The Future of Internal Combustion Engine Light Aircraft - Environmental Globalists are in the control seat

[philiplane]

Here's a reality check on how the world really works:

https://time.com/6175734/reliance-on-fossil-fuels/

We aren't getting away from fossil fuels, or internal combustion engines, anytime soon. The "green" world can't even exist without them.

And, if you want the absolute lowest life-cycle carbon emissions power plant, nuclear is the choice to power a grid capable of charging all these electric vehicles coming online.

Edited May 17, 2022 by philiplane

[McMooney]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

That’s the thing, electric way outperforms ICE, I mean it’s not even close, especially in torque, which is what you need to get onto plane quickly.

The problem with electric as power is almost unlimited is battery capacity, there are mainstream over 1,000 HP electric sedans, there are no over 1,000 HP ICE sedans.

If your a performance enthusiast you will either become an electric enthusiast or you will have your head in the sand. This is a short clip, the M5 in this vid was in 2000 the fastest sedan available then, the current one is faster, but not ac quick as either electric

 

Drove a chevy Volt that would completely destroy my 1996 camaro in the quarter, unfortunately, it was about as sexy as a prius, no take that back nothing is as ugly as a prius

[GeeBee]

The earth is constantly making new oil and gas. It is not finite.

As to the boat. Everybody and I mean everybody is wake boarding now. Notice the site for this boat says, 2-3 hours of "water sports" not "water skiing". That is because wake boarding is much slower and the boat is not on plane. Water skiing requires to get on plane. You have to get over the top of maximum drag to get on plane. Second, most lakes now, mine included require 1000' from shoreline for wake boarding. This is because with their ballast tanks, these boats put out huge wakes which destroy shorelines and spawning grounds. Thus you need at least 2000' shore to shore for wake boarding which means, you have to get out a ways. I could not even get a full rotation of grand kids through with this boat. Of course, the final irony is this "low carbon" boat destroys shorelines, water fowl nesting areas and fish spawn ground, but hey! We're carbon free! So yes, I can tell you why it won't work for all but those "practice lakes" where you go round and round like NASCAR.

[Mooney Dog]

15 hours ago, McMooney said:

really, really hard to get a young person excited about flying when it means sacrificing pretty much everything else

When school like ATP are $100,000 and you still need a 4 year degree (though that requirement is going away) after that. And no one in training can really hope to own a plane. 

 

Yeah it sucks. 

[mike_elliott]

3 hours ago, McMooney said:

Drove a chevy Volt that would completely destroy my 1996 camaro in the quarter, unfortunately, it was about as sexy as a prius, no take that back nothing is as ugly as a prius

Remember the AMC Matador? Now there is butt ugly.., albeit the Prius is no prom queen for sure

[Igor_U]

3 hours ago, McMooney said:

no take that back nothing is as ugly as a prius

Not even Pontiac Aztek? 

[Fly Boomer]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The earth is constantly making new oil and gas. It is not finite.

True, but funny.  Any idea how many millions of years it takes to turn a dinosaur into oil?

[N201MKTurbo]

2 minutes ago, Fly Boomer said:

True, but funny.  Any idea how many millions of years it takes to turn a dinosaur into oil?

There are two theories about how petroleum came to be. One is the rotted corpses' of old animal and plant life decomposed into petroleum. The other is that the core of the earth has vast amounts of hydrocarbons that are constantly and slowly percolating to the surface of the earth. 

The first theory is better at explaining coal deposits. The second theory makes more sense to me, because you find petroleum in rock structures that would trap percolating hydrocarbons, not structures that would be conducive to having ancient biomass. Even if the second theory is true, the rate of replenishment isn't known. It may take 100 years, 1000 years, 1000000 years? nobody knows. Either way it won't help me before I die.

[jaylw314]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

There are two theories about how petroleum came to be. One is the rotted corpses' of old animal and plant life decomposed into petroleum. The other is that the core of the earth has vast amounts of hydrocarbons that are constantly and slowly percolating to the surface of the earth. 

