turboplanner

This is where our supposed "SAFETY" regulator steps in and makes the children play nicely together.... 

 

All data (OR, Avplan, airservices and flight radar) could be gathered and sanitised, then redistributed..... 

 

The supposed “SAFETY” regulator already has and it’s based on several lifetimes of experience. To perform to it you have to make your electronics work.

"......Cappy though, with those bulging arm muscles, six pack, legs like tree trunks....."  "....and body odour like a chook pen" added Betty who was a PC (avref) holder who owned a Nynja which......

Maybe it is due to the number of in aircraft fires both on the ground and in the air. Once LiPo batteries start burning the fire is hard to extinguish.

 

Thermal runaway remains one of the biggest issues to solve. In my experience in the transport industry we've been looking for the Big Battery Breakthrough for 34 years. If we could crack the Thermal Runaway/Charge/Range trio we will be into electric vehicles and aircraft decades sooner.

I just read saccani's post.

 

Interesting.

 

Dumb question/s:

 

Granted they were dropping water on the fire, and it would probably been from a low altitude.

 

But not to the point of tree top I would hope.

 

Way back the news report was talking about the last few seconds of flight - alas it was given in metres rather than feet.   (Sorry, I'm still a feet person for altitude)

 

I seem to remember they were 1,000 above ground level.    As that is/was in metres, that is quite high to run out of margin.

 

(No offence)

 

Has the CVR been played back to anyone yet?

 

FD, the ATSB will be posting updates on this and these will have conventional references.

I couldn't find a preliminary report or file number, but it should only be a matter of days before the basics are posted.

......help him; but he couldn’t, Cappy was known as “the flash” at the Gumly Gumly RSL. “Only lightning was faster” Beryl had said as they washed dishes one night, and Cheryl.....

......he can produce a video showing Ghandi having a conversation with Greta, or ..........

No. Way. You have to carry around two power sources. And regenerative braking is not a thing for airplanes. Actually, on reflection, you could have an electric airplane and add a petrol-driven generator for longer trips. The generator would only need to produce, say, 50% of takeoff power to maintain the battery charge in cruise. 

 

The hybrid car as we know it was partially designed to take account of amortising of existing tooling which is always the killer in automotive manufacturing, and what has made it so hard for Tesla to get off the ground. A key part of it was to have a conventional transmission to the wheels and either an electric motor driving a shaft into the transmission, or electric motors in the wheels, plus thye generator, plus all the on/off regen control. If you redesign for an aircraft with an engine driving a generator only, and an electric motor with rpm limited for direct connection to prop, a lot of the weight comes out of the equation, and then you can look at a small bank of batteries and a high capacity generator or vice versa and optimise them for performance and range. A few years ago you would also have bonded printed solar generator material to the top surfaces, but it appears this either didn't work or didn't last out in the open.

....under LGBTOM laws they had equal rights with the Other Man. This left Cappy with six problems..................

......dangle depends on the state of the Drifter’s skin (avref) and continued “I used to have a reel with a handle on my Drifter for cold mornings and...”

WRECK FLYING URGES ALL MEMBERS NOT TO TRY THIS AT HOME AND BELIEVES THAT THE INSURERS, & TUBB'S INVESTORS, WILL BE VERY (VERY) CYNICAL OF ANY QUICK-FIX WHILST THE THREAT OF LITIGATION REMAINS IN THE AIR (AVREF) AND WHILST THE HUMAN FACTORS SZAR IS STILL CONSIDERING ALL IMPLICATIONS OF THE ENCABULATOR SCANDAL ……………………………….. MODERATOR 6

 

TURBO’S RESPONSE: YOU JUST WANT US TO LIVE IN A NANNY STATE! nttiawwt.

..........what's missing?, what's missing? as he tried to find a way of fixing the encabulator fire problem. Then it came to him; the stator circuit wiring was too light and that affected the fluoro-mirrors, so he came up with a quick fix and all the Drifters were back in the air, where a new Regulation........

Good to hear you are on the way back!

We don’t need to read ridiculous posts from amateur politicians, or leftist catch cries about non-existent “lobbies”. They belong on What’s Up.

Mark there is a quite a bit we agree on. Let's continue this debate on the WUA site, under the title

 

How can Australia become the Innovative Nation as once promised?

 

Good idea

DOG (Diesel on gas) is probably still about but has dropped off the horizon a bit. The engine runs cleaner and oil stays cleaner and with less diesel knock and delivers more power so the  cooling system may be under  what is required, at the output limit. Often the turbo is dialled back to  (near) the original output. The gas % is quite low.  so the savings may not be a lot. . TOWN gas may be an option if you have  a large volume available as it's not compressed much. Gas prices have gone upwards of what they used to be, but near Melbourne it's still giving some of the best $/Km I can achieve with anything for getting me around.. GAS doesn't suit all engines. It's harder on valve seats. if they aren't made of reasonable material. Nev 

 

That might have been the case in the 1970s, and might still be the case with someone driving an older vehicle on LPGas but the NOx and PM emission levels will be of a ratio of 100 vs 3 for today's engines.

Yaw not looking at it from the same direction as I am. 

 

Science says it's the cleanest fuel available, and "When Greeny's Attack", that's a defense that will be needed. 

 

It would hugely clean up the emissions of a Lyconti, Jabiru, ect, who's 1960's emissions are a long, long way from Euro 4.

 

One litre of petrol produces 2.3 kg of CO when burnt, whereas the equivalent amount of autogas (1.33 litre due to lower density of autogas) produces only 1.5 * 1.33 = 2 kg of CO when burnt., CO emissions are 30% lower,, and NO by 50%.

 

There is little choice if it goes down the road the OP is concerned about. I don't understand why some aren't on gas now.

 

From that perspective, yes, you'd be taking them to about Euro I.  I'm on the record as saying diesel engines HAD to blow smoke; there was a cop near Ballarat who was obsessed with cleaning up trucks, and he'd book trucks for blowing smoke, they'd have to be taken to the one EPA testing station in Altona where an instruction would be issued to clean them up, and since some of them were just weeks old, the owners would bring them back to us to fix the engine or else. We'd replace injectors/fuel pumps and it would start again. I zeroed in on the cop and there was a conciliation meeting chaired by a member of parliament with three Inspectors on one side and about six operators an myself on the other. I managed to silence the room by pointing out who the cop was, where he sat beside the road (on a hill requiring WOT), and our cost of rebuilding as-new engines. I'd come with a set of Ringelmann Charts which were transparencies printed with various levels of dots, and proposed that Ringelmann 3 be accepted as a pass, which was agreed by the cops, and we lived in peace until Euro I hit, and Cummins announced that billion dollar investment, the Australian Government introduced an ADR, and any engine manufacturer who couldn't meet it was waved goodbye from Australia no matter how much they were financially affected. 

On the figures you showed vs the ones I referred to earlier, you can see that no one is concerned with CO since the limit hasn't been change for some years, but even after considerable improvement from the Ringelmann days, Euro VI is a 97% reduction for NOx, and 98% reduction for PM - astounding figures, which has led to engine design following the line of thought that the less fuel per kilowatt per hour we burn, the less emission there will be regardless of other actions we've taken, and that has given us a big payoff on nett fuel cost as fuel prices have continued to rise.

For recreational aircraft our problem is the Department currently has an accepted emission output, so that's where what we would have to achieve. I've put up variable limits myself in the past, for vehicles out in the country where it was just sheep or cattle who were affected, but the Department didn't budge.

Apart from that, with LPG you're faced with the same problem as CNG etc, a very heavy fuel tank.

 

I raced Classic Motorcycles for about 10 years, and used methanol. At first I would turn the fuel tap off, pull the line, get my little bottle of petrol/oil mix and run it through the carb till it almost stopped from being so much richer, 

 

Over the years I got lazier and lazier, and sometimes would leave the bike as raced straight off the trailer into the shed, where it would sit up to around 2 to 3 months. The bike would start just fine, there was no gumming, the small amount of fuel in the tank never went off, the occasional re-ring showed no pitting or any of the oft stated downsides of methanol.

 

I've had one engine which would do that too, and got lazy, but the next time round, with another engine, had to deal with four carbies full of white powder. For you and me this is just an irritation; a thorough clean-out and we are on our way, but in terms of the average rec flyer who may have taken three years to build his aircraft and at the last has taken his engine out of the box, done a little bit of taxying and then three months later decided to take off, or parks it for most of the year, he's used to the carbies working as they did the last time. Certainly any overheating in the combustion chamber would be gone, but the killer on these fuels is the fuel weight you'd have to carry.

Methanol is the standard fuel for motorcycle speedway machines. It's hygroscopic and needs to have the engines hot when shutting down to avoid corrosion.

 

What has been done in speedway for about 20 years is at the end of a race meeting the fuel taps are turned off, and a container of about half a litre of petrol is attached to the fuel lines. The engine is started and petrol runs through the lines, carbies and engines for a few minutes. This is the only reliable solution for when there's a couple of weeks between race meetings.

Like most of the alternative fuels, you can pretty much decide whether it's viable just by studying its properties.In the case of these alcohol based fuels, the jetting size is double that of a petrol engine so the fuel consumption at cruise is double, and this extra weight would rule them out for a recreational aircraft alone.

Apart from that, there is no point in fiddling around in your shed with alternative fuels.

Way back in post #19 I explained which way the Department would go if you wish to bring up this subject and they have to look around for a standard. That standard will be Euro VI, and Jabiru/Rotax don't have the millions of dollars if would take to design and test to that standard, so if you want to persist in this stop getting off the subject and throwing up red herrings about global warming and stop throwing up red herrings about fuels you have known in the past. Even diesel now looks unlikely to have a long future because of the horrific cost of filtering particulates. So you are out of the air unless you can find a compliant engine and that means finding a Euro VI standard engine, making it work in an aircraft, and coping with the extra weight. This is not 1992, there is no point in even discussing things like LPG or alcohol based fuels. One possible alternative would be electric provided the batteries were solar charged, otherwise the best action is to STFU before the government steps in citing the thoughts of "industry people" (you).

