Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - Battery and CG & alternative power

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Battery and CG & alternative power

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

CJohnston(at)popsound.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:15 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

hey all - 



i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative power, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive attitude so far displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking and different ideas.  We have excellent ideas by builders, and further excellent insight by those already flying, and it's all in a pursuit of safety, speed, and super-neato-ness. I'm on board with that!  I also want to applaud those who've made the commitment to go with alternative power.  I'm excited to see some flying examples of new thinking out there.  plus 4 blades looks cool.  I guess I just wanted to drop a public note to the guys doing different things to show support, because I think we're all grown up enough to leave all the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other forums.  Don't be afraid to share your progress and ideas!  I want to see that stuff!



cj

#40410

fuse

www.perfectlygoodairplane.net

do not archive





--

Tim Olson

Joined: 25 Jan 2007
Posts: 2882

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:59 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Dang subie people.....why don't you go get a REAL engine

like an innodyn turbine. (just kidding and stirring the

pot)  I agree Chris...that's one of the nice things about

the group...it's kind of rare that someone gets their head

torn off.  I can't wait to hear of Dan's successes.  It's

also nice to hear the reports on all the various equipment.



By the way, anyone considered a Williams FJ33 for their

RV-10?  It should be much smoother than a 3-blade or 4-blade

prop, and burning something other than 100LL would be a

plus.  Maybe I should start another tail kit.... 



Tim Olson - RV-10 N104CD - Flying

do not archive

Chris Johnston wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   hey all -

 

 i'm reading the discussion about batteries, CG, and alternative

 power, and I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the positive

 attitude so far displayed by the forum members regarding new thinking

 and different ideas.  We have excellent ideas by builders, and

 further excellent insight by those already flying, and it's all in a

 pursuit of safety, speed, and super-neato-ness. I'm on board with

 that!  I also want to applaud those who've made the commitment to go

 with alternative power.  I'm excited to see some flying examples of

 new thinking out there.  plus 4 blades looks cool.  I guess I just

 wanted to drop a public note to the guys doing different things to

 show support, because I think we're all grown up enough to leave all

 the drama about "lyc vs. alt" to other forums.  Don't be afraid to

 share your progress and ideas!  I want to see that stuff!

 

 cj #40410 fuse www.perfectlygoodairplane.net do not archive

jjessen

Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 285
Location: OR

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Again, agreed.  Come on guys, have some humor.  Sheesh



John J



do not archive 



--

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

I was thinking of buying a surplus small turbine from the local Navy

depot for the next one and seeing what could be done for a really noisy

solution!



Really guys do not read tone into my writing, Tim, Mike and others know

I am just a straight forward guy and what I am writing does not have

emotion behind it. Rather I just want everyone to be aware of what's

going on and not play the he said she said game. 

We do not know the FWF weight of the Eggenfellner, nor do we know the

FWF weight of the Lycoming. That is all I was trying to say. 

But more importantly I was trying to re-enforce Jesse's comments on

weight moving aft. This should not be undertaken without the proper

thought. 

Dan 



--

Vern(at)teclabsinc.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:39 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Here are the specs. from Wikipedia:



The FJ33 has a dry weight of less than 300 lb, overall diameter of

21.05in, 47.9in overall length, and produces between 1000 and 1800 lbf

static thrust. Specific fuel consumption at 1200 lbf thrust (SLS, ISA)

is understood to be 0.486 lb/h/lbf.



Works out to about ~97 gallons an hour. Better plan on wet wings:)



Vern (#324 still riveting)

--

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:41 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Here is a reply from George Braly to one of the Lancair guys. It is not meant to be inflammatory to the Alternate Guys.  I for one, considered what would be the trade-off with the Thielert Centurion 4.0 which is now being offered to US Type Certificated aircraft under an STC.  I have also given consideration to a throttle de-rated IO-580.  

  

Each of you should know George's credentials so I will post the following -   

  

Craig,  

There is “another whole issue” with diesel engines.  

One that NOBODY has discussed in public.  It is so “silent” that it almost appears that to bring up the subject may be like breaking wind in church.  

 So… here goes - - you heard it here - - first.  

The diesel exhaust is cooler.   Is THAT a problem?   No.  But let's think a little further.  

