failure of an auto engine
Jeffrey Bloss
aircraft engine, the orange. Why don't planes have ABS? And side impact
airbags? And special fittings per fuel types at fuel feeds?
--
_?_ Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
(@ @) Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
grok! Devoted Microsoft User
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
> The failure of an auto engine is an apple compared to the failure of an
> aircraft engine, the orange. Why don't planes have ABS? And side impact
> airbags? And special fittings per fuel types at fuel feeds?
They do. Transport aircraft and some smaller jets have fancy pressure-
fuel-feed fillers. Many have ABS. And even our 2006 Cessna 172S has
airbags built into the shoulder harnesses.
Engine failures in airplanes need not involve massive impact forces
like autos do. An automobile collision (very common) is the equivalent
of a midair collision (very rare). Anytime an airplane really does
slam into something hard it's not likely that airbags are going to
make much difference.
Dan
Jeffrey Bloss
Because I'm Jeffrey Bloss the asshat moron, who
has no need to know.
Bob Nixon
But what the REALLY biggest problem with small private AC is the old
1940's designed gas hog Lycoming and continental engines. Are there
newer, better designed engines on the market? Hell yes, like the Mazda
Wankel engine, Zoche 2-stroke super/turbo Diesel and even some old
push-rod small block Chevy V8's in 3/4 scale Mustangs and such. BTW,
we had our annual RC model Jet fly-ins at the Mesa AZ field this year.
Some of these scale RC F-15's, F-22's do 250MPH and cost more than
some of your small full scale AC. See videos and still links of a show
from a couple of years ago. (link below)
http://bigrex.net/pictures/Mesa-Jet_model-Fly-In-11-19-05/
Also some nice shots of the PHX air races @ old Williams AFB in
Chandler AZ and lastly of the Pima air museum near the AC bone yard
down in Tucson AZ.
http://bigrex.net/pictures/Pima%20Air%20Museum/
http://bigrex.net/pictures/Phoenix_Air_Races/
Jeffrey Bloss
> But what the REALLY biggest problem with small private AC is the old
> 1940's designed gas hog Lycoming and continental engines. Are there
> newer, better designed engines on the market? Hell yes, like the Mazda
> Wankel engine, Zoche 2-stroke super/turbo Diesel and even some old
> push-rod small block Chevy V8's in 3/4 scale Mustangs and such.
No disagreement although the contention is that most flying is
accomplished in about an hour in small GA so fuel savings are relatively
not as significant. The other argument which is endless is that these
auto-based motors were not specifically designed for aero, propellers,
cooling in flight and a myriad of other reasons.
I point to the Velocity XL, etc crashes w/ Wankels although the nutating
engine has my eye and hopes that it will solve the Wankel issues.
Mike Ash
<d839fbef-d723-4656...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Jeffrey Bloss <songe...@live.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 1:16�pm, Jeffrey Bloss <jeffreybl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The failure of an auto engine is an apple compared to the failure of an
> > aircraft engine, the orange. Why don't planes have ABS? And side impact
> > airbags? And special fittings per fuel types at fuel feeds?
> >
> > --
> > � � �_?_ � � �Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
> > � � (@ @) � � � � Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
> > -oOO-(_)--OOo-------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]--
> > � � grok! � � � � � � Devoted Microsoft User
>
>
> Because I'm Jeffrey Bloss the asshat moron, who
> has no need to know.
Whoever this is, you're just as much of an asshole as the real Bloss,
and your pathetic impersonation got past the killfile I set up for him,
much to my annoyance. You're not helping anything. Kindly go away.
--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon
Steve Hix
<8e1d7c17-a4b7-453c...@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com>,
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Nov 25, 11:16 am, Jeffrey Bloss <jeffreybl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The failure of an auto engine is an apple compared to the failure of an
> > aircraft engine, the orange. Why don't planes have ABS? And side impact
> > airbags? And special fittings per fuel types at fuel feeds?
>
> They do. Transport aircraft and some smaller jets have fancy pressure-
> fuel-feed fillers.
Or the "Hoover nozzle", required by the FAA on jet fuel pumps. (And
matching "Hoover ring" to permit its use on aircraft not using avgas.)
> Many have ABS.
For that matter, ABS was invented first for aircraft; by Voisin in 1929.
Dunlop produced a version during the 1950s, some of which are still in
use.
