Video Mentioning Porsche Mooney

[201er]

 

 

[steingar]

I can see why they chase diesels, Avgas isn't found in foreign markets.  I always thought Mooney horribly short-sighted in this.  Avgas may be hard to find in China, but car gas isn't, and our engines will run on it just fine if you take out the booze (actually, Mooneys don't, but lots of others do).  Had they dusted off the Type Certificate for the Mooney Cadet and put in a car gas burning engine they could have had a workable airplane they could see anywhere.

[Shadrach]

On 7/14/2021 at 2:41 PM, steingar said:

I can see why they chase diesels, Avgas isn't found in foreign markets.  I always thought Mooney horribly short-sighted in this.  Avgas may be hard to find in China, but car gas isn't, and our engines will run on it just fine if you take out the booze (actually, Mooneys don't, but lots of others do).  Had they dusted off the Type Certificate for the Mooney Cadet and put in a car gas burning engine they could have had a workable airplane they could see anywhere.

Modern diesels are well suited to aviation . The return on certification is likely not. Some numbers to chew on using my favorite automobile engine.

BMW N57 TDI

Aluminum block 365lb dry weight 

Turbo 3L in-line 6 cylinder

compression ratio 16.5:1

BSFC 36

Power in road going configuration (max torque is a flat 413lbft between 1500-3000rpm) so no reduction gear needed.

196hp @ 2500rpm burning 10.7 gph using a BSFC of .368 

212hp @ 2700rpm burning 11.6 gph using a BSFC of .368

 

 

 

Edited July 16, 2021 by Shadrach
Math error

[N201MKTurbo]

My 172 has it all going for it. High wing gas tanks, no fuel pump and the engine data plate says the minimum octane is 80. It will run just fine on the crappiest car gas out there.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, steingar said:

I can see why they chase diesels, Avgas isn't found in foreign markets.  I always thought Mooney horribly short-sighted in this.  Avgas may be hard to find in China, but car gas isn't, and our engines will run on it just fine if you take out the booze (actually, Mooneys don't, but lots of others do).  Had they dusted off the Type Certificate for the Mooney Cadet and put in a car gas burning engine they could have had a workable airplane they could see anywhere.

Rotax

[Hank]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

My 172 has it all going for it. High wing gas tanks, no fuel pump and the engine data plate says the minimum octane is 80. It will run just fine on the crappiest car gas out there.

But it's slow, not attractive to look at, requires a ladder to check fuel and at the pump, and they are severely DA and useful load limited . . . .

[Raptor05121]

I thought Mooney was going to pull themselves out of a rut with the M10J and the CD155. What a shame.

[A64Pilot]

It would take money of course but auto gas can successfully run in some pretty high compression engines, look at bike motors. A modern high compression, high power aircraft engine running off of car gas can be built, but would it ever pay for itself?

An automobile fuel injection system would solve most vapor local issues (high pressure fuel pump in the tank)

You can’t run high compression on car gas without a Modern combustion chamber though and that would almost certainly require liquid cooling, again look at bike motors.

A good friend of mine Dr Ralph Kimberlin worked on the Toyota airplane, what happened is they realized that they would never make money with the tiny production rate.

Toyota builds 13,400 automobiles per day according to the Internet, how many airplanes would they have built?

Now biz jets sell, there is apparently no shortage of money to buy biz jets. But even then how much money has Honda tossed into the Honda jet and how many are there?

I don’t know the answer, but strongly suspect they won’t turn a profit for a long time if ever.

A Jet-A engine is logical, but with small single engine aircraft approaching seven figures a small turbo prop might be what succeeds, but the DOD hasn’t paid for one to be built yet like they did the cruise missile engines, but maybe with Drones they may?

 

[N201MKTurbo]

35 minutes ago, Hank said:

But it's slow, not attractive to look at, requires a ladder to check fuel and at the pump, and they are severely DA and useful load limited . . . .

But I got it for $13AMUs and one just sold for $60AMUs.

 

I love that plane!

