TECNAM P2012 Rollout
Unleaded fuel in Aviation Engines
Even the FAA and National Institute for Petrolium and Energy Research could find no major wear differences between 100LL and ULP in Lycoming IO-360's:
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/t.../cttn89-33.pdf
http://www.tc.faa.gov/its/worldpac/t.../cttn89-33.pdf
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks megan.
Does the TECNAM P2012 Traveller have CR (counter-rotating) propellers? All aircraft are essentially power limited, but would the RR (Allison) 250 B17C be too gutless for this airframe?
Does the TECNAM P2012 Traveller have CR (counter-rotating) propellers? All aircraft are essentially power limited, but would the RR (Allison) 250 B17C be too gutless for this airframe?
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you were going the RR (Allison) 250 would be mad on what they have now.
But if going turbine, noisy but fuel burn considered TPE 331 would allow for both A/F stretch and power up grades in future.
But if going turbine, noisy but fuel burn considered TPE 331 would allow for both A/F stretch and power up grades in future.
There are STC's already. Look here; Petersen Aviation | Auto Fuel STC
People are already doing successfully the things you say cannot be done or will be difficult to achieve.
I don't see Lycoming nor Continental avgas engines being knocked off their perch any time soon. A few have tried but none have succeeded. The fact of the matter is it's very hard to improve on the figures already being achieved with these "old dinosaurs". Certainly nowhere near enough gain to make it worth while.
The only option that has gained any traction has been the odd one or two diesel engines and their merits are very doubtful as a replacement option for an existing airframe.
People are already doing successfully the things you say cannot be done or will be difficult to achieve.
I don't see Lycoming nor Continental avgas engines being knocked off their perch any time soon. A few have tried but none have succeeded. The fact of the matter is it's very hard to improve on the figures already being achieved with these "old dinosaurs". Certainly nowhere near enough gain to make it worth while.
The only option that has gained any traction has been the odd one or two diesel engines and their merits are very doubtful as a replacement option for an existing airframe.
Certainly not comparable with the average O-320, but I think they proved a point.
My opinion is that nobody knocked Lycos and Contis off mostly due to the certification costs and the very small market which precludes any return on the investment, not really because they are efficient.
There will always be somebody that wants to build things differently, but if the initial barriers are huge nobody will come to play.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Timbukthree
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A ROTAX 912?
What do you think of going to a TRACE 600 on the TECNAM P2012 Traveller? Engine mount mods, and CG adjustments et al are a given.. but what if?
What do you think of going to a TRACE 600 on the TECNAM P2012 Traveller? Engine mount mods, and CG adjustments et al are a given.. but what if?
Last edited by evansb; 14th Sep 2016 at 11:52.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Home
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does any of the debate on suitability of Mogas take into account speed of degradation?
Might be all Ok ex works but after a few weeks in storage and sitting in vented tanks - what are you left with
Might be all Ok ex works but after a few weeks in storage and sitting in vented tanks - what are you left with
DirtyProp: Don't forget the Rotax 912.
Certainly not comparable with the average O-320, but I think they proved a point.
My opinion is that nobody knocked Lycos and Contis off mostly due to the certification costs and the very small market which precludes any return on the investment, not really because they are efficient.
Certainly not comparable with the average O-320, but I think they proved a point.
My opinion is that nobody knocked Lycos and Contis off mostly due to the certification costs and the very small market which precludes any return on the investment, not really because they are efficient.
As you point out the 912 isn't comparable with the average O-320. No one has successfully replaced the likes of the O-320 or larger sized engines. Plenty have failed trying.
You seem to infer the Lycomings and Continentals are inefficient. Do you have facts to back that up?
If they were as inefficient as some on here suggest, the cost savings would be such there would be viable replacement engines on the market.
The real driver for diesel engines isn't efficiency, it is Avgas non availability in some parts of the world.
As and aside, it's interesting Cessna have dropped the C182 diesel engine option. They had diesel engined aircraft ready for sale once they had the diesel engine certified. They have quietly gone and refitted Avgas engines to these airframes.
You seem to infer the Lycomings and Continentals are inefficient. Do you have facts to back that up?
You say that there are no alternatives because they are the most efficient. Maybe so, but at least allow me to be a bit skeptical when there are no others.
I say there are no alternatives because of too much money involved with too little return and too much liability.
I know you can only extract so much energy from a liter of fuel, but I'd like to see others trying and maybe failing on technical issues, instead of paperwork and liability barriers.
