Honda Jet...GSO?

[NJA Capt]

Electronic ignition, digital engine control, port fuel injection, light weight composite oil sump and intake, light wieght starters and alternators, improved materials

All those things are accessories. The engines themselves are still horizontally opposed air cooled boat anchors.

Most of the enhancements you mentioned, to my knowledge, are not PMA/STC'd for earlier certificated airframes. I know they are useable on homebuilts though.

 

[sstearns2]

......

"All those things are accessories. The engines themselves are still horizontally opposed air cooled boat anchors.

Most of the enhancements you mentioned, to my knowledge, are not PMA/STC'd for earlier certificated airframes. I know they are useable on homebuilts though."

and homebuilts constitute almost 1/2 of the piston engined airplanes 'produced' in the US.

The light weight starters and alternators are all FAA certified. The Continental FADEC (digital engine control with high pressure car style fuel injection and electronic ignition) was certified 2 years ago. The Superior Air Parts O-360 clone is supposed to be certified by early next year with a host of improvments over lycomings core engine.

Horizontally opposed engines are a very good match for the geometry of most airplanes. Liquid cooling would just add weight and complexity.

Scott

 

[crash-proof]

liquid cooling

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

And look into that radial diesel 2-stroke engine made in Germany, it's been kinda hush hush over the years but man it's small, low RPM and looks very promising as well. (Think it's called...Zoche?)

I do think however it will be maaaany years till we hear traditional 4 and 6 bangers replaced by alternative engines.

 

[dav8or]

Re: liquid cooling

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

I do like the Bombardier V6 the problem with it is going to be price. Seach the web site and you will only find that "it will be competitively priced" Meaning it will cost 60k+ while an auto engine of the same technology cost 5-10k. I think someone already had a diesil engine out, the STC into a 182 costs 100k.

If you want to bring the price of aviation down it takes more than just fuel/cost/performance savings. Someone needs to mass produce an alternate/modern engine with better performance at a substantial savings.

Even the new light jets comming out have a cost average of 2mil. That is way outside what I'll ever be able to spend on an ac

 

[sstearns2]

I beg to differ...recheck that link on bombardier's V6, it's got the displacement and weight of a continental O200 and puts out 300hp.

And look into that radial diesel 2-stroke engine made in Germany, it's been kinda hush hush over the years but man it's small, low RPM and looks very promising as well. (Think it's called...Zoche?)


Zoche has been promising a revolutionary diesel aircraft engine for more than 10 years now and has never made an engine commercially available. I know thier webpage looks great, but unless you can actually buy and take delivery of an engine it really doesn't count.

Do you have a link for bombardier's V-6? Does the weight include the gear reduction drive and the starter?

Scott



Scott

 

[dav8or]

www.vaircraftengine.com

 

[sstearns2]

Thanks for the link.

The best way to compare engines is specific fuel consumption and power to weight ratio. HP per displacement is not really important. If I can get a 200 HP engine that weighs 200 lbs and has good fuel consumption, it doesn't matter what the displacement is. Of course price is a major issue, but one cannot yet buy the Bombardier engine.

So, let compare the numbers

Bombardier V-220

Weight/HP = 418 Lb / 220 HP = 1.9 Lbs/HP

(The weight on the webpage is in kilograms. 1 Kg = 2.2 Lbs, 190 Kg = 418 Lbs)

Specific fuel consumption = 0.42 lb/hr-HP


Superior Airparts XP-360 (www.xp-360.com)

Weight/HP = 287 Lb/ 180 HP = 1.59 Lbs/HP

Specific fuel consuption = 0.43 lb/hr-HP (with mags)


Lycoming TIO-360 Turbocharged

Weight/HP = 348 Lbs/ 210 HP = 1.65 Lbs/HP

Specific fuel consumption = couldn't find it, but probably about 0.45 to 0.48 with mags


The numbers clearly show that Bombardier's 'modern' engine doesn't even come close to the weight per horsepower of the TIO-360 or the XP-360. The weight of the XP-360 can also be cut by about 20 more pounds with the lightweight composite intake and electronic ignition giving 1.48 lbs/HP (and they're selling them right now).

