made
for the mission. A "Honda" will be
heavier, more cooling drag, cost more
and in the end will NOT have better
economy or performance. True, read on.
>From: "mike humphrey"
><mike109g6@insideconnect.net>
>Subject: Re: RV-List: Honda Piston Engine
>Then why did Honda buy 53% of
>Continental stock? I believe that is
>the last % that I saw. According to
>Honda's own press release they were
>going to use the Continental as their
>springboard. The release of the 'Honda
>engine' was going to be in three phases:
>1. conventional engine based on the
> Continental but with Honda
>manufacturing techniques, ie improved
>metals, air cooling, etc.
Mike no offense but your comments are
based on myth and miss information. WHAT
modern metals and materials? Really I
have to hear this? The fact is the low
production is what cost money. The
"metals" used are STATE OF THE ART. There
is nothing BETTER. Manufacturing? Well the
detailed high precision Grade class A1
castings are complicated x 100 than a car
engine. The crank materials, forgings and
QC is beyond what a car engine part
needs.
>2. was to be still Continental based but
>with EFI, EI, better pistons,
>higher TBO,
Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
in a car. This IDEA that there is
something OLD or inadequate with a
Lycoming and Continental is ignorance.
Car engines run around at 25% power most
of the time. A Ly or TCM can fly along at
75% for 2000 hours. A car engine can not
do that. Why do race cars rebuild there
engine ever 1/4 mile or 200 or 500 miles?
>3. was to be 'The Honda Engine', flat 4
>and 6, all the above improvements, even
>better manufacturing techniques-more
>like auto engines, and the biggie, water
>cooled, and VERY extended TBO, no more
>air cooled engines, improved cabin
>heating ability, no CO threat at all,
>noise reduction, interchangeable auto
>parts right off of the shelf.
Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
every year? Big air cooled radials from
the 40's and 50's. There is SOOOO much
air available and we never park and run
the engine at high power water cooling is
a JOKE JOKE JOKE. Yes IN A CAR, water
cooling makes the engine mechanical noise
quieter, yes reduces emissions due to
tighter piston/cylinder wall clearances.
COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
AIRPLANES. Look at all the Subaru's and
rotaries. There are flying R&D, test
pilots all. They are heaver, tend to go
slower AND/OR burn way more gas. Air
cooling is IDEAL for aircraft. WHY. Noise
is not an issue because with prop and
exhaust and slip stream nose the
clacking of the valves is a small part of
the noise signature. When you put water
jackets on a Lyc (Like the "cool jugs", a
Lyc sounds like a Subaru. Emission? Not
and issue. WHAT DO YOU DO WITH THE
RADIATORS? Well the P-51 was made around
the engine. The P-38 Lightning? Same
thing. Most tractor GA planes or kit
planes are a Jury RIG of stuff radiators
somewhere to make it work. Most under size
the radiator and run hot. I'll admit that
cooling on a HOT HOT day and tight cowl
with gross weight climbs to 8,000 feet
might mean you have to watch CHT, but
with time in 3 or 4 types of
experimentals and 40 GA piston planes
from C-152 to several turbo charged twins
I can tell you engine management is NOT
HARD. OH MY GOSH, THERE IS A MIXTURE
KNOB, WHAT DO I DO? Move it about 4-5
times a flight.
>Doesn't that sound like exactly what all
>of us want and have complained about
>Lyco's forever?
What complaints? I have 16,000 hours and
made, most in jets now but spent 1000's
and 1000's of hours behind one or two
Lycs and they where rock solid dependable
all going to or past TBO?
>They anticipated the TBO to be in excess
>of 10k hrs. Instead they go after an
>even smaller market - The Honda Jet.Mike
>H 9A/8A
Look both Honda and Bombardier tried to
come out with engines. Honda got as far
as a picture. Bombardier got as far as
pictures and some specs for a few model.
THEY WHERE HEAVY! They where expensive
and they where better? Look when these
engines are cheaper than a Lyc or Lyc
clone, where I can go out and buy a BRAND
NEW O-360 or IO-360 for $21,000 and get
and engine as light, reliable and simple
than I'll look at it.
Bottom line all the "WATER COOL" Car
based engines are at least several or all
of the following:
-heavier
-More noise
-low on power
-fuel burn same or higher than air cooling
-more cooling drag to day (except maybe P-51)
Most auto engine conversions are 100 lbs
more. The Mazda rotary is loud. The
others are spinning fast are have a higher
pitch noise and vibration. Different yes
but better? No.
