A64Pilot

Just saw this as I’m not on the forum every day. Couple of comments, first I don’t think the failure had anything to do with lower EGT. The amount of movement assuming the nuts didn’t back off is no more than the thickness of the paint, and that’s just not enough to affect combustion. Secondly departing jugs are and have been not uncommon on radials since long before I was born. Many retorque jugs on Radials every couple hundred hours and it’s not uncommon for them to torque up, that is get a little movement. Idea is to try to prevent blowing a jug of course. On them often before they blow they may start to leak a little oil, but as oil leaks are very common it’s often missed and not all do, some engines will continue to run with a blown jug, R-985 for one while the R-1340 will not. I would suspect a flat 4 cyl would not. If you’re going to go to the trouble of breaking torque to retorque and I’m not suggesting you do, but you should go all the way to removing the nuts, oiling the threads and retorque it. However on most flat engines there is usually a lot of “stuff” that has to be removed just to access all of the nuts to check torque, it’s the majority of the work required to pull the cylinders. With paint under the cylinders I don’t think retorqueing would have saved this motor, the fretting case halves make me think it lost torque long ago, maybe very soon after it was put into service. As with everything this is just my opinion. We all know these engines are very primitive designs, but I think due to weight they aren’t over built and they require a mechanic to keep things clean and be meticulous in assembly, frankly I’m surprised from what I see frequently that there aren’t more failures.

You certainly could use a PT6, the -21 is 550 SHP and 330 lbs, the IO-550 is over 500lbs, so no charlie weights and maybe the batteries up front. Weight you saved would almost certainly be eaten up by increased fuel capacity though but it ought to work out, be Hell for fast in the flight levels. Being 550 SHP you derate it to what the airframe can handle, say 315 SHP, but here’s the thing it could likely carry 315 SHP up to the flight levels, like a TBM can carry its power. I have no idea what the critical altitude for a TBM is, but it ought to be up there. There is precedence on the bigger turbine Mooney, the TBM, that has a 1600 SHP core but is derated to I think between 700 and 850 SHP, but don’t quote me on that. Problem is it’s likely to cost not too far off of whatever a TBM does, and who would buy a long body Mooney for close to TBM price. In actuality a small PT6 cost about the same to manufacture as a bigger one, the parts count is pretty much the same just bigger, Pratt does charge by the power though, there are models that are essentially the same just some data plates give a bigger number and the fuel controls are set to produce it, and of course the price is commensurate with the power. A PT6 is however a very primitive turbine, single stage gas producer and power turbine and doesn’t even have variable inlet guide vanes and it’s fuel consumption displays it’s primitive design, but then so is the baby Allison’s. The T-800 is a very advanced turbine with low fuel consumption, when I was at the Test Activity they put one in a UH-1 for testing, the old Huey couldn’t use the power of course but it’s endurance went from 2.5 hours to over 4. So far as I know the engine never made production, it was meant Comanche that was canceled, which was probably smart as we needed it about as bad as we needed an F-22. Rambling a little just know that in the smaller turboprop engines they are similar to out pistons, that is they were designed by our Grandfathers, first Pratt was 1963 and the design is pretty much the same, sure it’s been refined with single growth crystal turbine blades etc., but it’s design is the same. No real money in small turboprops as Pratt is pretty much it, the Garrett -10 was brought back into production, for the Reaper drone, but is it used in any new people aircraft? I think the T-800 was sit down expensive, it far eclipsed the T-701 in the Apache that was 1 Mil ea, 30 years ago, and that was the price when you bought I don’t know how many thousands as ea Apache and Blackhawk has two, and then you need spares

I disagree with a lot of what he sells to put it nicely, I think he goes too far, but I agree that the industry has also gone too far, repacking wheel bearings every year on an airplane that has flown ten hours and likely has ten miles on the bearings is I think excessive for instance. There are two types of Maintenance, preventative and reactive. In my Career I’ve seen preventative save bunches of money and I think lives. Reactive you of course fix things after they break, but in Aviation often we can’t wait until then.