Ground motor vehicles got it much later. Experimentally on motorcycles
in 1958 (Royal Enfield, using Dunlop's Maxaret ABS system), and in the
'60s on some racing and limited production cars.
It wasn't until the early '70s that you could get the system with your
car, and production motorcycles saw it on the '88 BMW K100.
> And even our 2006 Cessna 172S has
> airbags built into the shoulder harnesses.
It's an option for some light-sport aircraft now, too.
I thought "Bloss" claimed to be some great aviation expert ...
a
I'd guess the liability issues associated with providing an engine for
a small and growing smaller market is a serious factor in not seeing
innovation in GA airplane engines. I've read, and do believe, those
same costs are a significant component in the price of GA airplanes. I
take some comfort in knowing the airplane I use gives me about 20
statute miles to the gallon. Not many cars will give that when going
180 miles an hour.
I think my grand kids. and for sure my great grandchildren, will be
living in a world that does not have a fuel oil based transportation
system. It'll take some pretty clever people to create something that
has the energy density of a gallon of 100 octane LL, or for that
matter, a gallon of 87 octane unleaded.
9 billion people, grounded!
Morgans
"Bob Nixon" <bigre...@yahoo.com> wrote
But what the REALLY biggest problem with small private AC is the old
1940's designed gas hog Lycoming and continental engines. Are there
newer, better designed engines on the market? Hell yes, like the Mazda
Wankel engine, Zoche 2-stroke super/turbo Diesel and even some old
push-rod small block Chevy V8's in 3/4 scale Mustangs and such.
****************************
Not great examples in a couple of your choices to illustrate your point.
The Mazda Wankel engine is a gas hog in airplanes, and most of that extra
fuel burned is burning in the exhaust system, creating cowling melting
temperatures, if the exhaust is close to anything and not carefully
insulated. The Zoche engine has been "almost ready for market" for how many
years now? 5 years, or more? Don't hold your breath while waiting for it
to be available to the consumer. Some of the pushrod Chevy V-8's and V-6's
are doing well in aircraft, but produce the high HP they are usually asked
to produce by burning a lot of fuel. Still, with good fuel mixture control,
they get slightly better HP per pound of fuel burned than some of the
Lyco-nental air cooled engines out there. If the application has all of the
auxilary systems on the auto conversion worked out and in good order, they
have proven to be very reliable. Those systems have been found to be the
details that are difficult to get worked out, though.
--
Jim in NC
Bob Nixon
> "Bob Nixon" <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote
Jim, on the Wankel you're not using the proper fuel for the NA
versions. If you live in a cold climate use 87 octane gas to warm up
the engine (small tank with a petcock) then switch to Kerosene (JP-5)
and you'll not only see the fuel economy go up at =>50% and due to
kerosene's faster burning or higher cetane vs octane, your EGT's will
go down 200-300 degrees.The NA Wankel will not ping on kerosene but
the turbo-charged 255-300HP version will but they don't have a problem
with high EGT's anyway as the Turbo-charger reduces the EGT in doing
it's work. How do I know this? I've duplicated it on a small scale
using the OS single rotor Wankel engine with spark non Diesel
ignition. The Wankel Engine has always had a problem with not burning
fuel fast enough INSIDE the combustion chamber due to two things:
1) As in a piston engine, the rotor in a Wankel never comes to a full
stop thus slow timing of the fuel burns and too much goes out the
exhaust.
2) The odd shaped combustion chamber (non circular squish bands)
exacerbates the slow combustion problem with slow burning fuels, like
gasoline/alcohol.
On the Turbo-charged models (side port or not) the effective
compression is higher thus requiring a fuel with 92 octane
gasoline.Can I make this point any clearer or do you need further
proof of concept.
BTW, I'm an microwave EE by trade but am intellegent enough to figure
out most details of my passion or IC engines including the current
multi-spool axial flow Turbo fan/turbine jet engines.
BTW, Another engine you might consider for >fuel economy and
reliability is the NEW type of crankcase scavenged two stroke direct
"in cylinder" fuel injected engine. There is currently a 125HP mildly
tuned 600cc snowmobile engine that should suite your needs perfectly.
They are designed to run on 100:1 worst case total loss oil injection
and have amassed a record of greater simplicity, reliability, fuel
economy and emissions than the Yamaha counterpart R6 motorcycle 4
cycle engine, which BTW, is another alternate choice for you @<=10,000
ft and 100HP small aviation engine requirements. See link below.
http://www.ski-doo.com/en-CA/Index.htm:
Look for the 600cc E-Tec engine on the site in the above link.
