chanik Posted September 22, 2014 Report Share Posted September 22, 2014 very heavy. 50% more than 912ULS. Their sheet says 12-15L/hr so not much of an improvemnt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 The two engines in question are for the C4...this is the four seater EASA part 23 certified with a 1320 useful load and a Garmin G3x/GTN 750 cockpit.Really? Are you sure? I imagine most of us CT owners on this forum don't pay any attention to the FD announcements or the web site. We all depend on you for our information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WmInce Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Really? Are you sure? I imagine most of us CT owners on this forum don't pay any attention to the FD announcements or the web site. We all depend on you for our information.An unlimited fountain of bravado and propagandist BS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Jim, If you're thinking about an alternative engine, I'd like to offer a few thoughts. Avoid the Jabiru. Their original engine manufacturer went bust and they took the (bad, in my view) decision to design their own. It seems it was a rush job and it has been troublesome from the outset. There's lots of them here in the UK and they are consistently troublesome across a range of issues. The UL Power is well thought of, and I has a new competitor from Belgium called the D Motor, which is a genuine flathead design. However, there's another one that might meet your need for a turbo and it's the best of the crop of new aero engines in my view. It's a 3 cylinder 1.0 litre diesel with turbo charger & common rail direction injection, making 100hp max and using just 7 litres per hour at 95kts cruise - that's 1.75 US gallons! You might find that hard to believe, but diesel technology has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years. The most attractive thing about this engine is that it is a completely unaltered production Mercedes engine from front to back. All the R & D has been done and it has many years of reliable service in European Smart cars. The Continental diesel engine mentioned in this post by Burgers is also based on a Mercedes engine but it's completely re-engineered and has had it's own share of problems as a result. Fly Eco are wisely riding on Mercedes' back. I can't help but think that if a unit like this could get some traction in the aviation world it could very quickly become a real competitor for the Rotax ULS. I'm a real fan of modern diesel engines, particularly for their high torque, low fuel consumption and long range. Here's a Paul Bertorelli report on the engine. L We have been flying the lower hp, turbo version of this motor for years in our UAV. It's a very reliable motor that makes good power to FL180 and sips fuel. We have two on our airframe and in cruise only burn 12l per hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rookie Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Eric , Do the engines you use in the UAV utilize timing belt reduction? If so how reliable has it been? al, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 "We have been flying the lower hp, turbo version of this motor for years in our UAV. It's a very reliable motor that makes good power to FL180 and sips fuel. We have two on our airframe and in cruise only burn 12l per hour." Would you care to give us some more details? "in our UAV" - ? "We have two on our airframe" -? Is the lower powered version you're talking about a diesel, or petrol? Any pics? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 very heavy. 50% more than 912ULS. Their sheet says 12-15L/hr so not much of an improvemnt There are two Mercedes engines offered by the company, an 800cc diesel @ 80hp and a 1000cc petrol @ 100hp - which I mixed up in my last post. The website does actually claim a 7l per hour cruise, (http://flyeco.net/smart_diesel.html) which is entirely possible for a modern diesel. However, as you point out, much of this advantage is lost in the extra weight. When all's said and done, it's no surprise that Rotax is so dominant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Weight is only one factor in selecting an engine. I'm strongly thinking of building an E-AB or ELSA airplane to replace my Champ to fly off the farm. I fly the Champ 95% of the time solo, mostly on short trips of an hour or less. I can save weight by watching fuel tankerage. Weight is not a big issue in a case like this. I'm willing to have a heavier engine if it's better for other purposes. Diesel/JetA is very attractive (could it run dyed diesel? ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 When all's said and done, it's no surprise that Rotax is so dominant. It really is amazing how efficient the Rotax engines are. A 912ULS is more powerful per liter of displacement than a C6 Corvette motor. An O-200 making the same horsies is something like 80lb heavier, and a Jabiru 3300 making 120hp is 53lb heavier. I think a more ideal LSA motor would be hard to beat. If that diesel was in the same weight class at the Rotax it would be a very attractive alternative, but at current weight it's probably a wash. And Rotax has a long track record and excellent support behind it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Eric , Do the engines you use in the UAV utilize timing belt reduction? If so how reliable has it been? al, Hi Al, Yes we use the same belt drive. It provides very little reduction in speed but does put the thrust line in a better position. So far its been very reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercity Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 "We have been flying the lower hp, turbo version of this motor for years in our UAV. It's a very reliable motor that makes good power to FL180 and sips fuel. We have two on our airframe and in cruise only burn 12l per hour." Would you care to give us some more details? "in our UAV" - ? "We have two on our airframe" -? Is the lower powered version you're talking about a diesel, or petrol? Any pics? The Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV) I fly is powered by two 800cc version of this motor set up in a push/pull centerline thrust setup. They are the diesel version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Just caught myself in a rare (?) error. Diesels don't use spark plugs! Well, almost. International Harvester made a tractor in the 50's that could be started on gas and run on diesel. I was at an ag show years ago and was looking at the tractors on display. I looked at the right side of the engine of one and saw spark plugs. I went around to the left side and saw injectors. I went back to the right side and sure enough, the spark plugs were still there. Much confusion went through my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Good. Then you would recognize the information I just gave coming from FD press releases. I found it fun Meade figured out the C4 is worth discussing on the CTFlier site...after all, it's the future of the company. And if the FAA lifts the med restrictions all you old timers will have a path from your CTSWs to a certified four seater made by the same company. Oh wait, you guys are waiting to dump your SWs to get back into a 30 yo lead burning 172, right? Old timers, lol. You yourself are a senior citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted September 23, 2014 Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 23, 2014 Different engines use different technologies. Some are much more "modern" than others. It is interesting to look at some of the options available for us Experimental owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Good. Then you would recognize the information I just gave coming from FD press releases. I found it fun Meade figured out the C4 is worth discussing on the CTFlier site...after all, it's the future of the company. And if the FAA lifts the med restrictions all you old timers will have a path from your CTSWs to a certified four seater made by the same company. Oh wait, you guys are waiting to dump your SWs to get back into a 30 yo lead burning 172, right? I am assuming that C4 flyers will be welcome as a part of this forum, as are others. I doubt they will find it as informative as those who fly Rotax. At this point it is not, as far as I have heard, certain what engine the C4 will use. It may well be an "old style" engine - the technology in the IO-360AF is not new, it is an old engine modified. As far as I know they intend to continue to produce the LSi. I suspect this site will stay mainly Rotax for a long time to come because it is CT flyer, and, because many of us are Light Sport pilots (I know that may change if the 3rd class medical goes away but the CTs will still exist.), and some of us are also LSRM-As. The C4 will take an A&P for anything but minor maintenance. My comment however was that you tend to repost things most of us have already seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Doug, AS other airplanes are fitted with Rotax, one increasingly finds other forums where Rotax information is discussed. Vans Air Force is one. Kitfox is another. Rans is a third. Of course there is Rotax Owners. You are right that any revision of the third class medical may have effects on our perspectives. Changing my airplane to experimental has caused a steady and by now substantial difference in how I view reasonable and safe procedures. For a number of years, it has been interesting to follow George Braley, John Deakin, Mike Busch and others who have tested and published information that, with an increasingly educated following, has manufacturers revising their procedures. The allusions are specifically to operating lean of peak, proper air-fuel mixture, the use of engine monitors which track each cylinder and the value of maintenance like the airlines and military, which is based not only on time but also on the number of operations and on condition. In contrast to that, Rotax is a very hide-bound, rigid, closed culture. The Braleys, Deakins and Buschs of the Rotax world haven't emerged yet, but there is no doubt they are coming. However, they may pass up the 912 Bing carburetor environment to push for an engine that is turboed, injected, uses a ubiquitous fuel and is generally maintainable outside of a guild or caste system. Thus, the interest in alternate engines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 In contrast to that, Rotax is a very hide-bound, rigid, closed culture. The Braleys, Deakins and Buschs of the Rotax world haven't emerged yet, but there is no doubt they are coming. However, they may pass up the 912 Bing carburetor environment to push for an engine that is turboed, injected, uses a ubiquitous fuel and is generally maintainable outside of a guild or caste system. Thus, the interest in alternate engines. I would not blame that entirely on Rotax. It's an Austrian/German cultural thing. They tend to be very regimented and rule-bound in many ways, and are pretty conservative and unwilling to make changes unless the changes come from someone "in authority." Their love of efficiency also often leads to very innovative designs, though the design philosophy is less "exciting" that many other cultures prefer. Unfortunately, the Germanic virtues often directly contradict the American virtues of personal experimentation, individual initiative, and unconventional thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 The old timer reference is for those that are stuck on Cessna 172 or old tech steam gauges. There are guys 40 who call carbon fiber planes 'those little plastic toys' and refer to glass cockpits as 'playing video games.' Or have no problem burning leaded fuel because the aviation industry is hypocritical regarding the environment. It's an attitude issue, not a gerontology issue. New is interesting, but not everything new is an innovation. The airlines are finding that out as most accidents now are *caused* by automation and a lack of understanding its complexities by aircrews. Automation, when it fails, makes it *harder* to correct even minor problems. The Asiana crash in San Francisco was an example, as was the Air France Flight 447 crash: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/2014/10/air-france-flight-447-crash Here's Sullenberger's take on cockpit automation in the Asiana accident. Skip to 1:15 for cockpit automation discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnGHJtEhBic BTW, how are you going to pick on all those "old, lead-burning" airplanes when 100LL is retired soon, and no aircraft are using leaded fuel in the US anymore? Will that suddenly make a 1947 Bonanza new