The V-220 has a better SFC than the TIO-360 and slightly better than the XP-360, but both of these engines have magnetos and carbs or old style fuel injection. Both engines are available with FADEC (real digital high pressure fuel injection and electronic ignition). I havn't seen numbers for the FADEC engines yet, but I would be surprised if they didn't match or better the Bombardier engine.

Conclusion - Bombardiers 'modern' engine can match the fuel consumption of the current engines, but they fail badly in weight. The V-300 has better numbers, but it is important to note that the V-220 and V-300 are not being sold and until they gets in the hands of an independent test cell you have to assume thier data to be a bit 'optimistic'.

I don't buy it until I can buy it.

Scott

 

[dav8or]

Did I mention it had Air conditioning?

 

[sstearns2]

A/C

You can easily get A/C compressors for any airplane engine. They weight 6 or 8 lbs on any engine. Most of the other components of an A/C system (condensor, evaporator, valve, ducting, controls, etc) are on the airframe anyhow, as is most of the weight.

I also forgot to mention that the wieghts in my previous posts are dry weights, no oil or coolant. All the engines hold about the same amount of oil, but the liquid cooled V-220 has an additional 2 or so gallons of water which adds another 12 pounds to it's weight.

Scott

 

[dtoften]

You are all wrong. Diesel engines will be the next great leap in GA. Significantly reduced gph, higher TBO, turbocharged for hp at altitude, higher torque, better reliablity, no mags, run on jet or diesel fuel, etc. Only downfalls is increase in weight but not much, and a higher initial cost. But that cost is due to R&D and new manufacturing. Once they are in the pipestream for awhile, cost will be reduced over time.

With a reduced operating cost albeit a higher intial cost, I wonder why Cessna and Piper are not trying to install these engines on their aircraft. But the bigger question is why Continental and Lycoming are not R&D these type of engines in order to stay competitive. I can only guess that the public in USA would be skeptical of a 'new' engine.

Anyone see any major disadvantage of diesel?

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

http://www.smaengines.com/en/index_en.shtml

There is also a two stroke aviation diesel engine but can' find their website right now.

 

[dav8or]

That SMA engine is the one I was refering to when I quoted a 100k price. You would have to fly a lot to make that back.

 

[sstearns2]

.....

"Anyone see any major disadvantage of diesel?"

Well, yes. Jet A is not available at a lot of smaller airports, where as almost all airports have 100LL. It would be a major nightmare to divert, land without much gas and find that there is no Jet A for 100 miles around you.

The centurion engine weighs 295lb and makes only 135 HP. It's turbo charged with makes the weight a little more acceptable, but the engine also requires an MT 3 bladed constant speed propeller. The MT constant speed prop is expensive, has a troubled past (throwing blades), and the centurion engine requires it.

Power to Weight - 295 lbs/ 135 HP = 2.18 !!!! (and we havn't even put the C/S prop on yet! add at least 40lbs for C/S prop over a fixed pitch prop)

The claim a specific fuel consumption of 0.336 lbs/HP-hr at "best economy", 0.35 - 0.37 are propbably real world numbers which is still better than you will get with any 4 stroke engine.

The centurion engine costs $19,500 plus shipping from Europe. That's about the price of a new XP-360 with electronic ignition. The centurion engine also requires an $8-10,000 propeller to get reasonable performance. The XP-360 will perform well with a $1500 fixed propeller because of the extra HP.

Having said all that I think the centurion engine may be a good choice for European operators. Avgas is heavily taxed in Europe while jet fuel is not. Avgas is 3 or 4 times more expensive than jet in Europe. The Centurion engine makes no sense in the US as Avgas and jet are about the same price in small quantities here.

The same idea goes for the sma engine. It's very heavy. It's only 305 cubic inches and they are claiming 230HP at 2200 rpm, un-turbocharged. I don't buy it. They don't talk about price and it didn't look like they have actually sold one to the public yet.

Also two things -

Deisel fuel has more BTUs/gallon than avgas, but diesel is heavier. Make sure you look at fuel burn in lbs/hr not gallons/hr.

Horsepower is what matters, not torque. HP = Torque * RPM

Scott