Why?     

Because the CR is much higher.  So the exhaust expansion is more.   OK….  

But if the CR is much higher then - - so is the peak internal cylinder pressure.  

OK… but that means that the bulk internal combustion gas temperatures are a lot higher.  

And that means that you get a LOT more BTU’s transferred into the cylinder head.  

And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware - - they tend - - as a result to use rather large radiators.  

Because that heat has to be dissipated - - - some way.   

HOW?   Either through air cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiator.  

EITHER WAY  - - -  you end up with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around 0.36 to 0.37  (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark ignition engine ) .   

However - - whatever fuel efficiency is realized - - - is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET  by the additional cooling  drag requirements.  

End result - - - it likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to get you the same air speed.  

Regards,  George  

  

We are all about energy efficiency, performance, cost effective flying and of course safety… Right.  And yes, I have even lusted after the Williams FJ33 (being a turbine and turbo-prop mechanic by night).  Oh yeh, and while the rest of you are ogling SNF '07, I am going after certification to work on Rotax 912 engines if that tells you anything about kit-built aircraft announcements in 2007.  

  

John C.  

Thanks Tim for the earlier note.   

  

--

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 10:39 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

I’m guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?   

   

Do not archive  

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 12:39 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

  

  

   

Here is a reply from George Braly to one of the Lancair guys. It is not meant to be inflammatory to the Alternate Guys.  I for one, considered what would be the trade-off with the Thielert Centurion 4.0 which is now being offered to US Type Certificated aircraft under an STC.  I have also given consideration to a throttle de-rated IO-580.  

Each of you should know George's credentials so I will post the following -   

Craig,  

There is “another whole issue” with diesel engines.  

One that NOBODY has discussed in public.  It is so “silent” that it almost appears that to bring up the subject may be like breaking wind in church.  

 So… here goes - - you heard it here - - first.  

The diesel exhaust is cooler.   Is THAT a problem?   No.  But let's think a little further.  

Why?     

Because the CR is much higher.  So the exhaust expansion is more.   OK….  

But if the CR is much higher then - - so is the peak internal cylinder pressure.  

OK… but that means that the bulk internal combustion gas temperatures are a lot higher.  

And that means that you get a LOT more BTU’s transferred into the cylinder head.  

And, as everybody with some diesel experience is aware - - they tend - - as a result to use rather large radiators.  

Because that heat has to be dissipated - - - some way.   

HOW?   Either through air cooling through cylinder fins or through a radiator.  

EITHER WAY  - - -  you end up with an ENGINE that may have a BSFC of around 0.36 to 0.37  (compared to 0.38 to 0.39 for a same horsepower spark ignition engine ) .   

However - - whatever fuel efficiency is realized - - - is most likely MORE THAN OFFSET  by the additional cooling  drag requirements.  

End result - - - it likely takes more pounds of fuel to get you from  A to B - - or more Hp to get you the same air speed.  

Regards,  George  

We are all about energy efficiency, performance, cost effective flying and of course safety… Right.  And yes, I have even lusted after the Williams FJ33 (being a turbine and turbo-prop mechanic by night).  Oh yeh, and while the rest of you are ogling SNF '07, I am going after certification to work on Rotax 912 engines if that tells you anything about kit-built aircraft announcements in 2007.  

John C.  

Thanks Tim for the earlier note.   

-----Original Message-----

 From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com (owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com)] On Behalf Of Vern W. Smith

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 9:39 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

--> RV10-List message posted by: "Vern W. Smith" <Vern(at)teclabsinc.com>  

Here are the specs. from Wikipedia:  

The FJ33 has a dry weight of less than 300 lb, overall diameter of  

21.05in, 47.9in overall length, and produces between 1000 and 1800 lbf  

static thrust

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 11:46 am Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Compression Ratio – CR.  Diesel is not a spark ignition cycle but rather a heat cycle due to compression heating of the fuel/air mixture.  Instead of 7.5, 8.7, 9.5 or 10.0:1 try something more like 20+:1.  The parts have to sustain greater combustion pressures as well.  George can be the Grand Poo Baa when it comes to understanding and studying LOP/ROP and combustion pressures.  

