From here
The engines are already crooked. They were more than likely stolen from hangars.
The 912 is 80hp or 100hp. They are just a lot more efficient than their 1950s counterparts.
Its like the difference between a 1970s formula 1 car and one from the 1950s.
One is great in a tractor, the other prefers motorways.š
They are just a lot more efficient than their 1950s counterparts.
No they arenāt, they are just less powerful and therefore use less fuel. High RPM and reduction gear would tend to make the Rotax less efficient than a direct drive engine, but this disadvantage is offset by by having the 9.1:1 or 10.8:1 (in 100 HP form) compression ratio that smaller cylinders allow.
I work professionally with the engineering application of these engines and others, with a focus on efficiency and range, to include new engine and ancillary development. One of the people I work with developed the EFI system for the Rotaxās most prominent high altitude, long endurance application that started in the 1980s, so you can imagine the issue of Rotax efficiency may have come up from time to time.
Ahh I just compare European supercars with American muscle cars š
Iāve found sticking to facts works well for me.
For sure the small displacement supercharged Russian 9-cylinder radials were one solution to getting up to 400 HP out of an engine running on Russian fuel. But Iād prefer not to own and maintain a 9 cylinder engine.
The auto industry is worldwide, I donāt think there are significant national differences anymore. That era was fun, but itās gone. The US built car engine that was until this year somewhat different was the small block Chevy V8, which in its final versions focused quite effectively on power and torque density (compact size) versus specific output (power per liter). It was as efficient as anything else in the same power class. Also very inexpensive by comparison, so that anybody could drive a 500 HP car. Now Everyman Chevy driver doesnāt have pushrods but instead for a bit more money buys 670 horsepower with 460 lb-ft of torque.
vic wrote:
Yak and Sukhoi M 14 radials, never a problem and no noisy propellers ā when having planetary gears and not just spur gears. With these M 14 P and F radials they get 360, 400, and 450 hp from 10 l capacity , no turbo, no avgas needed, just super 98 max.
You forgot to mention a TBO of 500 hours for M-14P and 100 (150?) hours for M-14PF, plus a very labour-intensive overhaul. Even if it makes 2ĆTBO, which is achievable with a good engine oil instead of Russian MS-20, itās still a short-lived engine.
I think I must stop watching old reruns of Top Gear UK. Jeremy Clarksonās answer to everything was POWER big V8s etc.
Hammond and May were much more about finesse and fuel efficiency.š
Said before: LOP , engine monitors and constant cruise operation means the main current limit for efficiency of the tractor Lycosaurus fuel-injected engines on our aircraft is compression ratio. A modern automotive engine is much more efficient than an old oneā¦in a car environment (low-partial-power, constantly-changing, low-altitude operation). Not so in an aviation environment.