Lycoming, Continental and Rotax
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
That would have been the 4.2L wouldn't in Forkie 
Maybe the younger Forkie, sans speed traps everywhere would thrash it a bit more than the modern day Forkie
See them coppers are saving you money, emissions and keeping the roads much safer!
Maybe the younger Forkie, sans speed traps everywhere would thrash it a bit more than the modern day Forkie
See them coppers are saving you money, emissions and keeping the roads much safer!
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
most fuel efficient car on the road is a turbo charged 2 cylinder thing in a Fiat 500. small engine flogged for all it is worth. 3.7 litres per hundred km.
Hey, Apples with Apples!
We are comparing high efficiency engines running at small percentages of power to maintain the legal speed limit. Should we be looking at the same situation for a flying machine? Max range/ max endurance occurs at the best lift drag or just past the fattest part of the power available power required curve...which is nowhere near our normal cruise speed. 75% power continuous in even a stocker 4l Falcon will have you north of the legal speed limit to a point beyond the survivability of your licence and a fuel economy that matches the current government.
For argument, should we look at the idea of planning to a ground speed and conserve the fuel flow?
EDIT to add...basicly, what Sunny said. BSFC to compare.
We are comparing high efficiency engines running at small percentages of power to maintain the legal speed limit. Should we be looking at the same situation for a flying machine? Max range/ max endurance occurs at the best lift drag or just past the fattest part of the power available power required curve...which is nowhere near our normal cruise speed. 75% power continuous in even a stocker 4l Falcon will have you north of the legal speed limit to a point beyond the survivability of your licence and a fuel economy that matches the current government.
For argument, should we look at the idea of planning to a ground speed and conserve the fuel flow?
EDIT to add...basicly, what Sunny said. BSFC to compare.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 16th Aug 2013 at 08:19.
HarleyD
SAFRAN, the parent company has just launched a 6 cylinder diesel.
SMA?s SR460 engine on the Safran stand
Would love to see that one under the cowling of a Piper Matrix.
SAFRAN, the parent company has just launched a 6 cylinder diesel.
SMA?s SR460 engine on the Safran stand
Would love to see that one under the cowling of a Piper Matrix.
Jabba
I agree re the laws of physics. You can break the laws of the land and get away with it a lot of the time but you cannot break the laws of physics.
When I asked the question
I was hoping Ultralights might have responded to prove his/her point.
All this fancy electronic whiz bang gadgetry in a car is mainly there to reduce maintenance/tuning requirements. It doesn't mean it's actually any better at producing maximum efficiency in some cases it doesn't. What it does do is guarantee a known level of efficiency for minimum maintenance effort.
Old simple technology can give very good levels of efficiency with high levels of reliability but requires regular tuning/maintenance.
The BSFCmin of a "conforming aero engine" one that will operate as nature intended is around 0.385-0.395 and that is pretty hard to beat no matter what you do.
In an aero application requiring all the design parameters we need and want to be met, it is pretty hard to get any better.
you can argue turbines are better....they are, but not down where all the GA machines live. There are compromises and the laws of physics do not change just because we think they should.
In an aero application requiring all the design parameters we need and want to be met, it is pretty hard to get any better.
you can argue turbines are better....they are, but not down where all the GA machines live. There are compromises and the laws of physics do not change just because we think they should.
When I asked the question
Is the BSFC on aero engines all that bad?
All this fancy electronic whiz bang gadgetry in a car is mainly there to reduce maintenance/tuning requirements. It doesn't mean it's actually any better at producing maximum efficiency in some cases it doesn't. What it does do is guarantee a known level of efficiency for minimum maintenance effort.
Old simple technology can give very good levels of efficiency with high levels of reliability but requires regular tuning/maintenance.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep, and the real focus and benefit is emissions control.
Basically in my car, I fill it up when it needs to be filled. If I give it a bit of stick
it burns more.
In the plane I want to go a long way and fast, so ignoring the most efficient airspeed, which of course will be much slower, the best compromise is go as fast as I can on the least amount of fuel.
Simply WOT/23-2500 RPM/10-20dF LOP
The Landmarks to understanding combustion graph is a wonderful tool in teaching people where this all works, when you understand how the various inputs into the entire system work you can pick the best go far or go fast mode, or anywhere in between if that serves the mission purpose.
I really do like the dinosaur engine with manual control of inputs, because even a 25 watter like me can achieve impressive results
A point in case, I have a friend with a very good auto engine installation in an RV8, one of the few in the world that actually perform, don't run hot etc. guess which is more efficient in a heavier more drag airframe, pound for pound around the county ? Yep you guessed it, the Lycosaurous is. By a sizable margin. And yes he has all the engine control at his finger tips.
He is building up a stock of parts for an IO360 conversion. Not sure why?
