tmo

At a risk of sounding stoopid, it isn't the linkeage between the cockpit prop control and the governor, right? It could fail in / to a forward position?

You fly XC and you take care of your plane because it is your plane. Our club planes are mostly (read: 85% of the hours, and 100% for some of them) used as primary trainers, beating circuits or flying "XC" at 2000 AGL. Plus the instructors are more interested in flying (hour building) than if the engine makes it to TBO - they aren't paying for the OH. This year we had early OHs of three O235's in our C152's this year, I kid you not, one of them was a sub-800h TSO engine. A really bad year in terms of TBO.

A long long time ago we used to do similarly looking internet traffic visualizations...

OK, so it looks like I have a problem with definitions. I always understood "mogas" to be "autoMOtiveGAS" ie. the stuff you buy at the pump, and that you can put in your airplane under certain conditions, one of them being lack of ethanol. This is certainly true when you say "mogas" to a Rotax owner, as the Rotax engines are approved for up to 10% ethanol content (E10). E10 is the "lowest common denominator" available at the corner gas station pretty much anywhere except for places like Brazil. Anyway, getting back to the subject at hand, if the engine is designed to run on E10, which we know can be done, then no problem. I'm pretty sure the LS3 or whatever is. As a tidbit - Lycoming SI 1070 allows the use of automotive fuels in many Lycoming engines, including some IO540 variants. While they don't use the word "mogas" they do say "pump gas". They also allow up to 1% of "oxygenates" which I believe includes ethanol. Enough of the thread drift, apologies.

What is the difference?

That only takes care of the "teoretically could" part. We all know that even if they do, if the paper doesn't say it, it ain't so (for the general use case, I know one can get approvals for all kinds of neat things).

Well, maybe not right away, but yes. Rumor (and Polish wikipedia) says that N11WB (a Navajo, so TSIO-540) that crashed in Poland in 2014, killing 11 skydivers and the pilot, one survivor, was running on mogas. Left engine failed, plane crashed 4km (13000 ft) from rwy threshold. Temperatures were in the high 80's / 90's that day, and most of that summer (we grounded our club planes except for early morning / very late evening departures). No final report yet (I wonder why, but that's besides the point).

Where is the notion that a GI275 and a G5 can talk to one another (AI and HSI) coming from?

Yeah, I think it is somewhat more complicated than that, but thanks for your view, @steingar (I do mean it sincerely). What it comes down to is that there are many places around the world where 100LL is not available and Jet-A1 is. The reason for this is of secondary importance, it just is. Finding auto fuel without booze in it can also be non-trivial and non-deterministic (no guarantee that the next batch will be the same as the previous one, because the norms allow between 0 and N% of various additives, not just ethanol) - even in the US, whereas Jet-A1 just is what it is, always, the big guys make it so. All that said, of course there is nothing wrong with designing a GA device just for the US market, it is the largest in the world by far, I was just trying to point out the challenges (or perhaps opportunities) outside of the GA paradise you all have there. Hell, Rotax did it for the EU ultralight market, and is doing well. I wish my TSIO-360 was allowed to drink auto fuel, but it ain't so... One liter (0.2641729 of a US gallon) of AVGAS at my field costs $2.70; 100 octane unleaded is $1.45. Yes, I know the octane rating is counted differently for avgas and car gas, and differently in the US and the EU car gas as well. </rant off>

FWIW, the big ship / locomotive / power generator diesel cycle engines are often times 2 stroke.

When talking price yes, automotive fuel works wonderfully. Especially if you allow the ethanol-laced fuels typically found at the pumps (the Petersen STC does not, which severely limits its usefulness in current times). For the likes of me it would be perfect - literally half off. There are people base their purchases on the ability to burn automotive fuel. FWIW, there allegedly is a STC to put a Rotax engine (think ultralights / LSAs) on a C150. With automotive fuel, do remember about possible vapor lock issues, which AFAIU are specific to airframes (also noted by Petersen when talking about why their STC covers one airframe but not another). When talking fuel availability at major airports automotive fuel (mogas) probably doesn't help any, with Jet-A1 being the only thing that is available, period. I believe that is the situation in Asia and Africa as well. Do keep in mind I'm not basing this on actual first hand knowledge, but on things I've read / heard from others, some of which might have been biased by virtue of having spent money on the Thielert engines.

Wouldn't technically the G3X be the backup?

Am I reading this right that if I want both the HSI and AI to interface with the AP I need to pay an extra $1k for each? Or do they talk to each other and one talks to the AP?

With all due respect, but this seems to be a very US-centric view. If that is the only/main target market, that's fine, but I understand (not know first-hand, mind you) that the ability to burn Jet instead of AVGAS is in high demand elsewhere. So this is the engine you want to be the piston side of the hybrid? I like!

Earth days? Or Venus?

Great point that I totally missed. Thank you.

TBH Garmin did add some value to the GTNs with software updates, for example the approach guidance to VFR-only fields. While this might not be an issue stateside, with a field with an instrument approach within a stone's throw, it is over here, and the OBS trick, while useful, is much more prone to human errors than what the GTNs provide. But I'd also rather buy an IFD than a GTN, just because I've been buying AMD instead of Intel most of the time.

Isn't there a whole genre of movies about this subject?

Indeed... Now, where is the list of 3rd party APs?

I understand the unit actually has a GAD43 equivalent built-in...

@Blue on Top - is adding the extra complexity and yet unknown failure modes of a hybrid drive really a good approach? The engines are already running pretty much as efficiently as they will when powering a generator; the engine will not be any lighter, but the generator, battery and electrical engine, plus the additional required circuitry will weigh, likely lots. I can maybe see it where the extra kick from the batteries plus the generator running at full power are used for takeoff and initial climb, but things slow down later in flight, but I'm still not convinced. Do keep in mind that any of my drivel is not based on knowledge or science, just "methinks". Don't get me wrong, I couldn't be more happy to be proven / explained wrong.

Is insurance mandatory for GA in the US, or are we talking optional "collision"-type insurance?

I so want the answer to be "electric tape"

Don't forget to add a Mustang and a CV2 to the set You know, for balance...

Tesla does photo cell roof shingles, just sayin'