Technology Today vs the 1960 Mooney Design

[Blue on Top]

22 minutes ago, Raptor05121 said:

Continental IO-550L: 438lbs
Continental TIO-550G: 554lbs

Austro AE330: 410lbs


You also say low on power... The DA-62 can carry 7 people, or 1,600lbs useful load at 175kts on 12gph total using "only" 180hp a side. Name any gasoline twin that can do that.
 

Please compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.  IO-550 at 445 lbs. and 300+ horsepower versus Austro at 410 lbs. and 180 horsepower. 

Airplane comparisons are much more difficult as there are many more factors to consider.

[carusoam]

My favorite...

Pretty sure I can’t afford a pair...

Know I can’t afford to operate a pair...

-a-

 

IO-550-N

310 hp (231 kW) at 2700 rpm, dry weight 429.97 lb (195.03 kg). Similar to the IO-550-G with increased power rating. Certified 16 August 1996.^[1]

 

 

 

[Blue on Top]

I know the website weight of the CD-155 is low by more than 100 lbs.  Just sayin'.  I got a little experience with it.

[Hank]

1 hour ago, Raptor05121 said:

Continental IO-550L: 438lbs
Continental TIO-550G: 554lbs

Austro AE330: 410lbs


You also say low on power... The DA-62 can carry 7 people, or 1,600lbs useful load at 175kts on 12gph total using "only" 180hp a side. Name any gasoline twin that can do that.

Sure. One Continental IO-550N, 310 hp, 430 lb = 0.72 hp/engine lb.

One Austro AE330, 180 hp, 410 lb = 0.44 hp/engine lb.

From where I sit, it ain't no comparison. The DA-62 does what it does with TWO ENGINES. Not many singles can compare Useful Load with any twin.

Apples vs. BBQ is what you did.

[aviatoreb]

2 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Continental IO-550L: 438lbs
Continental TIO-550G: 554lbs

Austro AE330: 410lbs


You also say low on power... The DA-62 can carry 7 people, or 1,600lbs useful load at 175kts on 12gph total using "only" 180hp a side. Name any gasoline twin that can do that.

Its a beautiful airplane with many great attributes.

But if we are just weighing engines and comparing horsepower, then - you are comparing one engine of 410lbs where the airplane takes 2 - so that is 820 lbs.  Vs one larger Continental of 438lbs.  Then you are comparing the speed of the total DA62 360hp (max - take off for two) vs a single engine of one engine 300hp.

Just based on speed - an Ovation speed and fuel burn compares favorably to that DA62 - it beats it. On carrying capacity the DA62 beats it.  On cost - the DA62 is 1.3M and the ovation is ?  750? (new for both).

At 1.3M then I am thinking about (used) turbo prop. 

[carusoam]

Some math skills are ultra practical...   

MS teaches math skills...

Way to go Erik!

Used turbo-prop, Rocket engineering.... hmmm...

PA46T! (Roughly 700-900 amu)

I like the way you think!

Best regards,

-a-

[Raptor05121]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

Sure. One Continental IO-550N, 310 hp, 430 lb = 0.72 hp/engine lb.

One Austro AE330, 180 hp, 410 lb = 0.44 hp/engine lb.

From where I sit, it ain't no comparison. The DA-62 does what it does with TWO ENGINES. Not many singles can compare Useful Load with any twin.

Apples vs. BBQ is what you did.

Notice I said, show me a gasoline twin that is comparible to this diesel twin. No where did I say single.

Regardless of power/weight, it gives more performance. IDGAF if it does 50hp and weighs 1,000lbs and uses unicorn pee as fuel, it its twice as economical as most of the twin fleet out today

[1980Mooney]

20 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Notice I said, show me a gasoline twin that is comparible to this diesel twin. No where did I say single.

Regardless of power/weight, it gives more performance. IDGAF if it does 50hp and weighs 1,000lbs and uses unicorn pee as fuel, it its twice as economical as most of the twin fleet out today

Not sure why we’re talking about a twin here Or why it is even relevant....the thread is “1960 Mooney Design” And the impact of new technology. Last time I looked Mooney is not a twin, never was and never will be. 
 

The Diamond DA-50RG is the appropriate comparison. The plane is a pig at nearly 3200 lbs empty. With a 4407 lbs MTOW  it needs 44 foot wings to get in the air. Although it is “new technology” it lacks a ballistic recovery chute.   They probably left it off because this diesel solution is already overweight - and BRS Would require even beefier landing gear to sustain chute landing and a huge chute - probably added another couple hundred pounds. 

