Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 07:33 AM - Re: Opinion of flap positioning systems (Randy DeBauw)
2. 02:43 PM - Randy's Engine (Chris)
3. 02:49 PM - Strobe wiring (and a tip) (Chris)
4. 03:13 PM - Re: Randy's Engine (Randy DeBauw)
5. 04:28 PM - New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Dave Hertner)
6. 05:10 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (linn walters)
7. 05:50 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (AI Nut)
8. 06:00 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Tim Olson)
9. 06:18 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Wayne Edgerton)
10. 06:25 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (Dan Malwitz)
11. 07:21 PM - Re: Strobe wiring (and a tip) (DejaVu)
12. 07:47 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (RV Builder (Michael Sausen))
13. 09:30 PM - Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? (LessDragProd@aol.com)
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: | Opinion of flap positioning systems |
I have the flap position system in mine. I didn't notice the trimming at the time
the flaps dropped to be a big deal. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Robin Wessel
Subject: RV10-List: Opinion of flap positioning systems
All-
Anyone have an opinion on Van's flap positioning system VS. the FPS system from
AircraftExtras?
For the extra $100 all said and done with the FPS you get automatic trim adjustment
when the flap moves. I am not sure how much trim is needed on a RV-10 but
in my RV-6, the tweaking the trim was no big deal. I am not sure if the extra
cost and complexity is worth it.
Any thoughts appreciated,
Robin Wessel
Tigard, OR
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 |
|
Randy,
I was just wondering what the RTV looking stuff is that is running along your scat
tubes in the engine bay. Is that just the brand of scat tube?
curious
Chris Lucas
#40072
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: | Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if my
strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead next
to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more out
of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
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 |
|
It is what Van's tells you to do in the firewall forward plans. The recommend you
doing it on the hose that runs from the front inlet to the muffler heater.
We decide to see if it helps and did it to all of them. It is just high heat
RTV. Randy
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com]On Behalf Of Chris
Subject: RV10-List: Randy's Engine
Randy,
I was just wondering what the RTV looking stuff is that is running along your scat
tubes in the engine bay. Is that just the brand of scat tube?
curious
Chris Lucas
#40072
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was developed
by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's also say
that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology is double
what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used this
combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to
.20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque curve
would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant speed
propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so a small
liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is NOT a
rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial turbine. The
engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower you require
for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of a complete
firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you with
regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would you have
to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level of comfort
would you have to have with the company before you would place your order?
Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Dave Hertner wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
> combustion chamber technology is double what is currently available.
> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
That sounds good. I'm interested
> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
> need a constant speed propeller.
Big bonus. I'm more interested.
> This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
> It wouldn't need an ignition system
Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
> and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would
> allow you to have heat in the cabin.
That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling drag.
That's a big bonus.
> It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is
> it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in
> the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would
> only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
Cheaper would be even better.
> So here is the question.
>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
> What would you have to see in place.
That airplane flying.
> What would you have to see demonstrated.
That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great indicator.
> What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before
> you would place your order?
Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would go
far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
> Hypothetically!
Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative engines.
I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when the
hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this one all
to yourself???
Linn
do not archive
>
> Dave Hertner
>
>
>
>
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
What I'd like is some of what the original poster is smokin'!
linn walters wrote:
> Dave Hertner wrote:
>
>> Hello Everyone,
>>
>> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>>
>> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
>> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
>> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
>> combustion chamber technology is double what is currently available.
>> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
>> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
>> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
>
> That sounds good. I'm interested
>
>> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
>> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would
>> not need a constant speed propeller.
>
> Big bonus. I'm more interested.
>
>> This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
>
> That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
>
>> It wouldn't need an ignition system
>
> Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
> harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
>
>> and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system
>> would allow you to have heat in the cabin.
>
> That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling
> drag. That's a big bonus.
>
>> It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is
>> it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in
>> the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would
>> only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
>
> But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
> produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
> Cheaper would be even better.
>
>> So here is the question.
>>
>> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
>> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
>
> I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
> engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
>
>> What would you have to see in place.
>
> That airplane flying.
>
>> What would you have to see demonstrated.
>
> That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
> would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great
> indicator.
>
>> What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before
>> you would place your order?
>
> Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
> until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
> course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would
> go far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
>
>> Hypothetically!
>
> Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative
> engines. I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when
> the hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this
> one all to yourself???
> Linn
> do not archive
>
>>
>> Dave Hertner
>
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
What would it take? (If I hadn't already bought my engine...)
A full set of operating specs, including an estimated TBO.
A warranty that would cover at least a couple hundred hours.
A flying version of the engine, in a similar airframe, complete
with performance specs.
A company that can go from an order with deposit (not more than
50%) to actual delivery, within 4-6 months....with full refund
of deposit if they can't meet that delivery.
Photos of the actual FWF kit, and installation, on the RV-10.
Cold weather and higher altitude performance numbers....(this sounds
suspiciously like a diesel)
Oh yeah, and back to the top of the list....#1 Guaranteed cost including
FWF kit that does not exceed that of a new Lyc. IO-540 equipped the same.