Answer to OP:  Change over to LPG if the crunch comes.

 

It' been all over for LPG in the automotive industry from some years now; couldn't achieve the Emission Standard at the time (not sure which one, but I think Euro IV, so it's a non-starter for aircraft.

....shanks and destabilise the Turboencabulator which then goes gyroscopic."

Turbo's spin doctor Elon Most then addressed the DieselGate allegation. NES has to point out that Elon is not the Technical Director.

"We're not involved in DieselGate" said Elon to the assembled media "because we will be taking the fuel out of our Drifters, and once the fuel is out they will become ZEDs, Zero Emission Drifters, just like those Zero Emission electric buses. No fuel = No emissions, so once again MBACBCI is leading the way to a greener future, and......"

If they produced more of one type of engine the price should come DOWN. Some grades of avgas have been unavailable for years. The main cause is  there's nowhere near the demand for it that there once was. No other "technical" reason.  E 85 might be an answer. A renewable form of fossil fuel can be produced. You just need the will and pay the cost. Nev

 

Ethanol in fuel can be a disaster for engines which are not used at least once a week (or at least their carbies). The ethanol residue gums up the hidden galleries in a carbie, and in many cases you have to buy a new carbie, and in some cases where the engine and carbie have been custom designed for each other and no spares are available, the whole engine. I lost about four ag engines this way until I started using 98 in everything, then it's just a matter of charging the tank with some new fuel.

The biggest problem is we are living on carbon and environments that took millions of years to get here. If we only consumed the resources our planet can produce in our life time we would be ok. But you can't introduce millions of years of carbon resources in 200 years and not expect trouble.

 

To think otherwise is either pure selfishness or complete ignorance.

 

We're living  with many things that took millions of years to get here. How about taking this theory across to the What's Up site and leaving us to focus on what might happen to recreational aircraft in the next few years

I am not wanting to be too quick to ask, but I heard on the news that it wasn't a simple crash.   It nose dived from a pretty high altitude.

 

Not so much CFIT.

 

Just curious to what happened - though I guess everyone is wanting to know.

 

Keep your eye on the ATSB for an interim report.

Is there anything we can actually do to make our passion more environmentally responsible?    

 

The  focus at the present time is on a theory that CO2 is causing global warming; there's increasing doubt about that as to whether it's leading or lagging. I mentioned before that it's best to let sleeping dogs lie, but now we have a loud and very public catfight going out to the world, and in particular to members of the same Federal Department which administers both cars and aircraft in Australia. What is likely when these people realise aicraft got off the hook in the 1970s because emissions then were focused on NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen) and PM (Particulate Matter), both of which cause lung cancer, not something nice like higher sea levels.

Ever the nation to be seen to be doing something that Nations with a more affordable volume were doing, we adopted the EURO I standard in July 1992. The following figures are in grammes per kilometre, and show the limit allowed.

CO (Carbon Monoxide) was 2.72

NOx had no limit

PM was 0.14

This had a massive effect on the viability of the automotive and transport industries; e.g. Cummins Diesel set up a US$1 billion budget per year for emission research, and car and truck builders had to wind down their design improvement programmes by the same proportions.

Euro III introduced a standard on NOx at 0.5

Euro V, which Australia is currently on has:

CO: 0.50

NOx: 0.18

PM: 0.0045

Euro VI is now applicable in Europe with:

CO: 0.50

NOx; 0.08

PM: 0.0045

Australia has not picked up EuroVI yet because we have the huge prolem of getting some of the dirtiest fuel in the world, and it would be a legal nightmare if cars were registered in Australia as compliant, but would fail because of the dirty fuel going in the front end.

I mentioned the relatively new promotion of CO2 as the cause of Global Warming. You'll notice that there has never been a standard in motor vehicles for CO2, and various "scientist"/regulators have thrown figures up in the air, and we could have a shiny new CO2 standard to add to the mix soon.

What does this mean for aircraft; well to begin with, there are no complying recreational aircraft engines.

Secondly, no manufacturer of recreational aircraft engines has a $multi-billion budget to do the extensive design and testing.

So there's a very good chance that you won't have to take any action to be more environmental when your current engine wears out, because you'll be out of the air if a decision is made to introduce emission standards to aircraft.

Don't think this can happen? I can remember the day Australia knocked out 15" brakes on Australian products by introducing an ADR too expensive for our combined industries to meet. 

There's an old saying "Let sleeping dogs lie"

We need a battery break-through to make electric cars and aircraft viable in three areas

1. Prime Cost

2. Range when under power (not at grandma speed)

3. Economic and timely charging (If you've got 30 amp electric capability from your solar, you'd be OK (but I think you might be a first if you did)

What the automotive industry has done is try to get a hybrid version of every model on line by 2022, so self-generated constant charging, smaller batteries, smaller CO2 output from the ICE engine, low power for cruise speed, electric power boost for acceleration bursts, and most important no need to spend a trillion dollars on tooling for new platforms which have to be amortised over 10-20 years to avoid selling Nissan Leaf type mini-car $17,000 ICE for $50,000, and Commodore size for over $100,000.