Targeting Airplane Emissions

Lawman said:
This!

The fact that carburetor engines are even an option demonstrates the dinosaur thinking being caused by restriction. Seriously it's effectively wasting 20% of its energy in excess fuel being fed into the first cylinder in the firing order. There is no reason for after market bolt on EFI systems similar to what's been running in hotrods and muscle cars since the 90s shouldn't be viewed as anything but good. If Edelbrock (which is by no means a standard of excellence) can make something so simple cheaply and reliably I don't know why the same can't be done in aviation.

The "well it's the way it's always been and it's the risks we are familiar with so we are comfortable with them" is a disastrous line of thinking that infects the FAA just like any other bureaucracy. More importantly it stifles any innovation in the market because it effectively murders opportunity for advancement before its ever even worked out on a cocktail napkin or a machine shop.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Well they have done it in aviation. It's all over the experimental market.
A well thought out O-360 with high comp pistons(10:1), a cam to take advantage, electronic fuel injection and digital ignition makes 40hp more than the stock lycoming while burning about 6gph for the same airspeed that 55% power on the O-360 produces. Pull the timing a little and you can run 87 octane car gas. Even with ethanol if you build the fuel system with that in mind.
 
trafficinsight said:
You're right I switched to 10gph at the last minute but forgot to change the outcome.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Nice , I don't mean to sound like im jabbing at ya I just don't think there is any way the average GA could ever be as efficient as a modern airline. I come to this site to learn from other people more than anything.
 
Box hauler said:
Nice , I don't mean to sound like im jabbing at ya I just don't think there is any way the average GA could ever be as efficient as a modern airline. I come to this site to learn from other people more than anything.
Click to expand...
No but some stuff can get close. Look at the Rutan designs.
 
trafficinsight said:
Efficient, but essentially useless, that's the problem.

I hope the 23 rewrite helps anyway.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The RVs are a pretty good compromise between efficiency and being more than a lets burn holes in the sky airplane. The Lancairs and Glasairs to. The early one's are even reasonable.
 
z987k said:
The RVs are a pretty good compromise between efficiency and being more than a lets burn holes in the sky airplane. The Lancairs and Glasairs to. The early one's are even reasonable.
Click to expand...

Yeah but that's like the whole thing with experimental category stuff... Eventually new and innovative has been so proven it shouldn't be called experimental anymore. Pioneering and proving its self sure, but regulation makes stuff that has literally been flying for 30+ years (a quarter of all aviation time) and keep it locked into a category like it's somehow black magic voodoo.

It's the same stuck on the old ways attitude of every bureaucracy. Kinda like the current fight on electronic pubs or how long it took to make GPS the standard when we were acting like even the most basic GPS was somehow less safe than an ADF.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top