The first theory is better at explaining coal deposits. The second theory makes more sense to me, because you find petroleum in rock structures that would trap percolating hydrocarbons, not structures that would be conducive to having ancient biomass. Even if the second theory is true, the rate of replenishment isn't known. It may take 100 years, 1000 years, 1000000 years? nobody knows. Either way it won't help me before I die.

I've never heard that second theory.  Not that I'm a geologist, but I would expect that if the lithosphere was having a continuous injection of carbon over its lifetime from the deeper mantle and core, I'd expect that we would see a constant increase in environmental carbon over the entire history of surface geology (including the atmosphere), and I don't believe we have data to support that.

On the other hand, I can certainly see such a theory as being based predominantly on "wishful thinking."  While I have no proof to the contrary, I'd say it's an example of "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof."

[A64Pilot]

5 hours ago, GeeBee said:

The earth is constantly making new oil and gas. It is not finite.

As to the boat. Everybody and I mean everybody is wake boarding now. Notice the site for this boat says, 2-3 hours of "water sports" not "water skiing". That is because wake boarding is much slower and the boat is not on plane. Water skiing requires to get on plane. You have to get over the top of maximum drag to get on plane. Second, most lakes now, mine included require 1000' from shoreline for wake boarding. This is because with their ballast tanks, these boats put out huge wakes which destroy shorelines and spawning grounds. Thus you need at least 2000' shore to shore for wake boarding which means, you have to get out a ways. I could not even get a full rotation of grand kids through with this boat. Of course, the final irony is this "low carbon" boat destroys shorelines, water fowl nesting areas and fish spawn ground, but hey! We're carbon free! So yes, I can tell you why it won't work for all but those "practice lakes" where you go round and round like NASCAR.

Actually with the bow high and the stern squatting to roll a big wake is when power consumption is highest, much higher than at water ski speeds.

The reason is that those huge wakes have enormous power, hence why they destroy the shoreline and peoples yards, boats tied to docks etc. Well where do you think that power comes from, the boat of course, either it’s fuel tank or it’s battery. An electric motor could easily supply the power, and a battery could too, problem is it would take an enormous battery, and that means two things, heavy and expensive, but if the purpose is to roll huge wakes you want heavy, and over $300K defines expensive in my book for a boat.

Curious all you people who are so sure battery everything can’t work, we’re you this way when battery powered drills first came out? How long did it take before you finally believed?

Neighbor has a 1969 427 Cobra Jet Mustang that he thinks is one fast car. The Wife’s work car, the slowest Tesla is over a half second faster than the 427 Mustang.

Electric “things” are coming, I expect that the days of the gas weedeaters, snowblowers, even lawnmower etc are numbered, not because of pollution or whatever, but because they will be quiet and as reliable as your electric drill.

But I don’t expect to see ships and airplanes in my lifetime. Sailing ships, or at least sail assisted ship I think would be possible, maybe, but not electric ones.

Over and over technology has saved our butts, you either believe in it or not. I choose to believe in it.

Yes in my opinion Nuclear will play a big part, it will have to

Edited May 17, 2022 by A64Pilot

[Mooney Dog]

2 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

I expect that the days of the gas weedeaters, snowblowers, even lawnmower etc are numbered

The same battery runs my drills, weedwhacker, leaf blower, and lawn mower. its great! 

[N201MKTurbo]

21 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

I've never heard that second theory.  Not that I'm a geologist, but I would expect that if the lithosphere was having a continuous injection of carbon over its lifetime from the deeper mantle and core, I'd expect that we would see a constant increase in environmental carbon over the entire history of surface geology (including the atmosphere), and I don't believe we have data to support that.

On the other hand, I can certainly see such a theory as being based predominantly on "wishful thinking."  While I have no proof to the contrary, I'd say it's an example of "extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof."

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/41889

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264817210001224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

https://www.motortrend.com/news/0004-turp-abiogenic-petroleum-theory/

Just search for abiogenic...

[Fly Boomer]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Either way it won't help me before I die.

There is the bottom line.  Me either.

[GeeBee]

44 minutes ago, A64Pilot said:

Actually with the bow high and the stern squatting to roll a big wake is when power consumption is highest, much higher than at water ski speeds.