   

The Thielert 1.7 liter twin (the Diamond D-42) obtained miserly smashingly low fuel consumption on their way back over the pond.  The need for heat dissipation puts our lowly Avgas powered units to shame.  

   

Air transfer cooling and water cooling are not to be taken lightly hence his post.  His comment focuses interest in drag induced P-51 like induction cowls and their effect on desired airspeed.  The RVator and my favorite author did a piece on a heat to head competition of an ALT Auto conversion against a Lycosaurus.  In climb, noise, cruise speed and fuel economy.  Its time for a stroll down the archive halls.  At high altitudes, Jet A wins out over ignition and avgas every time.  At lower FL like 120/160/180 you better have a turbo prop or an RV-10.  

   

Don’t guess Grasshopper.   

   

John  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:39 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

  

   

I’m guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?   

   

Do not archive  

   

      [quote][b]

rvbuilder(at)sausen.net
Guest

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 12:56 pm Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Well, technically I am also right as diesel fuel quality is measured (as part of ASTM D 6751),  by among other things, cetane (hexadecane) rating (how well it auto ignites compared to (iso-)octane which is how well it doesn’t auto ignite also known as knock) which directly affects everything that George is talking about.    

   

  As someone who owns a large bore diesel truck and has been around diesel equipment most of my life, I am painfully aware of cooling (and heating) issues around operating diesel equipment, but that wasn’t my question now was it.    Talking diesels I just assume higher compression ratios.  Sorry, long winded answer to a long winded answer.  (and I am laughing as I hit send!)  

   

Michael  

Do not archive  

       

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of John W. Cox

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 2:46 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

  

  

   

Compression Ratio – CR.  Diesel is not a spark ignition cycle but rather a heat cycle due to compression heating of the fuel/air mixture.  Instead of 7.5, 8.7, 9.5 or 10.0:1 try something more like 20+:1.  The parts have to sustain greater combustion pressures as well.  George can be the Grand Poo Baa when it comes to understanding and studying LOP/ROP and combustion pressures.  

   

The Thielert 1.7 liter twin (the Diamond D-42) obtained miserly smashingly low fuel consumption on their way back over the pond.  The need for heat dissipation puts our lowly Avgas powered units to shame.  

   

Air transfer cooling and water cooling are not to be taken lightly hence his post.  His comment focuses interest in drag induced P-51 like induction cowls and their effect on desired airspeed.  The RVator and my favorite author did a piece on a heat to head competition of an ALT Auto conversion against a Lycosaurus.  In climb, noise, cruise speed and fuel economy.  Its time for a stroll down the archive halls.  At high altitudes, Jet A wins out over ignition and avgas every time.  At lower FL like 120/160/180 you better have a turbo prop or an RV-10.  

   

Don’t guess Grasshopper.   

   

John  

           

  

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 11:39 AM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

  

   

I’m guessing CR is referring to the Cetane Rating?   

   

Do not archive  

   [quote]  ;         - The RV10-List Email Forarch & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,[/b]_;  --> http://www.matronics.bsp;         - NEW MATRONICS WEB FO; http://forums.matronics.com</================== [b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:04 pm Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

From my Lancair Buddies:  

Gang,  

   

I wrote Thielert about the feasibility of installing their engine in an experimental aircraft - specifically a Legacy.  The reply:  

   

   

Dear Mr. Keyworth,  

   

Thank you for your interest in the CENTURION aircraft engines product range.  Currently we do offer the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine and the CENTURION 4.0 (350 PS).   

   

Whereas the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) can be fuelled with either Diesel or Jet A1, the stronger CENTURION 4.0 is a pure Jet fuel engine.  Today the CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) holds an EASA and an FAA type-certificate.  Our new CENTURION 4.0 is EASA type certificated and we are presently working on the FAA certificate.  

   

See our general brochure: http://www.thielert.com/download/prospekt_retrofit_en.pdf (8MB)  

   

The CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine offers - in comparison to the original engines of the Cessna 172 and Piper 28 series - many advantages concerning the safety, comfort, performance and fuel efficiency.  Especially the enormous profitability of our engine is due to the significant lower fuel consumption with the cheaper Diesel or Jet A1 fuel.  