The “new technology “ Pipistrel Panthera with a  MOGAS burning Lycoming and a chute is clearly superior  

 

[MikeOH]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

 Last time I looked Mooney is not a twin, never was and never will be. 

 

Hmm,....

 

[MikeOH]

2 minutes ago, 1980Mooney said:

1958 wooden prototype.....the concept went to toothpicks!

 

Ah, so that means it "never was"...got it

[201Steve]

Why are diesels so much heavier

[carusoam]

Very high ICPs to deal with...

Lots of added weight for the liquid cooling...

PP thoughts only, not a diesel mechanic...

We have a few diesel mechanic around here... and owners of trucking businesses...

Best regards,

-a-

[EricJ]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

1958 wooden prototype.....the concept went to toothpicks!

 

 

[Blue on Top]

54 minutes ago, 201Steve said:

Why are diesels so much heavier

Diesels are heavier for several reasons:

1) The compression ratio is significantly higher than a spark ignition engine.

2) Because of 1) they are typically water-cooled.

3) Because of 1) and 2) there must be heavier structure to support those items.

4) The fuel itself is 10%+ heavier; hence the name "heavy fuel" engines.

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, 201Steve said:

Why are diesels so much heavier

Head pressures in diesels are about 3x that of gasoline engines, and the combustion temps are much hotter.  This means a lot more structure and stiffness are needed, so a lot more metal mass both for strength and heat sinking and heat transfer.   You get a lot more torque for your effort, so for some applications it is worth it.

[tmo]

6 hours ago, EricJ said:

combustion temps are much hotter

I always thought gasoline burned hotter than diesel did, at least in automobile engines and that it is one of the reasons why turbocharged diesels were a fairly common thing long before gasoline engines. Gas (petrol) does have a slightly higher ignition temperature (250C vs 210C).

Side note - many cars here get converted to LNG (liquid natural gas) which burns even hotter - around 500C if memory serves. Some do 100s of thousands of miles without anything in the engine melting.

This is, of course, pretty much irrelevant to the topic at hand, so don't mind me.

[ArtVandelay]

There is the temperature of combustion or the temperature required for the chemical reaction to occur and then there is amount of wasted heat energy from the reaction.

[Raptor05121]

On 2/8/2021 at 6:47 PM, 1980Mooney said:

Not sure why we’re talking about a twin here Or why it is even relevant....the thread is “1960 Mooney Design” And the impact of new technology. Last time I looked Mooney is not a twin, never was and never will be. 
 

 

 

We were discussing why diesels were superior and I chose a design that completely decimates its rivals

[Blue on Top]

1 minute ago, Raptor05121 said:

We were discussing why diesels were superior and I chose a design that completely decimates its rivals

... and the diesel program failed miserably.

[aviatoreb]

26 minutes ago, Blue on Top said:

... and the diesel program failed miserably.

The rotax 915 is a fantastic little engine.  Much more modern in build and design than lycoming and continental in my opinion.  The rotax are generally very popular with small experimental and sport airplanes.  Why don't we see them on certified?  For example, they could nicely make for a pair on a DA42.  They have comparable power output and excellent fuel specifics compared to the early diesels that diamond used.  They are inexpensive relatively and little bullet proof wonders.

I wonder if someone could cook up a twin rotax system to drive a single shaft in an otherwise single engine like a Mooney?

Why isn't rotax making a 6 - or 8 - cylinder of otherwise similar version of their engines?

A pusher-puller rotax-something would be neat.

 

[EricJ]

40 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

The rotax 915 is a fantastic little engine.  Much more modern in build and design than lycoming and continental in my opinion.  The rotax are generally very popular with small experimental and sport airplanes.  Why don't we see them on certified?  For example, they could nicely make for a pair on a DA42.  They have comparable power output and excellent fuel specifics compared to the early diesels that diamond used.  They are inexpensive relatively and little bullet proof wonders.

I wonder if someone could cook up a twin rotax system to drive a single shaft in an otherwise single engine like a Mooney?

Why isn't rotax making a 6 - or 8 - cylinder of otherwise similar version of their engines?

A pusher-puller rotax-something would be neat.

 

My personal interactions with the Rotax engines (with hangar neighbors) has been less than stellar.  Plus they don't put out a lot of power.  I'm not sure the case or crank designs are strong enough for two more cylinders.   There are an awful lot of people who swear by them, though.

A local flight school had a fleet of diesel DA-42s and converted most or all of them to IO-360s.   That had to be fairly painful, but maybe they had factory support.   Diamondstar sold them with the IO-360s after the Thielerts became somewhat less popular, so there may have been a factory conversion program for the schools.

There are other engine makers that seem to be doing reasonably well, too, like UL, who do offer both 4- and 6- cylinder versions of their engines.  Also, Lycoming has been going in the direction of modernization for a while, including the IE2 and Thunderbolt engines, which are both available.  The IE2 has been shipping on modern certified airplanes.

[Blue on Top]

52 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

The rotax 915 is a fantastic little engine.  Much more modern in build and design than lycoming and continental in my opinion.  The rotax are generally very popular with small experimental and sport airplanes.  Why don't we see them on certified?  For example, they could nicely make for a pair on a DA42.  They have comparable power output and excellent fuel specifics compared to the early diesels that diamond used.  They are inexpensive relatively and little bullet proof wonders.

I wonder if someone could cook up a twin rotax system to drive a single shaft in an otherwise single engine like a Mooney?

Why isn't rotax making a 6 - or 8 - cylinder of otherwise similar version of their engines?

A pusher-puller rotax-something would be neat.

 

Not sure that it is FAR 33 certificated in the US.  It is EASA-certified through CS-E, but I'm not sure to what level.  141 Hp (with turbocharging) is a unique power output.  Turbocharging is not for turbo-normalizing like the Acclaim; it is there to get rated horsepower.  Not sure what happens to power when the turbo fails (in diesels it's really bad).  There is/was a Rotax Service bulletin (which leads me to believe that the engine is for LSA airplanes (not certificated airplanes) or EASA VLA aircraft ... US Ultralights to a higher gross weight), which has grounded all the engines (sulfur-filled exhaust valves are failing). 

Mating two engines to a single propeller has been tried by many and been successful by none.  The C337 is a better idea, but the configuration has its pros and cons.  A new TC airplane is VERY expensive.

[aviatoreb]

All I have heard is good things about rotax in all ways, reliability, price, efficiency, longevity.

But they are smaller than we usually wish.

I pointed at the DA42 since it was originally engined with the theilert diesel - thanks for remind me the name of that - which was 140hp I. believe,  Exactly the same as a 915.  Seems like it would have been natural to have gone rotax instead of L360 when they had the theilert problems.  A rotax DA42 would have had much better range than a L360 DA42.

Or maybe on a Twinkie?

Yeah on a Cessna 337 like build - I always liked the idea of that system and never felt it was optimized.  I still feel a center thrust twin is a beautiful idea but never optimized,  C337 was nice but had heat problems for the back engine didn't it?

Yeah nobody is designing new airplanes from scratch as a certified twin pusher puller.

What is that experimental with a forward canard and pusher twin using a pair of L320's?  Cozy?  It seems like a pair of rotax 915s would be nice.

Its a shame there isn't a 180 or 200hp rotax.

[Blue on Top]

10 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I pointed at the DA42 since it was originally engined with the theilert diesel - thanks for remind me the name of that - which was 140hp I. believe,  Exactly the same as a 915.  Seems like it would have been natural to have gone rotax instead of L360 when they had the theilert problems.  A rotax DA42 would have had much better range than a L360 DA42.

Yeah on a Cessna 337 like build - I always liked the idea of that system and never felt it was optimized.  I still feel a center thrust twin is a beautiful idea but never optimized,  C337 was nice but had heat problems for the back engine didn't it?

What is that experimental with a forward canard and pusher twin using a pair of L320's?  Cozy?  It seems like a pair of rotax 915s would be nice.

Its a shame there isn't a 180 or 200hp rotax.

Diamond dumped the Thielert/Technify/Continental diesel engine when they started having problems.  They designed their own series of Austro engines that they use in their airplanes now.

Centerline thrust has its advantages ... and disadvantages.  I personally like the configuration and modern CFD programs can handle the airflow much better today than when the 337 was designed.  Google "Cessna XMC", 1014 or 1034, one of the cooler airplanes in my opinion.

The twin canard is the Velocity V-Twin.  Don't get me started on canards.  Despite popular belief, canards are not efficient ... ask Beech.   If they were, King Air would have been out of production decades ago ... it's still a cash cow for Textron (the larger ones). 

A Mooney philosophy 337 would be a very cool looking airplane.  You got me thinking way, way too much!  Thanks  

[Blue on Top]

PS. The M20 is faster than the Velocity V-Twin ... with slightly less horsepower.