As I'm sure you know, Rotax had a V6 in the 200 hp class in the work, and decided to kill it for those reasons.
Was it less efficient than an O-360? I guess we'll never know.
I flew the P2010 at the factory earlier this year. It has a dual fuel 180hp Lyc IO-360-MIA..
Fantastic machine. There is no degredation with fuel types as the FADEC system handle all this. Mixed fuels are OK too... It's actually the 21st Century..
Fantastic machine. There is no degredation with fuel types as the FADEC system handle all this. Mixed fuels are OK too... It's actually the 21st Century..
Last edited by TBM-Legend; 15th Sep 2016 at 11:27.
It has a dual fuel 180hp Lyc IO-360-MIA..
P2012 Traveller | the next commuter
The P2012 Traveller is powered by two Lycoming engines (375 HP, turbocharged, six-cylinder, direct-drive, horizontally opposed, air-cooled, avgas or mogas feeded ) mounted on the wings.
Next generation engines with alternate fuels approved.
dirty prop, you fall for the same false comparison that has tripped up so many other folks; Automotive and aviation engine operating environments have very little in common.
The advances in automotive engines are about improving the operating range of engines - a typical car needs approximately 20 hp to maintain 100kph, Say 10% of its rated power but much more to provide acceptable acceleration, etc. For example the latest car engines squeeze 200+ kW out of 2 Litres via double turbochargers, direct injection, etc. the idea is to have the performance of a V8 with the economy of a much smaller engine.
An aircraft engine spends all of its time at more than 55% power at virtually constant rpm. a very different environment. very few of the cosmetic automotive new technologies add much value for their weight and complexity. the lycosaurus is optimized for a narrow rev range and power band.
of course if you want to design an airframe that cruises on 50 hp but needs 500hp for acceptable take off performance than you are right - you will need a new automotive technology engine.
I'm fiddling with a common rail fuel injected Rotax right now and I continually have to ask myself if the complexity of its care and feeding (complexity of the fuel and electrical systems that I have to install) is going to be worth the time and money involved.
The advances in automotive engines are about improving the operating range of engines - a typical car needs approximately 20 hp to maintain 100kph, Say 10% of its rated power but much more to provide acceptable acceleration, etc. For example the latest car engines squeeze 200+ kW out of 2 Litres via double turbochargers, direct injection, etc. the idea is to have the performance of a V8 with the economy of a much smaller engine.
An aircraft engine spends all of its time at more than 55% power at virtually constant rpm. a very different environment. very few of the cosmetic automotive new technologies add much value for their weight and complexity. the lycosaurus is optimized for a narrow rev range and power band.
of course if you want to design an airframe that cruises on 50 hp but needs 500hp for acceptable take off performance than you are right - you will need a new automotive technology engine.
I'm fiddling with a common rail fuel injected Rotax right now and I continually have to ask myself if the complexity of its care and feeding (complexity of the fuel and electrical systems that I have to install) is going to be worth the time and money involved.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: OZ
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys who cares what engine it has if you have to pay the list price of 1.6 million euros, so that's roughly $2,400,000 Aussie dollars.
Makes you wonder how much without engines, maybe $2,100,000 just for the airframe.
Makes you wonder how much without engines, maybe $2,100,000 just for the airframe.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Average 8 pax @ $100 ph 500 hrs a year.
$800 x 500 = $400,000
6 years = $2,400,000
What is the price of the 5 pax New G58 Baron? $1,500,000ish they sell.(39 in 2014)
B58 517 units sold since Y2K.
$800 x 500 = $400,000
6 years = $2,400,000
What is the price of the 5 pax New G58 Baron? $1,500,000ish they sell.(39 in 2014)
B58 517 units sold since Y2K.
dirty prop, you fall for the same false comparison that has tripped up so many other folks; Automotive and aviation engine operating environments have very little in common.
I used the Rotax 912 example, which was developed specifically for small aircraft application only according to the manufacturer's brochure.
As far as I know they didn't take a car or snowmobile engine and adapted it, they started from scratch.
I'm fiddling with a common rail fuel injected Rotax right now and I continually have to ask myself if the complexity of its care and feeding (complexity of the fuel and electrical systems that I have to install) is going to be worth the time and money involved.
You're obviously free to use other engines, but with a market share of around 80% the 912 is the de-facto standard for ultralights.
Guys who cares what engine it has if you have to pay the list price of 1.6 million euros