Your next point being the "no start-up" on production of the German
built Zoehe Diesel engine.On their WEB site below there is or never
was any mention of production or certification delays.on this engine ,
BTW, this is your best bet for small aviation engines in terms of fuel
economy, light weight, small footprint and potential reliability.
http://www.zoche.de/specs.html
BTW, I hate small block Chevy push-rod 1950's designed V8 engines.
Them + NASCAR is the main reason that GM is currently in such big
trouble, Think "old school" and you'll see just where I'm coming
from;)
Finally, it's been said that turbine engines do not approach their
economical cross point with pulsed IC engines at less than 600HP, so
in the meantime may I suggest the engine from a European tuned
Voltswagon TDI automotive conventional 4 stroke turbo-Diesel engine
and ditch those ancient lycoming and continental boxer POS engines-:).
Again, guys. dare to be different and you'll earn some self esteem.
Hell even if the engine dies you can land those little planes damn
near anywhere. No?
PS. Lithium polymer batteries and brushless DC motors is just around
the corner;)
Bob Nixon..Microwave EE disabled & retired from a MC/Deer collision
but I still ride the canyons weekly on sport bikes with one leg and a
weak heart.
Morgans
"Bob Nixon" <bigre...@yahoo.com> wrote
Jim, on the Wankel you're not using the proper fuel for the NA
versions. If you live in a cold climate use 87 octane gas to warm up
the engine (small tank with a petcock) then switch to Kerosene (JP-5)
and you'll not only see the fuel economy go up at =>50% and due to
kerosene's faster burning or higher cetane vs octane, your EGT's will
go down 200-300 degrees.The NA Wankel will not ping on kerosene but
the turbo-charged 255-300HP version will but they don't have a problem
with high EGT's anyway as the Turbo-charger reduces the EGT in doing
it's work. How do I know this? I've duplicated it on a small scale
using the OS single rotor Wankel engine with spark non Diesel
ignition. The Wankel Engine has always had a problem with not burning
fuel fast enough INSIDE the combustion chamber due to two things:
1) As in a piston engine, the rotor in a Wankel never comes to a full
stop thus slow timing of the fuel burns and too much goes out the
exhaust.
2) The odd shaped combustion chamber (non circular squish bands)
exacerbates the slow combustion problem with slow burning fuels, like
gasoline/alcohol.
On the Turbo-charged models (side port or not) the effective
compression is higher thus requiring a fuel with 92 octane
gasoline.Can I make this point any clearer or do you need further
proof of concept.
*******************************
Jim wrote:
I look forward to seeing someone try out this application in a real
airplane. So yes, I would have to say I would need to see a full scale
proof of concept. All kinds of gremlins can pop up when trying things like
a different fuel in an engine, when it goes full scale in a real engine.
*******************************
Bob wrote:
BTW, Another engine you might consider for >fuel economy and
reliability is the NEW type of crankcase scavenged two stroke direct
"in cylinder" fuel injected engine. There is currently a 125HP mildly
tuned 600cc snowmobile engine that should suite your needs perfectly.
*******************************
Jim wrote:
Another engine that would be interesting to see used in an airplane.
Unproven, it is just another dream.
********************************
Bob wrote:
Your next point being the "no start-up" on production of the German
built Zoehe Diesel engine.On their WEB site below there is or never
was any mention of production or certification delays.on this engine ,
BTW, this is your best bet for small aviation engines in terms of fuel
economy, light weight, small footprint and potential reliability.
*********************************
Jim wrote.
What? Let me get this right. Are you saying that there has not been
production delays? Are you saying they have not ever said it was close to
production and available for consumers?
**********************************
Bob wrote:
Hell even if the engine dies you can land those little planes damn
near anywhere. No?
Jim: And live, perhaps. Landing out is not so good, in many parts of the
country, like in the mountains. Over cities is also problematic.
Bob: PS. Lithium polymer batteries and brushless DC motors is just around
the corner;)
Jim: If you want to go fly for an hour or so, then wait several hours to go
fly another hour or so, perhaps. Cross country flight is pretty much
impossible, until we see the power storage technology breakthrough that has
been just around the corner for the past twenty years.
Bob Nixon..Microwave EE disabled & retired from a MC/Deer collision
but I still ride the canyons weekly on sport bikes with one leg and a
weak heart.
