cujet

The RV8 is a fairly comfortable fit for a normal sized pilot and in my opinion, far too tight for normal sized men as passengers, as the passengers feet fit in a little area on either side of the pilots seat. Once you are in, there is not much room to move around, stretch your knees and no possibility to reposition the seat. As mentioned above, they are configured before flight for the pilots size. They fly very well, can be quite economical to operate and the performance is excellent, even on lower HP engines. In some ways, I like the side by side RV’s better, as there is more wiggle room. I get to fly and fly in all manner of interesting aircraft. One that stands out was this modified RV6 (side by side seating) with a 6 cylinder IO540, it’s called a “Super 6”. The plane had, I believe, thicker wing skins and a shorter wing. It was very light, with plenty of power and went fast enough about 250mph, at low altitudes to be deafeningly loud, even with the best headsets. I also got to fly my friends F1 Rocket, (tandem seating) which is a similar type RV based 6 cylinder plane (Based on an RV4, but upgraded in some ways to be wider inside like an RV8) I liked the Rocket too. I like the 6 cylinder variants, but for most people, they just are not necessary. The 4 cylinder versions can be made to perform exceedingly well, and have considerably more range. The Super 6 I flew: The RV based F1 Rocket I flew:

I picked up my Norwegian Elkhound at 8 weeks old, in Ohio. She's been flying with me ever since. As a young pup, she needed to be in a crate. As she aged, she calmed down and can be free in the plane. She knows to look for the runway, once we are in the pattern, and gets excited when she sees it. That's kind of cool. However, it's good to know that some dogs can't handle the same high altitudes that people do. I've been flying with dogs for many years and none of my dogs have ever been alert over about 10,000 feet. Even my super fit and healthy Siberian Husky was out like a light at 10K.

I'll take the Pilatus, it's actually designed for such operation. We operate a PC-12 NG, it's an amazing plane.

Our flight department operates a 1998 Extra 300L aerobatic plane with just over 200 hours on it. At the 20 year mark, one of the condensers finally failed and the magneto produced unsteady performance. It took 20 years before any problems cropped up, and even then, it was a simple fix.

I'm a big fan of properly accomplished field overhauls. Using the existing crankshaft without prop strike history... Owners can source engine parts themselves and then hire a capable A+P or local engine shop to do the work. Years ago, I was able to get a 10% discount for a bulk order of engine parts. Worked out really well and they even honored one bad connecting rod bolt that refused to stretch. Here is my IO360 while I was performing the field overhaul. Also, I wanted to give a "thumbs up" to Barrett Precision Engines in Tulsa. I had them build an engine for me and I visited their shop during the build. They really did take the time to install properly flowed and matched set of cylinders, Alan showed me just how poorly balanced the crank was, and balanced the crankshaft properly right in front of me! YIKES!!! Today, I finished the annual inspection on the Extra 300L with that engine. It's a fire breathing monster that is amazingly smooth and an absolute pleasure to fly. In fact, that BPE engine in the red Extra was so much better than the original Lyc in our yellow Extra 300L, that we ended up selling the yellow plane.

In the past, I've laid out the many positive reasons for ownership. Many of which are touched on above. But, it boils down to the fact that shared expenses only work with extremely like minded individuals. Otherwise, MX expenses skyrocket, as none of the multiple owners will do any preventive work, or even employ any cost saving measures. There is incentive to find "the best/fastest nearby shop" (read, most expensive) . For shared ownership (club, partnership or shares) to be financially viable, everyone involved in owning and operating the plane must make a profit. Individual ownership has no such requirements.

Walter Extra's EA-300 electric stunt plane set a world speed record of 210 MPH. We operate a "conventional" Extra 300L, with a BPE engine and an experimental 4 bladed MT prop (wider cord 3 blade blades on a 4 blade hub). It's top speed at sea level is an indicated 182Kts. Or 209.3 MPH. I'm impressed that the electric version of the plane can actually match our speeds. Of course, the electric plane can do it for 5 minutes and we can do it for 2 hours.