Actually I believe two do, but they are deep up there. I had to get out in the sunlight to see them. I do have several picks I use to dig them out, but that would defeat the purpose of my experiment. I do pull the plugs Annually of course. I think from a deposit perspective that running excessively LOP helps, just almost all engines except for this angle valve just can’t. Everything else I’ve had I had to dig the carbon and lead out every 50 hours at oil change time. I’m against bead blasting even if using the correct media and glass beads isn’t the proper media. If I had a blasting cabinet with the proper media I would probably use it but I don’t. Blasting I think isn’t necessary, it does however make them look new. They probably should be gapped, logically of course they open up as they wear but I didn’t. I need to buy a gapping tool, I’ve always run fine wires up to this point and didn’t need one until now.

I’ve mentioned it a couple of times on the forum, but I’ve been running an experiment plug wise, as in not cleaning them and just running them until they exhibit misfire behavior during run -up. I’ve been doing this soon after I got the airplane three or four years ago and I think between 150 and 200 hours. I pulled the plugs yesterday and the pics are as pulled, no cleaning. They aren’t good pics but I think are good enough to show what I’m trying to. I rarely ever fly normal length flights, almost always well less than an hour and mostly low altitude as in 1,000 MSL and run DEEP LOP as in 50C lean of the factory EGT probe, in truth I don’t even bother peaking anymore as I fly at 55% power (8 GPH) and at that power you can’t hurt the engine with mixture so as soon as I level off I just set 23 squared and roll back the mixture to 8 GPH. Now I’m lean of best BSFC, but she runs butter smooth and gives me enough power for 135 kts which is enough for me, I’m primarily after long engine life and as I’m Retired I’m just not in the hurry I used to be, and it gives me great MPG. Anyway I’m just going to reinstall the plugs, don’t see any reason to clean them and continue monitoring them and keep running the same. Motor does burn oil of course and whike I haven’t monitored it I’m pretty sure she burns more than 1 qt in 10 hours, more like 7 or 8 maybe so normal rate, but there is no carbon fouling from the oil, it’s burns off completely it seems.

It’s probably being pedantic, but I think Beta is misunderstood, it’s near flat pitch as in min or no thrust, reverse is well, reverse and is what is used to stop and aircraft on landing or to back one up. The Pilatus Porter is allowed to use Beta on approach, that’s how they get that stupid steep descent, but they can’t do that in reverse. I assume but do not know that they have a gate that prevents accidental reverse, but as I have never seen ones throttle quadrant that is just a guess.

You know that’s true for old analog gauges too, I’ve seen senders with dead spots that when the sender hits that dead spot the gauge goes full range whichever way an open indicates, that was for tanks with one sender, I assume for those with two it would go to half way from correct reading? Either way it’s very erratic. As fuel is burned off it starts working again because it’s off of the dead spot. I believe most senders are simply a brush that travels up and down a wound resistive wire so the resistance varies with position? Many digital gauges aren’t digital, just the display is, as such they aren’t any more or less accurate than needles, that by the way can actually be pure digital. I think nearly all automobile gauges are run off of the bus so they are digital, as is the speedometer even if it has a needle. Just about everything digital on the A model Apache really wasn’t, it was analog “stuff” connected to a DLTU, a device that converted analog to digital. So why we thought we had accuracy to the .1 because the gauge displayed that we really didn’t. D model was pure digital, there was no B or C model fielded. My personal experience is unless your fuel quantity indication system is capacitive don’t trust it, spend your money on a good fuel burn measuring system preferably one you set the quantity and it decrements from there or do as I do and keep a list and subtract fuel burned from the tank each time you switch tanks, that will have you switching tanks a lot less often. Due I think to the thickness or lack thereof of aircraft fuel tanks you will never reach to accuracy if an automobile without capacitive probes, I don’t think. By that I mean full to empty is 6 inches or so? Having said that my little C-140 with its direct reading magnetic gauge stuck in the wing root like some Mooney’s have in the wings is dead nuts accurate, but gen it’s only a 1k gl tank and as it’s a simple mechanical gauge there isn’t much that can break. I have bladders so no magnetic wing gauges but I’d like to have them.

If I understand correctly then you should be able to ohm out either sender and determine if there is a short? Then disconnect one and that should tell you where the short is? My Right seems to work, but my left indicates full regardless of level, so I likely have a short in the left? How often do senders short? I would think an open would be far more likely? So reading full is zero or 60 Ohms? I have bladders but assume the senders are located in the same place

Closest to “real” Korean food I have found in the US was at I believe West Point Ga, place where the HUGE Kia plant is, there are many Korean Admin types there and a couple of Korean places to eat so they can go out and eat like they do at home. At Camp Humphries Korea I very often ate at the KSB, or Katusa snack bar, Katusa was Korean Augmentation to the United States Army. All Koreans have to serve and the ROK Army is tough so the wealthier types pulled strings and their Sons were Katusa’s, they served as our Clerks etc and of course the interface if yiu will between us and the Civilians, compared to the ROK they lived large. I liked what we called hot spiced pork, I have no idea of it’s real name, but it was seasoned with Gochugaru, we called it Gochi and they knew what we were talking about, red hot peppers, turned the meal red. Anyway you would lay a piece of seaweed on it and with chop sticks sort of push it down making a roll and eat it, I liked it. Traditional Korean formal meals were ten or twelve courses each brought out as you finished the last. I only did that once when the wife visited but didn’t like it, just couldn’t bring myself to eat bait.

Pretty sure Titan did the IO-540, neighbor has one in his Experimental helicopter they were bought by Continental and they pulled the plug, makes me wonder why because Continental doesn’t seem to mind building Lycoming cylinders? Oh and you don’t need a License if you have PMA you can build anyone’s parts and they can’t stop you, exception I think is if the part has an AD on it. Traditionally manufacturers shied away from building each others parts but I guess at least with Continental that has changed? On edit it seems they still build the four cylinder Lycomings, stroked Exp ones anyway, the 540 was also Exp https://continental.aero/titan-experimental-engines/

Yes and no. Best power is of course just that, one exact number, any other number will be less power, but on the rich side there is very little reduction in power until way past best power. I think at 150 I was rich of it but speed didn’t suffer and oddly I had zero plug fouling issues too. At lower altitudes I ran it at 25 squared. From memory it would turn 2850 RPM which made 300 HP out of a 520, 285 continuous but it had a 5 min time limit at 300 so I would roll it back to 2700 after wheels up climb at 2700, cruise at 2500, never touching the throttle until I got to where I was going. I rarely made short flights in it. Really easy airplane to manage

If you want to lean do so at well less than 75% power and go way lean. I don’t have a monitor either and run LOP pretty much exclusively, but then I stay at low power too and run real lean. I peak usually at 800 C and run it at least -25C lean, but often -50 C lean

For what’s it’s worth I normally cruise 23 squared down low and leaned to 8 GPH, that is well lean of best BSFC but it gives me 135 kts true. Oddly for reasons that I don’t understand higher altitudes require more fuel flow even at the same MP that gives me 16.7 NMPG down low. If I want to go slow I run I think it was 21 squared and 6 GPH that gives me 120 kts true that gives me 20 NMPG, Carson’s speed is I think slower but 120 is obnoxious it just feels like her Butt is dragging. ‘Running squared is just from being lazy, but 21 squared LOP has to be done it hot weather or cyl head temps drop out of the green, and I won’t run out of the green, not saying it would hurt if you , but I figure it has a bottom to it for a reason/ For a comparison a Legend Cub cruises I think about 85 MPH at 5 GPH, convert to kts it’s 74 and at 74 kts it’s getting 14.7 NMPG. ‘I know they say they are faster but my C-140 cruises at 100 MPH and it runs away from them. I’m pretty sure though that the 0-200 burns more than 5 GPH too, just used that number because my C-85 burns that, but an O-200 is 15 more HP so I’m sure it burns more. A C-140 is about the most efficient of the little old airplanes, but it still only gets 17 NMPG, it’s interesting that a four seat Mooney traveling 65 kts faster can get pretty much the same milage as the 140 and better than the Cub

If you saved a large amount of weight in the nose with a lightweight engine it’s likely you will need ballast to compensate. Maybe on a long body putting the batteries in the nose and removing the charlie weights would do it? If so then you save even more weight than the engine alone, win, win. Mid bodies maybe not? The Thrush for example was a Piston airplane converted to turbine, it ended up with two batteries when it only needed one and about 200 lbs of #9 bird shot in ballast tanks to get the CG back within safe limits. We ballasted each aircraft individually to the absolute max allowable aft CG. I extended the engine mount 11 inches on the H-80 and lost the 200 lbs of lead and the extra battery, but it’s very easy to get into trouble aerodynamically just by extending the nose, I got away with it by making the nose perfectly round and as small as possible “needle nose”. Just extending the nose very often will require a bigger tail, that adds weight and your back to ballasting the nose and could end up gaining weight. On the Thrush and I assume a Mooney would be similar 1 lb on the tail due to the arm required 3 lbs of nose ballast to offset it.

Torque is hugely misunderstood, it’s nothing more than the twisting force applied to a crankshaft in this case, but an applied force does no work because there is no movement, that’s where RPM comes in. Power is pretty much Torque x RPM, so therefore very often pretty much always max power isn’t max torque, if in fact the torque peak is 2450, I have no idea but a dyno chart, does anyone have one? A quick google didn’t come up with one and I’d suspect they are common? Problem is in theory max torque may be close to efficiency peak combustion wise, but it doesn’t take into account friction losses or prop efficiency, or airframe drag for that matter, drag is friction of course and reducing friction in all its forms if you have to extend range due to crossing water and running into unforcasted winds for example or just because your a CB and not in a hurry is how to increase range for a piston engine. 2450 may or may not be the engine efficiency peak, but there are other factors in play that overwhelm it. Long story short years ago I tried reducing prop RPM etc on both turbines and piston engine aircraft adding or reducing throttle to keep airspeed identical and it honestly was in the weeds pretty much no difference in fuel burn, It’s easy go try it yourself, just remember you have to keep airspeed identical for a reasonable comparison. On paper you can easily prove it, but in the airplane it just didn’t make much difference, even LOP didn’t make a big difference, not if I kept the airspeed the same, problem was I flew between 9,000 and 11,000 ft wide open throttle as the airplane was fastest there, in my piston at the RPM that was in the middle of the green band, so yes LOP did save quite a bit of fuel, but it slowed me down quite a bit, if I slowed down to the identical airspeed 50 ROP it worked out to about .2 GPH on my IO-540, now it usually wouldn’t go LOP more than -15 degrees or so so maybe that was part of it, another part is Lycomings recommended 50 ROP isn’t real rich either. That IO-540 for some reason just didn’t like LOP, but my IO-360 seems to thrive on it. The IO-520 in my C-210 liked LOP, but it too slowed down quite a lot too, as I usually wasn’t buying the fuel I ran it full throttle and about 100-150 ROP as it seemed fastest there, I have no idea where it’s best power is

That engine from the article is essentially the same as the early models of T63’s that I worked on, I suspect the emphasis is on cost, but it’s going to have a high fuel burn. If you could get a turbine cheap enough then they would make sense for GA aircraft. They work for Ag aircraft because for instance with the Thrush H-80 its empty weight was just under 5,000 lbs, but its Certified gross weight is 10,500 lbs. It would be real tough to build a recip that could come close, the 600 HP R-1340 Thrush on a very similar airframe was a 6,000 lb gross weight airplane for instance, so on paper that extra turbine $$$ buys you 4,500 lbs more useful load, actually closer to 4,000 because there is a lot more structure in an H-80, but still two more tons of chemical can spray a lot more acreage. Then add in the turbine is at least 40 MPH faster.

Small turbines often don’t work well the bigger they get the more efficient they become. An exception is a helicopter where weight is vitally important, turbines made helicopters much more useful, you can sacrifice fuel burn for the extra useful load you can get with a helicopter. The OH-58 that I worked on 40 years ago came in two flavors. One had the Allison T63-A700 at 317 SHP the other the Allison T63-A720 at 420 SHP, both carried 71.5 gls of fuel which was good usually for 2.5 hours of normal flying, hovering of course used it faster. So 30 GPH or so? Where turbines shine is high altitude because their compressor can be thought of as a very powerful multi stage turbo, and they are often derated, for example the Compressor is ultimately what determines the max power that can be made because it supplies the cooling air, of course the gearbox has to be able to handle the power too. So we take the engine in the TBM’s, it essentially has the same or similar compressor as the 1700 SHP -67F, but it’s derated to I guess most common is 800 ish SHP? being derated they can save weight by putting a gearbox in it that can only handle 800 ish SHP but with that big compressor it can carry seal level power quite high, how high I have no idea. I am pretty sure the same compressor is used in the PC-12 motor but with a 1200 SHP gearbox. At high altitudes the 800, 1200 and 1700 engine will make similar power The other thing that turbines come into their own is very high HP, you just can’t build a recip that could power a Commercial airliner for instance. At very high altitudes they can be fuel efficient because they can get so high that airframe drag is very low and the aircraft can be very fast, very much like a turbo recip but on steroids. Helicopters it’s all about weight, we can live with high fuel burn for an engine that makes twice the power for half the weight or more. For instance the T-800 designed for the Army made over 1500 SHP and weighed a little over 300 lbs, that’s roughly what our IO-360’s weigh, and it supposedly had a lot more power to come in development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHTEC_T800. Very fuel efficient too, but God did it cost $$$. But really what usually kills single engine turbine GA airplanes is the $$$, I don’t know what they cost but I bet the TBM’s cost a pretty penny, and the operating cost you could likely operate a fleet of J models.

Limit is structure, I believe it carry’s more fuel than a recip and of course fuel is weight so it comes off of the top. In all honestly for what most consider the most important the 540 Maule outperformed it, shorter takeoff due to weight, shorter landing for the same reason and higher useful load, the turbine outclimbed you of course due to more HP. My M-6/235 at gross weight had a 150-200 ft takeoff roll depending on source but if real light it was honestly closer to 50’. https://planephd.com/wizard/details/432/MAULE-M-6-specifications-performance-operating-cost-valuation?annual_hrs=100&selected_yearmfr=1981 I have no idea how big the numbers are on a runway, but if light I could get off prior to the end of the numbers and could stop before coming off of them usually. And at 9,000 to 11,000 ft with the flaps reflexed it would cruise at 2200 RPM full throttle 50 ROP at 130-135 true, which ain’t bad. as it was only 235 HP it’s max RPM was only 2400, that was how Lycoming turned the power down, the 260 HP 540 was the same motor with higher RPM limits There was even a Turbo Maule that at altitude woukd haul A** for a STOL airplane and performed very close to the 540 at sea level, it was an unusual engine https://planephd.com/wizard/details/581/MAULE-M-5-210TC-specifications-performance-operating-cost-valuation

By optimum and optimized you mean what exactly?

Now on Conti’s and or Lycomings other than the IO-360 you may need an engine monitor, I had everything on my IO-540W1A5D, Gami injectors, tight Gami spread etc and the darn thing just wouldn’t run smooth LOP, while my blueprinted but otherwise stock IO-360 will continue to be smooth so deep LOP that it’s lost too much power, way too deep LOP for efficiency. Very few engines do LOP as well as our IO-360’s. So we have the poster child for LOP engine, in a very efficient airframe, that’s why I think we can get such good fuel milage if we slow down On edit The IO-520 in my C-210 did very well LOP, and that airplane could get very efficient if you slowed down, but it too had a Laminar flow wing, maybe that was part of it On edit, I won’t run best power at higher power, ever, if I’m high power I will be well rich of best power, very little power is lost by going rich, you just waste fuel, that why we takeoff so Rich. Not much power lost but a lot of engine cooling is gained by throwing fuel away. Only time I would run best power is at high altitude maybe trying to climb in standing wave turbulence or something, but I don’t see myself ever doing that kind of flying again

Many things discussed here. First that WOT is most efficient, the reason is pumping losses, it takes energy to create a vacuum that you have at reduced throttle, that energy is wasted, but how much energy is it? WOT is one reason Diesels are more efficient they are always WOT even are at idle, in fact there is no throttle. They are Kings of LOP. It exists, it’s real, but I have tried to measure it with a well instrumented airplane and the difference wasn’t measurable. It’s there but almost certainly the increased fuel mileage from slowing down greatly overwhelms it. Second that you need an engine monitor or at least four cyl head temps and four egt temps to run LOP. You don’t if you’re after fuel efficiency, Lycoming says power settings below 75% you can’t hurt the engine at ANY mixture. Personally to be extra safe I use 65%. But here is the thing try getting above 65% above 7500 or so while near peak and reduced RPM as in 2300 for me as my engine runs smooth there, no other reason for me to pick it other than she is smooth and quiet, others may be higher or lower. I say if your after fuel efficiency because the biggest difference is power reduction, that saves more fuel than anything else and your not after fuel milage if your high power, yes I understand the theory of as fast as I can be and burning the least amount of fuel. What I am saying is if you value low fuel burn over speed, if you do then you will never cruise above 65% power, unless of course you need the speed, fuel burn be damned. But to add to that Lycoming has stated in several pubs that for max engine life to cruise at 65% power or lower. I don’t want to buy an overhaul so 65% power or less cruise sounds good to me. Now there is nothing wrong with the idea of “I bought a Mooney to go fast not to save fuel” Nothing at all. But at least the J model can easily fly on less fuel per distance travel than even a Piper Cub, a J and I’m sure others, just I don’t have experience with others can be an extremely fuel frugal aircraft probably as good or better than even a lot of LSA’s. I don’t have any LSA experience either somI can’t give you a list. Three, lower RPM is more efficient, it is for at least three reasons, the prop is more efficient, there is less frictional loss in the engine, but mostly from reduced engine power, roll back the RPM power drops with it. Again I tried to measure it and really couldn’t but not because it wasn’t there but because unlike a turbine we have no torque meter and without a way of knowing torque output you can’t be certain of power output, you have to go by charts and they aren’t accurate enough to split hairs, and we are splitting hairs here. The Toyota Prius is or was the King of striving for efficiency, it did several things to eke out tiny increases in efficiency because they all add up. One thing it did was as it had a nearly infinitely variable transmission it strove to operate at full throttle and would pull the RPM down until power made was the power requested by the driver, the Prius spends quite a lot of time at WOT at higher speeds, that gave it both an increase of near zero vacuum in the intake and of course decreased friction from the slower turning engine. So those things are real, but if yiu were Hyper milking a Prius the by a large margin the single biggest effect you could have was to slow down. I can get 20 NMPG at 120 kts, but I can’t stand to fly that slow, but I can tolerate 135 pretty well, that gives me 8 GPH and that gives me 16.9 NMPG. Many couldn’t stand 135 kts I’m sure. This is down low because the majority of my flights are short, if I went high then I could do better, but you have to calculate the fuel burned in the climb, and the increased wear at climb power (good luck trying to figure out what that is )

