Would anyone be interested?

[gsxrpilot]

I'm always up for a get together to talk about Mooney's or any airplanes for that matter. But the FAA, industry, etc, etc, has provided for this... it's the experimental market. You can put any engine you like in an airplane you build.  You can try out all kinds of innovation in design, avionics, engines, anything.

OR... you can choose to fly an airplane that is very strictly regulated and very conservative with regards to innovation. You get what works and slowly new things only after they've been well tested.

I don't know how thats not already the best of both worlds. 

[L. Trotter]

5 hours ago, jetdriven said:

A Lycoming IO360 and a Continental IO550 can deliver a .38 or a .39 BSFC. Is there anything else more efficient?

Yes there is.

I am aware of a cutting edge alloy (a derivative of BAM-Boron, aluminum, magnesium) technology that is being tested for the military. The alloy is laser deposited to the rings and cylinder lining to create an extremely wear resistant coating that runs 20% cooler, is 4% more efficient on fuel and power out put is about 20% more (yes 20% more power on 4% less fuel). The alloy is molecularly fused to the metallic cylinder liner. I have tried to talk with the Continental folks, but they don't seem to be interested. The majority of testing will be covered by DoD funding (they want their tanks and heavy equipment engines to last longer in the middle east deserts-very harsh conditions). No one has considered using this same technology for aircraft engines. This would be a game changer for our engines. TBO, no problem ( top ends would essentially be eliminated). More power with no overheating issues. Less fuel use a guarantee. The alloy has been in use the past year as a coating on oil rig plungers.The problem.......the plungers didn't wear out and the sales of replacement parts plummeted. Parts distributors are now requesting a "lesser" product.

The cost of lining the cylinders of an engine would be recaptured in the first 75-80 hrs of flying-in just fuel alone.

If anyone is knowledgeable or interested in working on an STC for this lateral move of new technology let me know. 

 

[whiskytango]

Researchers at the University of Michigan have been working on a durable and inexpensive sprayed-on permanent ice-repellent coating.  A painted coating solution to airframe icing would be a tremendous advance in safety and utility for those of us that would like to fly year-round in colder climates and at turbo altitudes.

[jaylw314]

6 hours ago, jetdriven said:

Thats the problem since the 1930s, diesels are theoretically simpler and more efficient, but nobody has delivered one. The Theilert diesel on the DA42 was promising but had huge gearbox and TBR issues. People actually pulled the diesels off and put IO360s on them rather than buy 70k in gearboxes every 350hr. Cessna canned the TD182. We’re  just not there yet.  

I know, I keep hoping for the Deltahawk diesel for my RV-10, but even if my build takes another 20 years, the Deltahawk might not be ready by then 

[N201MKTurbo]

6 hours ago, Dream to fly said:

IT has to do with greed. 

Who is greedy? 

If you want to develop a new engine, get it certified and STCd for hundreds of different airplanes. Nobody is going to stop you. 

Or do you think someone else should do this for you so you can have your cool new engine? 

Ive been in the R&D business about as long as I've been in aviation. I can't tell you how many people have come to me with great ideas. They say that if I design it, produce it, distribute it and market it we could all get rich! I ask them what they are going to do in this enterprise and they don't think they should have to do anything, after all they had a great idea! 

[Jerry 5TJ]

A Proven Aviation Business Model:  

Tout a fabulous aviation step forward, get at least $500M VC investment, take $100,000 deposits from hundreds of entranced individuals.  Build and fly conforming production models & get FAA certification.  

Then file bankruptcy and orphan all the investment to date. 

After shedding the weight of perhaps ~$1B in OPM (other peoples money) acquire assets from court and carry on.  

[Dream to fly]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Who is greedy? 

If you want to develop a new engine, get it certified and STCd for hundreds of different airplanes. Nobody is going to stop you. 

Or do you think someone else should do this for you so you can have your cool new engine? 

Ive been in the R&D business about as long as I've been in aviation. I can't tell you how many people have come to me with great ideas. They say that if I design it, produce it, distribute it and market it we could all get rich! I ask them what they are going to do in this enterprise and they don't think they should have to do anything, after all they had a great idea! 