[carusoam]

Mr. Bertorelli always gives a good presentation… 

I was hoping to see the next steps for the IO550 and a turbine of similar weight and power…

All kinds of things fall out of large automobile companies… We can never tell what Toyota racing development (TRD) is going to make next…

Honda has spent quite a few AMUs working on their jet…

GM is working on 10s of different electric powered vehicles… Tesla leads the pack on commercial development… with a big eye on market size…

They all seem to know development… they lose interest with the next step… small production numbers…  a small production car still sells 10s of thousands of cars per year…

 

When it comes to automotive technology…. The IO550 has borrowed a few ideas… electronic ignition is coming on strong… fancy spark plugs seem to be a standard today… the curvy balanced intake tubes are something special for LOP and six cylinder engines…. The aluminum casting technology is fantastic…. The cam can be swapped out without splitting the engine open… its location is a bit friendlier to keeping coated with oil… fuel can get recycled back to the tank it came from…

The IO390 may have got a few other bits of tech beyond the roller cam followers… it probably got an updated case that could possibly eliminate the various standard case cracks that we have seen around here…

case cracks shouldn’t show up in standard locations on anything made today…. 

Silk thread isn’t really a modern seal technology for case halves is it?

 

Question for Ross….  How long is that in-line six?  Does it get mounted against the firewall?

Using automotive technology isn’t as terrible today as it was in decades prior…. Lots of simulation and computer design can go a long way to not have a simple challenge become a disaster… like valve springs for the Porsche engine…

 

When it comes to computer design and simulation…. Watch a few episodes of Mike Patey design, build, test, break, update…. All done on his computer before the first parts are ever manufactured…

When parts get manufactured… they are precision built using cad/cam… completely repeatable… then tested to destruction in logical ways…

We have come a long way since Y2K…. 

Even the regulations and how companies work with the regulators has improved tremendously since then…

PP thoughts only, not a manufacturing engineer in a regulated environment…

Best regards,

-a-

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, carusoam said:

Mr. Bertorelli always gives a good presentation… 

I was hoping to see the next steps for the IO550 and a turbine of similar weight and power…

All kinds of things fall out of large automobile companies… We can never tell what Toyota racing development (TRD) is going to make next…

Honda has spent quite a few AMUs working on their jet…

GM is working on 10s of different electric powered vehicles… Tesla leads the pack on commercial development… with a big eye on market size…

They all seem to know development… they lose interest with the next step… small production numbers…  a small production car still sells 10s of thousands of cars per year…

 

When it comes to automotive technology…. The IO550 has borrowed a few ideas… electronic ignition is coming on strong… fancy spark plugs seem to be a standard today… the curvy balanced intake tubes are something special for LOP and six cylinder engines…. The aluminum casting technology is fantastic…. The cam can be swapped out without splitting the engine open… its location is a bit friendlier to keeping coated with oil… fuel can get recycled back to the tank it came from…

The IO390 may have got a few other bits of tech beyond the roller cam followers… it probably got an updated case that could possibly eliminate the various standard case cracks that we have seen around here…

case cracks shouldn’t show up in standard locations on anything made today…. 

Silk thread isn’t really a modern seal technology for case halves is it?

 

Question for Ross….  How long is that in-line six?  Does it get mounted against the firewall?

Using automotive technology isn’t as terrible today as it was in decades prior…. Lots of simulation and computer design can go a long way to not have a simple challenge become a disaster… like valve springs for the Porsche engine…

 

When it comes to computer design and simulation…. Watch a few episodes of Mike Patey design, build, test, break, update…. All done on his computer before the first parts are ever manufactured…

When parts get manufactured… they are precision built using cad/cam… completely repeatable… then tested to destruction in logical ways…

We have come a long way since Y2K…. 

Even the regulations and how companies work with the regulators has improved tremendously since then…

PP thoughts only, not a manufacturing engineer in a regulated environment…

Best regards,

-a-

I’ll see if I can find the dimensions. It’s not huge, remember that each piston has 1/3rd the displacement of an IO360. It is unbelievably efficient. We just did 180 miles from Maryland to a vacation spot it in PA. Interstate, back roads stop and go traffic and town driving. 40.6mpg, average speed 49.7mph… in a 4000lb+ luxury sedan that will rip to 60mph in 5.6 sec and loaf along at 1500rpm at 75mph. 

Edited July 15, 2021 by Shadrach

[steingar]

16 hours ago, Freemasm said:

So. Mooney's shortsightedness was they didn't build a high wing airplane where pump suction issues are nil. Sacrilege, I know. Wing root pumps in the current configuration would create plenty of margin here and are a common design application.  Modern EFI systems with full flow, back pressure regulated designs actually require even more consideration. 

Don't believe me? Look at the Mogas STC applicability for powerplants versus high wing/low wing aircraft. Different STCs, BTW.

