aviatoreb Posted July 29, 2018 Report Posted July 29, 2018 5 minutes ago, bonal said: They all require water cooling which is superior but does add complications even PORSCHE had to go that way air cooling just won't allow HP needed to be competitive in today's world. And as we all know it's all about when a propeller starts losing efficiency and that speed is usually not where a modern engine makes its horsepower so a reduction system is needed adding weight and added mech requirements. Airplane engines were designed to make max power at the same RPM as our props are most efficient and as mentioned above you do that with big bore and stroke. When you think about cubic inches to HP our engines really aren't that good but they do the job better than any other design (kerosene burners) excepted. Porsche and Subaru do kind of make sense as they are both boxer design and might fit better in the normal cowling most airplanes use. I for one am a fan of both. Sitting in a new Ultra I don't think there is any lack of quality and fit compared to most autos. And for me personally I would not want an airplane that makes me think I'm in a car. I want to be sitting in something that says you sir are in an airplane. I just had a complete new interior, rich perforated leather, and new paint, and its much much cheaper than a new plane but sure "floats my boat." (or flies my airplane is more accurate). If all this is just about the "porche interior" experience, I think they hardly need to go to porche. 1 Quote
MyNameIsNobody Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, bonal said: They all require water cooling which is superior but does add complications even PORSCHE had to go that way air cooling just won't allow HP needed to be competitive in today's world. And as we all know it's all about when a propeller starts losing efficiency and that speed is usually not where a modern engine makes its horsepower so a reduction system is needed adding weight and added mech requirements. Airplane engines were designed to make max power at the same RPM as our props are most efficient and as mentioned above you do that with big bore and stroke. When you think about cubic inches to HP our engines really aren't that good but they do the job better than any other design (kerosene burners) excepted. Porsche and Subaru do kind of make sense as they are both boxer design and might fit better in the normal cowling most airplanes use. I for one am a fan of both. Sitting in a new Ultra I don't think there is any lack of quality and fit compared to most autos. And for me personally I would not want an airplane that makes me think I'm in a car. I want to be sitting in something that says you sir are in an airplane. 993 (last of air cooled) with turbo (popular in aviation) had 450HP. That would of done just fine in front of a Mooney. Audi and Porsche are both considered two of the most aesthetically pleasing and ergonomically functional in the business. Too not “get” Mooney and Porsche both wanting to have each other associated with one another is funny to me. Both are winners. Both have a legacy with continuous design improvement with heritage and “look” being evolutional with a nod to the past that is unmistakable. I love both the marks as do many for their performance and beauty. Edited July 30, 2018 by MyNameIsNobody Quote
Culver LFA Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) Porsche going to water cooling had more to do with noise and exhaust emissions than power, look at their competitive history and you will see that Porsche did not struggle to produce extreme amounts of reliable power with turbocharged air cooled engines. Just couldn’t continue to do air cooled and meet the federal noise and exhaust emissions. (993 was last of the air cooled. Not counting the 944/968, the 9x6 Boxster & 911 started the ‘modern’ production water cooled cars) Edited July 30, 2018 by Culver LFA 1 Quote
Yetti Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 It's about where an engine makes it horsepower and the max speed on the propeller. Limits on a propeller is around 2700 depending on length where the tips go supersonic. If an engine makes it horsepower around say 5000 rpm then you need a PRU Power Reduction unit. PRU have lots of problems. 1 Quote
EricJ Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 43 minutes ago, Culver LFA said: Porsche going to water cooling had more to do with noise and exhaust emissions than power, look at their competitive history and you will see that Porsche did not struggle to produce extreme amounts of reliable power with turbocharged air cooled engines. Just couldn’t continue to do air cooled and meet the federal noise and exhaust emissions. (993 was last of the air cooled. Not counting the 944/968, the 9x6 Boxster & 911 started the ‘modern’ production water cooled cars) Exactly. Tight emissions control was not practical without better thermal stability than what air cooling could provide. If/when GA airplanes get strict emissions standards, we'll probably have liquid-cooling as well. Or electric propulsion. Or fuel cells. Or something. Quote