Tesla has pushed for a long time panels to charge your car, but does not support nor do I ever expect them to support powering anything significant from the car. Reason is battery degradation, they only have just so many cycles in them and I suspect they would be a very expensive source of power. All but one model of Tesla use Li-ion batteries, LifePo4 would be a much better choice for an off grid application as they have a significantly longer cycle life, but are less dense than Li-ion which is important for a car but not so much for a house, I have no idea what Tesla Powerwalls use battery wise now. I know they were Li-ion but suspect they may have changed to LifePo4 for a couple of reasons. My “off grid” experience comes from cruising a sailboat for four years, I added up the cost one time of everything required to completely power everything on the the boat, amortized it out as to expected life expectancy and it came out to be if memory serves about ten times the cost of grid power and that was no labor because i installed it all, maybe I guess if you had a decent velocity stream for a water powered generator you could maybe break even or maybe come out ahead as it could make power 24/7. I had two generators, a little Honda EU 2000 that I used 95% of the time I used a generator and a 3500W Diesel. I had a 660 AH bank and 1 KW of Solar as tgat was all that would fit. Anyway I used just under 3,000 KWH last month in my house, but my monthly average is 2,048 KWH. That’s about 80 KWH per day to make that kind of power on decent days depending on location you would need I think at least 25 KW of panels and probably about 80 KWH of batteries much more if you need to get yourself through rainy days etc. Depending on location and time of year you only get about 6 hours of good power output per day on average and about 3 or 4 peak hours, you never make rated power of course. You could probably get away with 80 KWH of batteries because during those 6 good hours of Solar they aren’t being used, they are being charged. But remember to get a good long life from batteries you don’t charge them to over 80% nor do you discharge them to less than 20%, if you do that it will add many years of cycle life over cycling them heavy, but you only get 60% of usable battery capacity too, so to get 60 KWH usable, you need 100 KWH bank. I’ve tried to make Solar work $$$ wise, the best is of course just grid tie, no batteries and even then I can’t make it make $$$ sense. I could though by building a rather large array if I did all of the install and bought panels etc by the pallet, and those you don’t put on any roof of course and you have to have the land already paid for. There is of course Economy of scale as in most things. I didn’t figure tax breaks because being Retired I pay very little tax as I have already paid tax on my assets, most of my tax liability comes from my Retired pay which isn’t much. Without incentives I just don’t think you can make it work, and of course this stuff doesn’t last forever and if it’s on the roof I assume it’s going to cost a pretty penny to have it removed and reinstalled come re-roof time. I have read but do not know that in California at least it’s paid for by essentially putting a second mortgage on the house and it’s not uncommon to end upside down on your house loan like many did in 2008. I don’t know if that’s true or not. Oh and check with your insurance before you install panels on your roof, I know one neighbor’s insurance cancelled them and I’ve heard other say theirs went up significantly when they did, but maybe that’s because we are in Fl and get hurricanes. I know panels can handle extreme wind I think maybe the issue is the mounts maybe?

It’s been three days now on the generator. I’m burning under 10 gls a day of gasoline that was 2.77 a gl so figure $ 25 a day for a 7K 13 HP generator. I don’t run it all day, probably only 8 to 10 hours. My use is unusual, when everyone else turns theirs off and goes to bed, mine has to run all night because of our CPAP’s. I was worried it wouldn’t make it through the night as I think it’s only a 6 gl fuel tank, but if I fill it completely full at 8 PM it takes 4.5 gls to fill it back up at 8 AM, but that’s just running the fridges and CPAPs, and an Engel 45 qt cooler and the well may cycle once I guess. At the EAA meeting the neighbors running the Generac’s on Propane were between 65 and 100 gls in three days, I believe some were more. Propane cost around here is $4.73 Until this I was considering a whole house Generac propane, but I hadn’t realized tge running costs were so high.

I would assume it would or could be ferried

I lived in S Korea for a year, I watched that video and have absolutely no idea idea what he was saying or what it was about. How did you find this? Do you watch this kind of thing?