If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
I know my 3.8 injected and electronically controlled 6 in my current vehicle gives significantly better than a 30% improvement in mileage over the 3.8 liter carbureted engine with mechanical timing advance on my '75 Pacer did - ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The 30% improvement disappears when operating hour after hour at a 75% to 100% power setting to duplicate aircraft performance requirements. Let me rephrase... The 30% improvement is only do-able/practical for automotive generally low end power, street applications, loads and conditions. When operating at 75% to 100% power settings demanded by aircraft... The 30% improvement disappears unless the test conditions and comparisons are fatally flawed or rigged for such an outcome. P.S. The Pacer is still a sick joke of a car for testing or otherwise. Barnyard BOb -- unfair to mix apples and Pacers |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
|
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Drew Dalgleish wrote:
: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed : advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition? Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you describe a 1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does. 2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded. Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel (much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read: efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so much as an airframe issue. 3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise, since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly affect BSFC. While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled, fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360. -Cory -- ************************************************** *********************** * The prime directive of Linux: * * - learn what you don't know, * * - teach what you do. * * (Just my 20 USm$) * ************************************************** *********************** |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
: Are you assuming that a carburated, air cooled engine with a fixed : advance magneto ignition has the same fuel efficiancy as a water : cooled engine with electronic fuel injection and ignition? Actually, for an airplane application, even a carb'd gasoline engine can obtain very good fuel economy, since it can be manually leaned for its constant operation. The benefits of a more modern engine you describe a 1. Fuel-injected: Aside from poorer fuel/air distribution in a carb'd engine, fuel injection doesn't buy you much in an airplane. Even with computer-controlled injection, all that'll give you is better transient performance. At cruise (where most fuel is burned), computer-control doesn't buy you anything more than the red knob does. 2. Water-cooling: This is a double-edged issue that's a bit loaded. Everything else being equal, a water-cooled engine doesn't give you anymore power than an air-cooled engine. What it does buy you is the ability to run higher compression ratios and/or lower octane fuel (much lower CHTs). A higher CR will give you more thermodynamic efficiency. Also, a water-cooled engine allows for more flexible (read: efficient) cooling, but then again that's not a BSFC engine argument so much as an airframe issue. 3. Timing: Having adaptive timing doesn't buy you much in cruise, since that's where the fixed-timing is set to be optimal. It will allow you to possibly run lower octane fuel, but again that doesn't directly affect BSFC. While I agree with the idea that having liquid-cooled, fuel-injected (*perhaps* digitally controlled) high-compression gasoline engines are good from an aircraft *system* performance, they do not inherently increase an airplane engine's already excellent cruise fuel economy. I routinely get 0.42 lbs/hp*hr from my carb'd Lycoming O-360. -Cory ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ BINGO. Thanx, Cory Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of successful flight |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:54:00 -0600, Me again wrote:
Any reasonable person knows... Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks. They also know that **** happens under the best of conditions and controls even where the most qualified folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is risks are made as low as possible in this manner.... not by psychotically hammering on some car engine from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming at the mouth here in RAH. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight Wow. Corky Scott |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Just thought I'd throw out a point for contention. (As if any more are
needed) The O2 sensor as used in a NB Speed Density system is of little value at the power levels used in aircraft. My understanding is that the NB O2 sensor is mainly an emissions device. 14.7 AFR is neither best power nor is it best economy. What it is is best emissions when combined with the proper cat. All NB Speed Density systems that I am aware of ignore the O2 sensor at full power. Removing the NBO2 sensor from the engines made perfect sense when taking the operating environment into account. In this situation (as in the car when at full power) the computer uses preprogrammed lookup tables based on operating and environmental considerations. A properly tuned engine can and will make full power without an NB O2 sensor. Nothing whatsoever is given up except emissions, but since no cat... The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with making max power. So why include it on an aircraft? The NB O2 sensor has nothing to do with max economy. So why include it on an aircraft? A WB O2 sensor is a different story. And there are other compromises at play that have not been addressed here. Regards Ken Bauman |
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Me again wrote in message . ..
