Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - General coment re instumentation

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

General coment re instumentation

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Charles Heathco

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 201

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 8:19 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

I have been on this list since I got Tweetybird, and CPA while I had the cherokee. Have seen many posts re engine monitors etc. Makes me wonder how we kept em in the air when all we had was good judgment. Just for the heck  of it about 2 yrs ago, I went thru the list of the 14 cherokees I flew in the 60's while getting my ratings and found that out of 14, 13 were still flying and turns out the 140 I got my Pvt checkride in at Okc was setting across the ramp from me at Gwinette co  .Also the 1954 Apache I got my multi in (tricky plane) was still flying. What do they have in common with the RV's? Lycoming engines. Am I the only lucky Rv driver who can keep her in the air (high time engine) whith nothing but good judgment? Charlie Heathco

ogoodwin(at)comcast.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Great point.   I started out flying C-150s and Cherokees, got my multi

rating in a Seneca, flew Convairs, DC3s, DC8s, Boeing 727s, and so forth.  A

few years ago I started flying Airbus A300s.  All the airplanes mentioned

were equipped pretty much like a light twin of the 70's:  two coms, two

navs, an ADF, a couple of DMEs and sometimes an Omega or lately a GPS.  The

Airbus had a fairly capable autopilot and more automation.  My point is that

we flew and still fly these 450 knot jets just like we did the piston twins,

as far as the equipment is concerned.  Most of them are hand flown for the

approach and landing (with the exception of the A 300).



My company operates both B 727s and A300s.  The thing I (and others) have

noticed is that those that use the automation of the A300 tend to lose their

basic skills...this becomes obvious when the automation (particularly in the

approach phase, but also whenever the autopilots take the day off) quits.

The guys moving from the old to the newer have MUCH less trouble than going

the other way.  I'm not sure the automation in too large a dose isn't a bad

thing unless it can be made 100% reliable.   Engine monitors and glass

cockpits are great, but only if you don't get lazy and get too reliant on

them for situational awareness.



Makes me break out in a cold sweat to think about doing  without glass

cockpits and automation.  Oh well, guess I'll go pack for my next trip in

the old creaky B727.



The above, firmly tongue in cheek, but still true.  Do not archive.



Olen Goodwin

---

Doug Gray

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 112
Location: Sydney, Australia

Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Piper, Mooney, Beech..... all just life support for a future RV engine.



charles heathco wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 I have been on this list since I got Tweetybird, and CPA while I had the cherokee. Have seen many posts re engine monitors etc. Makes me wonder how we kept em in the air when all we had was good judgment. Just for the heck  of it about 2 yrs ago, I went thru the list of the 14 cherokees I flew in the 60's while getting my ratings and found that out of 14, 13 were still flying and turns out the 140 I got my Pvt checkride in at Okc was setting across the ramp from me at Gwinette co  .Also the 1954 Apache I got my multi in (tricky plane) was still flying. What do they have in common with the RV's? Lycoming engines. Am I the only lucky Rv driver who can keep her in the air (high time engine) whith nothing but good judgment? Charlie Heathco

Nic(at)skyhi.flyer.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 1:46 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Charlie, an interesting comment on reliability or perhaps it is just a

comment on how cheap fuel currently is in the USA (or should I say OPEC),

which has stifled the introduction of better more efficient engines for so

long. Give me instrumentation and reduced fuel burn every time.

Nic

khorton01(at)rogers.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 4:59 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

On 21 Jan 2006, at 04:43, Nic wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Charlie, an interesting comment on reliability or perhaps it is just a

 comment on how cheap fuel currently is in the USA (or should I say  

 OPEC),

 which has stifled the introduction of better more efficient engines  

 for so

 long. Give me instrumentation and reduced fuel burn every time.

 Nic


	


I don't think the engines are the problem.  Lycomings and  

Continentals have a fairly good specific fuel consumption for  

gasoline engines (i.e. how much fuel they burn to make a certain  

amount of power).  The problem is the airframe.  If you want to burn  

less fuel to go from point A to point B, you need an airframe that  

has less drag.  Less drag means the engine needs to produce less  

power, which means less fuel burned.  The amateur built community has  

made a lot of progress in this area, and some of if has trickled  

across to the type certificated world.



If we want engines with better specific fuel consumption, we need to  

move to diesel engines.  But they are heavier for a given power  

output, which makes them not so attractive.



Here's an interesting read on fuel burn and power claims from  

alternative engine manufacturers:



http://www.sdsefi.com/air8.html



Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

Jim Anglin

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 47
Location: Independence, OR (7S5 Airpark)

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:40 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Oh my God Charlie!  How can you possibly fly without a digital engine monitor, altitude hold, and AOA indicator?  And for VFR flight you are taking your life in your hands flying without a Dynon or some kind of EFIS.  I am on my knees every day giving thanks for surviving all the hours I have flown not knowing the difference in EGTs for each cylinder.



