turboplanner

1 minute ago, skippydiesel said:

I am appalled at Australia's lack of foresight & planning - If the small, climate & often terrain challenged countries of Scandinavian can deliver IKEA/ Scania/DAF/Volvo?etc/etc to the World, why are we not achieving in a like manner ?? Then there are the ex Soviet Block countries, that have dragged themselves out of the mess of that collapse,  to  sell recreation level aircraft, aircraft components and probably a lot more. 

We focus on our sporting myths and run down our science establishments. We crucify those that try against the odds & fail (unless they are in the building industry).

Our strength could/should be in our educated population, science & technology - the future of industry (everywhere) is, for the most part, robotics & AI - minimal jobs.

In a word "cheapest". The Australian demographic since the 1950s has progressively opted to buy the cheapest products available. That erodes the markets of the manufacturers who, due to Australia's small population can only build in tiny runs, and our manufacturers go broke. 

10 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

"......just pull the numbers making TBO and the numbers that have been sold and the numbers that are still registered for Rotax." If each manufacturer has a different concept for "making TBO"  the statistics will not give you a true result.

 

ie Is it making TBO, if  the engine requires  significant intervention to keep it airworthy, before achieving the claimed TBO  hours?

My definition for TBO is with scheduled maintenance and perhaps one or two minor unscheduled events with an obvious cause which, when corrected will take it over the line.

That's the equivalent of time to an in-frame rebuild in a truck.

3 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

anyway, we are all entitled to our opinions, time will tell if nuc becomes a reality for aus or not. if it does or doesn't i just hope they come up with a way to keep industry alive in this country, too much has gone overseas already.

I've stood at the hypo centre; the spot directly beneath where Enola Gay was when the atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and I've also stood in the hypocentre at Nagasaki. 

The combined Japanese banks all set up shop in the roofless Bank of Japan just a walk up the road on the Monday morning after the bomb dropped. 

Both cities have thriving residential, commercial and industrial buildings tpday on a density we can't achieve in any of our cities.

So much for half life.

Once again, there's only a need to go away from coal, if emitting CO2 causes global warming, and now, since the United Nations has shifted the start of the 1.4 degree armageddon where the predicted average temperature of Melbourne will reach today's average temperature of Sydney.

Nuclear is the best solution, but Australia is out of time and out of money to complete just one in time for the United Nations agenda.

If you look at the subsidised wind farm construction since the 1980s, we're out of time for them too.

And solar has trouble getting on to the AEMO dashboard.

That leaves .............

1 hour ago, skippydiesel said:

 "I used to be conceited, now I'm perfect" not sure who said that but have always liked it.

 

Back to engines - Yes! hard to find anything made by man that can be described as perfect. You may be right about the higher hp Rotax's, time will tell. Having great respect for the engineers who developed the 9 range, I will be surprised if there are any serious issues (other than the scary purchase price).

 

I like my 912ULS, its my second, & despite all the aircooled knockers comments on complexity/twin carbs/etc I find it easy to service & work on (did the Sprag Clutch on my last one - that's how I learnt not skimp on battery condition).

If it's any help, just pull the numbers making TBO and the numbers that have been sold and the numbers that are still registered for Rotax.

Then do the same for the other engines in the same market.

That will tell the difference between what is actually happening and loaded gossip.

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Not everyone needs to know the intricacies of everything. You are doing the "straw man" thing again.. Nev

Well correct me if I'm wrong but I could swear someone brought "allotropes" into the CO2 discussion, 

two allotropes of carbon, for example being diamond and graphite.

I'm smart enough to know when comparing ICE's CO2 emission and EV Zero Emission, that the ICE engine is not spitting diamonds.

Ah the laypersons have arrived.

........never ending PR work until his gender had healed.

Jill asked him what she had to do.

"It's easy" he said "We have 17 PR events per day around the world releasing our new truck " he said.

