Jump to content

Mooney + Porsche


toto

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by MyNameIsNobody
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Culver LFA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...:blink:

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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-

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turbines are sweet.  I'd love to see a turbine option but there are problems:

  1.  Fuel consumption, I fly an Enstrom 480B light turbine helicopter GTW 3000lbs.  It burns 27GPH +/- rated at 277HP in cruise.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.