Swing and miss.  There are car gas STC'd Bo's, Vikings, Cherokees and some others.  I read that Mooneys didn't get it because some some sort of harmonic vibration phenomena that didn't make a lot of sense.  Sounded like Mooney didn't pony up enough cash to whoever was doing the STC's, but I admit ignorance in this regard.

If Mooney had dusted off the Cadet and powered it with a Rotax I think they'd have had a winner.  Helps any aircraft company to have a trainer in the market.  And they could have sold it anywhere. Car gas is everywhere.  If airports didn't have it and had aircraft that burned it, they'd get it.  Isn't rocket surgery.

[aviatoreb]

3 minutes ago, steingar said:

Swing and miss.  There are car gas STC'd Bo's, Vikings, Cherokees and some others.  I read that Mooneys didn't get it because some some sort of harmonic vibration phenomena that didn't make a lot of sense.  Sounded like Mooney didn't pony up enough cash to whoever was doing the STC's, but I admit ignorance in this regard.

If Mooney had dusted off the Cadet and powered it with a Rotax I think they'd have had a winner.  Helps any aircraft company to have a trainer in the market.  And they could have sold it anywhere. Car gas is everywhere.  If airports didn't have it and had aircraft that burned it, they'd get it.  Isn't rocket surgery.

I agree - a rotax powered cadet would have been awesome.  I really like the rotax.  I am not sure why they aren't used even more in the certified world. 

[Raymond J1]

12 hours ago, Raptor05121 said:

Je pensais que Mooney allait se sortir d'une ornière avec le M10J et le CD155. C'est dommage.

I dream that Mooney is using the 140 hp Rotax 915 on this airframe and that this relaunches this company.

[A64Pilot]

It all breaks down to profit margin, often with small less expensive cars and trainer aircraft they don’t sell for a high enough price to give a decent margin.

Think about it, a small efficient car has the same or similar parts count as does a luxury SUV, but you have to sell ten to get the profit of one Luxury SUV.

‘The same for aircraft the parts count is very similar for a small Mooney with a four cylinder as it is for one with an IO-550, and the pricing between the two is way more than the difference in engine cost, it’s what doomed the J in my opinion

On an Ag plane, everyone said that a low cost 400 gl airplane would sell like hot cakes as they expected it to cost 1/4 less, but except for a slightly less expensive engine, the cost to manufacture a 400 gl was the same as a 500 gl.

So in other words could you get a high enough price to make money with an LSA as I think that would be its market, not being a trainer, but then LSA sort of fizzled didn’t it?

Years ago Maule thought they would get into the LSA market with a Rotax powered M4, I bet it’s still at the factory, but what they ended up with was a two seat pig performance wise, only built one.

[A64Pilot]

42 minutes ago, aviatoreb said:

I agree - a rotax powered cadet would have been awesome.  I really like the rotax.  I am not sure why they aren't used even more in the certified world. 

The Certification costs have to be spread across the fleet, and maybe sales are slow due to cost already?

‘Then there are a whole lot of people like me that don’t like high RPM geared motors, call us old farts if you will, but I don’t like that gearbox and the issues that come along with it. 

The use of automotive style inline or V8 engines often drives a whole redesign of the aircraft as they won’t fit under the cowl made for a boxer engine.

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

The Certification costs have to be spread across the fleet, and maybe sales are slow due to cost already?

‘Then there are a whole lot of people like me that don’t like high RPM geared motors, call us old farts if you will, but I don’t like that gearbox and the issues that come along with it. 

The use of automotive style inline or V8 engines often drives a whole redesign of the aircraft as they won’t fit under the cowl made for a boxer engine.

I agree with you in principle - who wants extra parts - extra gears seem like a bad idea.  But the rotax is widely used and well earned bullet proof reliability.  In principle I consider them to be more modern designed and more modern higher spec manufacture than lycoming or continental.

So based on their actual performance rather than yours - and I admit it - my knee jerk that gears seem like a bad idea - I would consider it a buying feature if an airplane came rotax.

Actually, my knee jerk would be - who would think an engine that is designed to contain gasoline explosions at a rate of over two thousand per minute - over and over- would actually work, reliably for years?  If this were 1890 I would look at the idea and say to myself that internal combustion engines with pistons that move up and down with little explosions is just a bad idea and we could never build it robustly enough.  I am constantly amazed that it (mostly) actually works and works very well and reliably (mostly).  My hear yearns for things that go in circles naturally, Wankel rotary, turbine engines, etc, but practicality has proven combustion.