The reason is that those huge wakes have enormous power, hence why they destroy the shoreline and peoples yards, boats tied to docks etc. Well where do you think that power comes from, the boat of course, either it’s fuel tank or it’s battery. An electric motor could easily supply the power, and a battery could too, problem is it would take an enormous battery, and that means two things, heavy and expensive, but if the purpose is to roll huge wakes you want heavy, and over $300K defines expensive in my book for a boat.

Curious all you people who are so sure battery everything can’t work, we’re you this way when battery powered drills first came out? How long did it take before you finally believed?

Neighbor has a 1969 427 Cobra Jet Mustang that he thinks is one fast car. The Wife’s work car, the slowest Tesla is over a half second faster than the 427 Mustang.

Electric “things” are coming, I expect that the days of the gas weedeaters, snowblowers, even lawnmower etc are numbered, not because of pollution or whatever, but because they will be quiet and as reliable as your electric drill.

But I don’t expect to see ships and airplanes in my lifetime. Sailing ships, or at least sail assisted ship I think would be possible, maybe, but not electric ones.

Over and over technology has saved our butts, you either believe in it or not. I choose to believe in it.

Yes in my opinion Nuclear will play a big part, it will have to

You are confusing hydro-dynamics with aero-dynamics. Air is compressible, water is not. It is the amount of hull piercing the water, not the amount of power. I produce the largest wake for instance at a fuel flow of 9gph/engine with my cruiser. It is bow high, stern low and I am displacing huge amounts of water. If I get up on plane, I have less wake, because the power has increased the speed and lifted the stern and if power produced wakes, I should have a larger wake, but I don't and I am burning 18gph/engine. Equally so, boats such as this electric boat, if you notice, have wake tanks, to lower the stern and to pierce and displace more surface water. If this were not true, "wave pools" would not have the paddle piercing the surface. 

[A64Pilot]

I’m not confusing anything, I’ve run boats my whole life and everything from the dinghy to a 45’ Sportfisherman once you just broke over on plane, you could back off the throttle a little because there was a drag reduction. I’m talking about planing hulls of course, semi displacement could be different.

Anyone who’s run a small overloaded boat knows the battle is achieving plane, you move or lean forward etc. once you make plane you can back off a little. Now to go faster you need more power of course, but to just hold plane requires less power than it does to achieve plane with a planing hull boat.

However this is greatly affected by hull design, usually thought to be in three groups displacement, like a canoe that won’t plane, semi displacement that don’t plane well and planing hulls that plane well but aren’t real sea kindly off plane, so hull design will make a huge difference in power required to plane, nothing used to plane easier than the ski nautiques designed for water skiing.

Used to be Ski Nautiques were designed to plane very early and plane bow down to have flat wakes as they were ski completion boats and any kind of wake to pass over in a slalom completion was bad, plus boat speed is lower in completion than most think, but ski speed isn’t. Boat speed starts out at about 20 mph and increases for each run, but maxes out at about 35 MPH, the ski nautiques could plane flat at 20 mph with almost zero wake. It’s been almost 50 years since I skied competition on my Cyprus Gardens Lil Monster.

Apparently though they have changed and the object is to roll a massive wake, and not plane, and to roll that massive wake takes power, the best hulls for making huge wakes are non planing hulls, because all that happens when your pour more and more power to them is the stern squats even more, the bow raises even higher and the engine power goes into creating that huge wake, some older boats that wouldn’t plane you could swamp from the stern squatting so much.

I assume the wake boats will plane of course as you couldn’t sell one that didn’t, but they don’t plane well I assume, probably semi displacement hulls.

[GeeBee]

No, they use ballast tanks, not power. Power would get the boat on plane. I have a wake board academy just up the lake from me. They rarely run over 18 knots. I run my neighbors boat all the time for him wake boarding. We rarely power up over 15 knots or so and run at about 2800 RPM. Ballast tanks however, are full. Power would also lift the stern, not good for wake boarding.

 

 

[McMooney]

5 hours ago, Igor_U said:

Not even Pontiac Aztek? 

forgot about the aztek, would def ride a prius before that.  No clue how someone at GM could think that was a good idea

Edited May 17, 2022 by McMooney

[jaylw314]

3 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/41889

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264817210001224

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenic_petroleum_origin

https://www.motortrend.com/news/0004-turp-abiogenic-petroleum-theory/

Just search for abiogenic...

FWIW, the first line in the wikipedia article states it is a "largely discredited hypothesis".

The first reference to the journal Nature is titled "Abiogenic formation of alkanes in the Earth's crust as a minor source for global hydrocarbon reservoirs"

That's definitely in the category of "requiring extraordinary evidence"  

Edited May 17, 2022 by jaylw314

[aviatoreb]

10 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

That’s the thing, electric way outperforms ICE, I mean it’s not even close, especially in torque, which is what you need to get onto plane quickly.

The problem with electric as power is almost unlimited is battery capacity, there are mainstream over 1,000 HP electric sedans, there are no over 1,000 HP ICE sedans.

If your a performance enthusiast you will either become an electric enthusiast or you will have your head in the sand. This is a short clip, the M5 in this vid was in 2000 the fastest sedan available then, the current one is faster, but not ac quick as either electric

 

Such a fun video!

[A64Pilot]

Not sure it means anything but I worked as a contract welder in the oilfield before it shut down in 1981 or so. At that time they had drilled to a depth that the temp was higher than natural gas could exist, but they had hit gas, apparently it decays above some temp. So it seemed to lead credence that at least some gas was still being created.

My personal belief is that hydrocarbons are likely being created, but the rate of creation is very small. It would seem logical that the oil there is took millions of years to accumulate and at the rate we are using it, it will be essentially gone in X years, you put whatever number you believe for X.

But I believe we will never run out, but that it will become progressively more and more expensive, eventually making it not viable as a fuel source.

If we don’t conserve we are only hastening that becoming a reality.

 

Edited May 17, 2022 by A64Pilot

[MIm20c]

9 hours ago, GeeBee said:

As to the boat. Everybody and I mean everybody is wake boarding now. Notice the site for this boat says, 2-3 hours of "water sports" not "water skiing". That is because wake boarding is much slower and the boat is not on plane. Water skiing requires to get on plane. You have to get over the top of maximum drag to get on plane.

 

2 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

Anyone who’s run a small overloaded boat knows the battle is achieving plane, you move or lean forward etc. once you make plane you can back off a little. Now to go faster you need more power of course, but to just hold plane requires less power than it does to achieve plane with a planing hull boat.

Having grown up on the water I think both of you are correct. The difference is the type of boat you are referring to. The inboard ski boats are geared down and often have a mid mount engine. The OB and I/O boats are often a lot more efficient (think mpg) on plane and trolling.  The following graphs are showing a ski boat vs a fishing CC. 
 

Nevermind, site won’t let me attach anymore…

Mastercraft

Robalo

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by MIm20c

[GeeBee]

Nobody who is serious about the sport runs a I/O or O/B powered boat. They are I/B and if they are wake board boats, they ballast them. Notice the above mentioned electric boat is a ballasted I/B. It might be OK for schools or tracks and I am sure Europe, lakes like Como will go all in but on big lakes in the US, nope.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=No7hB_JOLxI

 

 

 

 

[carusoam]

On 5/16/2022 at 8:10 AM, OZMOONEYMAN said:

Who is worried about the future of general aviation internal combustion engine aircraft?

 

Everybody is required to worry about this topic…. Until…

Reality strikes….

Reality is tough…

If you fret about the future…. You probably won’t be able to own an airplane, boat, truck, or sailboat…

 

Somebody cured the 100LL problem decades ago…. Nobody seemed to care….

Somebody cured the 100LL problem years ago…. That solution didn’t spread…

Somebody has the most recent solution to the 100LL problem… anyone know where it’s at lately?  Is it at my airport?

 

Somebody once said… this too shall pass….

Some parts of the world still use coal for simply heating their homes…. As inefficiently as possible….

 

Please bring the solutions…. Otherwise it doesn’t make much of an interesting discussion…

Flaps, or no flaps, when taking off with UL100….?

What else is going on in NZ?

If GA airplanes are the only problem… everything is good!