F, D, and H



jim



DO NOT ARCHIVE

_________________
Jim Anglin
HR II N144HR

dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 7:47 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Fuel is NOT cheap in the US. It costs more in other countries simply 

because of government gouging, our government just doesn't gouge as much 

- yet. So, if we triple the cost of gas then we'll get better engines? I 

don't think so because to develop a new engine a company has to have a 

market to sell them to and that market will have long since dried up 

because of fuel prices.



I have nothing against new engine technology, if fact I'm all for it, 

but I wish people would quit knocking Lycoming, my O-360 is one of the 

most reliable engines around and gives me almost 20 mpg in my -6 - 

that's better than many automobiles.



Sorry for the rant, but both these items touched a nerve.



Dave

do not archive



 	  Quote: 	
		  

Charlie, an interesting comment on reliability or perhaps it is just a

comment on how cheap fuel currently is in the USA (or should I say OPEC),

which has stifled the introduction of better more efficient engines for so

long. Give me instrumentation and reduced fuel burn every time.

Nic

skylor4(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:16 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

There have been some interesting comments in this

thread.  I feel the urge to respond to several of

them.

1.  "Fuel is NOT cheaper in this country..."



If you think fuel is expensive in the US, you have

obviously not bought gasoline in Germany & other

European countries...

2.  "Have seen many posts re engine monitors etc.

Makes me 

wonder how we kept em in the air when all we had was

good judgment."



To me, this is an incredibly asinine statement.  This

is like saying "how did we ever keep em in the air

when all we had was wood and fabric."  



The modern engine monitor is probably the single most

useful piece of equipment to come to general aviation

in many years.  Sure, planes fly just fine without

them.  However, there are many, many examples on this

list of people experiencing engine problems that would

simply be much easier to trouble shoot with engine

monitor data.  If you've ever had to pay a mechanic to

repeatedly trouble shoot a pesky ignition problem on a

certified aircraft, and you understand the

capabilities of multi-cylinder engine monitors, then

you would realize their true value. 



An engine monitor, properly used, can also give

advance warning to serious internal problems such as

valve failure.  To me, this is is worth every penny...



3.  Engine efficiency...



Kevin Horton already pointed out a good link regarding

engine efficiency.  Those that believe a modern, small

displacement EFI/EI automobile engine is going to be

more efficient in an aircraft than a Lycoming or

Continental simply aren't looking at the real numbers.



As stated, efficient automobile gasoline engines

typically have BSFC in the range of .42-.46.  That is

WITHOUT the gear reduction units required to turn an

aircraft propeller at efficient and safe speeds.  A

gear (or belt) reduction unit WILL reduce the

efficiency.  Large bore FI Lycomings & Continentals

already have BSFC numbers in the .37-.41 range.  This

is about as good as it gets for gasoline engines!



Furthermore, there seems to be some misunderstanding

that somehow "modern EFI" will improve efficiency in

an aircraft environment.  Most people arguing the

virtues of automobile engines over aircraft engines

seem to forget a very important point:   Automobile

engines are designed to operate in a very dynamic,

variable speed & power environment.  This is where EFI

shines, by maintaining correct mixtures though out

this dynamic environment.  Aircraft engines generally

operate at constant speed and power settings for long

periods of time.  EFI offers little benefit in this

case.  Mechanical fuel injection (and even

carburetors) do a very good job of atomizing fuel

efficiently, and providing the correct mixture at

constant speeds and manifold pressures.  A mixture

knob is NOT that hard to use to optimize cruise

mixtures, especially if you have a good ENGINE

MONITOR!



By the way...what happened Bombardier's great "modern"

liquid cooled, V6 aircraft engine that they are

working on?  I have heard that Bombardier has stated

fuel efficiency numbers at Osh that simply don't "add

up" for this type of engine...my bet is that they're

having trouble meeting their marketing claims with

this design.



DO NOT ARCHIVE.



Skylor

RV-8 QB

Under Const.

Terry Watson

Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 290
Location: Seattle, WA USA

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:52 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Every time we get a good conspiracy theory going, someone like Kevin comes

along with some facts and spoils the fun. Spoilsport!



Terry

Do not archive




On 21 Jan 2006, at 04:43, Nic wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   



 Charlie, an interesting comment on reliability or perhaps it is just a

 comment on how cheap fuel currently is in the USA (or should I say  

 OPEC),

 which has stifled the introduction of better more efficient engines  

 for so

 long. Give me instrumentation and reduced fuel burn every time.

 Nic


	


I don't think the engines are the problem.  Lycomings and  

Continentals have a fairly good specific fuel consumption for  

gasoline engines (i.e. how much fuel they burn to make a certain  

amount of power).  The problem is the airframe.  If you want to burn  

less fuel to go from point A to point B, you need an airframe that  

has less drag.  Less drag means the engine needs to produce less  

power, which means less fuel burned.  The amateur built community has  

made a lot of progress in this area, and some of if has trickled  

across to the type certificated world.



If we want engines with better specific fuel consumption, we need to  

move to diesel engines.  But they are heavier for a given power  

output, which makes them not so attractive.



