Ian

Nuclear ships may make a comeback. It's not as if it a new idea and shipping generates more CO2 than the entire aviation industry.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/11/09/international-marine-shipping-industry-considers-nuclear-propulsion/?sh=4bf84fcf562c

It wasn't meant to be disparaging I think that he's done a great job of building wealth in Australia. Steel production is currently very carbon intensive, Twiggy's business revolves around iron ore. This is a problem for his business model.

You can make mostly green steel using Hydrogen by directly reduced iron (DRI) and then further processing it in an electric arc furnace. This is viable if H2 becomes cheap enough which it may do, the most efficient plant for the production of H2 is estimated to product H2 for about US 60c/kg over the life of the plant. This doesn't include power or storage. So you need lots of cheap power using something like solar to make this viable. 

Australia has lots of space and a goodly amount of sunshine so this can make lots of cheap power some of the time. In theory this might provide energy for the above.

All this doesn't change the fact that H2 sucks a bit as a transport fuel for the reasons stated, though it might become a sufficiently cheap feedstock for processes like this on https://www.pnas.org/content/116/26/12654

Ironically I lot of these processes require CO2 as a feedstock.

Also Twiggy did admit in 2011 that Forteque Metals had never paid any Tax https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/fortescue-mining-company-tax/3655270

So I wouldn't expect him to do anything without getting the maximum return from Government.

1 hour ago, Geoff_H said:

It looks like Twiggy is backing hydrogen.  Liddell power station has been making hydrogen by electrolysis since the 1971.  Just a much larger scale.

Yes he's been doing it for a while. The only reason I can see him doing this for is to lower the carbon emissions of steel manufacture. He's hoping to combine a healthy dose of government funds with an industry opportunity.

7 hours ago, Flightrite said:

DH104’s, Riley conversion. Upon T/off the FF needles would go hard over to the stop, had no idea what the FF was other than high!👍800 ponies all pulling together (if you where lucky) was challenging!

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

6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

They're not facts if you've worked for an engine manufacturer.

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

1 hour ago, Flightrite said:

I used to drive behind 2x IO 720’s, you could almost count on one hand the amount of those still operating! 

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

13 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Always good to have a comedian around.

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

2 hours ago, Flightrite said:

I miss the old clunkers of the 70’s, basic donks that you could fix with fencing wire yourself. I wouldn't own a late model car if ya gave it to me, never had a new car! 

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.

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You need to decide whether to talk about aero engine (and RA engines at that to be relevant) rather than conflate car issues with aero issues in one post to suit an argument and then deny any car relationships in another. Repairs are certainly not cheap in modern cars; I was quoted a possible head gasket replacement starting at $1,000.00 for inspection recently and going up from there.

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.

7 hours ago, facthunter said:

In a modern car finding anything that LOOKS anything like a motor under the bonnet is difficult. Spray water around under the bonnet and many dollars and days later it MAY be running again. Aeroplanes fly through torrential rain often. High altitude flying makes HT  currents leak much more. Pressurised Pistons had remote HT Coils near each plug for reliability. Nev

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.

14 hours ago, Geoff_H said:

The one car engine that was rebuilt as an aircraft engine was the Porsche. One control " how much power do you want".  Mooney fitted them to new aircraft as an option.  However as it needed two alternators for electronic reliability and a gearbox it was heavier than a Lycoming of same HP. The Porsche model was slower than the Lycoming model.  Who buys a slower Mooney... not many people.  So upon its failure to sell any great numbers Porsche refitted most aircraft with Lycoming engines.  I had an unconfirmed report that only 5 Mooney Porsche still exist.  I had the pleasure of flying one over the top of Melbourne.  Sheer delight.  Very quiet.  A great product failed by marketing problems.  I feel that we are in for a similar situation with having to go "green".

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.

19 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I attempted to explain some of the constraints to your theory, you can't just take a water cooled car engine and put it in an aircraft; but it's a lot more complicated, and on top of that there are financial pressures which are working against low volume applications like GA and RA sports use.

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.

23 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

So are you going to pull the lycomings from the Defiant and replace with something like this https://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/viking-150-engine 

They have every feature you desire.

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. 

27 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

For a continuing flight the aircraft could use the boiloff in the APU.  Defuel between longer flights.  I don't see a need for a second tank. Fuel tanks would be in similar places to existing tanks.  But with very good thermal insulation.  I have worked on control systems design of two hydrogen plants, one using methane conversion the other electrolysis, never on liquid hydrogen but have worked on control systems for liquid oxygen/nitrogen plants.  I expect that there would be difficulties but one has to be open to brain storming to advance technology.  

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.

2 hours ago, turboplanner said:

With these answers I wonder then what all the earlier slagging was about?

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.

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

But how does that Saab detonation detection system perform, in relation to electrical noise issues interfering with aircraft communication devices?

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.

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Aircraft rely on lift to do their work, and the air density is variable.

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.

11 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Aircraft engines are designed for constant loading as ar outboard motors. 

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.

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

When you're on a bitumen road you can sit back and relax - all the calculations have been done for you

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. 

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

If you see something from a manufacturer in relation to using their product it probably means they are very hot under the collar and frustrated.

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. 

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

Fuel maps for each engine tell the story of their efficient and inefficient zones, and the manufacturer designe the gearing/prop to work up and down the efficient zone these days.

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.

12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

I'm sure the aviation industry would welcome new designers who could solve these issues economically.

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.  

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

There are actually FEW examples of aero engines destroying themselves because of Detonation.

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.

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

Injection systems have been around for flat motors since the 50's which can be accurately calibrated.

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.

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

They are a bit more tricky to start.

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.

11 hours ago, facthunter said:

Planes will never run on rails and get there by dynamic relations

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.

1 hour ago, Geoff_H said:

The boil off would be fed into an aircraft engine at the appropriate compressor stage!  Low pressure container very doable. 

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.

12 hours ago, spacesailor said:

No offence !.

But Do you also mean ' Syphilis ' , & all those other S T's.

And ' Alcohol related liver ' problems. Smoking cancer.

  The list goes on.

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.

15 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Despite the perceived shortcomings of the legacy engines they are quite fuel efficient and they are very reliable and easy to maintain. 

 

Check the chart and see how the IO lycoming compares to late model petrol car engines.

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

Quote

However, sparks with very low energy still produce a "plasma tunnel" through the air, through which electricity can pass. This plasma is heated to temperatures often greater than the surface of the sun

On 28/11/2021 at 8:18 PM, Flightrite said:

The grubby media make sure the word pilot is mentioned, it gets more attention, sells more newspapers, that’s their game, fear and hysteria are No1 when it comes to journo’s, just look at the last near two years of Covid BS we’ve had to put up with?

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

Quote

The results of this study show that transportation costs of LNG, liquid ammonia, methanol, DME, and liquid hydrogen from natural gas accounting for BOG are 0.74 $/GJ, 1.09 $/GJ, 0.68 $/GJ, 0.53 $/GJ, and 3.24 $/GJ

Liquification Costs

https://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/pdfs/19001_hydrogen_liquefaction_costs.pdf

Quote

The entire liquid hydrogen supply chain (production, liquefaction, delivery, and dispensing)
associated with this capacity level (i.e., 27,000 kg/day plant) was also modeled, estimating a dispensed
cost of $14.25 per kilogram of hydrogen at the pump (including production, delivery, and dispensing,
untaxed) for fueling commercially available fuel cell cars.

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 😉

Quote

Today’s industrial liquefiers, however, have an energy requirement in the range of 10–20 kWh/kg. In this
DOE Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program Record, the Hydrogen Delivery Scenario Analysis Model

  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.