I am not put off by gears in the rotax - in the rotax implementation its a reliable and inexpensive system.

- I wish they would keep going building a wider range of engines.  How about a 210hp 6 cylinder rotax?  How about an 8 cylinder 280 cylinder rotax - which would have roughly the footprint of an IO550.

- I think a pair of rotax on the wings of some twins would be fantastic.  Twinkie.  DA42.  Tecnam did it - https://www.tecnam.com/aircraft/p2006t/

(with their really simple 100hp engine _ was dreaming of the rotax 915 turbo at 140hp and up).

[A64Pilot]

If you look at the stats, the Rotax has the highest failure rate, but I believe it has a lot to do with the aircraft they are installed in and who maintains them, maybe a Lycoming in an Experimental and maintained by the owner may not fare better?

‘I believe that Rotax and maybe the FAA requires you to attend a Rotax maintenance class before you can maintain them, if so then they are trying to improve the knowledge base.

Liquid cooling has lots of issues, everything does but drag isn’t necessarily one of them, many WWII fighters, Mustang and Spitfire as an example actually picked up thrust and speed from the heating of the air and its resultant expansion and acceleration going through the radiator, called the Meredith effect maybe?

So far as BSFC an aircraft engine is actually pretty darned efficient, sure there can be gains, but maybe not as big as you may think. It’s not that auto engines aren’t good, they are, it’s just that airplane engines aren’t bad, not too long ago they were much more efficient than cars, largely because they can be designed to operate at a very narrow RPM band and at set outputs.

Comparing an auto motors BSFC to an airplane isn’t an across the board comparison unless you compare them at similar output, and when you do there isn’t much difference.

Edited July 15, 2021 by A64Pilot

[steingar]

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

If you look at the stats, the Rotax has the highest failure rate, but I believe it has a lot to do with the aircraft they are installed in and who maintains them, maybe a Lycoming in an Experimental and maintained by the owner may not fare better?

I suspect you are correct, but the reason is somewhat complex.  Many Rotax engines are sitting in front of LSAs.  Their light weight combined with the ease of certification in the LSA sector has meant that there are lots of designs flying behind Rotax.  LSAs have been an accident hotspot since their inception, but not for the reasons you might think.  Originally it was thought that Sport Pilots, with only 20 hours training would crash the things.  In fact folks trained under the LSA regs do just fine.  The problem lies in pilots who step into the LSAs after flying larger, heavier and faster aircraft.  They have a bad habit of being very ham fisted, trying to fly the little airplanes like they did the big ones.  And they crash, a lot.

[Shadrach]

23 hours ago, Freemasm said:

Er, no.   

Regarding CRs and Octane rating. The CRs of the engines are only part of the consideration regarding utilization of MoGas. The (vast?) majority of the Mooney engines can safely burn Mogas with no problems. Don't believe it, look at the required octane rating in your PP manual. Yes, I know the different Avgas/Mogas octane ratings use different formulae. Yes, it would probably take premium Mogas to equal the 87 rating of the Avgas. 

Regarding Elastomer Compatibility. Ethanol itself isn't a problem or one that can easily be overcome. Per the petroleum engineers whose articles and contributions I've read, ethanol doesn't create the compatibility issues. It's the associated aromatics related to using a lower grade oil stock; because they can knowing of the subsequent octane boost from the ethanol addition. Ethanol is actually an octane booster to certain blend limits.

The airframes are the issue; specifically their ability to maintain margin over the fuel's vapor pressure. Pump suction side static pressure can allow the fuel to vaporize and subsequently vapor lock. The engine driven pump has more fluid friction and elevation loses. Just upstream of such is the most likely place for any phase change to occur. The local temperature near the engine doesn't help either. Boost pump activation could save you here. If vapor forms upstream of the boost pump, game over. 

If the RVP value of Mogas was constant, no problems. This value for winter blends is actually lowered to promote atomization  in the cold.  The VP of summer blends and Avgas are surprisingly close. 

So. Mooney's shortsightedness was they didn't build a high wing airplane where pump suction issues are nil. Sacrilege, I know. Wing root pumps in the current configuration would create plenty of margin here and are a common design application.  Modern EFI systems with full flow, back pressure regulated designs actually require even more consideration. 

Don't believe me? Look at the Mogas STC applicability for powerplants versus high wing/low wing aircraft. Different STCs, BTW.

