Ian

That's a bit of a no-brainer, NO is produced by the combustion process rather than anything inherent to the fuel, the higher the combustion temperature the more NO. It a bit like saying that poos from synthetic meat still smell bad. The strange thing is that they don't actually say what the e-fuel was, based on the emissions with the higher ammonia level it looks like they were included an ammonia based fuel. Diesel engines produce more NO than equivalent petrol engines simply because the combustion temperature is higher than petrol engines can achieve. This also provides greater efficiency due to the laws of thermodynamics. It really depends on your focus, are we trying to improve emissions across the board or are we just trying to fix the greenhouse gas issue. If its the later then it's irrelevant.

As stated I wouldn't mind the process if it had an actual outcome. However it's so poorly implemented that it just doesn't deliver.

Basically it's pretty much mandatory when getting your flight training as you're are flying into major airports. What I didn't understand until later was how half arsed and clueless the whole scheme was. The whole point is if you want to realize the benefits you need to make the system revolve around the identity piece, the ASIC card that you've created. That can't happen at the moment because it's such a poor implementation. The security guard who you ring can't actually verify your identity effectively. How does the system work with overseas pilots and aircrew. How do plane inspections work?

Large parachute type sails were developed as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkySails Wind suffer from the same issues on the sea as on land, intermittency so the gains aren't as large on some routes as they are on others.

Where the winds go the ships don't go so much. When ships used wind the roaring forties were popular.

ASIC cards and the associated protocols are fundamentally broken. If we assume that there is a net benefit from the process there is an enormous shortfall in the actual implementation which negates any net benefit. Below is a list of issues The card is a "Dumb Card" essentially just a piece of plastic with a photo easily copied A smart card solution would provide a secure element which could provide a strong identity and be readable via a mobile phone and provide physical access. For instance a security guard could check the card using an app on their phone. Standard such as PIV already provide the basis for an strong electronic identity Current ASIC clearances are for two years, Secret and Top Secret clearances are valid for 10 years and licenses are valid for 5 years, passports are valid for 10 years. Currently gate access codes tend to be postcodes, written inside the gate or some other really weak access contols which aren't connected back to the person getting access. Some local councils are even claiming that anyone airside needs a visitors pass when they're escorted. Does this apply to RPL passengers or just GA passengers when they embark and disembark? The implementations aren't even penetration tested or required to undergo paper based efficacy evaluations. It's a bit of a shambles. What I'd like to understand is, have any of the bodies which represent General Aviation actually raised any the above with the powers that be. Because in it's current state the whole ASIC system doesn't actually achieve any of the outcomes which it's trying to achieve, all it is an annoyance and sending a couple of local council flunkies on a power trip. Can we lobby anyone with the slightest bit of a clue in this regard?

Nuclear ships may make a comeback. It's not as if it a new idea and shipping generates more CO2 than the entire aviation industry. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2020/11/09/international-marine-shipping-industry-considers-nuclear-propulsion/?sh=4bf84fcf562c

It wasn't meant to be disparaging I think that he's done a great job of building wealth in Australia. Steel production is currently very carbon intensive, Twiggy's business revolves around iron ore. This is a problem for his business model. You can make mostly green steel using Hydrogen by directly reduced iron (DRI) and then further processing it in an electric arc furnace. This is viable if H2 becomes cheap enough which it may do, the most efficient plant for the production of H2 is estimated to product H2 for about US 60c/kg over the life of the plant. This doesn't include power or storage. So you need lots of cheap power using something like solar to make this viable. Australia has lots of space and a goodly amount of sunshine so this can make lots of cheap power some of the time. In theory this might provide energy for the above. All this doesn't change the fact that H2 sucks a bit as a transport fuel for the reasons stated, though it might become a sufficiently cheap feedstock for processes like this on https://www.pnas.org/content/116/26/12654 Ironically I lot of these processes require CO2 as a feedstock. Also Twiggy did admit in 2011 that Forteque Metals had never paid any Tax https://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-09/fortescue-mining-company-tax/3655270 So I wouldn't expect him to do anything without getting the maximum return from Government.