Here's an interesting read on fuel burn and power claims from  

alternative engine manufacturers:



http://www.sdsefi.com/air8.html



Kevin Horton         RV-8 (finishing kit)

Ottawa, Canada

http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8

dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net
Guest

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 5:17 pm Post subject: General coment re instumentation

You missed the point of my comment Skylor. I did not say that fuel was 

not "cheaper" in the US, I said that it was not "cheap".

 3.50-4.50 per gallon in NOT cheap. I've been there and I know that it's 

more expensive in Europe, but that's because people there have even LESS 

control of government tax gouging than we do. I'm sure that they pay 

about the same wholesale price for oil that the US does but their 

governments add a LOT more taxes than ours does.  That does NOT make our 

gas "cheap".



Dave

do not archive



Skylor Piper wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



There have been some interesting comments in this

thread.  I feel the urge to respond to several of

them.

1.  "Fuel is NOT cheaper in this country..."



If you think fuel is expensive in the US, you have

obviously not bought gasoline in Germany & other

European countries...

rv8ch

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 250
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject: General coment re instumentation

 	  Quote: 	
		   You missed the point of my comment Skylor. I did not say that fuel was 

 not "cheaper" in the US, I said that it was not "cheap".

  3.50-4.50 per gallon in NOT cheap. I've been there and I know that it's 

 more expensive in Europe, but that's because people there have even LESS 

 control of government tax gouging than we do. I'm sure that they pay 

 about the same wholesale price for oil that the US does but their 

 governments add a LOT more taxes than ours does.  That does NOT make our 

 gas "cheap".


	


When I first moved here over 15 years ago I thought the same

thing.  Then, after speaking to lots of people about things

like fuel prices and taxes and government, I've learned that

while fact many (majority?) Europeans do complain about the

high taxes on fuel, they see them as a necessary evil to

reduce their consumption, encourage alternative energy

development, and finance public transportation.  Of course,

the major exception is in the UK, where many seem to distrust

their government, like in the USA.  Perhaps that's where

we learned it.



Direct comparisons like this are very difficult, since

there are dozens of factors that are not always apparent.

Generally, Europeans don't rely on their cars as much as

Americans.  Also, they are much more sensitive to

environmental issues.



Just as an aside, in Switzerland, the people have far more

control over their government than Americans have ever

dreamed of.  Perhaps that's why they don't see their government

as the enemy, like we do.



-- 

Mickey Coggins

http://www.rv8.ch/

#82007 finishing

do not archive

_________________
Mickey Coggins
http://www.rv8.ch/

Nic(at)skyhi.flyer.co.uk
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 3:17 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Kevin,  You may be right and the Lycoming developed many years ago is the

Zenith of light aviation engines, but I doubt it, and quoting figures in

this present context is missing the point.



Fuel prices in the short to medium term will continue to rise in the 21st

century as China's expansion accelerates and it becomes the dominant nation

in the world, and the US struggles with its highest budget deficit since

WWII.



Low fuel prices have been sustained in the western world by economic and

military means for decades, but this era is coming to an end. My argument is

that our trusty old Lycomings have been more than adequate in this context,

but we all know that development has been slow as a result.



Against a background of higher fuel prices in Europe most consumers look for

fuel efficiency as a priority when selecting a vehicle, and cars with modern

Turbo Diesels have great economy of 50mpg+ and great torque, these were

developed specifically to provide the consumer with improved economy.  Very

few people in Europe would consider a vehicle that only gives 20mpg !



Of course we don't need modern instrumentation to fly from A to B, but given

that we are reliant on our trusty old Lycosaurs, I think that having good

modern instrumentation adds reliability and maximises the use of our dated

power plants whilst also saving valuable resources.

Nic

skylor4(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Jan 22, 2006 10:34 am Post subject: General coment re instumentation

Dave,



You're right, I missed your point.  Gas is not cheap.



I do believe that if gas prices in the US have been as

expensive as Europe for the last 30 years, Americans

my not be so complacent about excess energy

consumption.



Skylor



--- "D.Bristol" <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <dbris200(at)sbcglobal.net>

 

 You missed the point of my comment Skylor. I did not

 say that fuel was 

 not "cheaper" in the US, I said that it was not

 "cheap".

  3.50-4.50 per gallon in NOT cheap. I've been there

 and I know that it's 

 more expensive in Europe, but that's because people

 there have even LESS 

 control of government tax gouging than we do. I'm

 sure that they pay 

 about the same wholesale price for oil that the US

 does but their 

 governments add a LOT more taxes than ours does. 

 That does NOT make our 

 gas "cheap".

 

 Dave

 do not archive

 

 Skylor Piper wrote:

 

 >

 <skylor4(at)yahoo.com>

 >

 >There have been some interesting comments in this

 >thread.  I feel the urge to respond to several of

 >them.

 >

 >

 >1.  "Fuel is NOT cheaper in this country..."

 >

 >If you think fuel is expensive in the US, you have

 >obviously not bought gasoline in Germany & other

 >European countries...

 >

 >  

 >

 

 

 

 



 browse

 Subscriptions page,

 FAQ,



 Admin.

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum