@@codmott286 that would be a good line if aircraft engines were particularly well built and didn't break much more often than car engines do. Yet they seem to do. Perhaps in part because ancient aircraft are kept alive in GA but apparently rotax engines fail a bit more frequently and they are presumably younger. If reliability was in any way the actual reason, plane designs would have shifted to 2 much cheaper engines long ago. An AEIO580 is 141k$ iirc. A complex modern turbo diesel engine in a VW or Audi is around 2k euro. Granted that's their bulk cost but still. No small difference. 141k is a well paid man plus materials for an entire year. That price is nothing but despicable bs. And it's mindset like that that has crippled GA to where brand new planes are senior citizens. Indiana Jones would know how to fix them. And tragically that's barely an exaggeration since Bonanza is from 1945.
With the composite graphite engine block they are using the weight is probably same as these engines. EPS engine is still a long ways off from being available for sale though. the real problem is the cost. This Lycoming and the Graflight diesel cost well over $100,000+, as compared to a normal twin turbo TIO-540 which cost about half that.
The argument really doesn't hold up under scrutiny, Jet fuel weighs about one pound per gallon more than Avgas, but turbines are so light weight it all works out, Now you're talking about another piston engine thats probably heavier by design than your typical Avgas engine that burns heavier fuel, Im not saying it won't work, but I don't think you can realize any significant advantages.
MASS DIFFERENCE --> graflight V-8 engine will weigh 30 to 50 pounds more than a comparable Lycoming or Continental engine. Avgas - 6 lb/gal vs JetA - 6,8 lb/gal. FOR EXAMPLE --> Lancair Evolution 168 gal avgas vs 140 gal jetA. FUEL CONSUMPTION --> avgas vs diesel 75% (21,5 gal/h vs 12,4 gal/h ), 70% (17,5 gal/h vs 11,7 gal/h), 65% (16 gal/h vs 10,7 gal/h) , 60% ( 14,8 gal/h vs 9,7 gal/h). PERFORMANCE --> endurance avgas vs diesel 75% ( 7,8 h vs 11,4 h ), 70% (9,6 h vs 12 h ), 65 % ( 10,5 h vs 13,2 h ) , 60 % (11,4 vs 14,5 h). COST --> example Europe avgas 10 $/gal vs jetA 5 $/gal, fuel cost $/h avgas vs diesel 75% ( 215 $/h vs 62 $/h ), 70% ( 175 $/h vs 58 $/h ), 65% ( 160 $/h vs 54 $/h) , 60% (148 $/h vs 49 $/h )
+stealhty1 increases the range though. Despite losing 100kts max speed you might actually reach your destination sooner traveling cross country with fewer pitstops to refuel!
+stealhty1 Sure, 200 pounds. But, keep in mind that it burns WAY less fuel. Useful load is 1800 pounds (vs. 2000 with the turbine). The turbine airplane has an enormous fuel capacity (168 gallons of Jet-A), which is part of why it was designed with such a huge useful load. That's 1,142 pounds of fuel! Because the piston airframe is identical, it has that same 168-gallon capacity, but you're not likely to use it. 168 gallons at 23gph (high performance cruise) is over 7 hours in the air. Would you want to fly that long? Compare this airplane to something like a Cirrus SR-22, which has 92 gallons of fuel capacity and also seats 4. So, put 92 gallons in the Evolution. 92 gallons of 100LL is 552 pounds, leaving you with 1,248 pounds of your useful load left for 4 people and baggage. Even if all four people are 250-pound large male adults, that still leaves 248 pounds, which is *still* more than you're allowed to put in the baggage area (max is 225). So, realistically, with four 200-pound adults and as much baggage as you can carry, the plane can still carry 128 gallons of fuel, which is enough to fly for well over five hours at max cruise -- probably more than you'd want to do without a break.
turbines require twice the fuel !go fast for two and a half hours and stop and fill it up again! with full fuel I don't think u can fill all the seats!
+Jolinator Nope. at 45 seconds, you see the three exhausts dumping into 1. Exhaust headers are of equal length and the exhaust of one cylinder helps evacuate exhaust from the next one. In this design, the exhaust power pulses sometimes fight the exhaust from an adjacent cylinder, blocking the scavenging. A common design is to have, in this case with a 6 cylinder, each pipe of equal length dumping into one larger pipe. At no time does the exhaust pulse of one cylinder get in the way of any other cylinder.
Matt Williams Not all headers are of equal length in fact most arn't due to packaging or other reasons, usually headers of equal length are called "equal length headers" plus being a turbocharged engine being of equal length is far less important than an N/A application. Also given the firing order of the lycoming engine , there is hardly any worry about cylinder scavenging which is also quite minimal due to the back pressure from the turbochargers. Non turbo engines are a different kettle of fish, where the scavenging of the header(sometimes called extractors) makes a huge difference, once you stick a huge restriction in the exhaust (turbocharger) the benefits are soon nullified
+Jolinator Sorry, but it seems we have different definitions of the word "scavenging". The exhaust pipes shown at 45 secs all flow into one pipe. Good so far. However, the exhaust pulse of the far right cylinder travels the length of the main pipe, with it's exhaust pulse likely blocking the passage of the next cylinder and/or the far left cylinder. The purpose of the pipes being of equal length is to have equal distances for the exhaust pulses to travel. And, yes, the concept of headers means pipes of equal length leading into one major pipe. In a v-8, one back has 4 cylinders. Their pipes are generally designed to have each pair of adjacent cylinders flow into one and each of these two "collectors" flow into 1 large one. Hence the design name "4 into 2 into 1"
There is very few oem engines in the aero/marine/automotive industry which are Turbocharged and have Equal length exhaust headers , yet i can list hundreds which have unequal length headers, i am well aware of what equal length means, however it is less of an issue on an engine with only 3 cylinders per bank, and as stated equal length headers on a turbo engine is not some huge advantage as on a N/A , as demonstrated by the lycoming ie2 engine! All the best
I want this plane with a LS3 V8 engine
Does any of these actually exist
Interesting with a fast piston bird but should that engine really cost 20x that of an automotive crate engine
if your honda civic dies you just coast to the side of the road. If your aircraft engine dies you just coast into the trees
@@codmott286 that would be a good line if aircraft engines were particularly well built and didn't break much more often than car engines do. Yet they seem to do. Perhaps in part because ancient aircraft are kept alive in GA but apparently rotax engines fail a bit more frequently and they are presumably younger.
If reliability was in any way the actual reason, plane designs would have shifted to 2 much cheaper engines long ago. An AEIO580 is 141k$ iirc. A complex modern turbo diesel engine in a VW or Audi is around 2k euro. Granted that's their bulk cost but still. No small difference. 141k is a well paid man plus materials for an entire year. That price is nothing but despicable bs. And it's mindset like that that has crippled GA to where brand new planes are senior citizens. Indiana Jones would know how to fix them. And tragically that's barely an exaggeration since Bonanza is from 1945.
Why do I find you spitting your marvelous theories everywhere
@@josephc.9520 Will of God
Honda makes hundreds of thousands of engines a year, Lycoming makes a few thousand. Economies of scale are to blame for the price.
Nice show
I guess it is kinda randomly asking but do anyone know a good site to stream new tv shows online ?
What do you thing about EPS Graflight V8 350hp Diesel engine :
3000 TBO diesel vs 2000 TBO Lycoming IE2 ,
12gph diesel @70-75% vs 17,5-24 gph Lycoming @70-75%,
increased range, lower fuel costs JetA vs 100LL
How much does that diesel weigh?
With the composite graphite engine block they are using the weight is probably same as these engines.
EPS engine is still a long ways off from being available for sale though.
the real problem is the cost. This Lycoming and the Graflight diesel cost well over $100,000+, as compared to a normal twin turbo TIO-540 which cost about half that.
The argument really doesn't hold up under scrutiny, Jet fuel weighs about one pound per gallon more than Avgas, but turbines are so light weight it all works out, Now you're talking about another piston engine thats probably heavier by design than your typical Avgas engine that burns heavier fuel, Im not saying it won't work, but I don't think you can realize any significant advantages.
MASS DIFFERENCE --> graflight V-8 engine will weigh 30 to 50 pounds more than a comparable Lycoming or Continental engine. Avgas - 6 lb/gal vs JetA - 6,8 lb/gal.
FOR EXAMPLE --> Lancair Evolution 168 gal avgas vs 140 gal jetA. FUEL CONSUMPTION --> avgas vs diesel 75% (21,5 gal/h vs 12,4 gal/h ), 70% (17,5 gal/h vs 11,7 gal/h), 65% (16 gal/h vs 10,7 gal/h) , 60% ( 14,8 gal/h vs 9,7 gal/h).