Jim: And that has to do with flying, How??
benf...@aol.com
tested it is possible. For your info, a auto engine is tested to a
higher standard then aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
Why I am typing to a bot ???? waitin for weather to clear so I can
fly my auto engine conversion <GGG>
Mark
For your info, an auto engine is tested to a
> higher standard than aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
This doesn't sound logical. I'm looking at a
Jabiru 3300 and liking what I see.
---
Mark
Jeffrey Bloss
> An auto engine conversion is ALOT of work, but... Properly done and
> tested it is possible. For your info, a auto engine is tested to a
> higher standard then aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
> Why I am typing to a bot ???? waitin for weather to clear so I can
> fly my auto engine conversion <GGG>
The fact that auto engines are more superiorly tested is of little value
when you changer the entire operating environment when it is *modified*
to be an aero plant.
Jeffrey Bloss
In your case, I suggest you install one. And join the long line of those
who have expereinced increased failure rates v.s. the Lycomings.
Ron Wanttaja
Testing it to a higher standard doesn't necessarily mean it's better.
For example, testing a wing designed for a normal-category airplane to
15 Gs doesn't mean a wing tested to only 10 Gs wouldn't be adequate.
It's still much better than it has to be.
I've studied homebuilt accidents over a ten-year period, and auto-engine
conversions are *less* prone to suffering failures due to internal
problems...rod failures, bearing failures, seizures, etc. Mechanically,
auto-engines are more durable.
Auto-engine conversion still have a higher over accident rate, but it's
due to failure of accessories. For instance, the rate of accidents due
to ignition system failures is about four times higher.
Many conversions use only a single ignition system, so if it quits, the
plane goes down. Furthermore, almost all use electronic ignition, so
unless the builder ensures redundancy, the plane will also go down if
the flow of electrons cease.
Auto engines also suffer failures in systems that traditional engines
don't even have...such as radiators and propeller-speed reduction units.
Ron Wanttaja
Jeffrey Bloss
The latter two being the reason that auto engine conversions are so
challenging. If their mechanical dependency is superior, then why are
there not many more conversions?
You don't have to hunt for specially trained aero engine mechanics or
parts at decent prices aka Jabiru, Rotax...there must be compelling
reasons for their relative lack of use.
Peter Dohm
news:7637503b-ae83-4493...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> I think my grand kids. and for sure my great grandchildren, will be
> living in a world that does not have a fuel oil based transportation
> system. It'll take some pretty clever people to create something that
> has the energy density of a gallon of 100 octane LL, or for that
> matter, a gallon of 87 octane unleaded.
>
> 9 billion people, grounded!
>
I, for one, am not convinced about the future absence of high energy carbon
chemistry,although the high anti-knock ratings may be another matter.
As I understand it, true-drop in replacements for kerosene/diesel have
already been developed; although they are not yet mass produced in
commercial quantities. So far, varieties of algae appear the most promising
for true large scale production that will not detract from food crops.
I have also read that microbes have been discovered or synthesised, which
digest a wide variety of waste products and excrete essentially the same
thing that we presently call petroleum. That certainly seems like a
promising way to use up some of those "mountains" of municipal waste--and
also shows some promise toward defeating the current crop of Ludites who
like to call themselves Greens.
We are living in interesting times, with all that is good and bad about
that...
a
> "a" <papp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7637503b-ae83-4493...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I think my grand kids. and for sure my great grandchildren, will be
> > living in a world that does not have a fuel oil based transportation
> > system. It'll take some pretty clever people to create something that
> > has the energy density of a gallon of 100 octane LL, or for that
> > matter, a gallon of 87 octane unleaded.
>
> > 9 billion people, grounded!
>
> I, for one, am not convinced about the future absence of high energy carbon
> chemistry,although the high anti-knock ratings may be another matter.
>
> As I understand it, true-drop in replacements for kerosene/diesel have
> already been developed; although they are not yet mass produced in
> commercial quantities. So far, varieties of algae appear the most promising
> for true large scale production that will not detract from food crops.
>
> I have also read that microbes have been discovered or synthesised, which
> thing that we presently call petroleum. That certainly seems like a
> promising way to use up some of those "mountains" of municipal waste--and
> also shows some promise toward defeating the current crop of Ludites who
> like to call themselves Greens.
>
> We are living in interesting times, with all that is good and bad about
> that...