On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote: Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50 YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin / PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ben, You need flowers... Stuck up your assinine arse. You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool. Any reasonable person knows... Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks. They also know that **** happens under the best of conditions and controls even where the most qualified folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is risks are made as low as possible in this manner.... not by psychotically hammering on some car engine from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming at the mouth here in RAH. Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was 50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book ??????? PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives, agenda and stuff... Ben Haas N801BH. My record of 50 years and nearly 9000 hours speaks well of certified engines. I've learn in that time to respect and trust the engines that I have flown behind over vast open waters, western deserts, the Rocky Mountains, crop dusting and IFR charters that would have you ****ting in your britches. What have you got to offer to date in your OWN behalf? N-O-T-H-I-N-G... but derogatory crap and very cheap talk. Each and every home brewed conversion carries UNKNOWN risks... and only a flying fool would think he has better odds gambling on **** that the average shade tree dood has cobbled together. I'm not against you or your conversion endeavors, but I am against any horse**** posted here laying claim that auto conversions in general remotely measure up to the finest and most reliable piston aircraft engines ever produced by man. Anyone with an IQ over two digits should realize this... but guys like you have to learn it the hard way. So be it. Barnyard BOb -- over 50 years of flight |
#189
|
|||
|
|||
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Haas wrote: Me again wrote in message . .. On 4 Nov 2003 23:45:59 -0800, (Ben Haas) wrote: Yeah,But... That CERTIFIED 300 horsepower Lycoming would have broke a crank and killed him. There have been several CERTIFIED ones that did the same thing. They said it was a quality control issue that slipped by themselves and the Feds. If I remember correctly Lycoming had a rash of CERTIFIED cranks break. So they recalled a bunch and using 50 YEARS of experience produced an even deadlier version to fix the first ones. I am really surprised they didn't hire BOb to run their spin / PR dept. Hey BOb, did ya sent the next of kin any flowers??? Nothing like a CERTIFIED death !!!!!! ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Ben, You need flowers... Stuck up your assinine arse. You continue to be a CERTIFIABLE fool. Any reasonable person knows... Flying behind certified engines do have calculated risks. They also know that **** happens under the best of conditions and controls even where the most qualified folks and systems are in play. All that can be said is risks are made as low as possible in this manner.... not by psychotically hammering on some car engine from the junk yard and substituting the unknown for the highly known - all the while, stupidly foaming at the mouth here in RAH. Is this the same old man who just a few months ago claimed he was 50 years of accident free flight until I invited him to visit me at me private strip if he could prove it was really accident free. Seems to me some serious back peddling was done. I will dredge up that thread and repost it for all the new people that cannot figure out your real motives. I might be wrong, BUT the last time I looked this Yahoo group was named EXPERIMENTAL aircraft hanger. If ya want to keep ranting about Lycoming please go to the CERTIFIED group, The jist of this room it to EXPERIMENT with all realms of flight, be it airframe or powerplant. You seem to be a very intelligent man so tell us all reading this.... What is the defination of EXPERIMENTAL in your book ??????? PS, anyone out there that has a little free time would you go into the archives and dredge up the last line of BULL**** BOb tried to pull off about 50 years of accident free flight and repost it, BOb's not worth my time. Oh yeah, I still use just ONE screen name. Kinda makes a guy womder about someone that has several screen names, his motives, agenda and stuff... Ben Haas N801BH. Ben, Looking at your post time I realize it is late, but you seem a little confused this morning? This group has noting to do with Yahoo. While I don't know Bob really well I have met him in person and I would not hesitate to fly with him into any airstrip you pick out and land on yourself. You have thrown out a accusation about Bob back peddling, I do believe it is now up to you to prove that he did that. Anxiously awaiting you proof. Jerry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
human powered flight | patrick timony | Home Built | 10 | September 16th 03 03:38 AM |
Illusive elastic powered Ornithopter | Mike Hindle | Home Built | 6 | September 15th 03 03:32 PM |
Pre-Rotator Powered by Compressed Air? | nuke | Home Built | 8 | July 30th 03 12:36 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans | MJC | Home Built | 4 | July 15th 03 07:29 PM |
Powered Parachute Plans- correction | Cy Galley | Home Built | 0 | July 11th 03 03:43 AM |