 

-a-

[philiplane]

18 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

 

Curious all you people who are so sure battery everything can’t work, we’re you this way when battery powered drills first came out? How long did it take before you finally believed?

 

Simple. Energy density. You need a certain amount of energy to move your vehicle. Batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of petroleum based fuels. Even though combustion engines are far less efficient than electric motors, that is offset by the fact they don't need to haul around an extra 1,000-1,800 pounds of batteries.

And you can fuel your car in minutes, versus hours for your EV. In many cases, your EV charging costs more than fuels do. 

So if we're comparing EV's to combustion engines, the main factors are life cycle costs and convenience. No EV will win the convenience battle. And most will not win the life cycle cost either, since they all cost more than a comparable ICE vehicle up front. 

Much is said about EV's becoming superior once fuels rise above a certain cost. While that is true, the fuel cost they need to rise above, is the same cost that chokes off the economy. Catch 22.

And as for the cordless tool comparison...show me an EV whose battery pack can be changed in a minute...and costs less than $50.

Edited May 18, 2022 by philiplane

[A64Pilot]

43 minutes ago, philiplane said:

Simple. Energy density. You need a certain amount of energy to move your vehicle. Batteries have only a fraction of the energy density of petroleum based fuels. Even though combustion engines are far less efficient than electric motors, that is offset by the fact they don't need to haul around an extra 1,000-1,800 pounds of batteries.

And you can fuel your car in minutes, versus hours for your EV. In many cases, your EV charging costs more than fuels do. 

So if we're comparing EV's to combustion engines, the main factors are life cycle costs and convenience. No EV will win the convenience battle. And most will not win the life cycle cost either, since they all cost more than a comparable ICE vehicle up front. 

Much is said about EV's becoming superior once fuels rise above a certain cost. While that is true, the fuel cost they need to rise above, is the same cost that chokes off the economy. Catch 22.

To answer your points

1. To “supercharge” a Tesla takes 15 to 20 min to charge to 85% or so, to go higher takes more time, probably most of an hour to get to 100%, so of course you stop in the 80’s or when the car tells you that you have enough to reach destination or your next charge point. So it’s minutes, not hours. We use about 33% of battery per day, at home it takes less than two hours to charge, which is irrelevant as you hopefully sleep eight or more.  But if your a traveling salesman or live in Montana etc. EV may not be a good choice.

2, We paid $42K for ours, which is within a few dollars one way or the other for the average vehicle, so far as connivence , I’d say as we never have to go to the gas station, and you wake up every morning to a “full” tank it’s much more convenient than having to gas up a couple of times a week. They cost more now supply vs demand.

2b Weight, properly designed the weight of an EV is roughly the same as an ICE, our model 3 weighs the same as a BMW 3 series which is nearly identically sized. I assume the lighter weight of the motor offsets the battery weight, because the battery is heavy, no getting around that. But if not properly designed battery weight and therefore vehicle weight is more, and that’s what I expect from the majority of newer EV’s, excessive weight because saving weight is hard, tossing in a bigger battery to cover inefficiency is easy and is the way Detroit has always done business.

3. I don’t know about superior, but a model 3 charged at home is cheaper to fuel even if gas cost $1 a gl, and EV’s aren’t the reason gas is so expensive. Logically fuel costs are driven by supply vs demand, if there were more EV’s there would be less demand for gas and the price would be less, so if you want cheap gas, hope more EV’s are built.

A model 3 using 250WH per mile (city average) and 14c per KWH will cost $3.5 per 100 miles to fuel.

Average US vehicle gets 25 MPG, if gas were $1 a gallon, it would burn $4 per 100 miles.

So gas cost for a Model 3 to be “superior” is less than $1 a gallon, I don’t expect we will ever see $1 a gl ever. Last time I saw it was in Kuwait after the war.

I use Model 3 as opposed to EV as well EV’s will be all over the map, just as ICE vehicles are, and admittedly the Model 3 is the most efficient EV, you will get different result comparing an electric truck or SUV to an efficient ICE car of course.

But really, if I planned on continuing to only drive ICE, I’d be cheering on EV’s to reduce the demand on gas so the price would go down. 

 

Edited May 18, 2022 by A64Pilot