PERFORMANCE --> endurance avgas vs diesel 75% ( 7,8 h vs 11,4 h ), 70% (9,6 h vs 12 h ), 65 % ( 10,5 h vs 13,2 h ) , 60 % (11,4 vs 14,5 h).
COST --> example Europe avgas 10 $/gal vs jetA 5 $/gal, fuel cost $/h avgas vs diesel 75% ( 215 $/h vs 62 $/h ), 70% ( 175 $/h vs 58 $/h ), 65% ( 160 $/h vs 54 $/h) , 60% (148 $/h vs 49 $/h )
Bankrupt
The weight of a Piston engine Reduce the Payload compare to the PT Turbine
+stealhty1 increases the range though. Despite losing 100kts max speed you might actually reach your destination sooner traveling cross country with fewer pitstops to refuel!
+stealhty1 Sure, 200 pounds. But, keep in mind that it burns WAY less fuel. Useful load is 1800 pounds (vs. 2000 with the turbine). The turbine airplane has an enormous fuel capacity (168 gallons of Jet-A), which is part of why it was designed with such a huge useful load. That's 1,142 pounds of fuel!
Because the piston airframe is identical, it has that same 168-gallon capacity, but you're not likely to use it. 168 gallons at 23gph (high performance cruise) is over 7 hours in the air. Would you want to fly that long?
Compare this airplane to something like a Cirrus SR-22, which has 92 gallons of fuel capacity and also seats 4. So, put 92 gallons in the Evolution. 92 gallons of 100LL is 552 pounds, leaving you with 1,248 pounds of your useful load left for 4 people and baggage. Even if all four people are 250-pound large male adults, that still leaves 248 pounds, which is *still* more than you're allowed to put in the baggage area (max is 225).
So, realistically, with four 200-pound adults and as much baggage as you can carry, the plane can still carry 128 gallons of fuel, which is enough to fly for well over five hours at max cruise -- probably more than you'd want to do without a break.
turbines require twice the fuel !go fast for two and a half hours and stop and fill it up again! with full fuel I don't think u can fill all the seats!
@@MikeKobbBeen 5 years nut I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time to write this, I learnt alot.
@@DerickMasai You’re most welcome! I’m glad it was helpful!
Anyone know why exhaust headers aren't being used in this engine?
+Matt Williams :57 you can see the exhaust headers.
+Jolinator Nope. at 45 seconds, you see the three exhausts dumping into 1. Exhaust headers are of equal length and the exhaust of one cylinder helps evacuate exhaust from the next one. In this design, the exhaust power pulses sometimes fight the exhaust from an adjacent cylinder, blocking the scavenging. A common design is to have, in this case with a 6 cylinder, each pipe of equal length dumping into one larger pipe. At no time does the exhaust pulse of one cylinder get in the way of any other cylinder.
Matt Williams Not all headers are of equal length in fact most arn't due to packaging or other reasons, usually headers of equal length are called "equal length headers" plus being a turbocharged engine being of equal length is far less important than an N/A application. Also given the firing order of the lycoming engine , there is hardly any worry about cylinder scavenging which is also quite minimal due to the back pressure from the turbochargers. Non turbo engines are a different kettle of fish, where the scavenging of the header(sometimes called extractors) makes a huge difference, once you stick a huge restriction in the exhaust (turbocharger) the benefits are soon nullified
+Jolinator Sorry, but it seems we have different definitions of the word "scavenging". The exhaust pipes shown at 45 secs all flow into one pipe. Good so far. However, the exhaust pulse of the far right cylinder travels the length of the main pipe, with it's exhaust pulse likely blocking the passage of the next cylinder and/or the far left cylinder.
The purpose of the pipes being of equal length is to have equal distances for the exhaust pulses to travel. And, yes, the concept of headers means pipes of equal length leading into one major pipe.
In a v-8, one back has 4 cylinders. Their pipes are generally designed to have each pair of adjacent cylinders flow into one and each of these two "collectors" flow into 1 large one. Hence the design name "4 into 2 into 1"
There is very few oem engines in the aero/marine/automotive industry which are Turbocharged and have Equal length exhaust headers , yet i can list hundreds which have unequal length headers, i am well aware of what equal length means, however it is less of an issue on an engine with only 3 cylinders per bank, and as stated equal length headers on a turbo engine is not some huge advantage as on a N/A , as demonstrated by the lycoming ie2 engine! All the best