Corky's engine choice

There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.

Let's take some hypotheticals:
* An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
* An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks

I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...

Ed Wischmeyer

Ed Wischmeyer wrote:
There was a fascinating talk at AirVenture (at least some of it was
fascinating :-) by a guy from NASA. His point was that if you're willing
to give up some efficiency, you can save a whole lot of cost. For
example, if you're willing to put up with some extra engine weight, or
some extra fuel burn, or whatever, you can get in the air lots cheaper.
The real costs come in getting the last bit of efficiency was his point.

Let's take some hypotheticals:
* An "aircraft style" two seater, 1600 pounds gross, 1100 empty, 160
knots, 9 GPH, 60 thousand bucks
* An "unoptimized" two seater, 2000 pounds gross, 1400 empty, 140 knots,
11 GPH, 30 thousand bucks

I know which we'd all like to have, but which we'd all like to pay for.
I think that one factor is that most of the auto engine planes look much
less than cool, with gunky cowls and radiators and such. If somebody did
a "cheapmobile" and it looked cool...

Ed Wischmeyer

What was that rumor about Toyota again?

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------