These ARE interesting times. If population growth is as forecasted
and we get to 9 billion, the high density fuel issues will probably be
secondary to feeding those people. Limitations in suitable land and
suitable water are not likely to be overcome, so higher yield corps
with bio tinkering are part of the answer. That will likely reduce
biomass for fuel conversion. In terms of personal liberties and
travel, I think the adults of 2060 will think of us as the most
(individually) mobile generation. With the electronic 'linking' going
on one can argue the need for face to face business meetings will also
be reduced. I can already see that in my own marker sector which is
technically adept and expect that to propagate into other industries.
Never the less, at this moment at least, personal interactions with
the decision makers in my market still counts, and that gives me the
opportunity to log PIC hours (that's the RAP reference!).
Franklin
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:01:44 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 11:08�am, "benfo...@aol.com" <benfo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> For your info, an auto engine is tested to a
>>> higher standard than aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
>>
>> This doesn't sound logical. I'm looking at a
>> Jabiru 3300 and liking what I see.
>
> In your case, I suggest you install one. And join the long line of those
> who have expereinced increased failure rates v.s. the Lycomings.
MS Flight Simulator must be getting good if you learnt that from there.
Franklin
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 08:08:28 -0800 (PST), benf...@aol.com wrote:
>
>> An auto engine conversion is ALOT of work, but... Properly done and
>> tested it is possible. For your info, a auto engine is tested to a
>> higher standard then aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
>> Why I am typing to a bot ???? waitin for weather to clear so I can
>> fly my auto engine conversion <GGG>
>
> The fact that auto engines are more superiorly tested is of little value
> when you changer the entire operating environment when it is *modified*
> to be an aero plant.
Can anyone translate that into English?
benf...@aol.com
I respectfully disagree with some of your comments and totally agree
with others.
Jim Logajan
> Jeffrey Bloss wrote:
>> The fact that auto engines are more superiorly tested is of little value
>> when you changer the entire operating environment when it is *modified*
>> to be an aero plant.
>
> Can anyone translate that into English?
Not really - and that's one of his more lucid posts.
Morgans
<benf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:a0015e90-a3d7-4a6d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
An auto engine conversion is ALOT of work, but... Properly done and
tested it is possible. For your info, a auto engine is tested to a
higher standard then aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
Why I am typing to a bot ???? waitin for weather to clear so I can
fly my auto engine conversion <GGG>
No argument from me. {I plan to be behind one someday, too.)
The idea that a Wankel could run well on jet fuel is an interesting one, but
one I have never seen proposed for a full sized Wankel in an airplane, or
anywhere else, for that matter. Are there any case studies of it happening?
--
Jim in NC
Franklin
Blossom's enthusiasm for the subject outstrips his ability. It's always
like that for wannabees.
Franklin
You are looking at the end result and mistakenly inferring traits about
the causes. The individual reasons need not be compelling. Not do they
have to be compelling in aggregate. The root causes are likely to have
many factors.
Franklin
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:01:44 -0800 (PST), Mark wrote:
>
>> On Nov 26, 11:08�am, "benfo...@aol.com" <benfo...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> For your info, an auto engine is tested to a
>>> higher standard than aircraft ones are. By a factor of 3 or more.
>>
>> This doesn't sound logical. I'm looking at a
>> Jabiru 3300 and liking what I see.
>>
>> ---
>> Mark
>
> In your case, I suggest you install one. And join the long line of those
> who have expereinced increased failure rates v.s. the Lycomings.
Next time put some wings on your plane.
Jeffrey Bloss
> The idea that a Wankel could run well on jet fuel is an interesting one, but
> one I have never seen proposed for a full sized Wankel in an airplane, or
> anywhere else, for that matter. Are there any case studies of it happening?
Diamond Engines, in 2005/6 somewhere in there I think with Boeing or
Lockheed partnering. The Delta series engines ran both avgas and jet
fuel in trials in an Experimental Velocity or Cozy but conventional
engines. None of these have come even close to coming to market.
That should say a great deal about their potential in production
aircraft. If you want to sit one behind your ass in a pusher, have at
it.
I'll pass.
Ron Wanttaja
I've posted the engine-related data from my study at:
http://www.wanttaja.com/engine_stats.pdf
The columns are only those which may be affected by the choice of
engine; many engine-failure causes are not listed.
The causes are of my own determination, based on reading the NSTB report.