As you probably know, there are already a few local agencies with Tesla patrol cars. They are really good for that application as there is enough range to complete a shift. Initial cost is a factor as police cars are often competitively priced. The savings on fuel and maintenance costs do add up over time. Time will tell whether it actually evens out. Some of these areas don't have cheap electricity. One "internet" famous car chase had to be terminated because the battery died... but they failed to charge it before the patrol. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/299166-cops-abandon-high-speed-chase-when-their-tesla-battery-runs-down Kind of similar to starting patrol on an empty tank. As always, the difficulty is that a quick "fill up" is not possible. In my childhood hometown of Westport, CT the cops have a Model 3 that they love. They found that the real world 240 mile range dropped to 170 in the winter. https://www.indystar.com/story/news/crime/2020/01/03/bargersville-chief-turns-heads-in-indianas-first-tesla-police-car/2606866001/ The Florida Highway patrol miles vary considerably. Some go 300 miles in a 10 hour shift and some do 40 miles. Much of it depends on where the patrol is and how far it is from the station. None of the Tesla cars can do 300 highway miles. The 400 mile range Model S and upcoming 400 Mile range Model 3 are predicted to be capable of 200 miles in "Highway Patrol" configuration (running the AC all day) .

No, not my world. I work for an exceedingly wealthy individual as Director of Maintenance in his corporate flight department.

One thing NASA has noticed with certain designs using electric drive is the ability to eliminate the variable pitch prop. Instead, designing for low RPM on takeoff and climbout and high RPM in cruise flight. The benefit is low noise at the airport and fewer moving parts.

1) Is not as true as many of us had hoped. Tesla is packing more and more cells into ever larger battery packs, giving the illusion of improvement. The 150WH per KG reality remains pretty steady in real world applications. Example: The upcoming 100KWH battery for the Model 3 is going to provide 400 miles of "non highway" range. Nobody mentions that it's twice as heavy as the Base Model 3's 50KWH battery. In fact, the 100KWH battery is so heavy, the Model 3 is going to be modified to carry the weight. 2) Correct, moving power requires substantial cable runs. In the electric Extra 300, the Siemans 348HP electric motor runs on 580V and can provide 5 minutes of full power. Battery packs are now designed to provide 350V to 800V, depending on design. Obviously, the higher the voltage, the lighter the conductors are (for a given power) 3) Tesla cars do have active liquid battery cooling. However, few people drive Tesla cars at 150HP continuous output, those that do (Autobahn) get "throttled" by software as the battery heats up. So the cooling requirements are comparatively modest. Note: my comment "We can only move so many ions, as there are only so many ions to move" is in reference to battery technology.

The issue remains difficult, as 30 minutes of real world battery power in a Mooney really means at least 150HP is required, which sadly equals 75KWH of battery capacity (150KWH/2). Note: A post above is using 746 watts per HP, and is assuming a non possible 100% efficiency. A satisfactory rule of thumb is 1KWH battery power = 1 real world HP hour from the motor. Not only is my example of a 75KWH battery using a righteous discharge rate (2C) (twice the battery AH rating) but it seems that all energy dense battery packs need liquid cooling to tolerate such use. According to some sources, the Model 3's 75KWH battery is 1060 pounds. Are batteries 3x as light on the horizon? As that seems to be what it will take to get the 30 minutes. In reference to batteries: We can only move so many ions, as there are only so many ions to move.

Sure sounds like classic Lycoming valve sticking. My IO360 #2 exhaust valve stuck briefly at altitude, on initial descent. I have a old EM engine monitor so it's difficult to really see data. But the EGT did drop much like yours did. A single bad plug will cause EGT to rise. I flew it home and had no further in flight issues. Was very easy to check, the next day I pulled the valve cover and observed the valve hanging up as it closed.

$4.75 at F45. Roughly the same as it's been the last few years. That price was not locally horrible 2 years ago, but now nearby airports are $2.58

BMEP related stresses on the lower end (rods/bearings/crank) would be managed mostly by piston size reduction. The TSIO 520 may have a MEP of near 200psi at peak torque. The higher BMEP of turbodiesel engines necessitates a reduction in piston area to keep stress levels the same, hence my guess that going from the TSIO's 5.25 inch piston to diesel conversion's 4 inch piston (about a 58% reduction in surface area, or about 300 cubic inches) means that operation at up to 345psi BMEP is within reason without adding stress. Numbers close enough to start exploring. We can also limit stresses by limiting torque at any given RPM, or by simply operating the engine at just one RPM, say 2500. The conversion of a six cylinder engine helps reduce the harmonics the prop and crank flange are subject to. The 4 cylinder SMA engine really needs a wood or composite prop for this reason. Remember, aero diesels are not asked to generate huge torque numbers at RPM's just above idle, like transport or industrial engines are. So there may be no need to explore the stress generating 450psi BMEP range that we see in modern diesels. 50 cubic inch diesel cylinders are large enough to be inherently efficient, and BSFC numbers would likey be at or above 3.3 pounds of fuel per HP per hour (no pie in the sky guesses here) (good but not great numbers, at about 14% more efficient than an angle valve IO360 w/elec ign) . Anyway, it's just a thought experiment and it seems that 250HP is possible, without excess stress, it does illuminate some of the shortcomings noted above, namely a less than ideal power to weight and power to size ratio.

Just a thought experiment, but why not take an existing, conventional aircraft engine design and alter it for diesel operation. A Conti 520, with smaller pistons, say 4 inches, 4 valve mono-block 3 cylinder + head assemblies (possible as a single casting on a diesel due to the flat combustion chamber head surface) , liquid cooling and dual turbochargers that mount directly on the head, on a integral log exhaust manifold. Limit it to 225-250HP and 2500RPM. There would be some difficulty in avoiding connecting rod interference, but it may be possible. Drive an injection pump from each of the magneto pads. Use 2 injectors per cylinder for redundancy. This would keep crank, case and rod stresses within limits, allow the use of standard engine mounts, prop governors, and props, etc, and keep development costs down to "top end" related components.

The Jumo 205 had a BSFC of 0.38 pounds of fuel per hour per HP produced, which is exactly the same as an angle valve IO360 Lycoming running lean of peak, with electronic ignition. Remember, we fly by weight, not gallons... Furthermore, like other aero diesels, it did have some operational quirks and was not an ideal powerplant. The thought that we can do better today should be tempered with the fact that aircraft engine engineers really did know what they were doing. It's no surprise we still use technology pioneered in the 1930's. It was designed to accomplish a particular task. That being light weight, reliable and efficient power. Ever wonder why our cylinder heads are screwed on to the barrels? In the '30's it was far more reliable than head gaskets and head bolts, it was light and allowed efficient heat transfer.

One small point about Jet-A that is known by most pilots, but often forgotten: Jet-A is heavier than 100LL. Aircraft operate by weight, and not by gallons. Gallons is simply a purchasing arrangement. That extra 80 pounds of fuel will make a difference, especially when added to the extra weight of a diesel engine. Another issue that crops up with aero diesel engines is the propensity to flame out (and not re-start) on descent. This is mitigated by digital engine controls programmed not to allow idle power under some conditions. Of course, this also depends on engine design and compression ratio. Cessna really struggled with this in the SMA diesel 182. A few insiders claim they were unable to overcome the issues. Thielert/Austro seem to have addressed the issue well enough. Then there is the additional cooling drag of a liquid cooled engine. Short of some remarkable engineering, aircraft operating at modest speeds will need additional airflow through a "radiator" vs an air cooled engine's "fins". This is due to the lack of significant temperature differential of the liquid cooled engine's radiator and the ambient air. The same number of BTU's must be transferred. The FAA will require adequate cooling on a stupidly hot day. When a radiator is 200F and ambient air is 105.... Lots of airflow will be required under full power. With all that in mind, I truly believe a successful aero diesel will have to be a direct drive, opposed, 6 cylinder, turbocharged 4 stroke and very carefully designed to be as simple and light as possible. Yes, we can make a stupidly complex engine perform well. I promise there is no way to do it cheaply. I'll bet the $ savings in fuel will be the most expensive ever. Those mega complex 300HP+ diesels listed above look to me like they would be exactly $500,000 in today's certified engine market. The FADEC controls, another $100K++. EDIT: I wanted to add that both 100LL and Jet-A have essentially the same energy content by weight. Talking about GPH needs to be changed to PPH, for a real world comparison. A diesel may get better MPG, but the advantage starts to dissipate when we talk about pounds of fuel consumed (we fly by weight) . Remember, engine efficiency is measured in Pounds fuel per HP per hour or Grams fuel per KWH.

Yes, one crewmember is on 100% O2 at FL410 and above. Many years ago, on the GIII, the outflow valve would motor open all by itself. Took many seconds. The pressure loss was not instant and for the most part we could catch it quickly enough and use manual mode to start the valve closing , but it was wildly uncomfortable. When it happens, you cant hear anything, don't see the warning lights, even at night. The DOM refused to change the part and we the crew had to deal with it. I got good at donning the mask, and yes, it's easy if you are fast (today, my reaction time is slow and I'd probably pass out before I got it on) The crew made many mistakes due to hypoxia. One pilot was still dopey when it was time to land and had lined up at the wrong airport. He made a slew of mistakes. Even though the pressure loss was temporary, we had one older pilot who was simply "gone" instantly. I guess because I was young at the time, and very fit, I had enough time to get the mask on and close the valve.

FL510 in G650ER S/N 6205 over Florida on it's "cold soak" flight. Interesting thread, as it addresses rapid cabin pressure loss also. I'm one of the very lucky people who has experienced multiple in flight outflow valve failures in a G-III at altitudes from FL410-450. Not good.

As a general rule in Lycoming angle valve engines, increased displacement is directly proportional to increased output. This is because the angle valve engine has a tuned intake, improved port and valve flow and a well optimized intake flow path. Expect 8% more HP from an IO390. In real world terms, the IO360 angle valve is a 195HP engine. During certification years ago, such a discrepancy was previously allowable. Today, it's not. Hence the 210HP rating (210HP is 8% more than 195HP)

If nothing else, this thread reflects the fact that many aircraft owners are rather realistic about the viability and desirability of light GA aircraft. Discussions about spouse reluctance, turbulence, time savings, uncomfortable conditions, weather, icing, safety, parachutes, and cost are among the subjects discussed here. I'll agree with all of it, because it's all true. Half a century ago, we thought good things were on the horizon, new and ever more capable models were coming out on a regular basis. What actually happened is that we've been stuck with the same old thing for so long, there is no excitement anymore and the limitations are self evident. It's time that GA gets an injection of something so new, different and capable, it becomes the "must have" product of the next generation. Sadly, I don't see it happening. Nor do I see electric drive as being useful in any way. In the end, unless you are flying a toy plane such as a Cub for fun, or training for an airline job, a large aspect of aviation is about speed and getting there fast. To that end, the faster Mooney aircraft are among the most useful in the entire fleet of singles.

Professional pilots are trained every 6 months to handle equipment failures. It's a sad situation all around that these pilots could not handle this particular failure. As with any failure, knowing how to deal with it is extremely important. Grabbing the trim wheel when you have a runaway trim is a great example.

Flitz metal polish used with a 1300 RPM buffer is also a very good way to restore paint. It's aggressive as hell at first, then as you continue the abrasives break down to smaller and smaller bits, leaving a very smooth finish. While at the Gulfstream Savannah service center, I watched the paint pro's do miracles with Flitz. So I tried it and had equally good success.

It really does not make less power. In fact, the simple change from 8.7 to 10:1 pistons in a typical angle valve IO360 brings real world 2700 RPM output from 195 real world HP to 210HP.