VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #21  
Old 09-11-2018, 06:33 AM
majuro15's Avatar
majuro15 majuro15 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 441
Default

The prop weight works out since the engine itself is so much lighter. I can share some numbers offline if you'd like to see them.
__________________
www.N1017H.com
Tim Huneycutt, Capt, NCANG
RV-10 Fuselage under construction
N1017H Reserved
EAA #: 1106970
2018 VAF Dues Paid!
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-11-2018, 08:01 AM
Mudfly Mudfly is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alpharetta, Ga
Posts: 142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rocketman1988 View Post
The problem is that the development costs are astronomical...and the potential market return is tiny. Putting a man on he moon cost about 14 billion dollars IN THE 60s. There were many thousands of people involved and it took the government to finance it. Designing and going to production on a small airplane engine, well, if the numbers were favorable there would be many more choices available now...
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt View Post
It’s not a question of “is it possible”, it’s a question of “can we afford it”. A brand new engine that can slot into place where a Lycoming went but burns Jet won’t be cheap to develop, and even if every light airplane in the US bought one you’d only be looking at 160k or so units to amortize all that development expense across. My guess is that the final experimental version would run about what a new Lycoming does. And that’s not even accounting for certification costs, which would probably add 50% to the development cost, and then another 20-30% for the STCs required.

Most of the GA fleet is not going to drop money equivalent to 1-3 times the current value of their aircraft on a new engine.

By contrast, a 100LL replacement is expensive to develop too, but its sales are in much smaller and affordable units over a longer time. It’s easier for the fleet to absorb a 20-30% increase in fuel costs than capital outlay exceeding the aircraft’s hull value.

Thanks Bob and rmartingt for the insight. Too bad money gets in the way of advancing technology, but I understand. No existing company would want to touch the numbers you discussed with a 10 ft pole.
Good luck to the new companies like the one introduced in this thread. Hopefully some of them will eventually have success and gain momentum,...or at least "rattle some cages".
Shawn
__________________
Shawn Edwards
RV-14A (140174)
www.myrv14build.blogspot.com
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-14-2018, 03:24 PM
NewbRVator NewbRVator is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: CA
Posts: 19
Default

A new motor which had high power to weight ratio and can run on Jet A would be a home run considering 100LL issues facing general aviation. Hope this powerplant makes it to market.
__________________
Yearly dues paid 9/18
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-14-2018, 03:31 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 1,019
Default Data

I will be interested to see the specific fuel consumption figures as it is basically a two stroke engine...
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
Structure - 90% Done
Cabin Top - Aaarrghhh...
Doors - Done
On Gear
290 HP Barrett Hung
ShowPlanes Cowl with Skybolts Fitted - Beautiful

Dues Paid 2017,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:27 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.