The real experts will chime in now. Cheers boys.   

Thanks for the detailed comments on vapor pressure. So many misunderstand the real challenges of running Mogas in the higher press fuel systems of injected engines. So many think it’s a Compression ration issue but the angle valve IO360 is only a high compression engine relative to other aeroengines and certainly not significantly higher than the 8.5:1 birds that are STCd for mogas. Vapor pressure is the issue as you rightly point out.  I know of experimental operators having good success with tempering mogas with small amounts of avgas.

 

[Shadrach]

5 hours ago, Freemasm said:

Ross. Impressive. The weight you mention probably doesn't include the cooling loop. Probably not too big a deal. The associated cooling system drag? Probably a bigger deal. This would still be a tantalizing adaptation for a lot of reasons.

A flat torque curve @ 413ftlbs would really let you take advantage of a variable pitch prop and the gear ratios in your Bimmer. Besides being efficient, it's probably has a great throttle response and a blast to drive though I'm not a car guy. 

The interesting thing is my is spec engine is detuned and efficiency is hampered by emissions equipment. Many of these engines on the road running pushing well north of 500ftlbs between 2000-3000rpm with slightly  better BSFCs.  I don’t think cooling drag would be significant if the cowl was properly designed but that’s an expensive endeavor. You’re likely right about the weight. I cannot find exact numbers anywhere.  
it is fun to drive but in a different way. Even though it’s plenty quick, it’s not really what I would call exciting to drive. It’s more that it’s hard not to admire how versatile it is. It’s like a road going locomotive. You can short shift below 2000rpm in all 8 gears and never bogs down in any way.  The speed limiter kicks in at 130mph which feels odd because it’s only 2600ish RPM in top gear.  Throttle response is great everywhere except for immediately off Idle. It takes just a split second to boost after that it’s very responsive. Earlier I was comparing it to the IO360 but in truth it has the chops to outperform the TSI0360 by a large margin. However there would be many installation and application challenges. Could conceivably generate a 2XXkt airplane at single-digit fuel flows.

incidentally, We just returned home from our trip. 530 miles of mixed driving and we still showing an eighth of a 18.5 gal tank. I know that doesn’t mean much but no other full size car I’ve ever owned would do it.

[Will.iam]

My camry hybrid will do 540 miles on 16 gallons but only if you do the speed limit and don’t punch it off the stops. 

[Hank]

33 minutes ago, Will.iam said:

My camry hybrid will do 540 miles on 16 gallons but only if you do the speed limit and don’t punch it off the stops. 

My 2017 Altima does that on every tank. I just rented a 2020 Altima for work and drove from Central AL to Cincinnati, went right by Clermont County Airport, without filling up. That car got 43 MPG on I-75 N with three guys and luggage for a week.

They are far superior options to anything electric . . . or diesel that doesn't need to tow.

[Will.iam]

3 minutes ago, Freemasm said:

If talking engines, it’s best to stick to BSFC for comparisons. That said, not enough credit for economy is given to new transmission designs. Not too long ago, overdrive was a fourth  or fifth gear and manuals beat automatics for fuel economy. Now 7 or 8 gear automatics are very common and help keep an engine in it’s happy place for power/economy. The CVTs that Altima’s use are great on paper (as they have been for the last bundle of decades). Near infinite gear ratios (hyperbole) are awesome in theory but don’t over  stress them or they’ll slip. Also don’t expect them to have reliability of messing gears. Nissan doesdeserve credit for finally getting one to the mass market but the related car rated as a “do not buy” for a while because of transmission issues. 
 

if you’ve never been in one, kind of fun/strange/weird hearing the engine rpm decrease linearly as the car accelerates with a CVT. 

My camry hybrid has a CVT and when you stomp on the accelerator it immediately revs to 6000 and stays there as the car accelerates to speed. It reminds me of a clutch on a standard that is warn out and slipping when you floor it and the engine revs but the car doesn’t accelerate as fast as it should. 

[tmo]

On 7/15/2021 at 2:39 PM, aviatoreb said:

I am not sure why they aren't used even more in the certified world. 

It is, just not in the US. EASA has a "VLA" certification, and I can't think of one plane in that category that doesn't come with a 912. Pretty much all newish basic trainers over here are VLA planes. They are bulletproof, and fare much better in the high temps we're having in the summer than the air-cooled Lycomings in the 152s.