I never said build a new engine the engines already are developed and tested...  The components are already being used.  please stop with your short sided thinking and just for a second look at what could be if the FAA would just get out of the way.   You are obviously way smarter than me and way more astute in aviation and mechanics than me.  my apologies.  Please continue to buy your thousand dollar exhaust clamps, spalling camshafts, and over priced avionics.  The experimental market has proven that SOME designs work and after a PROVEN track record the FAA should allow it to move over to the certified world.  But GREED stops them.  Why would a company want this if they know they can double or triple the cost of a component just buy selling it to a different market because the Law says so.  Example:  you drive a car I drive a truck you get to fill at any gas station for 2.00 a gallon  I have to go to a specific gas station and pay 3.75 because I am heavier.   Same gas same equipment to pump it.  As a gas station owner I am going to like that law and laugh to the bank. 

Change-  its a bad thing. 

I have obviously lost and need to concede.  The aviation platform is awesome I was not using my special glasses.

I am happy I can leave the ground I am truly thankful... 

Nothing is wrong all is good the Kool-Aid is sweet. 

Joe  

My apologies to the board for wasting thread space on the server.  

 

[mooniac15u]

The experts in a field are the last to see disruptions coming but they will be loudest voices telling you why it can't happen.

Remember when ridesharing wasn't a viable business model because the taxi industry was too heavily regulated?

[mooniac15u]

It appears that internal combustion engines are nearing the end of their run as the dominant form of propulsion.  Electric and hybrid-electric is the future.  We are already seeing it in aviation.  Even Boeing is working on electric engine technology.

[Marcopolo]

@Dream to fly,  Joe,

 

  You've already broken the first rule in sales...Never let 'em see you sweat!  You had to know you may have entered into a room full of devil's advocates and you mentioned conceding.  

 

  I think we may come from similar backgrounds, I don't mean to assume, but I relate to much that you have written here.  When taking in the "Big Picture" I think more than just greed has kept us leashed to the technology of the 30's...it works!   I've built no less than 50 "advanced engineered" engines for several forms of transportation and I see most of what you see in our struggle to advance the "certified" aviation engine.  Greed, Liability fears, and as of yet, a solution that just overwhelms the old technology at a cost that makes sense even in aviation terms are just not able to be over come.  I see and work with some folks in the experimental world and where I do see some of the benefits to economy and longevity, I also couldn't imagine what the cost would have to be to certify these, and then the end price to us on top of that.  Now you may say that that is the "greed" you speak of, but the liability fear is created by us, the pilots and our families(for the most part). 

 

  There is a thread here on MS covering some folk's entry into the prototype Raptor airframe and engine design.  This could be the type of project that you could get behind as Peter Mueller and his team are trying to overcome many of the stigmas that you mention, albeit on the experimental side, but overcome none the less.  Even when given the opportunity to stretch the envelope and build whatever combination Airframe/Engine?avionics package they want, most (that I've seen) home-builts show up with a version of a certified engine as opposed to any of a number of other options.  This could be due to ease of integration or cost or proven reliability, whatever, but they tend to favor the known.

 

  Don't give up, keep hope alive!  Where the walls seem to be tall on the certified side of aviation, the experimental side is wide open for people like you and I to prove the "nay-sayers" wrong... or right in some cases, but proven none the less.  Go for it!

 

Ron

[MIm20c]

10 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

I'm always up for a get together to talk about Mooney's or any airplanes for that matter. But the FAA, industry, etc, etc, has provided for this... it's the experimental market. You can put any engine you like in an airplane you build.  You can try out all kinds of innovation in design, avionics, engines, anything.

OR... you can choose to fly an airplane that is very strictly regulated and very conservative with regards to innovation. You get what works and slowly new things only after they've been well tested.

I don't know how thats not already the best of both worlds. 

I agree with the above but in my case I’ll have around a thousand hours free in the next 4-5 years. I can spend the time flying or in my garage putting together a plane. 

My suggestion is allow vintage planes (80’s and older?) to permanently convert to experimental planes for those that want to tinker without employing hanger fairies. Might save older planes from becoming flower pots. 

[Dream to fly]

2 minutes ago, Marcopolo said:

@Dream to fly,  Joe,

 

  You've already broken the first rule in sales...Never let 'em see you sweat!  You had to know you may have entered into a room full of devil's advocates and you mentioned conceding.  

 

  I think we may come from similar backgrounds, I don't mean to assume, but I relate to much that you have written here.  When taking in the "Big Picture" I think more than just greed has kept us leashed to the technology of the 30's...it works!   I've built no less than 50 "advanced engineered" engines for several forms of transportation and I see most of what you see in our struggle to advance the "certified" aviation engine.  Greed, Liability fears, and as of yet, a solution that just overwhelms the old technology at a cost that makes sense even in aviation terms are just not able to be over come.  I see and work with some folks in the experimental world and where I do see some of the benefits to economy and longevity, I also couldn't imagine what the cost would have to be to certify these and then the end price to us on top of that.  Now you may say that that is the "greed" you speak of, but the liability fear is created by us, the pilots and our families(for the most part). 

 

  There is a thread here on MS covering some folks entry into the prototype Raptor airframe and engine design.  This could be the type of project that you could get behind as Peter Mueller and his team are trying to overcome many of the stigmas that you mention, albeit on the experimental side, but overcome none the less.  Even when given the opportunity to stretch the envelope and build whatever combination Airframe/Engine?avionics package they want, most (that I've seen) home-builts show up with a version of a certified engine as opposed to any of a number of other options.  This could be due to ease of integration or cost or proven reliability, whatever, but they tend to favor the known.

 

  Don't give up, keep hope alive!  Where the walls seem to be tall on the certified side of aviation, the experimental side is wide open for people like you and I to prove the "nay-sayers" wrong... or right in some cases, but proven none the less.  Go for it!

 

Ron

Ron,  I appreciate it.  I am not sweating or scared.  Just stupid tired of beating my head against the wall.  In 1986 I was driving a 1975 mustang II around in my home town in NY and the snow and the slush kept covering the tail lights.  I was afraid of getting rear ended and installed a red bulb in the back window.  According to NY state law and federal guidelines it is illegal to add rear facing lights that are not OEM.  I got a ticket for doing it....  but I never got rear ended either..  Today its legal and mandatory!  It is better to ask for forgiveness than permission.  I've been dabbling in aviation for 20 years and have finally reached a place where I own instead of rent and my mind can see problems.  Unfortunately I speak what I think and there are those that challenge it without looking beyond the today issues.  Great it makes them feel good. I am still going to do what I want.  Eventually the pessimists die off and one or two of the optimists get a word or idea in edge wise and society moves forward.    What happened in this thread is that I targeted the age old problem of certified vs experimental.  My idea was to fast track the FAA with time proven hardware that has benefits to the certified world not build a new engine.  Example:  we have camshafts that sit and rust and spall and its ok???  I work on tractors that get the piss beat out of them for two or three months a year and then sit in a saturated barn full of fertilizers and moisture for the rest of the year.  Maybe if the farmer has help it gets an oil change and it goes right back to working year after year never any cam failures.  The technology is there we chose not to use it.  There are way to many keyboard rambos and I was trying to get a meeting of the minds at a table in a happy place where ideas can be shared and hashed out.

Major business has done this several times over, the models work.  (Harley Davidson, Ford, GE, Toyota, Honda, Spectrum, Verizon, etc) I was just moving the paradigm to a non business model with people that had the same interests. 

[Marcopolo]

Again Joe,  I agree, unfortunately, all (edit; most) of the like minded folks are working at the companies you mentioned...making change, or they are building their own planes!

 

Ron

[bob865]

19 hours ago, N9405V said:

I just want to be able to use avionics that you can buy and install in experimental aircraft in my Mooney. I’d be happy with that.

For cars, after a certain age they become vintage and/or hobby classified.  With that comes lower taxes and different rules.  Why not the same in aviation?  These are 40+ year old ships at this point.  Why not hold them to the same or similar requirements as experimental?  I mean seriously, how many original parts are still available?  Most of us are piecing together parts from downed ships or hoping someone makes a replacement.  And few people make the replacements because of the cost of getting the parts PMA'd.  Keeping our old birds flying is a hobby in most regards, almost as much as building a plane from a kit is.  Why is it not classified and regulated as such?

[1964-M20E]

Dream

I believe the biggest obstacle to change is the FAA by far.  Greed I think would drive new technologies and advancements in engines avionics etc. but the FAA stands in the way.

Take the electronic fuel injection and ignition systems EFII it is available now for experimental 1 to 2 % more fuel efficient, easier starts, redundant.  Where is the problem?

Electronic ignitions that replace magnetos with built in alternator to power it if ship alternator fails.  Available now and is less cost than traditional mag and is easy to install but not on our planes why?    FAA, FAA, FAA.

3rd class medical you saw what was necessary to make a change in that an act of Congress was needed.  All the FAA need to do was change the questionnaire when going to get your 3rd class medical and change a few other requirements to make it easier.  Administrative change is all that would be needed it would be not an act of congress.
 

Just like any small aircraft 12,500lbs and less in private use 20 years old or older at owner's option should have the option to be put in the experimental class.  If you want to stay certified no problem stay there.  I would put my F in the experimental class in a heart beat if it were possible and never look back.

Really this is the change you are looking for then everything else you are talking about could and would happen.

Let's push for the Factor manufactured experimental class that has been discussed here before.  This could be for new planes as well as older certified planes.

Keep pushing ideas I'm with you. 

[wishboneash]

I think hybrid electric engines are the stop gap measure till planes get to be fully battery powered once energy densities of batteries go up even more. With an hours worth of battery run time, a rugged light bulletproof AC motor (like in EVs), an optimized engine driving a non-prop load at a fixed RPM, efficiencies and reliabilities can go up significantly. No more worries about losing an engine. The only thing to worry about would be stupid pilot tricks such as flying into bad weather/terrain, poor airmanship (probably preventable as well with electronics), mid-air collisions etc.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

17 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

Well, diesels would be in the 0.26 BSFC range, right?

Caterpillar advertises some of their big, stationary diesels at 0.34.  One that fits onto an airplane will not be that good.

[EricJ]

5 hours ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

A Proven Aviation Business Model:  

Tout a fabulous aviation step forward, get at least $500M VC investment, take $100,000 deposits from hundreds of entranced individuals.  Build and fly conforming production models & get FAA certification.  

Then file bankruptcy and orphan all the investment to date. 

After shedding the weight of perhaps ~$1B in OPM (other peoples money) acquire assets from court and carry on.  

This is pretty much the story of every industry, ever.    The US westward expansion was financed by east-coast money investing in mining operations, the vast majority of which never produced much of anything, and a good fraction of which were pretty much just blatantly fraudulent.

I used to do a lot of consulting for technical due diligence for capital investment in a particular area of high-tech research.   After looking at hundreds of companies with their hands out for money with a promise of revolutionizing life on earth, the number of scammers was alarmingly high.

There's enough stupid money in the world, and apparently always has been, that that's just the way the ecosystem works.  I wouldn't expect aviation to be any different, and it may even be more ripe for it because the expectation for failure is reasonably high.   "Hey, we lost all your money, but that's pretty normal in this industry.   Sorry.  Hey, I have another idea, though..."

 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, bob865 said:

For cars, after a certain age they become vintage and/or hobby classified.  With that comes lower taxes and different rules.  Why not the same in aviation?  These are 40+ year old ships at this point.  Why not hold them to the same or similar requirements as experimental?  I mean seriously, how many original parts are still available?  Most of us are piecing together parts from downed ships or hoping someone makes a replacement.  And few people make the replacements because of the cost of getting the parts PMA'd.  Keeping our old birds flying is a hobby in most regards, almost as much as building a plane from a kit is.  Why is it not classified and regulated as such?

This.   The likelihood that after four or five decades or more an airplane is still in the same specs as when the design was certified is not great, and the likelihood that newer, better methods/practices/technologies have come along during that time are high.   It seems counterproductive to me.

[AH-1 Cobra Pilot]

3 hours ago, mooniac15u said:

It appears that internal combustion engines are nearing the end of their run as the dominant form of propulsion.  Electric and hybrid-electric is the future.  We are already seeing it in aviation.  Even Boeing is working on electric engine technology.