"You will meet some hostile people becaise it costs twice as much as we said it would; we had to cut the body so we're selling it with innner shell only and some people aren't happy with that and it can't pull the skin of a rice pudding, but otherwise it's OK; people will get used to it. They didn't like T Model Fords either with their crank handles, black paint and packing case floors stencilled 'Coffs Liver Pills'.

All you have to say when a question is asked is "GFY" - we're getting 3.7 million views a day of me saying it".

Jill ...............

WS00275.pdf Here's some information as of two days ago on a Hydrogen refuelling station for HICE.

These are the vehicles the Chief Engineer of Toyota was talking about, where the technology allows ICE car and truck platforms to use the existing ICE tooling, so a much simpler otion available much faster.

Note the size of it - too big for just an extra pump at a petrol/diesel road house, so Infrastrucure is a factor in a future of ICE as it is with EV where people so far have been telling us they were able to pull in to a petrol/diesel roadhouse and thier car was charged while having lunch. There are already stories out there about queues and broken chargers, but the big elephant in the room is that if there was a big take up of EV, even with the 30 minute charging that's being boasted about, the real estate footprint of a roadhouse trying to park the same number of cars which will take up the charge point from half an hour to several hours in not viable where the existing footprint copes with an average 5 minutes per fill of petrol.

Infrastructure killed LNG and that was just a small conversion.

23 minutes ago, facthunter said:

CO2 is a compound .  Carbon exists in 3 forms called allotropes. Where does CO2 come into this "elimination" concept? What do you mean by eliminate?.  Nev

I'm saying the word "de-carbonisation" is misleading. That would mean getting rid of Carbon [C] which isn't doing any harm.

If you go to the site under Technology they explain what they do and how they supply product to people who eliminate CO2 emissions.

16 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Can you explain how that happens Turbs?

CO2

C = Carbon 1 atom

O2 = Oxygen 2 atoms

42 minutes ago, Carbon Canary said:

https://1414degrees.com.au/

I notice that we're paying for that.

Interesting that people use words like "de-carbonising" when for every atom of Carbon we eliminate, we also eliminate two atoms of oxygen.

Jill received a very quick from a mortally affected Elon complaining of gender bias and .................

....."gfy", turns and says "gfy", turns and says "gfy" turns her eyes upward and looks at bull.

Elon also cautioned her about sticking wheels on a garbage bin lid using "No More Nails" from Bunnings and passing them off as utes.

Jill was a lawyer who graduated from UNSW, and we know what they're like once they get their hooks into you

She wrote a legal letter which read "............................

...minder.

"What the XXXX were you doing lying down there she shrieked. I thought you were the CROC!!!!!"

Just then .......

....were enigmatic and admitted it.

They lived in a Unit on Horseshoe Bay beach an all were members of the HBSLSC having earned their bronze medallions early in life.

An old croc lived ip near the Point. He didn't worry anyone and they didn't worry him.

One night just as Jill was going for her nightly walk to the Point a thunderstorm hit. The trees turned that eery green and thrashed around. Suface water started splashing down from the town. The wind was shrieking and .........................

1 hour ago, aro said:

The aerodynamic coefficient IS the measure of the power required to "push the air out of the way" or move through the air. If you are measuring air resistance it is the useful measurement.

We have to supply both flat front and with aero kits to save fuel (=reduce airpower demand), so we have two coefficients, flat, and Aero based on an aerodynamic test just like an aircraft. We test the aero kit in place for its coefficient. For a car we would need its coefficient for its specification to do what you were trying to do.

These figures are enough to make it clear there is an exponential difference in power demand as the speed increases, so more fuel is consumed on the suburban and Highway cycles, and we can expect the same trend lines on electric, so we need to focus on the parts of a circuit which demand more power and possibly even change the orientation of the rectangle.

1 hour ago, aro said:

For aircraft it is relatively simple... remember all that stuff from theory about best rate of climb, best glide, minimum sink, the drag curve and the changes with weight? All the information is already known. And we use most of the energy already - we don't generally have air brakes so there isn't wasted energy to capture from regeneration.

Yes

1 hour ago, aro said:

 

The problem is the increase in power required to keep you aloft as weight increases. That's a weight squared relationship, so things get worse quickly as weight increases. And battery chemistry has hard limits on the energy that can be stored per kg for each combination of elements.

Yes, has to be resolved.

1 hour ago, aro said:

 

So I am not optimistic about useful electric aircraft.

Which is why I've been asking the question "If the government is not forcing it, why would you?

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I only suggested it for the good of the site. You are good at avoiding the "essence" of the issue. Your suggestion solves NOTHING. It means you're happy to split the discussion to suit your agenda.Nev

You got your answer, you've got your thread you can say all that over there.

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Earlier on you argued for the Opposite case and proposed  a new topic be created..It does need a tidy up. Can't the content be transferred over?  The longer it goes on like this the sillier it looks. Pilots are supposed to be good at making the right decisions.  Nev

I didn't propose it, I just said I agreed with it because it's neat, but some of the very best threads on this site, have evolved just like this one.

You got what you wanted and there's an EV thread on the other site where you can go for your life.

1 hour ago, aro said:

 

These seem way too high. If you use an engine BSFC figure of e.g. 250g/kWh, 35 kW at 100km/h is equivalent to about 12litres per 100km.

 

Probably half that is more common. 6 litres/100km gives 17.5 kW at 100km/h and 17.5 kW/h for 100km. Pretty close to the 16 kw/h for 100km originally stated.

They will be; you can't directly get from airpower, which is the power required just to push the wind out of the way to fuel consumption there are other factors such as aerodynamic coefficient and fuel map/chart in the ICE engine.

The figures I quoted were just to show the exponential power demand as you go faster or hit headwinds.

That's all you need to know to understand that for circuit training, each sector of the circuit has to be calculated separately, which we mentioned some time ago.

With the Product and Application factors known and a fuel map we can calculate, for a specific vehicle, fuel consumption down to one decimal place. Where I previously mentioned using ASI, altimeter etc, allowed me to send the data to the US for that particular shift on that particular route with that particular wind direction, together with the prevailing wind for that location, and accurately repeat the resulting fuel calculation for that tanker shift on that route.

An ICE engine supplies power in a different way to an electric motor which provides an instant response (I'm on the record as saying the four Japanese trucks I drove in Japan in the mid 90's performed like 5 litre V8s. Not surprisingly just about eveyone who drives and EV comments on this.

As a result of this difference in supplying the right foot with power there's a difference when you start looking at range, and BEV seems to drain exponentially faster when more power or load is demanded, so again going back to the training aircraft we're looking for bencmarks; do we scrap AC? do we lighten one area and fit more battery capacity etc. It would be nice to know some benchmarks. 

8 minutes ago, facthunter said:

There is now  a new forum for this subject under the Proper heading , but NO ,It still carries on under the" Has Jabiru been sold" Heading.  That's why I'm not further commenting HERE.  Nev

That's Ok, you have a specific thread to comment in.

Yes this thread started out about spies and none of the people posting here opted to say who the person was that bought in, his background and why it's a great gain for Jabiru. Most of us know anyway, so the conversation moved to electric aircraft and particularly endurance and we've managed to pull together a lot of engine data which gives up a better understanding of what would be required to increase electric motor range.

So far we've bult up a lot of detail, and I don't want to lose that as we have in the past.

.......post security guards on every likely corner.

"Queenslanders just don't understand" chimed in bull who not so long ago became a new Tasmanian and since the collision was fitting in well as a New Australian and wore a T shirt saying "Bone is BS!", and in the firelight told a story that had all the under-wing campers [avref] reaching for their lucky teddy bears.

It was about a group of ...............................