Ron Wanttaja
Jeffrey Bloss
> You are looking at the end result and mistakenly inferring traits about
> the causes. The individual reasons need not be compelling. Not do they
> have to be compelling in aggregate. The root causes are likely to have
> many factors.
> See my blog
> http://missyroospoogiefunk.posterous.com/
LOL
Ron Wanttaja
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:40:59 -0800, Ron Wanttaja wrote:
>> Many conversions use only a single ignition system, so if it quits, the
>> plane goes down. Furthermore, almost all use electronic ignition, so
>> unless the builder ensures redundancy, the plane will also go down if
>> the flow of electrons cease.
>>
>> Auto engines also suffer failures in systems that traditional engines
>> don't even have...such as radiators and propeller-speed reduction units.
>
> challenging. If their mechanical dependency is superior, then why are
> there not many more conversions?
I think the main reason is that the economic incentive just isn't there.
Lycoming and Continental have "captive" markets; someone with a
C-172 or Piper Warrior is going to have to buy a LyCont product. The
extra engines they sell to the homebuilders are just gravy.
A person with a auto-engine conversion, on the other hand, has only
*one* market (in the US, at least): The homebuilders. There are about
~1400 new homebuilts of all types added to the rolls each year. They
take engines ranging from two-strokes to turboprops, so a given power
package will only appeal to a small subset of the homebuilders. The
biggest market would be the RVer's, but there's a real bias towards
using conventional engines in RVs.
You also end up in kind of a paradoxical situation: The best way
towards a reliable conversion is to purchase a proven package, but the
price for the commercial packages is often around what a good used
Lycont might cost....
Ron Wanttaja
Jeffrey Bloss
>>> Auto engines also suffer failures in systems that traditional engines
>>> don't even have...such as radiators and propeller-speed reduction units.
>>
>> The latter two being the reason that auto engine conversions are so
>> challenging. If their mechanical dependency is superior, then why are
>> there not many more conversions?
>
> I think the main reason is that the economic incentive just isn't there.
> Lycoming and Continental have "captive" markets; someone with a
> C-172 or Piper Warrior is going to have to buy a LyCont product. The
> extra engines they sell to the homebuilders are just gravy.
Yeah, although I see Diamond and others playing around with conversions,
I don't see them implementing them.
> A person with a auto-engine conversion, on the other hand, has only
> *one* market (in the US, at least): The homebuilders. There are about
> ~1400 new homebuilts of all types added to the rolls each year. They
> take engines ranging from two-strokes to turboprops, so a given power
> package will only appeal to a small subset of the homebuilders. The
> biggest market would be the RVer's, but there's a real bias towards
> using conventional engines in RVs.
Here's a hearty fellow with a RV-Wankel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIjugqaC0vA
And here's a top notch fellow Tom Parke with his Lancair-Wankel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZiT6ECqXZlE
> You also end up in kind of a paradoxical situation: The best way
> towards a reliable conversion is to purchase a proven package, but the
> price for the commercial packages is often around what a good used
> Lycont might cost....
>
> Ron Wanttaja
Yeppers, that's about the gist of it.
Dan_Thom...@yahoo.com
>
> The idea that a Wankel could run well on jet fuel is an interesting one, but
> one I have never seen proposed for a full sized Wankel in an airplane, or
> anywhere else, for that matter. Are there any case studies of it happening?
> --
> Jim in NC
I don't see that happening, either. Kerosene's flame front travels
more slowly than gasoline's, as I understand it; about half the speed
even at the high compression pressures in turbines. When a gas-eating
auto gets diesel instead of gas, it gives up real quick. Produces
little power and gets real hot. The compression ratio is far too low.
I saw some figures somewhere recently that gave the SFC for auto and
aircraft engines, and they weren't far apart at all. In the Lycoming,
running LOP can get the numbers way down. And the seven airplanes I
look after all have Lycomings, and when they've run 2000 hours and I
replace them they still have compressions within a couple psi of new
and would still run another thousand hours, easily. At an auto speed
of 60 MPH, 3000 hours would be 180,000 miles. At the actual average
speed of 100 MPH or more, it's 300,000 miles. Not many auto engines
would cover such a distance on the road at 65 or 75% power. None at
all, I'd wager. Cruising on the highway, they run at around 30%.
Dan
Rocky
engin in it. I had a Samurai for 14 years. On the highway it runs almost
full throttle for hours on end at 36-3800 rpm. I looked at the power
curves with the stock cam and this is around 65% power "in cruise on the
highway".