   

We do offer Retrofit-Kits for a variety of models from the Cessna 172 and Piper PA 28 series.  Each Kit includes: New engine mount, engine, reduction gear, turbocharger, starter, alternator, cooling system, prop governor, vacuum pump, single lever control selector, FADEC, engine instruments, wiring harness and a new MT-variable pitch propeller.  

   

The same benefits basically will be offered by the CENTURION 4.0 Jet Fuel engine:  

   

The engine will be single lever controlled through our FADEC (Full Authority Digital Engine Control).  

   

Max power of 350 PS(DIN 15°C) will be available for 5 minutes; propeller 2.300 RPM.  

   

Full HP will be available up to approximately 12.000 ft.  

   

Max continuous power will be appr. 330 PS(DIN 15°C); propeller 2.300 RPM.  

   

At 18.000 ft we estimate approx. continuous 290 PS(DIN 15°C).  

   

At FL 240 we estimate approx. continuous 250 PS(DIN 15°C).  

   

Certified service ceiling is FL 250.  

   

For the cabin pressurization a separate compressor, driven by our accessory gear, will be available.  

   

Full power (350 PS DIN 15°C) fuel consumption at sea level = roughly 20.1 gallons per hour Best Economy (60 % rated power - 210 PS DIN 15°C) = estimated 11.0 gallons per hour  

   

We currently estimate the weight of the CENTURION 4.0 complete & dry including the gearbox, starter, alternator, harness and FADEC depending on the installation, at 620 lbs.  

   

As mentioned, until today Thielert Aircraft Engines has developed Retrofit-Kits for the Cessna 172 and PA 28 series with our smaller CENTURION 2.0 (135 PS) engine.  

   

Our engines show a different complexity and have a highly sophisticated electrical system, which requires an installation according to regulations and procedures as you find in certified aircraft.  Thus, we cannot offer the CENTURION engines for experimental/Kit installations.  [Emphasis mine]  

   

If you do have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.  

   

Sincerely  

   

Wolfgang Biereth  

  

John C. – just for a perspective  

  

   

  

  

  

  

  

  

  

 [b]http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV10-List  

  

  

  

 [b]http://forums.matronics.com  

  

 
   [quote][b]

AV8ORJWC

Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1149
Location: Aurora, Oregon "Home of VANS"

Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 1:21 pm Post subject: Battery and CG & alternative power

Me too, George is, I am sure laughing as well as to what he intended.  On the D-42, the cooling issue was a Big Deal.  I have great pictures if anyone wants to view my shots of my partners D-42 that was at OSH ’06. Study of the European Accident reports shows a lot of effort was focused on the topic and its cure.  Having flown over to Germany a few months ago.  They are hyper about solar, wind powered and anything non MOGAS.  Our Senator Smith (no Jimmy Stewart) is beating the drum on Investment credits for Wind Power.  Now that is a large composite blade assembly.  

   

Hope the rest of the Alternate Engines guys enjoy the specifics on the Centurion 4.0.  With RSVM taking out everything  above FL250, Jet A is a non issue today at our FLs.  The McDonald’s deep fat fry cookers I cleaned as a kid for $1.00 – now that’s environmentally cheap as long as you don’t mind a plane that breaks Wind rather than cuts through it.  

   

John  

Do not Archive or post to the RV Builder Hotline either  

         

  

From: owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv10-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of RV Builder (Michael Sausen)

 Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 1:56 PM

 To: rv10-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: RE: Battery and CG & alternative power  

  

   

  Well, technically I am also right as diesel fuel quality is measured (as part of ASTM D 6751),  by among other things, cetane (hexadecane) rating (how well it auto ignites compared to (iso-)octane which is how well it doesn’t auto ignite also known as knock) which directly affects everything that George is talking about.    

   

  As someone who owns a large bore diesel truck and has been around diesel equipment most of my life, I am painfully aware of cooling (and heating) issues around operating diesel equipment, but that wasn’t my question now was it.    Talking diesels I just assume higher compression ratios.  Sorry, long winded answer to a long winded answer.  (and I am laughing as I hit send!)  

   

Michael  

Do not archive  

      [quote][b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV10-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum