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 |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote: Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's. I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted, and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk to. One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease. I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Sure, the biz jet crowd wants a nice, upscale FBO. So, isn't that the American Way? Also, if the airport has any federal grant money in it, the fair use conditions are beyond the control of the airport manager. My home field, KCRQ, was extensive light aircraft and biz jet operations. In fact, it also has several commuter flights a day. It all seems to work quite well and has for many years. I will concede that the primary noise complaints come from light aircraft pilots who fail to maintain altitude on downwind leg, something the biz jet pilots avoid doing. |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Thomas Borchert wrote: 1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that you would likely want to use. Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss? So, what's your point? If it weren't for the airlines the common-use en route structure and facilities would likely not exist at all, at least not in their present robust form. I don't know about your part of the world, but in the U.S. far more RNAV approaches have been placed into service for non-air carrier airports than for air carrier airports. The guy at Northworst is a big mouth. But, he doesn't set national policy and his influence wanes rapidly except for the airports where his airline has a major presence. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
The guy at Northworst is a big mouth.
We're on the same page there. -- Thomas Borchert (EDDH) |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote: This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or support a new engine design in the certified world. There are at least three new designs that have either obtained certification in the last few years or are in various stages of being certified. Lycoming was involved in one (a diesel), but I'm not sure they are still involved. I like the looks of the Honda best myself, but it's a few years from certification. Porsche even made a stab at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support your argument in that few people bought them, though. On the other hand, Maule was working on adapting the SMA diesel to their aircraft before the company actually got certification for the engine. Although Cessna and Piper probably won't move fast, I'm sure that companies like Lancair will start using other engines if they display particular advantages over existing ones. George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Dude wrote: 100LL is not necessarily going away, but its possible that when it does, it will go quickly. Oh, it will. According to the speaker at a seminar on gasoline at Oshkosh a few years ago, there is currently only one plant making tetraethyl lead. It's in Britain. They have announced that they will be closing down within eight years due to a decreasing market and the age of their equipment. I would expect that, if it is uneconomical for that company to upgrade their equipment, it will not be economical for any other firm to build a new plant and enter the market. Maybe the Chinese could, however. George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
G.R. Patterson III wrote:
Porsche even made a stab at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support your argument in that few people bought them, though. This article tries to explain the disaster. http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html I don't know whether it's wisdom or hogwash. Stefan |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
In article , "C J Campbell"
writes: The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered. I keep hearing that. And hearing that. And hearing that.... Well, when it finally happens, you can't say that you weren't warned, can you? Yes, but the cry of Wolf Wolf Wolf etc. makes it easy to egnore the real warning when and if it cones. Chuck |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
George Patterson wrote:
Do a comparison of the diesel and gas Maules. The diesel costs more, True. is slower (due to cooling drag), It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is higher cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and less chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's. and carries less weight (the engine weighs more). True. Russell Kent |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
Russell Kent wrote: It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is higher cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and less chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's. Well, they don't. They have a higher compression ratio, and that produces heat. The SMA diesel is air-cooled, it produces more waste heat than an IO-540, and there's more cooling drag than with an IO-540. George Patterson In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault. In Tennessee, it's evangelism. |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ... Russell Kent wrote: It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is higher cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and less chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's. Well, they don't. They have a higher compression ratio, and that produces heat. The SMA diesel is air-cooled, it produces more waste heat than an IO-540, and there's more cooling drag than with an IO-540. Aren't they also heavier, i.e., pound of engine weight per HP generated? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWRFI Pirep.. (long) | Dave S | Home Built | 20 | May 21st 04 03:02 PM |
Garmin 1000 turn co-ordinator? | John H. Kay | Instrument Flight Rules | 21 | December 31st 03 03:37 PM |