Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

MC-15 better engine

Expand Messages
  • Pedro Molina Luque
    Hi Cri-Cri lovers, I am now here at home again!, the day to buy the two engines for my Cri-Cri is still a long way off. But like the MC-15 is an airplane
    Message 1 of 5 , Jul 5, 2003
      Hi Cri-Cri lovers,
       
      I am now here at home again!, the day to buy the two engines for my Cri-Cri is still a long way off.
       
      But like the MC-15 is an airplane looking for the appropriate engine, I am searching for a suitable engine.
       
      I want to know some things, it is known that we need a low fuel consumption, low vibrations and low weight.
       
      The Solo 210 is too much old for the actual engines available and JPX 212 Pul is not under production.
       
      I have looked for this engines:
       
      - Simonini Mini 2 Plus
      - Hirth F-33 (dual cdi ignition, it´s very good, manual starter. Too much weight?)
      - Hirth F-36 (could be too small?)
      - Zanzottera MZ34
       
      What is the best choice from your point of view?.
       
      Thanks and regards for all.
       
      Bye!.
       
      Pedro Molina Luque
      pedro.ml@...
      Córdoba, Spain.
    • underwandr
      I have often wondered when reading all of the repeated questions of engine selection, why not progress to the lightweight turbine s offered for today s
      Message 2 of 5 , Jul 5, 2003
        I have often wondered when reading all of the repeated questions of
        engine selection, why not progress to the lightweight turbine's
        offered for today's high-end model aircraft, similar to the ones I
        have seen in many photos of the Cri Cri? They offer high-end engine
        management, often displays with memory functions and multiple
        redundant systems working in conjunction.

        Is it cost?

        Fuel consumption? I am not aware of the flight time with pistons
        versus turbines.

        Is it the lack of knowledge, by the builder, on the turbine engines
        that keep people looking for the ultimate piston engine?

        It has been proven that even one turbine engine is safer than two
        piston engines in number of safe flight hours, and that fact is one
        of many important factors that is driving the affordable personal jet
        age movement on the horizon. With the two small turbine engines the
        Cri Cri safety could be increased greatly.

        Would more people swap to turbines on this type, if the technology
        were more affordable?

        Thanks,
        Jody





        --- In CriCri@yahoogroups.com, "Pedro Molina Luque" <pedro.ml@s...>
        wrote:
        > Hi Cri-Cri lovers,
        >
        > I am now here at home again!, the day to buy the two engines for my
        Cri-Cri is still a long way off.
        >
        > But like the MC-15 is an airplane looking for the appropriate
        engine, I am searching for a suitable engine.
        >
        > I want to know some things, it is known that we need a low fuel
        consumption, low vibrations and low weight.
        >
        > The Solo 210 is too much old for the actual engines available and
        JPX 212 Pul is not under production.
        >
        > I have looked for this engines:
        >
        > - Simonini Mini 2 Plus
        > - Hirth F-33 (dual cdi ignition, it´s very good, manual starter.
        Too much weight?)
        > - Hirth F-36 (could be too small?)
        > - Zanzottera MZ34
        >
        > What is the best choice from your point of view?.
        >
        > Thanks and regards for all.
        >
        > Bye!.
        >
        > Pedro Molina Luque
        > pedro.ml@s...
        > Córdoba, Spain.
      • borinxray
        ... You mean reasons apart from the £6000 per engine for the AMD turbine or the 20 minute flight endurance experienced by those who have done it,as compared
        Message 3 of 5 , Jul 5, 2003
          --- In CriCri@yahoogroups.com, "underwandr" <clubped@a...> wrote:
          You mean reasons apart from the £6000 per engine for the AMD turbine
          or the 20 minute flight endurance experienced by those who have done
          it,as compared to the 2.5 hours (theoretical) of the piston engines
          at the same speeds.

          Another reason could be that turbines do not scale down very well and
          model turbines aren't too clever under aggressive flight regimes.

          Other discredited technologies are the jetfan, because noone has
          solved the increased drag of the shroud even though it does produce
          greater thrust than the conventional prop and the superfan (displayed
          mounted on the side of an MD10 at Farnborough one year) which turned
          at supersonic speeds if I remember.


