This is my pet subject, and I agree 100%. But modern solutions can be
certified too. Here in Europe, with fuel cost, noise and pollution being
the main drivers, the new fashion is turbo-diesel (and the same is true
for cars). These engines burn Jet A-1 or regular Diesel fuel.
There are two certified designs. One is made by Thielert, in Germany, and
is a conversion of Mercedes engines. Range starts at 135 hp. The second
design is a purpose-built flat six, made by SMA, in France.
So far, the successful one is the Thielert. It is cheaper (since the block
comes from mass production), and better (it uses the latest Common Rail
technology). It powers the full Diamond Aircraft range, and STCs are
available for many older aircraft designs.
Serge Vidal
KR2 "Kilimanjaro Cloud"
Paris, France
"Stephen Teate" <ste...@compositecooling.com>
Envoyé par : krnet-boun...@mylist.net
2005-10-18 20:30
Veuillez répondre à KRnet
Remis le : 2005-10-18 20:24
Pour : "KRnet" <kr...@mylist.net>
cc : (ccc : Serge VIDAL/DNSA/SAGEM)
Objet : RE: KR> Engine Ads
Hello again everyone,
Some very interesting points being made on this discussion. Ask ten
folks about engines and you will get fifteen different responses! I
fully admit my negativity towards "certified" engines and my
appreciation of "alternative engines". However, since I was a general
aviation A&P until June of this last year I do feel I am entitled. Now
back to engines. The point was made earlier that you shouldn't discount
a design just because it is old. This is absolutely true. Automotive
power plants are perfect examples of this. If I go out and buy the most
inexpensive car today I will get a modern, computer controlled
(ignition, timing, fuel ratio), fuel injected, liquid cooled power
plant. If I buy the latest "certified" powered aircraft I get two
magnetos for an ignition source, no timing control, two manual handles
to control fuel/air mixture and if I am lucky enough to be able to
afford the fuel injection I will have to go to another manufacturer
(GAMI) to get optimum performance. Fortunately, FADEC is coming and it
will eventually get here, but until then look to the automotive world
for advanced or modern features and if possible, consider incorporating
them in your design.
Stephen
ste...@compositecooling.com
---Original Message-----
From: krnet-boun...@mylist.net [mailto:krnet-boun...@mylist.net] On
Behalf Of Scott William
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:48 AM
To: KRnet
Subject: RE: KR> Engine Ads
--- Stephen Teate <ste...@compositecooling.com> wrote:
>>
> Hello all! As this is my first post please excuse
> any procedural
> failings on my part. Let's talk engines. Several
> models of Subaru
> engines are interference engines. For those who
> don't know what that
> means, it is where the valve travel and piston
> travel overlap. Obviously
> a bad thing. Like I said, some models of Subaru
> engines are design this
> way. Mine is not. It is a 4 cylinder
> turbocharged/intercooled
> fuel-injected EA-82.
Here is a list of the newest powerplants by Subaru....
1.8 used in Impreza - not interference
3.3 used in SVX - interference
3.0 6cyl in newer OB - interference
2.0 turbo in WRX - interference
all 2.5 DOHC and SOHC (96-present) - interference
all 2.2 - not interference
> As for other engines, if you want to use an air
> cooled engine designed
> in the 30's and who's parts will require a second
> mortgage, or one that
> was designed in the late 50's and hasn't been in
> production for 35 to 40
> years,
That's a really interesting way to introduce
yourself....by printing negative propaganda (read:
your opinion) about widely used and reliable aircraft
engines.
The small block chevy came out of the 50's....does
this mean that GM shouldn't be using it in cars built
now? Reliable design, history of good data.....stop
building them?
> or use a modern liquid cooled engine with
> it's added weight and
> perceived complexity, then do it.
Bwahahahahahaha!!!! So tell me Stephen, what is
"modern" about an EA-82? It was produced in the early
eighties (20 years ago) and was a derivative of an
engine produced in the early 70's that can trace it's
design back to the 60's. The EA-82 was a notorious
rod-thrower. Ask anyone who used to own a Subaru Brat
with the EA81.
> The point is there
> are issues with
> whatever engine you choose.
You are correct, but you did not have to make negative
comments about all air-cooled aircraft engines to make
your point.
As experimental aircraft builders, we will all choose
a powerplant that tickles our fancy, some even blazing
new trails with powerplants never tried before.
But to use the old argument that certified engines are
dinosaurs......People will have a hard time taking you
seriously.
Scott
__________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/
_______________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
_______________________________________
Search the KRnet Archives at http://www.maddyhome.com/krsrch/index.jsp
to UNsubscribe from KRnet, send a message to krnet-le...@mylist.net
please see other KRnet info at http://www.krnet.org/info.html