MB65E Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 I doubt they’d ever try that again. But sign me up!! I love to have any M20 on it with Porsche’s 4.0L in it!!! Big smiles, -Matt Quote
jaylw314 Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 4 hours ago, aviatoreb said: I know, I know... it seems like it SHOUld be great. Fewer moving parts for more reliability, lighter, etc. But it just has not been made to work. Love the Subaru engines too. That too should work, but it doesn't. Oh well, we have 3 Subarus in the family and love them. An Impreza wagon, a Crosstrek (basically same thing with big wheels), and a Subaru wrx-sti (mine- 2004 had it since new). Love em and it would be fun if those smooth engines did work out for airplanes. I do like the EPS diesel 8 coming along by Burt Rutan etc. If I understand correctly (and there's a lot of controversy out there), the Eggenfellner Subaru mostly fell victim to problems and delays around their in-house engineered (or some would say non-engineered) gear reduction unit rather than the motor itself. I have run into a few RV people who did put the conversion in, and the short-term results seemed about as expected--doable but more than one person struggled with getting the cooling right, which is to be expected in a non-standard motor in a kit plane. There are also a few RV's out there with non-Eggenfellner Subaru motors that are one-offs, so the concept can clearly work, but that doesn't mean it's easy or financially viable. I toyed with the idea of the Eggenfellner Subaru for my RV-10 project early on, with the expectation of building the required fuel-return lines for the fuel injection system, but their folding up made my decision easier, which is to say I have accepted the fact I have no idea what motor I will use... 1 1 Quote
bonal Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Culver LFA said: Porsche going to water cooling had more to do with noise and exhaust emissions than power, look at their competitive history and you will see that Porsche did not struggle to produce extreme amounts of reliable power with turbocharged air cooled engines. Just couldn’t continue to do air cooled and meet the federal noise and exhaust emissions. (993 was last of the air cooled. Not counting the 944/968, the 9x6 Boxster & 911 started the ‘modern’ production water cooled cars) If I'm not mistaken many of those air cooled Porsche racers had water cooled heads. Quote
bonal Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 2 hours ago, MyNameIsNobody said: 996 (last of air cooled) with turbo (popular in aviation) had 450HP. That would of done just fine in front of a Mooney. Audi and Porsche are both considered two of the most aesthetically pleasing and ergonomically functional in the business. Too not “get” Mooney and Porsche both wanting to have each other associated with one another is funny to me. Both are winners. Both have a legacy with continuous design improvement with heritage and “look” being evolutional with a nod to the past that is unmistakable. I love both the marks as do many for their performance and beauty. Hey Scott don't get me wrong Porsche is my favorite make and some how I still hope to own a 911 someday. Any collaboration between Mooney and Porsche would be a good thing. Quote
Culver LFA Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, bonal said: If I'm not mistaken many of those air cooled Porsche racers had water cooled heads. Yes, many did. This is a true statement. Quote
carusoam Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 The Porsche problem... or automotive problem in general... Automotive companies change engine designs every year or two... small changes with better small bits and pieces... Over time the old bits and pieces were no longer available... the new bits and pieces, although useable were not FAA approved. It would take a lot of coordination and tech/legal agreements to build an engine and supply the proper parts out to inifinity the way Mooney owners would need... the costs to FAA approve is beginning to change as the feds are taking a more modern approach towards approval... Now rereading the article at the OP... they mention the Porsche experience, but... they are talking about the automotive marketing style... not anything to do with Porsche... The real Porsche problem was the low HP that was available and the low weight limit by the PFM’s spindly legs... PFM had 240hp with a TC. Bravo exceeds 260hp with a TC O1 comes in at 280hp, NA 03 clears the bar at 310hp, NA The Acclaim has 310hp, TN’d up into the FLs... Aviation is a small market that takes tiny steps with each change... The PFM was close to perfect, just not ready yet... The TLS had fixed the legs and improved the power, but missed a head cooling opportunity... They got that fixed and the Bravo was born.... HP is important for getting weight off the ground and to climb quickly... Efficiency is great for cruise... Go High HP Mooneys! OK, There is always a corvette engine at each air show.... KOSH was no different... the latest LS series Corvette engine was mated to a gear box. Brief conversation with the sales guy gave the answer 400+hp mated to a gearbox built in FL for the airboat industry... airboats don’t have the weight challenge that airplanes have... so the conversation was a bit weak... Best regards, -a- Quote
toto Posted July 30, 2018 Author Report Posted July 30, 2018 1 minute ago, carusoam said: Now rereading the article at the OP... they mention the Porsche experience, but... they are talking about the automotive marketing style... not anything to do with Porsche... The article says that Mooney and Porsche have entered a "marketing alliance" .. I assumed that that meant a relationship of some kind between the two companies. Dunno. Quote
carusoam Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 See if the RR engine will be coming back too... now we got something... the current technology is 310hp and lasts 2000+ hrs TBO... I’m all for options, but High hp auto engines, with light weight gearboxes, haven’t arrived just yet.. The RR turbine was announced, the agreements were signed... then the greatest down turn in the economy occurred... The reality of RR engine is hard to find anywhere... The BMW design studio produced some of the interesting paint schemes found on Acclaim’s.... could be the reference that was eluded to? “There will be no technical cross pollination, however” For real fun see Joe Z’s Acclaim... It got some clandestine BMW badges on its BMW design paint scheme.... wait for some actual details released directly from Mooney... the papers are scrambling for a story and make up some ‘fake news’ if the real stuff isn’t good enough... 20 planes this year is a real story?50 planes in each of the following years is a tremendous story! Hope it’s real news... I got to sit in the Ultra O... this week...the Garmin panel beats the extra door... the small amount of composites are spreading... I didn’t have to say ‘hey I own one of these already’ The Mooney sales people (reps) were kind of friendly and outgoing... PP thoughts only, not a sales guy for the airplane companies.... Is the economy strong enough yet to sell many high powered non-pressurized planes? Best regards, -a- Quote
Shadrach Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 (edited) 22 hours ago, aviatoreb said: If I were tempted to put a car engine in an airplane - and I am not....but if I were...it would be a Wankel rotary. Ah yes the Wankel, the smoothness of a turbine but with added complexity and higher BSFC... An air cooled Porsche engine could quite easily make an excellent aircraft engine. The thing is, we already have excellent aircraft engines. We just have lousy ignition management systems. Edited July 30, 2018 by Shadrach 1 Quote
carusoam Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 Lycoming was showing electronic ignition and fuel injection on an IO540.... and talking about the six independent engines... The fuel injectors were very automotive looking... Ross, See if you can find those details... your opinions would be greatly appreciated... Best regards, -a- 2 Quote
1964-M20E Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 Turbines are sweet. I'd love to see a turbine option but there are problems: Fuel consumption, I fly an Enstrom 480B light turbine helicopter GTW 3000lbs. It burns 27GPH +/- rated at 277HP in cruise. Buy in cost way too high unless you can produce a 300BHP rated turbine for the same costs as an IO550. There is a company that produces a turbo prop but it is rated at I think 160 to 180HP. It is the same company that makes the jet engine for the Subsonex. I think this one comes close but it is still expensive. We just did the 1750 hour engine inspection we changed several turbine wheels in the hot section $110AMU+ not including R&R. This was not a complete overhaul but close. Somewhat like doing a top end on our engines. Turbines are much better suited to higher altitudes where O2 or pressurization is the order of the day. I know some of our turbocharged Mooney brothers do fly in the teens and a little above that. If I had a turbo charger I'd probably go into the teens more often. End of the day I think turbocharged, water cooled, engine diesel or gasoline in the range of 200 to 300+hp continuously for 2000 hours plus. Cost point between the overhaul and the new cost an IO 360 or 550 would be ideal with roughly the same weight and form factor as the existing 4 or 6 cylinder. 1 Quote
Parker_Woodruff Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 They need to figure out how to achieve a target of a lot more than 50 airplanes per year. 4 Quote