Auto engines advertise the peak HP as
at near red line, but in airplanes operate
will below peak HP. Most of the car
engines do not get any better fuel
consumption than a Lyc or TCM. Well
because Lycs/TCM have a mixture control
and usually EGT gauges. Some even run
LOP. The AUTO engine EFI with O2 sensor
(which last a few hours with avgas) and
open/closed loop does nothing at high
power settings. I'd rather have manual
mixture control.
The Lyc has:
two cables - Mixtures and Throttle
One fuel line and a mechanical pump
Two P-leads to self powered mags
So two push-pull cables, two single wires
and one fuel line is all that is needed
and NON requires electrical power. The
MODERN engine needs computers and has
one spark plug & needs dual electric pumps,
two batteries and blaa blaa blaa.
There is something elegant in a simple
air cooled engine independant engine.
Honda bought TCM because it was cheap.
Honda engines are just 4 stroke piston
reciprocal "otto cycle" engines just like
a Lycoming. THERE IS NOTHING NEW.
4 valves per cylinder or water cooling is
NOT NEW. It has been around since the
20's. The Lyc does not use any of this
because its NOT NEEDED or desirable.
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: Alternative engines |
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list@matronics.com writes:
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly
more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable
alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Message 7
| 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:Alternative engines |
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list@matronics.com writes:
Time: 08:56:09 AM PST US
Subject: RE: RV-List: Alternative engines
From: "John W. Cox" <johnwcox@pacificnw.com>
Ron, my experience from the fiasco here in Oregon is that the FAA does
not allow any amount of ethanol in Mogas placed into aircraft for
flight. Do you have some reference that refutes the ASTM standard for
fuel in aircraft?
That means not even 1% Ethanol. Rotax mentions no harm will be dune up
to 6%, Oregon is going 10% and the Fed says Zero. Set me straight.
John Cox
John,
I also live in "People's Republic of OR", so I feel your pain. However, I do
believe you can burn whatever in your Experimental. To burn mogas in
certified, you have to have an STC, and not sure whether that includes gas with
ethanol. I will try the 10% ethanol in my -6a in one tank some day in the future.
Just at cruise up high, mind you. 100LL in the other tank. Main concern with
ethanol is it seems to melt rubber on hoses, gaskets, etc. They say...
Neoprene allegedly OK. Maybe I'll buy a bottle of "White Lighting" and submerge
some hoses/gaskets, etc. in a couple oz. of it. What to do with the rest of
the bottle?
Ideas?
Jerry
**************It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms, and advice on AOL Money &
Finance. (http://money.aol.com/tax?NCID=aolprf00030000000001)
Message 8
| 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: Alternative engines |
Jerry,
I use AirNav.com for flight planning and it will choose routes with fuel type
and price inputs. Try it-you'll like it.
Ron Burnett
---- Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
=============
Ron,
I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol. So when
you
go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
Jerry
In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
rv-list@matronics.com writes:
The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow me to fly
more
hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe the future
in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with viable
alternative
engines like Jan offers.
Do Not Archieve.
Ron Burnett
St. Charles, MO
Message 9
| 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:Alternative engines |
Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
Among other comments, the article says this..
"Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircra
ft for the following reasons:
* The addition of alcohol to automobile
gasoline adversly affects the
volatility of the fuel, which could
cause vapor lock.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is corrosive and not
compatible with the rubber seals and
other materials used in aircraft, which
could lead to fuel system deterioration
and malfunction.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is subject to phase separation,
which happens when fuel is cooled
as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
higher altitude. When the alcohol
separates from the gasoline, it may
carry water that has been held in
solution and that cannot be handled by
the sediment bowl.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline reduces the energy content of
the fuel. Methanol has approximately
55 percent of the energy content of
gasoline, and ethanol has
approximately 73 percent of the
energy of automobile gasoline.
The greater amount of alcohol in
the automobile gasoline, the greater
the reduction in the airdraft's range."
The article goes on with several reccomendations.
The most explicite says.
"ii. Automobile gasolines
containing alcohol
(methanol or ethanol) are
not acceptable, unless
specifically approved by the
TC or STC.
For Further Information Contact
Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
(816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse@faa.gov
Charlie Ennis
RV-6A
Message 10
| 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: Honda Piston Engine (never happen) |
On 6:45 2008-03-08 <gmcjetpilot@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Lyc/Continental offer FULL FADEC? What are
> you talking about? Higher TBO. 2000 hours is
> not enough. That is like 1/2 million miles
> in a car.
1/2 million miles in 2000 hours is 250 mph. That's a pretty fast car that
you're driving for 2000 hours. Unless you really meant "1 to 2 million
miles," in which case you're only talking 60-120mph, average, for 2000
hours. Most cars on the road today would do well to average 40mph, let
alone 60.
> Water cooling? Who wins reno air races
> every year? Big air cooled radials from
> the 40's and 50's.
For many years Strega and Dago Red (both P-51's) traded the checkered flag,
while Rare Bear (Bearcat), Dreadnought (Sea Fury), etc. trickled in behind.
> COOLING DRAG = HUGE IN WATER COOLED
> AIRPLANES.
Cooling drag is huge in all airplanes. The challenge is minimizing it.
The P-51 was able to get *thrust* from the cooling system at certain power
settings. Surely there's a way to realize similar gains with an automotive
conversion.
-Rob
Message 11
| 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: Alternative engines |
Most of my flying is either local or within 2-way range of full tanks.
My -7 will have extended range tanks & will push the percentage of
round-trips without refueling to about 90%.
Charlie
Jerry2DT@aol.com wrote:
> Ron,
>
> I've done lot's of cross countries and yet to see a mogas pump at an
> airport. Locally, I was using mogas until Oregon mandated 10% ethanol.
> So when you go X-Country, where do you get mogas?
>
> Jerry
>
> In a message dated 3/8/2008 12:03:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> rv-list@matronics.com writes:
>
> The advantages of autogas, even with ethanol, pricewise will allow
> me to fly more
> hours per year than 100LL for the forseeable future. I believe
> the future
> in affordable flying, and true technology improvement is with
> viable alternative
> engines like Jan offers.
>
> Do Not Archieve.
>
> Ron Burnett
> St. Charles, MO
>
>
Message 12
| 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:Alternative engines |
c.ennis wrote:
> Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
>
> FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
>
> Among other comments, the article says this..
>
> "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in
> aircraft for the following reasons:
>
> * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> gasoline adversly affects the
> volatility of the fuel, which could
> cause vapor lock.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is corrosive and not
> compatible with the rubber seals and
> other materials used in aircraft, which
> could lead to fuel system deterioration
> and malfunction.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> which happens when fuel is cooled
> as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> higher altitude. When the alcohol
> separates from the gasoline, it may
> carry water that has been held in
> solution and that cannot be handled by
> the sediment bowl.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline reduces the energy content of
> the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> 55 percent of the energy content of
> gasoline, and ethanol has
> approximately 73 percent of the
> energy of automobile gasoline.
> The greater amount of alcohol in
> the automobile gasoline, the greater
> the reduction in the airdraft's range."
>
> The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> The most explicite says.
> "ii. Automobile gasolines
> containing alcohol
> (methanol or ethanol) are
> not acceptable, unless
> specifically approved by the
> TC or STC.
>
> For Further Information Contact
>
> Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse@faa.gov <mailto:peter.rouse@faa.gov>
>
> Charlie Ennis
> RV-6A
Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments against
alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional wisdom'
arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can make analogous
arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last paragraph?
Charlie
Message 13
| 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: | Alternative engines |
These issues have been addressed by our group and the Eggenfellner firewall forward
product.
1. The volatility issue is addressed by testing the fuel for the altitude that
vapor lock could occur, usually above 12,000 feet, even in summer.
2. Rubber seals are not used.
3. Any water present would be absorbed in the fuel/ethanol mixture, and run right
thru the fuel injection system.
4. I am willing to accept any reduced range, especially for local flying to save
extensively on fuel costs and cross country I can buy 100LL or MOGAS as available
anyway.
5. Should vapor lock occur, we have a fuel bypass valve that would immediately
restart the engine and most likely, you would never miss a beat or be aware that
vapor lock had even occured.
An STC is unnecessary in an automotive engine and I am comfortable with these solutions.
I do not burn auto fuel in my STC approved Luscombe as I agree with the premises
stated for certified aircraft. Life is often a dichotomy!
---- "c.ennis" <c.ennis@insightbb.com> wrote:
============
Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
Among other comments, the article says this..
"Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircraft for
the following reasons:
* The addition of alcohol to automobile
gasoline adversly affects the
volatility of the fuel, which could
cause vapor lock.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is corrosive and not
compatible with the rubber seals and
other materials used in aircraft, which
could lead to fuel system deterioration
and malfunction.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline is subject to phase separation,
which happens when fuel is cooled
as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
higher altitude. When the alcohol
separates from the gasoline, it may
carry water that has been held in
solution and that cannot be handled by
the sediment bowl.
* Alcohol present in automobile
gasoline reduces the energy content of
the fuel. Methanol has approximately
55 percent of the energy content of
gasoline, and ethanol has
approximately 73 percent of the
energy of automobile gasoline.
The greater amount of alcohol in
the automobile gasoline, the greater
the reduction in the airdraft's range."
The article goes on with several reccomendations.
The most explicite says.
"ii. Automobile gasolines
containing alcohol
(methanol or ethanol) are
not acceptable, unless
specifically approved by the
TC or STC.
RV-6A
Message 14
| 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:Alternative engines |
Charlie, Thank You. There is an ASTM standard which I understood was
required of all aircraft flying. This was a condition not restricted to
just certificated production aircraft but experimental built as well.
It has something to do not just with octane but the diverse difference
of the Reid Pressure Value when Ethanol in any amount is added.
Clearly there are some who feel experimental built can fly on corn
squeezing. My understanding was that No ethanol was allowed. And yet
there was a feature story in one of my aviation pubs of a three ship
RV-4 group which flies with E-85. I remain confused and curious.
John Cox
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Charlie England
Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2008 6:37 PM
Subject: Re: RV-List: Re:Alternative engines
c.ennis wrote:
> Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
>
> FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
>
> Among other comments, the article says this..
>
> "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in
> aircraft for the following reasons:
>
> * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> gasoline adversly affects the
> volatility of the fuel, which could
> cause vapor lock.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is corrosive and not
> compatible with the rubber seals and
> other materials used in aircraft, which
> could lead to fuel system deterioration
> and malfunction.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> which happens when fuel is cooled
> as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> higher altitude. When the alcohol
> separates from the gasoline, it may
> carry water that has been held in
> solution and that cannot be handled by
> the sediment bowl.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline reduces the energy content of
> the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> 55 percent of the energy content of
> gasoline, and ethanol has
> approximately 73 percent of the
> energy of automobile gasoline.
> The greater amount of alcohol in
> the automobile gasoline, the greater
> the reduction in the airdraft's range."
>
> The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> The most explicite says.
> "ii. Automobile gasolines
> containing alcohol
> (methanol or ethanol) are
> not acceptable, unless
> specifically approved by the
> TC or STC.
>
> For Further Information Contact
>
> Peter L. Rouse, Aviation Safety Engineer,
> Small Airplane Directorate; phone:
> (816) 329-4135; email: peter.rouse@faa.gov
<mailto:peter.rouse@faa.gov>
>
> Charlie Ennis
> RV-6A
Isn't the document talking about type-certified a/c?
All the points are typical 'conventional wisdom' arguments against
alcohol blend fuels, very similar to the type of 'conventional wisdom'
arguments used against auto fuels in general. (You can make analogous
arguments against jet fuel, & planes seem to fly ok on that.)
Even with all those arguments in play, did you notice the last
paragraph?
Charlie
Message 15
| 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: Alternative engines |
ronburnett@charter.net wrote:
>
> 4. I am willing to accept any reduced range, especially for local flying to save
extensively on fuel costs and cross country I can buy 100LL or MOGAS as available
anyway.
>
Just to put this in perspective. Auto fuel with 10% ethanol (which is
the ratio that is widely sold) will give you 97.3% the range as straight
mogas or 100LL. For a theoretical range of 1000 miles with 100LL, you
could go 973 miles with a mix. I don'[t know about you, but I am going
to be on the ground refueling long before the 27 miles difference is
relevant.
Do not archive
> ---- "c.ennis" <c.ennis@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
> ============
> Here is a quote from what some might consider an authority.
>
> FAA Aviation News--Jan./Feb. 2007 Pg 31.
>
> Among other comments, the article says this..
>
> "Automobile gasoline containing alcohol is not allowed to be used in aircraft
for the following reasons:
>
> * The addition of alcohol to automobile
> gasoline adversly affects the
> volatility of the fuel, which could
> cause vapor lock.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is corrosive and not
> compatible with the rubber seals and
> other materials used in aircraft, which
> could lead to fuel system deterioration
> and malfunction.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline is subject to phase separation,
> which happens when fuel is cooled
> as a result of the aircraft's climbing to
> higher altitude. When the alcohol
> separates from the gasoline, it may
> carry water that has been held in
> solution and that cannot be handled by
> the sediment bowl.
>
> * Alcohol present in automobile
> gasoline reduces the energy content of
> the fuel. Methanol has approximately
> 55 percent of the energy content of
> gasoline, and ethanol has
> approximately 73 percent of the
> energy of automobile gasoline.
> The greater amount of alcohol in
> the automobile gasoline, the greater
> the reduction in the airdraft's range."
>
> The article goes on with several reccomendations.
> The most explicite says.
> "ii. Automobile gasolines
> containing alcohol
> (methanol or ethanol) are
> not acceptable, unless
> specifically approved by the
> TC or STC.
> RV-6A
>
>
>
--
Please Note:
No trees were destroyed in the sending of this message. We do concede, however,
that a significant number of electrons may have been temporarily inconvenienced.
--
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! --
|