Ian

Interesting looking plane, was the front freight loading the reason for the canopy bulge?

OK they're magic then. Special engines made from unobtainium.

The fact that you can still buy them certainly says something about the industry. What were you flying?

Not really sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? It's just a statement of facts.

I don't mind playing with modern engines however you do need to understand and be comfortable with the technology, it actually makes a lot of things simpler due to the precision that you get. Compared to timing lights it's chalk and cheese. If it really floats your boat you can buy a broken "V12" dual plug BMW engine and completely replace the wiring harness and build your own ECU for a little over a hundred dollars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGf8IMwRuIY Not really my thing but you get my drift. Nostalgia's not what it used to be. Engines are engines are engines, to believe otherwise isn't engineering, power, weight, efficiency etc. The turbines for planes are used by power station with a few modifications. Car engines are used in boats, there's really nothing special about any of them. Of course some people like to believe that aviation engines are special however they're just engines. Theilert repurposed Mercedes engines, Austro repurposed Steyr engines for the Diamond DA50. Some cars are expensive to service, some not so much however even the most expensive pale in comparison to aviation stuff. An entire new 1VD-FTV (280HP) engine is about $20000 inc GST, it's a lot of engine for that price compared to an 8 Cylinder io720 Lycoming (375HP) for about $110000 US.

I've seen people pressure hose modern engines and it does them no harm, the electronics generally well sealed. Repairs are very cheap compared to aviation repairs and you can ask ask the engine what's wrong and it will tell you. But you do need to be able to use a mobile phone or laptop. I remember driving old cars where you'd drive through some water an the engine would stop, I actually got stuck in a floodway after a thunderstorm in an old ford with 3 on the tree and had to ride the starter motor to get out. There used to cars broken down whenever there was a deluge, that doesn't happen anymore. Modern cars use Coil on Plug so there aren't any HT leads and electrical leaks are actually less likely. Rather than two magnetos each plug has a coil, on Mazda's and Saabs this CoP also includes the electronics to detect detonation. Alternators still function at altitude, it's just old fashioned magnetos that need to be pressurized from the turbo to remain functional. In general the tolerances in a modern engine are an order of magnitude better than on a plane engine. In terms of reliability people are generally happy when a plane engine starts and they don't notice when a car engine starts.

It actually looks like a nice engine. Basically endevours like this are to an extend upon peoples whims. According to wikipedia the engine was cancelled in the early 90s when credit was very expensive.

I don't think that I mentioned putting water cooling or putting car engines in planes. What I did mention was that the engines which operate our planes are susceptible to modes of failure which modern engines aren't. Some of the remediation costs from a design perspective are very low and yet they haven't occurred. The profit margins on 0360 engines was quite high, this created the clone market which resulted in some reduction of the prices and actually created some innovation which wouldn't have happened otherwise. Look at roller lifters, introduced first by the clone engine makers and finally Lycoming started to do it. It sounds odd, how could lower margins drive innovation and yet it did. Unfortunately some of the clone supplier have been bought by the companies whose margins they threatened.

I think Jan the owner has a more of a history in marketing than engineering. He was behind the Subaru conversions which had a very high failure rate and didn't appear to understand basic engineering principles. Based upon previous history I'd put a big question mark over the the reduction gearbox design. It's difficult nut to crack and he doesn't appear to use engineers and has no budget for R&D. But seriously ideally I'd like an engine that could run on Jetfuel, diesel or biodiesel, it's safer and it availability is better than avgas. I also expect that the supply will remain available for longer periods as people will continue want to fly overseas and not have to take a boat.

The thing that hydrogen has going for it is its weight for energy content however the volume issues are huge. I'd like the concept to work however the plane that I fly carries about 400L of fuel which gives a range of about 2000km. If I convert this to hydrogen I need at least 4x of this storage 1600L, plus a containment vessel which needs to be spherical/cylindrical so it the wings are no longer a good fit. So essentially airplanes need to look like Belugas (Which is doable if you accept the extra resistance) Then there's the whole logistics thing. At a fundamental level this is why people are looking at ammonia to transport hydrogen, but ammonia is a dangerous gas. It's poisonous and explosive, its only good quality is that you can smell a leak.

The issue is that the technologies aren't mainstream in GA whereas it has in the automotive and RPT industry and RPT. And they are really inexpensive.

Compared to ignition very well. A small low voltage (compared to ignition) electrical current measures resistance between the plug-gap. The changing resistance over time allows the characterization of a normal ignition events. Pre-ignition and detonation create different resistance profiles and a bob's your uncle. In terms of interference with electronics it's a very low powered signal compared to ignition. Also cars now use coil on plug technology which means that you no-longer have the long high voltage leads which tend create electrical noise. The components being smaller and discrete are easier to shield.

Actually modern turbocharged and some naturally aspirated engines dynamically adjust fuel metering to the delivered air. They also use oxygen sensors to ensure that injectors deliver the right amount of fuel. Actually a number of boat engines are just repurposed automotive engines no real redesign. The reality is that car engines can be run at high loads for extended periods without damage and at optimal levels of efficiency. Aircraft engines can't do this. Actually if you look at modern passenger planes this story is very true. Well designed automated systems actually do a very good job of flying the planes and warn you if you're going to fly into a mountain, pilots actually fall asleep quite a bit . A few meters either side in a car and your goose is cooked. My point is that the technology exists and has existed for decades which should make this a moot point. It is also cheap as chips to implement. Why are we even asked to manage fuel flow? It is dumb, the manufacturer knows best and yet they give you knobs, inaccurate, uncalibrated fuel delivery and then try to point the finger at others. I think they should be publicly castigated. The problem is the most GA planes don't have these magic fuel maps, don't have calibrated fuel flow and these features only appear in the top end planes. The research has been done, the designs are already done. For instance Saab uses a simple mechanism of running current through a spark plug to detect detonation, it's usable on noisy air cooled engines and can detect detonation on a per cylinder basis. Also all the patents have expired. You can just pick up old Saab coils and stick them on a spark plug and they do their thing with a few additional electronic components. The only thing holding this back is the current chip shortage.

But probably enough to be concerned. For instance this tragedy may not have eventuated and it concerned the FAA safety team enough to present this. Basically detonation detection is a well understood technology and the patents have all expired. It costs less than an oil change to buy the technology to implement it with off the shelf parts. I know that you can buy aftermarket calibrated injectors however automotive injectors are pre-calibrated or self calibrating and have been since the 1980s. Why can't aircraft engines meet this low bar. I have had a couple of flat automotive engines which were fuel injected and were never a problem to start. Which means that it's just an engineering issue. I'm saying that planes should run reliably and be easy to manage to give you time to invest in areas we cant control which are inherently dangerous. It's easy to pick on plane engines because they are a bit shite. However it is more important is to understand the underlying reasons why this state of affairs exists. A significantly part of the problem is the regulation which while it may have promoted safety in the short term has actually led to a less safe long term outcomes. Basically innovation stalled and the technologies which had been developed in the high end planes disappeared because they became turbine powered. Car engines continued to develop rapidly however these technologies never crossed the ditch, partially because there was a belief that airplane engines were inherently better and those car engineers were cowboys. Technologies which have enormously benefited automotive engine reliability were actually forced on the industry by emission control laws which aircraft have been exempted from.

What about when the plane isn't flying? Or you need to de-fuel after and between flights? With a low pressure container are you saying that in addition to the 4x volume increase you need a second tank that contains the fuel at something over 10x the volume? I just don't understand your train of thought. What is the low pressure container and where would it sit.

No offence, I like poking bears, it's a character fault 😉 If there were vaccines for Syphilis and all those other things yes. You're less likely to get compensation in a vehicle accident if you weren't wearing a seat belt. Drive when your drunk and your insurance company won't pay. Smokers and drinkers do pay significantly for their habit in terms of extra taxes? As I said I'm all for allowing people to do dumb things however I'd like them to pay for it instead of externalizing the costs.

While the engines are reasonable reliable they do have a number of significant issues and are marginal in many situations. Even skilled operators often operate them in a less than optimal manner which is detrimental to engine life. Because of this people simply cop it on the chin when cylinders, lifters of other components fail short of their expected lifetimes. Virtually no car engines need the babysitting that airplane engines need to operate correctly and modern car engines are simple better across the board. People with zero knowledge often drive them for hundreds of thousands of km. There's also the chestnut related to load, and how plane engines are designed for high power situations. This record attempt from the 1989 demonstrates the fact that this isn't true, car engines are tested at full power for extended periods. An example are the issues that Robertson helicopters had which were blamed on low lead fuel. The R22 uses the O360 engine, they had a rash of engine failures however fuel was exonerated. Should failures like this occur on a modern vehicle? Also the efficiency of the engines relates to the engines running leak of peak not the recommended Rich of Peak settings. As soon as operate in the recommended setting consumption jumps to at least 304g/KWh which puts it on par with Turbine engines. While Lycoming provides advice on how to run LoP they explicitly state. NOTE TEXTRON LYCOMING DOES NOT RECOMMEND OPERATING ON THE LEAN SIDE OF PEAK EGT. (the ALL CAPS is from the Document) So where does that leave you when operating in this manner? Also large slow revving engines have a significant design advantage for fuel consumption, compared to smaller faster revving engines so they should perform significantly better than car engines. I like mechanical things however these engines should be significantly better than they are. They're simple and a bit shit and have a number of design flaws which have been addressed in modern engines design. For example they shouldn't still sell engines with carburetors unless they can demonstrate efficient distribution of fuel. (which they can't) . Instead they like to pretend that the fuel injected engine is a premium thing. Anti detonation technology has been ubiquitous in car engines for over 30 years but not in aircraft engine, this is despite numerous fatalities relating to engine failures which would have been survivable if the pilot knew the engine was destroying itself.