Yes he's been doing it for a while. The only reason I can see him doing this for is to lower the carbon emissions of steel manufacture. He's hoping to combine a healthy dose of government funds with an industry opportunity.

Interesting looking plane, was the front freight loading the reason for the canopy bulge?

OK they're magic then. Special engines made from unobtainium.

The fact that you can still buy them certainly says something about the industry. What were you flying?

Not really sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate? It's just a statement of facts.

I don't mind playing with modern engines however you do need to understand and be comfortable with the technology, it actually makes a lot of things simpler due to the precision that you get. Compared to timing lights it's chalk and cheese. If it really floats your boat you can buy a broken "V12" dual plug BMW engine and completely replace the wiring harness and build your own ECU for a little over a hundred dollars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGf8IMwRuIY Not really my thing but you get my drift. Nostalgia's not what it used to be. Engines are engines are engines, to believe otherwise isn't engineering, power, weight, efficiency etc. The turbines for planes are used by power station with a few modifications. Car engines are used in boats, there's really nothing special about any of them. Of course some people like to believe that aviation engines are special however they're just engines. Theilert repurposed Mercedes engines, Austro repurposed Steyr engines for the Diamond DA50. Some cars are expensive to service, some not so much however even the most expensive pale in comparison to aviation stuff. An entire new 1VD-FTV (280HP) engine is about $20000 inc GST, it's a lot of engine for that price compared to an 8 Cylinder io720 Lycoming (375HP) for about $110000 US.

I've seen people pressure hose modern engines and it does them no harm, the electronics generally well sealed. Repairs are very cheap compared to aviation repairs and you can ask ask the engine what's wrong and it will tell you. But you do need to be able to use a mobile phone or laptop. I remember driving old cars where you'd drive through some water an the engine would stop, I actually got stuck in a floodway after a thunderstorm in an old ford with 3 on the tree and had to ride the starter motor to get out. There used to cars broken down whenever there was a deluge, that doesn't happen anymore. Modern cars use Coil on Plug so there aren't any HT leads and electrical leaks are actually less likely. Rather than two magnetos each plug has a coil, on Mazda's and Saabs this CoP also includes the electronics to detect detonation. Alternators still function at altitude, it's just old fashioned magnetos that need to be pressurized from the turbo to remain functional. In general the tolerances in a modern engine are an order of magnitude better than on a plane engine. In terms of reliability people are generally happy when a plane engine starts and they don't notice when a car engine starts.

It actually looks like a nice engine. Basically endevours like this are to an extend upon peoples whims. According to wikipedia the engine was cancelled in the early 90s when credit was very expensive.

I don't think that I mentioned putting water cooling or putting car engines in planes. What I did mention was that the engines which operate our planes are susceptible to modes of failure which modern engines aren't. Some of the remediation costs from a design perspective are very low and yet they haven't occurred. The profit margins on 0360 engines was quite high, this created the clone market which resulted in some reduction of the prices and actually created some innovation which wouldn't have happened otherwise. Look at roller lifters, introduced first by the clone engine makers and finally Lycoming started to do it. It sounds odd, how could lower margins drive innovation and yet it did. Unfortunately some of the clone supplier have been bought by the companies whose margins they threatened.

I think Jan the owner has a more of a history in marketing than engineering. He was behind the Subaru conversions which had a very high failure rate and didn't appear to understand basic engineering principles. Based upon previous history I'd put a big question mark over the the reduction gearbox design. It's difficult nut to crack and he doesn't appear to use engineers and has no budget for R&D. But seriously ideally I'd like an engine that could run on Jetfuel, diesel or biodiesel, it's safer and it availability is better than avgas. I also expect that the supply will remain available for longer periods as people will continue want to fly overseas and not have to take a boat.

The thing that hydrogen has going for it is its weight for energy content however the volume issues are huge. I'd like the concept to work however the plane that I fly carries about 400L of fuel which gives a range of about 2000km. If I convert this to hydrogen I need at least 4x of this storage 1600L, plus a containment vessel which needs to be spherical/cylindrical so it the wings are no longer a good fit. So essentially airplanes need to look like Belugas (Which is doable if you accept the extra resistance) Then there's the whole logistics thing. At a fundamental level this is why people are looking at ammonia to transport hydrogen, but ammonia is a dangerous gas. It's poisonous and explosive, its only good quality is that you can smell a leak.

The issue is that the technologies aren't mainstream in GA whereas it has in the automotive and RPT industry and RPT. And they are really inexpensive.

Compared to ignition very well. A small low voltage (compared to ignition) electrical current measures resistance between the plug-gap. The changing resistance over time allows the characterization of a normal ignition events. Pre-ignition and detonation create different resistance profiles and a bob's your uncle. In terms of interference with electronics it's a very low powered signal compared to ignition. Also cars now use coil on plug technology which means that you no-longer have the long high voltage leads which tend create electrical noise. The components being smaller and discrete are easier to shield.

Actually modern turbocharged and some naturally aspirated engines dynamically adjust fuel metering to the delivered air. They also use oxygen sensors to ensure that injectors deliver the right amount of fuel. Actually a number of boat engines are just repurposed automotive engines no real redesign. The reality is that car engines can be run at high loads for extended periods without damage and at optimal levels of efficiency. Aircraft engines can't do this. Actually if you look at modern passenger planes this story is very true. Well designed automated systems actually do a very good job of flying the planes and warn you if you're going to fly into a mountain, pilots actually fall asleep quite a bit . A few meters either side in a car and your goose is cooked. My point is that the technology exists and has existed for decades which should make this a moot point. It is also cheap as chips to implement. Why are we even asked to manage fuel flow? It is dumb, the manufacturer knows best and yet they give you knobs, inaccurate, uncalibrated fuel delivery and then try to point the finger at others. I think they should be publicly castigated. The problem is the most GA planes don't have these magic fuel maps, don't have calibrated fuel flow and these features only appear in the top end planes. The research has been done, the designs are already done. For instance Saab uses a simple mechanism of running current through a spark plug to detect detonation, it's usable on noisy air cooled engines and can detect detonation on a per cylinder basis. Also all the patents have expired. You can just pick up old Saab coils and stick them on a spark plug and they do their thing with a few additional electronic components. The only thing holding this back is the current chip shortage.

But probably enough to be concerned. For instance this tragedy may not have eventuated and it concerned the FAA safety team enough to present this. Basically detonation detection is a well understood technology and the patents have all expired. It costs less than an oil change to buy the technology to implement it with off the shelf parts. I know that you can buy aftermarket calibrated injectors however automotive injectors are pre-calibrated or self calibrating and have been since the 1980s. Why can't aircraft engines meet this low bar. I have had a couple of flat automotive engines which were fuel injected and were never a problem to start. Which means that it's just an engineering issue. I'm saying that planes should run reliably and be easy to manage to give you time to invest in areas we cant control which are inherently dangerous. It's easy to pick on plane engines because they are a bit shite. However it is more important is to understand the underlying reasons why this state of affairs exists. A significantly part of the problem is the regulation which while it may have promoted safety in the short term has actually led to a less safe long term outcomes. Basically innovation stalled and the technologies which had been developed in the high end planes disappeared because they became turbine powered. Car engines continued to develop rapidly however these technologies never crossed the ditch, partially because there was a belief that airplane engines were inherently better and those car engineers were cowboys. Technologies which have enormously benefited automotive engine reliability were actually forced on the industry by emission control laws which aircraft have been exempted from.

What about when the plane isn't flying? Or you need to de-fuel after and between flights? With a low pressure container are you saying that in addition to the 4x volume increase you need a second tank that contains the fuel at something over 10x the volume? I just don't understand your train of thought. What is the low pressure container and where would it sit.

No offence, I like poking bears, it's a character fault 😉 If there were vaccines for Syphilis and all those other things yes. You're less likely to get compensation in a vehicle accident if you weren't wearing a seat belt. Drive when your drunk and your insurance company won't pay. Smokers and drinkers do pay significantly for their habit in terms of extra taxes? As I said I'm all for allowing people to do dumb things however I'd like them to pay for it instead of externalizing the costs.