3 hours ago, coljones said:

And around cities, prime agricultural land turned into solar farms with housing built underneath.  Farmers are entitled to get the best price for their land and in this case land bought or leased would be at the best price.  This is much better than going slowly broke or waiting for the vultures to turn up and selling out for a song to the farmer next door.

The Agribusiness industry direction is amalgamating Ma and Pa farms into much bigger ones, then installing huge rotary irrigators. If you google-earth up the east coast you'll see these big green circles as they expand. You can't grow productive produce or grass in the shade.

The Victorian Government dream of solving their shrinking power station issue by putting a power station on every roof has crashed.

However, there's plenty of non productive land in every State. Much of South Australia is outside the "Goyder Line" where there's not enough rainfall to conduct any type of high-volume farming.

So you don't have to go to the extreme of building houses under solar "farms". The red centre offers dirt cheap land.

The problem is that:

(a) both wind and solar are intermittant and

(b) both wind and solar are like a car without an accelerator; even with the wind blowing or the sun shining, you can't ramp up power from Base to Peak for a very hot day or a very cold night; only coal-fired or nuclear can do that.

With Solar/wind you would have to build a massive grid capable of Peak Power at a massive prime cost, just for the extreme weather - it's not viable.

If you translate that to EV, we will not have the available power to run EV across the board, let alone elctric aircraft.

Which is why my argument is "why even get involved with electric aircraft if our governments don't consider the PM and NOx emissions concentrated or voluminous enough to warrant emission controls and CO2 not voluminous enough to warrant investigation and regulation?

The figures I've done indicate we could certainly achieve a full hour's flight with 40 minutes reserve, but why would you spend all that money when the result could not be measured?

44 minutes ago, kasper said:

Agreed, BUT a 150km round trip Newcastle to Singleton last week mostly at 110kph with aircon on and just cruising along returned 16kw/100km. 

As EVs are really WORST consumers of electric/km at higher speed I think my real world is a fair worst case.

 

I have also driven the Ioniq5 and its nice but I do not know its actual kw/100.  I discounted it from my to buy consideration after a short drive when NRMA brought a fleet of EVs to town for members to try out. 

I ran some airpower calcs to show variations and why people who drive locally don't have range issues.

Base on the BYD frontal area (decode your own for an aircraft):

SPEED                   AIRPOWER DEMAND (power required just to push wind out of the way)

50 km/hr               4 kW

60 km/hr               8 kW

80 km/hr              18 kW

100 km/hr             35 kW

110 kM/hr              47 kW

10 knot headwind at 110 km/hr 61 kW

10 knot tailwind at 110 km/hr 35 kW

Quartering wind at 110 km/hr more than head wind.

So on the Highway cycle two people driving the same car on different days can get substantially different battery drain rate.

These speeds roughly equate with our Australian speed zones, so you can see that the further out from the innner cities we go the bigger the battery drain and that can be multiplied by longer and longer travel distances, so if we want do plan to cover the various cycles, we have to plan for this, and  take the emotion and agenda out of it.    

5 minutes ago, kasper said:

Agreed that power per 100km varies.

 

However, the 16kw/100km I use in debunking IS the actual 110kph consumption use on highway of the BYD Seal last week

There will be a difference with 100 km/hr and a difference with the speed of head winds and a difference with quartering winds and a difference with grade.   We test vehicles with an odometer, compass heading, altimeter and ASI.

2 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

I know that if I have the vehicle out of chill mode into sport mode, if I have the air conditioning set below 20° and if I have the sentry mode activated to run 24-hours every day it uses quite a bit of battery.

One piece of information that would be handy in looking at an aircraft is the extra battery drain for AC, so it would be interesting to compare highway segments (a) with AC off for % battery drain over a known distance vs a hot day with the AC set at the temp you would set it for in a flight and what the battery drain would be then. In an AC where your primary interest is in range, it might be possible to lower flight power drain to allow for AC drain.