That's what I'd like to see.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Dave Hertner wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion
> chamber technology is _double_ what is currently available. This is to
> say that an engine that used this combustion chamber technology would
> operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple
> different fuels.
>
> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
> need a constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM
> range from ~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it
> doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow
> you to have heat in the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto
> cycle piston engine nor is it a axial turbine. The engine would be
> compact and be available in the exact horsepower you require for your
> airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of a complete
> firewall forward package.
>
> So here is the question.
>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
> What would you have to see in place. What would you have to see
> demonstrated. What level of comfort would you have to have with the
> company before you would place your order? Hypothetically!
>
> Dave Hertner
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: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
--> RV10-List message posted by: "Wayne Edgerton" <weeav8ter@grandecom.net>
Me too!!
----- Original Message -----
From: "AI Nut" <ainut@hiwaay.net>
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
> --> RV10-List message posted by: AI Nut <ainut@hiwaay.net>
>
> What I'd like is some of what the original poster is smokin'!
>
>
>
> linn walters wrote:
>
>> Dave Hertner wrote:
>>
>>> Hello Everyone,
>>>
>>> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>>>
>>> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
>>> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
>>> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
>>> combustion chamber technology is double what is currently available.
>>> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
>>> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
>>> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
>>
>> That sounds good. I'm interested
>>
>>> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
>>> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would
>>> not need a constant speed propeller.
>>
>> Big bonus. I'm more interested.
>>
>>> This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to 3000rpm.
>>
>> That's about as perfect a range as you can get.
>>
>>> It wouldn't need an ignition system
>>
>> Now I'm a little sceptical. Hydraulic ignition (like a diesel) is
>> harder to start without some other ignition to get it started.
>>
>>> and it doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system
>>> would allow you to have heat in the cabin.
>>
>> That would certainly make cooling a non-issue and remove cooling
>> drag. That's a big bonus.
>>
>>> It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is
>>> it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in
>>> the exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would
>>> only be available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
>>
>> But maybe you'll let us know what kind of engine it is??? Is it
>> produceable in a similar price range as present engine technology?
>> Cheaper would be even better.
>>
>>> So here is the question.
>>>
>>> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
>>> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
>>
>> I'd have to see the dyno data and thermo data. A proof of concept
>> engine flying in an airplane would go far in removing y scepticism.
>>
>>> What would you have to see in place.
>>
>> That airplane flying.
>>
>>> What would you have to see demonstrated.
>>
>> That airplane flying. To TBO would be good. I understand that that
>> would take some time, but running in a test cell could be a great
>> indicator.
>>
>>> What level of comfort would you have to have with the company before
>>> you would place your order?
>>
>> Jim Bede taught me never to buy the 'best thing since sliced bread'
>> until there was significant (let's say 100) examples completed. Of
>> course, given a significant price break to beta test an engine would
>> go far in reaching that 100 piece goal.
>>
>>> Hypothetically!
>>
>> Well, I'd love to see it. I have no hangups with alternative
>> engines. I'd hypothetically consider one for my -10. Lemme know when
>> the hypothetical becomes a reality ..... or do you plan to keep this
>> one all to yourself???
>> Linn
>> do not archive
>>
>>>
>>> Dave Hertner
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Dave
Sounds like an amazing engine.
Fly it in an RV-10 from New York to Paris, non-stop.
Have an ISO-9000 quality system in place and the financial backing to
survive for decades.
Regards,
Dan Malwitz
[Looking for a workshop]
_____
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Dave Hertner
Subject: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name.
Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber
technology is double what is currently available. This is to say that an
engine that used this combustion chamber technology would operate with a
BSFC in the order of .15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a
constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from
~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain
much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in
the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor
is it a axial turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the
exact horsepower you require for your airframe. The engine would only be
available as a part of a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would
you have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What
level of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would
place your order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
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: Strobe wiring (and a tip) |
It took all 15' to get from the wing tip to root. I have not ran the rest but
I'm sure another 10' for a total of 25' will get you there with some to spare.
Anh
Maryland
#141
----- Original Message -----
From: Chris
To: rv10-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 5:49 PM
Subject: RV10-List: Strobe wiring (and a tip)
Hello
Does anyone have some good numbers for the length of strobe wire required if
my strobe power supply is mounted on the floor behind the aft baggage bulkhead
next to the AP pitch servo. I don't plan on making a connection at the wing root,
but I need to allow for some extra wire in that area and on the ends.
thanks
Chris Lucas
#40072
Tip,
I was having issues with J-channel rubbing against the wing ribs so I increased
the hole center line dimension down the j-channel just a hair (1/32 inch) to
move the J-end of the channel away from the rib a bit instead of filing more
out of each rib. I also took a little material of the j-end of the channel with
a belt sander.
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: | New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
I would also like to add a review by a independent and respected lab/group to
verify the SFC, BHP, and other numbers in addition to the company financials
and business plan. The biggest thing that has made everyone gun shy nowadays
are all these companies (Innodyn, I'm looking at you) that have what seem to be
great numbers but no independent or otherwise published numbers to back up what
they say. This combined with the industry wide problem of saying "we'll be
in production in the next 12 months" for about 10 years.
