LeSving… just because Glasair sells you an engine for 80k doesn’t mean that the engine is worth that much… and as a matter of fact you’ve received plenty proof to the contrary which you choose to ignore.
I have the PDF at hand if you have a valid email address and the moral fortitude to survive the shattering of your convictions.
Even the mighty US armed forces think that it is advantageous to install diesel engines in their smaller aircraft than messing around with a minority fuel.
One branch of the US armed forces (Army only), one type of UAV (the Gray Eagle), and used because it is deployed in hostile territory with no commercially available fuel of any kind and it can run on the same fuel as a Humvee. The US Air Force UAVs are obviously not designed around that constraint and use modified Rotaxes running on gasoline or turbines running on Jet Fuel.
Slightly more on topic given the Mazda connection is another US Army UAV with a rotary engine, running on gasoline. I assume the logistics for this other US Army plane allow a gasoline engine, and you’d get very high power to weight ratio with a rotary, with relatively low efficiency. So the US Army individually and the US military in general apparently have more than one operational requirement, and multiple fuels to match those differing requirements.
Unlike all the other UAVs / general warring vehicles designed to be deployed into war zones from friendly territories with commercially available fuel from the closest petrol station no doubt.
Yes, Air Force UAVs typically operate from very different locations and circumstances than Army UAVs due to the nature of their mission, altitiude, endurance etc.
Is the operational deployment doctrine the only cause for using “commercially available avgas” (I had to chuckle at that one) or the fact that the USAF and General Atomics recognised the lack of reliability and durability of legacy aero engines, had no diesel option available and had to make do with what was left e.g. the Rotax?
I see exactly zero reasons justifying the “operational requirement” for a fuel that no other armed forces branch uses in theatre. What can Avgas deliver in terms of altitude, endurance and missiom constraints that JP8 can not?
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Is the operational deployment doctrine the only cause for using “commercially available avgas”
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
What can Avgas deliver in terms of altitude, endurance and missiom constraints that JP8 can not?
I don’t believe anybody mentioned Avgas. Have a nice day.
So let me rephrase – what does this Rotax-specific fuel offer in terms of mission capabilities that JP8 does not?
Have a wonderful day!
achimha wrote:
You’re just trolling the forum LeSving…
Of course, when someone disagree with you, that’s what it’s called. Lighten up please 
achimha wrote:
The fact how cheap and easy it is to drive around the Norwegian countryside with a barrel of Mogas loaded on your tractor doesn’t really help me to convince the airport I want to visit to stock it for my consumption.
Where do you think oil and gas is produced? Last time I looked we did not export it around the world, and to continental Europe and the UK in particular in barrels loaded on a tractor. But then again, maybe that’s the most efficient way of doing it, who knows? At ENOP, Jet A1 and 100LL are permanent tank installations. Mogas is a towable bowser, 1500 l or something. The reason for that is mogas has to be relatively fresh, it degrades over time. The size of the bowser/tank has to be sized so the content is replaced fairly often. Aviation fuel does not readily degrade, it can be stored for ages in comparison, hence it is also much easier (and cheaper) to handle and store also in smaller sizes, like barrels for instance. Anyone can get a towable bowser for mogas though, and this is what people do.
Peter wrote:
It’s a link which is likely to stop working soon so a local copy is here.
That’s interesting. It doesn’t say it includes a prop though. The prop is what? 15-20k? With all the necessary “options” it will sum up to 55-65k. Anyway, lets say it does include a prop, and the cost of the kit will be 50k. Then why is the non-certified Glasair option 89k more than the IO360 ? The only viable explanation I can find is that the work of installing the engine is included in the price. The 51% rule is for the airframe. Engine, instruments and avionics are excluded and can the work can be done at the factory. In fact that is the only explanation, since when looking a bit closer, the prices are for the “two weeks to taxi” option.
This means that the IO360 and CD-155 prices for the Glasair is a one to one comparison for brand new installation, only it includes the work of installation. On a non-certified aircraft, in the US, paying someone to install a brand new engine, the CD-155 will cost you an additional 89k over an IO360. On a certified aircraft you have no other option than to let someone install it for you, so for all intents and purposes it means the CD-155 is at least an additional US$ 89k more than an IO360, even though the engines themselves cost roughly US$ 25k and 50k respectively.