Dream to fly Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 13 hours ago, Yetti said: It's about where an engine makes it horsepower and the max speed on the propeller. Limits on a propeller is around 2700 depending on length where the tips go supersonic. If an engine makes it horsepower around say 5000 rpm then you need a PRU Power Reduction unit. PRU have lots of problems. Why not run the prop off the cam? There is a company doing so in S. Africa. they flipped the drive and used a 60 degree V6. works slick. 1 Quote
1964-M20E Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 22 minutes ago, Dream to fly said: Why not run the prop off the cam? There is a company doing so in S. Africa. they flipped the drive and used a 60 degree V6. works slick. Ouch lots of forces from the prop acting on the camshaft and timing gears would have to be huge. However, it might work. Not to say you couldn't do the opposite once you have a reduction unit use that to turn the cam and eliminate some weight of the timing gears. 1 Quote
Yetti Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 The reason the PRUs have issues is because of the "pounding" they get from the prop. There usually is something to provide a buffer between the PRU and the prop. Quote
jaylw314 Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 13 hours ago, Shadrach said: Ah yes the Wankel, the smoothness of a turbine but with added complexity and higher BSFC... An air cooled Porsche engine could quite easily make an excellent aircraft engine. The thing is, we already have excellent aircraft engines. We just have lousy ignition management systems. We've got one guy with an RV-7 in the region with an RX-7 rotary motor. I've never met him, though, so I haven't had a chance to get his feedback. I noticed he did make one large chin air intake for cooling, but I'm not sure if cooling is generally a problem with rotaries. I noticed also he stenciled his name under canopy on the pilot side, and on the co-pilot's side, he stenciled "The 'Other' Wife." Quote
Shadrach Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 13 hours ago, carusoam said: Lycoming was showing electronic ignition and fuel injection on an IO540.... and talking about the six independent engines... The fuel injectors were very automotive looking... Ross, See if you can find those details... your opinions would be greatly appreciated... Best regards, -a- Nothing I have seen looks like primary electronic ignition system. There are STCs available but only for one mag. This means one fixed timing ignition source and one variable. This negates almost all of the advantage of having the variable ignition source. Mike Busch's article in this months (or was it last) AOPA Pilot speaks to the FAA's illogical position on this issue. Speaking of Porsche, consider that the last air-cooled model (993) they made rolled off the assembly line in 1998 with 220CI engine sporting a compression ratio 11.3 to 1. The engine made just over 270HP on pump gas... Variable ignition timing would solve so many issues. I can think of no other single design change that would be as revolutionary. It would allow aeroengines to run lower octane fuel as well as higher compression ratios. More thermally efficient engine would reduce fuel consumption (an area that our engines already outperform most of their automotive competition) and allow for more power at altitude. With solid state electronics, reliability is improved, not diminished. There is no downside... 1 Quote
Shadrach Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 36 minutes ago, jaylw314 said: We've got one guy with an RV-7 in the region with an RX-7 rotary motor. I've never met him, though, so I haven't had a chance to get his feedback. I noticed he did make one large chin air intake for cooling, but I'm not sure if cooling is generally a problem with rotaries. I noticed also he stenciled his name under canopy on the pilot side, and on the co-pilot's side, he stenciled "The 'Other' Wife." Super smooth but not they are not efficient engines for the power produced. He must be running a reduction gearbox. Though light weight, it seems like a poor choice for an Aeroengine. Quote
jaylw314 Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 18 minutes ago, Shadrach said: Super smooth but not they are not efficient engines for the power produced. He must be running a reduction gearbox. Though light weight, it seems like a poor choice for an Aeroengine. Since the engine redlines aound 10k RPM, and the prop was not 24" across, I assume he had a gearbox I think people do the rotaries to minimize vibration, but I'm guessing the prop accounts for far more vibration than the engine anyway Quote
MyNameIsNobody Posted July 30, 2018 Report Posted July 30, 2018 17 hours ago, bonal said: Hey Scott don't get me wrong Porsche is my favorite make and some how I still hope to own a 911 someday. Any collaboration between Mooney and Porsche would be a good thing. No worries. Damn it, I fixed 993 vs 996 error in my thread, but lives on here... Oh well. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.