I love the idea of alt engines, but I will not pay close to the cost of a known
result (IO-540) for an unknown result (looking at you now Crossflow). Just
doesn't make sense to me. Egg is probably the closest to making this gap go
away but something about his operation makes me nervous. Don't know what, and
it's unsubstantiated, but it's there. Might be the constant "improvements" to
the engines year after year. One thing that bothers me in aviation is a lack
of repeatability. If it can't be repeated consistently, I don't want it to
be something critical. Electronics not so much a problem, but mechanical definitely!
And an engine being modified yearly doesn't leave much historical data
in it's wake. This is the single thing that has allowed Cont and Lyc to remain
at the top of the game all this time.
You want to be in business, only three things will kill you in a heartbeat.
Bad customer service, bad product, bad marketing.
My 2 cents
Michael Sausen
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Olson
Subject: Re: RV10-List: New Engine Technology - What would it take?
--> RV10-List message posted by: Tim Olson <Tim@MyRV10.com>
What would it take? (If I hadn't already bought my engine...)
A full set of operating specs, including an estimated TBO.
A warranty that would cover at least a couple hundred hours.
A flying version of the engine, in a similar airframe, complete with performance
specs.
A company that can go from an order with deposit (not more than
50%) to actual delivery, within 4-6 months....with full refund of deposit if they
can't meet that delivery.
Photos of the actual FWF kit, and installation, on the RV-10.
Cold weather and higher altitude performance numbers....(this sounds suspiciously
like a diesel) Oh yeah, and back to the top of the list....#1 Guaranteed cost
including FWF kit that does not exceed that of a new Lyc. IO-540 equipped the
same.
That's what I'd like to see.
Tim Olson -- RV-10 #170
DO NOT ARCHIVE
Dave Hertner wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
>
> I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
>
> Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
> developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his
> name. Let's also say that the demonstrated efficiency of this
> combustion chamber technology is _double_ what is currently available.
> This is to say that an engine that used this combustion chamber
> technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of .15 to .20
> lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
>
> This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the
> torque curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not
> need a constant speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM
> range from ~300 to 3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it
> doesn't retain much heat so a small liquid cooling system would allow
> you to have heat in the cabin. It is NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an
> Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial turbine. The engine would
> be compact and be available in the exact horsepower you require for
> your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of a
> complete firewall forward package.
>
> So here is the question.
>
> In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to
> you with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information.
> What would you have to see in place. What would you have to see
> demonstrated. What level of comfort would you have to have with the
> company before you would place your order? Hypothetically!
>
> Dave Hertner
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: | Re: New Engine Technology - What would it take? |
Ah Yes. The old magic engine powered the airplane.
Unfortunately, the propeller pulls the airplane, and the physics of the
propeller says it likes to do this at 2000 RPM.
Ever wonder where the word propeller came from? As in "to propel"?
The engine only serves to power the "propeller".
The hypothetical engine you suggest is a little strange. Constant torque?
A fixed torque at zero RPM equals zero horsepower. Therefore, no work
accomplished.
A propeller blade has a single design point for propulsion, i.e., peak
propeller efficiency at a particular airspeed. This implies a specific power
input and a specific drag being overcome.
When you are off of this design point the constant speed pitch change
capability helps to compensate for the propeller efficiency. Why even suggest
that
you can throw away the efficiency available with the constant speed
propeller just because you are proposing a hypothetical efficient power source.
BTW, electric motors tend to burn out at zero RPM at full load. :-)
But you really didn't mention the Sterling cycle, did you?
Regards,
Jim Ayers
In a message dated 05/03/2005 4:29:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
effectus@rogers.com writes:
Hello Everyone,
I would like to get feedback from this group on a hypothetical.
Let's say that a new combustion chamber technology surfaced that was
developed by a really brainy person with lots of letters behind his name. Let's
also
say that the demonstrated efficiency of this combustion chamber technology
is double what is currently available. This is to say that an engine that used
this combustion chamber technology would operate with a BSFC in the order of
.15 to .20 lb/hp/hr. on multiple different fuels.
This engine would produce its full rated torque from 0 rpm and the torque
curve would be linear and horizontal meaning that you would not need a constant
speed propeller. This engine would operate in an RPM range from ~300 to
3000rpm. It wouldn't need an ignition system and it doesn't retain much heat so
a
small liquid cooling system would allow you to have heat in the cabin. It is
NOT a rotary Wankle engine, an Otto cycle piston engine nor is it a axial
turbine. The engine would be compact and be available in the exact horsepower
you require for your airframe. The engine would only be available as a part of
a complete firewall forward package.
So here is the question.
In your humble opinion(s) what would a company have to demonstrate to you
with regard to an aircraft engine based on the above information. What would
you have to see in place. What would you have to see demonstrated. What level
of comfort would you have to have with the company before you would place your
order? Hypothetically!
Dave Hertner
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! --
|