The chance of any airplane engine using it is pretty remote. Roller lifters/tappets were an innovation, coil on plug doesn't exist and basic fuel ecomony measures haven't been implemented. The still rely on rich mixtures to solve cooling problems and can't manage to get fuel mixtures equal across cylinders

Whatever will they think of next. And all this while I thought that a normal sparkplug ignition process created a plasma tunnel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_spark

Hi Flightrite, What do you mean in relation to COVID BS? Is COVID BS or the Australian approach to COVID BS or are vaccines BS or the policies relating to vaccines BS. Just for context one of our neighbours has had cancer and the treatment has resulted in the significant compromise of her immune system. She's had her vaccination however she's very aware that if she gets COVID she'll probably die. She's said as much to her kids who luckily are at University age. Now while I'm all up there for individual freedoms however in instances where the exercise of your "freedoms" will most likely result in the deaths of others like my neighbour, I believe that there should be consequences and limitations placed on those rights. I also don't think think that the public should pick up the tab for medical expenses relating to the costs of treatments associated with preventable illness.

What are your calculations? Just focusing on boil off gas, look at how much higher H2 is compared to it's peers. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352484720312312 Liquification Costs https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19001_hydrogen_liquefaction_costs.pdf One thing that I didn't know was that the liquification of H2 requires the conversion from ortho to para hydrogen, which relates to the orientation of the nuclear spins, special catalysts are required to speed this transition but it's still slow. Hydrogen just keeps getting easier 😉 Not that this is for fossil H2 not green H2, it assumed that the gas is delivered in a pressurized state from the conversion process.

What I should emphasize here is that I'm a big fan of liquid fuels compared to batteries. However I've come to grudgingly admit that for most cases for ground based personal transport electric rechargeable will fit the bill. I like fuel cells and given my penchant for liquid fuels I want it (liquid hydrogen) to work. But it's a bit like having a couple of pet tigers, for a moment you have that "wouldn't it be cool" brainfart and then you consider your wife, children and your own life and you go no that's a dumb idea. But I still like reading stories about people who've had pets like that. Normally you read about it when the pet eats them.

There are issues associated with sending H2 via existing gas pipelines, the current view is that adding a small fraction can be tolerated however pipelines will need to be assessed on a case by case basis prior to sending significant amounts of H2. http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Diesels/Ch3.pdf It will still be expensive, cheaper than a new gas grid but still expensive.

Radial two stroke engines have been built with even numbers of cylinders http://www.zoche.de/ With the odd number of cylinders on a 4 stroke the power stroke is absorbed by the almost opposite compression stroke which doesn't occur with an even number of cylinders. The Guiberson design was interesting for a number of reasons, from a weight perspective it was comparable to the Wright R-760 Whirlwind however its fuel economy was much better. It was a fully certified engine and didn't complete it's bench tests until 1940.

Why do you think this? Hydrogen is hard and physics is physics. It's telling the despite the investment this paper written in 2005 is still represents the status quo. You mention carbon fiber tanks and cryogenics. Carbon fibre gives the lowest weight and the technology is pretty simple. However the energy density is pretty poor even at 10000psi (Which isn't in production outside of a lab). Cryogenics is refrigeration. How is a car or plane going to store things at -252.9 (boiling point of liquid hydrogen) for weeks on end? Even if you think that cryo-compressed H2 is an option how do you keep it cold because as soon as it warms up it will expand and offgass or burst the tank. Either one doesn't sound safe. Here's another graph which show volumetric density which nobody wants to talk about. Liquid Hydrogen makes ethanol look good and everyone knows that ethanol reduces your range. The only way Hydrogen will work as a transport fuel is if someone develops a portable fusion reactor.