Basically in my car, I fill it up when it needs to be filled. If I give it a bit of stick
it burns more.In the plane I want to go a long way and fast, so ignoring the most efficient airspeed, which of course will be much slower, the best compromise is go as fast as I can on the least amount of fuel.
Simply WOT/23-2500 RPM/10-20dF LOP
The Landmarks to understanding combustion graph is a wonderful tool in teaching people where this all works, when you understand how the various inputs into the entire system work you can pick the best go far or go fast mode, or anywhere in between if that serves the mission purpose.
I really do like the dinosaur engine with manual control of inputs, because even a 25 watter like me can achieve impressive results
A point in case, I have a friend with a very good auto engine installation in an RV8, one of the few in the world that actually perform, don't run hot etc. guess which is more efficient in a heavier more drag airframe, pound for pound around the county ? Yep you guessed it, the Lycosaurous is. By a sizable margin. And yes he has all the engine control at his finger tips.
He is building up a stock of parts for an IO360 conversion. Not sure why?
Just an interesting article on engines.
Will we all be flying diesels? - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Engineered Propulsion Systems vision350 looks promising if the numbers are true. In fact they are astonishing. Compared to a Piper Matrix engine the fuel flows are roughly halved.
Green Car Congress: EPS showcases lightweight Vision 350 diesel aircraft engine at EAA AirVenture
Vision350 8 cylinder v Lycoming TIO-540AE2A
Eps
Will we all be flying diesels? - Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association
Engineered Propulsion Systems vision350 looks promising if the numbers are true. In fact they are astonishing. Compared to a Piper Matrix engine the fuel flows are roughly halved.
Green Car Congress: EPS showcases lightweight Vision 350 diesel aircraft engine at EAA AirVenture
Vision350 8 cylinder v Lycoming TIO-540AE2A
Eps
From the article they are aiming for an installed weight of under 300kg assuming it will be around that figure. How does that compare with an installed TIO-540 for example on a Chieftain. I know the dry engine weight is around 200kg, does that include ignition equipment, turbo, manifolds and induction etc...
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The Matrix engine is 7.3:1 comp ratio so at 75% power LOP it is 19.5GPH not 21.5GPH.
If you are going to compare a diesel to a gas engine it has to be LOP, not ROP.
Lets compare a TNIO550, at the same 263HP, 17.65GPH.
Gap is closing.
Now lets look at this little gem, Plane that made emergency landing Wednesday was experimental Cessna | Wichita Eagle
So what can cause this? Most likely a hose clamp in the turbo to inlet port. If this happens on your IO540 or 550 300HP engine or even on a Turbo engine, what do you get? You get ambient MP and you still produce some reasonable HP.
These Diesels you get about the same as a very tired Rotax 582 two stroke. 50HP.
You will not get me flying one of these any time soon.
Weight, 250kg - 270kg for the Lycomings, so the Diesel all up with all the gear is going to be nothing like 300kg. That is like asking a woman her weight!
The laws of physics apply equally to all things.
If you are going to compare a diesel to a gas engine it has to be LOP, not ROP.
Lets compare a TNIO550, at the same 263HP, 17.65GPH.
Gap is closing.
Now lets look at this little gem, Plane that made emergency landing Wednesday was experimental Cessna | Wichita Eagle
So what can cause this? Most likely a hose clamp in the turbo to inlet port. If this happens on your IO540 or 550 300HP engine or even on a Turbo engine, what do you get? You get ambient MP and you still produce some reasonable HP.
These Diesels you get about the same as a very tired Rotax 582 two stroke. 50HP.
You will not get me flying one of these any time soon.
Weight, 250kg - 270kg for the Lycomings, so the Diesel all up with all the gear is going to be nothing like 300kg. That is like asking a woman her weight!
The laws of physics apply equally to all things.
Folks,
After you do all the numbers, the only real advantage of a "diesel" is that it will burn Jet A/A1 or Jet B/JP-4.
It's all about money, the reason there is so much interest in kero burners in Europe is that most states in EU charge automobile tax/excise on domestic use of avgas, resulting in prices that cause excruciating pain to the hip pocket nerve.
And the excuse is that, if they didn't, avgas would be diverted to motorcars ----- not revenue raising, you understand, just protecting the revenue.
Tootle pip!!
After you do all the numbers, the only real advantage of a "diesel" is that it will burn Jet A/A1 or Jet B/JP-4.
It's all about money, the reason there is so much interest in kero burners in Europe is that most states in EU charge automobile tax/excise on domestic use of avgas, resulting in prices that cause excruciating pain to the hip pocket nerve.
And the excuse is that, if they didn't, avgas would be diverted to motorcars ----- not revenue raising, you understand, just protecting the revenue.
Tootle pip!!
Last edited by LeadSled; 30th Aug 2013 at 14:36.