          Robin

          > I have often wondered when reading all of the repeated questions of
          > engine selection, why not progress to the lightweight turbine's
          > offered for today's high-end model aircraft, similar to the ones I
          > have seen in many photos of the Cri Cri? They offer high-end engine
          > management, often displays with memory functions and multiple
          > redundant systems working in conjunction.
          >
          >
        • PMcAtee356@aol.com
          In a message dated 7/5/03 11:18:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time, clubped@ala.net ... I think the technology is affordable right now, at least for the initial
          Message 4 of 5 , Jul 5, 2003
            In a message dated 7/5/03 11:18:29 AM Mountain Daylight Time, clubped@... writes:


            >Is it cost?

            >Fuel consumption? I am not aware of the flight time with pistons
            >versus turbines.

            Would more people swap to turbines on this type, if the technology
            were more affordable?


            I think the technology is affordable right now, at least for the initial hardware.  The problem I have with the current technology is the specific fuel consumption of the small turbines.  If one of the model/military drone manufacturers could develop a high bypass unit in the 80 to 120 lb thrust (350-550Nt) range then I think we would see fuel consumption numbers that might make these things practical for recreational flying for small one man aircraft.  So to answer your questions, the problem is the high cost of operation due to excessive fuel consumption, and yes, I believe that these things would become extremely popular if they were made more fuel efficient.

            My opinion is that something on the order of 0..5 lbs/lb of thrust/hour is a minimum acceptable fuel consumption.  That's about 7 gal/hr (26L/hr) for 100 lbs of thrust.  This compares to the 1.6 lbs/lb/hr for the AMT Olympus (10.1 gal/hr - 38L/hr for 43 lbs of thrust) so there is much improvement needed to make these things practical, again in my opinion.  Those in other than US locations may find fuel consumption numbers higher than that tolerable due to the cost difference of aviation/auto gas and jet fuel.

            My next project is most likely going to be an ultralight flying wing motorglider and I plan to use 2 of the larger model turbine motors on it for self launch.  I think that these small turbines are a natural addition to sailplane, even with their current excessive fuel consumption due to the fact that they are only used to self launch, and maybe make it back to the airfield if good thermals are not found.  

          • W David Doiron
            In , on 07/05/03 at 04:02 PM, PMcAtee356@aol.com said: How about turbine engines... ... More? ... W David Doiron
            Message 5 of 5 , Jun 2, 2005
              In <a8.1f770c66.2c3888b8@...>, on 07/05/03
              at 04:02 PM, PMcAtee356@... said:

              How about turbine engines...

              >>Is it cost?

              >>Fuel consumption? I am not aware of the flight time with pistons
              >>versus turbines.

              >> Would more people swap to turbines on this type, if the technology
              >> were more affordable?

              >I think the technology is affordable right now, at least for the initial
              >hardware. The problem I have with the current technology is the specific
              >fuel consumption of the small turbines. If one of the model/military
              >drone manufacturers could develop a high bypass unit in the 80 to 120 lb
              >thrust (350-550Nt) range then I think we would see fuel consumption
              >numbers that might make these things practical for recreational flying
              >for small one man aircraft. So to answer your questions, the problem is
              >the high cost of operation due to excessive fuel consumption, and yes, I
              >believe that these things would become extremely popular if they were
              >made more fuel efficient.

              >My opinion is that something on the order of 0..5 lbs/lb of thrust/hour
              >is a minimum acceptable fuel consumption. That's about 7 gal/hr
              >(26L/hr) for 100 lbs of thrust. This compares to the 1.6 lbs/lb/hr for
              >the AMT Olympus (10.1 gal/hr - 38L/hr for 43 lbs of thrust) so there is
              >much improvement needed to make these things practical, again in my
              >opinion. Those in other than US locations may find fuel consumption
              >numbers higher than that tolerable due to the cost difference of
              >aviation/auto gas and jet fuel.

              >My next project is most likely going to be an ultralight flying wing
              >motorglider and I plan to use 2 of the larger model turbine motors on it
              >for self launch. I think that these small turbines are a natural
              >addition to sailplane, even with their current excessive fuel
              >consumption due to the fact that they are only used to self launch, and
              >maybe make it back to the airfield if good thermals are not found.

              More?
              -----------------------------------------------------------
              W David Doiron <DDoiron@...>
              -----------------------------------------------------------
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.