and innovative? What will you do when a wood wing Super Viking cruises at the same speed as your C4, burning the same fuel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 The Unmanned Arial Vehicle (UAV) I fly is powered by two 800cc version of this motor set up in a push/pull centerline thrust setup. They are the diesel version. Hi Eric. I checked out your website and now your comments make more sense! That's an impressive toy - I'm assuming Tim's pic is the one you're talking about. Very interesting application of small European diesels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Well, almost. International Harvester made a tractor in the 50's that could be started on gas and run on diesel. I was at an ag show years ago and was looking at the tractors on display. I looked at the right side of the engine of one and saw spark plugs. I went around to the left side and saw injectors. I went back to the right side and sure enough, the spark plugs were still there. Much confusion went through my mind. Jim, Here's an even more interesting 'old timer' that you may not have come across in the USA. It's a dual fuel engine from about seventy years ago that runs on TVO (tractor vaporising oil) - ever heard of that? It doesn't need separate fuel systems - it just has two fuel tanks feeding one carb. You start it on petrol and once it's warm, switch over to TVO. The TVO is warmed by the exhaust manifold so it enters the carb hot to aid ignition. Compression is about 5:1 and the engines were in service right up to the 1970s. TVO is similar to diesel, but it ignites better (octane of about 50, I think.) A Ferguson TVO tractor was the first thing I ever drove, so I have fond memories of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 There is no data that glass cockpits and advanced avionics CAUSE crashes. Alleviating pilot load is a worthwhile and necessary goal. Take a look at this month old report for GA accident rates in 2013 http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB-GA-Accidents-Down-In-2013222766-1.html Yes, there is, at least in airliners. Did you even read the article I posted? Air France 447's crash was caused entirely by the advanced flight systems going into modes of operation that the flight crew did not understand and could not control, coupled with their lack of basic airmanship. All designed to make flying easier and safer. The problem is not the automation per se, it's the twin factors of automated systems too complex to be fully understood by flight crews, combined with atrophied pilot basic skills cause by the reliance on automation. In fact, almost every major crash in recent years that could not be traced to mechanical failure has implicated automation and the procedures around it. In the article you didn't read, the author asked five Boeing engineers to describe how an automated flight system operates, and between them they could not agree. He rightly asks how a flight crew could possibly understand it if the engineers who designed it can't... Automation doesn't cause accidents, but over-reliance on automation certainly does. Basic flying skills and aeronautical decision making trumps everything in aviation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Hey, Burgurs, where are your advanced avionics made, and are you allowed to have them by the Europeans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted September 24, 2014 Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Personally I think people who bring lap-mounted iPads into the cockpit are playing chicken with safety. Looking down at a lap for information is far more dangerous than having that information on the panel where one can split sight view between panel and outside much more readily. The idea that ATPs are getting lazy in the cockpit is not the gears fault, it's THEIR fault. Pilots who get lazy and quit flying do not belong in the air. Its bad enough if they are alone in the cockpit, It's just extra bad when it's someone who has responsibility for hundreds of lives. So a panel mounted iPad is okay? It's not the ATPs fault at all. Are you ready to land you airplane? Probably, because you get practice doing it. How would you do with a complete Skyview failure so that you had *no* instrumentation? Could you navigate and land safely? You have no idea, because you don't practice that. That is exactly the problem...you are so reliant on your advanced cockpit, that you use *every* flight, that there is no way to know how you'd react and fly without it. Can you cover up the displays and still land the airplane? How would you you do with a partially blocked pitot tube, such that it was still working, but giving you airspeed indications 30% lower than the actual speed? Would you recognize what the problem is and compensate, or would you fly to your landing carrying 30% too high an airspeed and hurt yourself? We don't know, because you have not encountered it. This is EXACTLY what happened to the Air France 447 crew. They had a *very* minor failure (pitot icing causing airspeed indication failure and an automatic disconnect of the autopilot) that they had never encountered, and their lack of experience with the failure modes of the airplane and lack of basic flying skill led to the deaths of 280 people. The problem is not bad pilots, it's pilots who spend so little time flying the airplane and so much time managing the airplane's systems, that they have lost touch with the basic aerodynamics of the airplane and a complete picture of what is happening. They are reading displays instead of THINKING about what the displays are telling them about the condition of the aircraft. You should watch this video, "Children of the Magenta". It's from an American Airlines training class on this very subject, and the basic take away is that at times of great pilot stress and workload, you need to switch to LESS automation, not more. But I'm sure the 20,000 hour American Airlines trainers don't know nearly as much about flying as you do. http://vimeo.com/64502012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Meade Posted September 24, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2014 Here is the Nov 2013 FAA report on cockpit automation. http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=15434 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.