Electric motors are pretty good, but batteries are the issue.  We have covered this on another thread...

When batteries have 1/5 the energy density of liquid fuel, then electric aircraft, (and automobile), propulsion will be something other than absolutely stupid.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Caterpillar advertises some of their big, stationary diesels at 0.34.  One that fits onto an airplane will not be that good.

Oh, come on, think big!   It'll just make your Mooney a little nose heavy!

[mooniac15u]

1 hour ago, Ah-1 Cobra Pilot said:

Electric motors are pretty good, but batteries are the issue.  We have covered this on another thread...

When batteries have 1/5 the energy density of liquid fuel, then electric aircraft, (and automobile), propulsion will be something other than absolutely stupid.

Energy density is an interesting factor but it's not actually relevant until it becomes a constraint.  If the batteries provide enough range/endurance and allow for enough useful load for the mission it doesn't matter whether you could have accomplished the same with less total mass of fuel.  For example, a primary trainer that carries a student and CFI and never travels more than 20 miles from the airport.  I spent many hours training in a Cessna 172 that carried around about 200 extra pounds of fuel and several hundred pounds of unused useful load that I was never going to need during training.  A battery powered electric trainer would have been fine.

For longer range applications hybrid-electric fills the gap.  Running a liquid-fueled generator to power the electric motor allows both the internal combustion engine and the electric motor to always operate at peak efficiency.  DIesel/electric locomotives have been demonstrating this principle for decades.

The problem most people have in comparing energy technologies is that they tend to dismiss alternative technologies that are not a complete 1:1 replacement for fossil fuels.  The long term solutions will vary by application.

 

[jaylw314]

6 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

Energy density is an interesting factor but it's not actually relevant until it becomes a constraint.  If the batteries provide enough range/endurance and allow for enough useful load for the mission it doesn't matter whether you could have accomplished the same with less total mass of fuel.  For example, a primary trainer that carries a student and CFI and never travels more than 20 miles from the airport.  I spent many hours training in a Cessna 172 that carried around about 200 extra pounds of fuel and several hundred pounds of unused useful load that I was never going to need during training.  A battery powered electric trainer would have been fine.

For longer range applications hybrid-electric fills the gap.  Running a liquid-fueled generator to power the electric motor allows both the internal combustion engine and the electric motor to always operate at peak efficiency.  DIesel/electric locomotives have been demonstrating this principle for decades.

The problem most people have in comparing energy technologies is that they tend to dismiss alternative technologies that are not a complete 1:1 replacement for fossil fuels.  The long term solutions will vary by application.

 

The problem with hybrid, of course, is the weight, since you need to carry around batteries, electric motor, power wiring, generator AND a fuel motor and prop.  On top of that, you are just increasing efficiency fractionally, so it's not really a game-changer...

To put it in perspective, the Honda Accord Hybrid is actually a gas-electric (like diesel electric).  Compared to other true hybrids sedans, it gets better mileage, to the tune of about 41 mpg to 35 mpg.  So better, but not dramatically so.

[mooniac15u]

5 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

The problem with hybrid, of course, is the weight, since you need to carry around batteries, electric motor, power wiring, generator AND a fuel motor and prop.  On top of that, you are just increasing efficiency fractionally, so it's not really a game-changer...

To put it in perspective, the Honda Accord Hybrid is actually a gas-electric (like diesel electric).  Compared to other true hybrids sedans, it gets better mileage, to the tune of about 41 mpg to 35 mpg.  So better, but not dramatically so.

I guess you should tell these guys that they are wasting their time:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/technology/electric-plane-siemens-airbus-rolls-royce/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aerospace-hybrid/boeing-backed-hybrid-electric-commuter-plane-to-hit-market-in-2022-idUSKBN1CA16A

 

 

[steingar]

12 minutes ago, mooniac15u said:

I guess you should tell these guys that they are wasting their time:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/11/28/technology/electric-plane-siemens-airbus-rolls-royce/index.html

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-aerospace-hybrid/boeing-backed-hybrid-electric-commuter-plane-to-hit-market-in-2022-idUSKBN1CA16A

I tried when they rolled out the A380, but no one listened.