With a PSRU turning a prop at 2500 rpm and the engine at 3800 it should
run darn near forever.
Rocky
Builder and real pilot of 38 years
benf...@aol.com
You have obviously never driven or seen a U Haul/ Ryder truck, Have
ya? Don't get me started on marine applications <GG>
Franklin
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:35:41 -0500, Morgans wrote:
>
>> The idea that a Wankel could run well on jet fuel is an interesting
>> one, but one I have never seen proposed for a full sized Wankel in an
>> airplane, or anywhere else, for that matter. Are there any case
>> studies of it happening?
>
>
> I'll pass.
No comment.
Dylan Smith
> Bob: PS. Lithium polymer batteries and brushless DC motors is just around
> the corner;)
>
> Jim: If you want to go fly for an hour or so, then wait several hours to go
> fly another hour or so, perhaps. Cross country flight is pretty much
> impossible, until we see the power storage technology breakthrough that has
> been just around the corner for the past twenty years.
The storage problem is solved: have a standard battery form factor,
and swap batteries when you need to "fuel up".
The problem that needs solving is the energy density one, and battery
technology seems to be fairly evolutionary. However, as an RC flyer, in
the last two years the improvements in LiPoly batteries has been notable.
The battery I have now for my T-Rex 250 is smaller and can support twice
the discharge rate as some batteries I got 18 months ago for the same
capacity. Today's LiPoly batteries are a far cry from what we had 10 years
ago - 10 years ago, they had a fairly low discharge rate and even lower
charging rate (meaning what you could power was fairly limited). Today's
LiPoly can discharge at incredible rates by comparison. I have a
nominal 22.2v pack for my T-Rex 500 RC heli that is rated for continuous
discharge of 90A, and peak at 180A. It's a little more than twice the size
of a cigarette packet.
However, I'd agree that the battery technology is still a long way from
being a truly practical proposition for full scale aviation.
Bob Nixon
> On Nov 27, 8:11 pm, Dan_Thomas_nos...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 26, 9:35 pm, "Morgans" <jsmor...@charterJUNK.net> wrote:
>
> > > The idea that a Wankel could run well on jet fuel is an interesting one, but
> > > one I have never seen proposed for a full sized Wankel in an airplane, or
> > > anywhere else, for that matter. Are there any case studies of it happening?
> > > --
> > > Jim in NC
>
> > I don't see that happening, either. Kerosene's flame front travels
> > more slowly than gasoline's, as I understand it; about half the speed
> > even at the high compression pressures in turbines. When a gas-eating
> > auto gets diesel instead of gas, it gives up real quick. Produces
> > little power and gets real hot. The compression ratio is far too low.
[...]
You have it all "Bassakwards"! Kerosene (Diesel-1 & jet fuel JP-4,5) &
pump Diesel #2 once heated close to their flash points have a far
faster burn/meter rate than gasoline, propane, butane, LNG or Alcohol
(either Methanol or Ethanol). These fuels are all rated for combustion
stability & rather slow burning/liter or Octane rating whereas
Kerosene & Diesel fuels are rated for unstable spontaneous combustion
or CETANE rating >40. This makes a slow, poor burning combustion
chamber as in the Mazda Wankel's at =>9.0:1 CR a nice solution for
those flaming exhaust pops and such. What happens is that once up to
say 180 degree F Kerosene or JP-5 will burn very quickly and not have
such a high EGT in a non-turbocharged Wankel engine. One might surmise
that pinging will result & melt down the engine but if you go back in
time even low compression tractor engines (way back before Diesel
tractors were common place) used a system of gasoline warm-up then
switched to cheaper and more available during wartime KEROSENE without
ruining their engines under heavy loading and advanced timing.
Wankel's surely must have a good cooling system but the stock one on
the 100HP versions should be more than adequate. BTW, the reason most
uneducated in the field feel that Diesel engines burn more slowly is
than their combustion cycle is not a "one shot" affair as in a spark
ignited engine but rather either a pulse (common rail injection) or in
older Diesels the injection continues like a blow torch in a a lean
air mixture or non-stoichiometric but rather a "stratified" like a
torch effect that continues to burn far after TDC. Now if you need a
refresher in chemistry and physics or whatever then go for it but
please don't spout out fear based ideas you have for no conception
about. Thanks.
Bob Nixon..