Bydanjohnson Rumours About A New Pipestrel Trainer

[facthunter]

The highest tech Petrol motors are equally fuel efficient as a diesel and just as torquey.  Nev

[skippydiesel]

53 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The highest tech Petrol motors are equally fuel efficient as a diesel and just as torquey.  Nev

Are these " highest tech Petrol motors"

• readily available to the average Joe ?
• being taken up by industry?

I have always understood that diesel has a higher energy (calorific?) potential than petrol and that this, combined with higher compression engines, for a given volumetric efficiency, yields more "power"  in the form of torque - is this wrong? 

[onetrack]

Nev, you've been listening to, and believing too much breathless marketing hype. There's not a hope that any petrol engine can ever come close to the torque output, economy or efficiency of a diesel engine.

The simple reasons are that diesel has a considerably higher energy content than petrol, it is a much slower-burning fuel, and a diesel operates at a higher compression than any petrol engine.

If petrol engines could even remotely hope to match diesels in torque output, economy or efficiency, then the major diesel engine manufacturers would now be producing petrol truck and tractor engines again.

[old man emu]

On 25/10/2023 at 7:57 AM, skippydiesel said:

Without experience in all the pre-flight rituals (fuel/oil/pressure's/temperatures/etc)I wonder how a student , training in an EA, will transition into a petrol powered one?

I think that the place in the training program for EVs at present is in that first 10 - 15 hours where a student is taught to take off, climb,  fly level, descend and land. After that period the student can progress to different operating systems and different power sources. Which of us ever had their first lesson in a King  Air?

[facthunter]

Diesel has higher density. Specific fuel consumption, which is in mass units anyway addresses that.. Direct cylinder injection means it can't detonate and you can just about fuel it on anything. Doesn't need high octane. Engines are PUMPS and power out is proportional to charge  mass /time and that's dependent on Boosting and high temp burning for best efficiency. Carnot cycle.   Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I think that the place in the training program for EVs at present is in that first 10 - 15 hours where a student is taught to take off, climb,  fly level, descend and land. After that period the student can progress to different operating systems and different power sources. Which of us ever had their first lesson in a King  Air?

They do the transition the petrol aircraft once they go on to the cross-country endorsement.

 

The electric aircraft cannot provide the endurance for cross-country so the electric aircraft is kept close to the originating airport for all of the operations that create noise and pollution, and then you can use exactly the same airframe with a petrol engine for cross-country. Apparently it flies exactly the same in just about every respect, except cruise speed and endurance  (according to what i have read from the guys in the US)

[skippydiesel]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

I think that the place in the training program for EVs at present is in that first 10 - 15 hours where a student is taught to take off, climb,  fly level, descend and land. After that period the student can progress to different operating systems and different power sources. Which of us ever had their first lesson in a King  Air?

I guess its just about a rethink/mental adjustment - asides from a TIF my actual training started with on ground familiarisation, which included the use of the Check List. Fuel & oil, engine/flight/seat adjustment/nav instrument naming & function all included  Then we went flying. 

 

I imagine that an electric aircraft would have none of the engine & related instrument component  - subject to transitioning to IC motor, this would all have to come at a later time in the training schedule - just seems a little odd to an old fart.

 

I see no practical reason why a student could not start at King Air or any more complex aircraft (subject to being able to afford the staggering cost/hr). Most of us start at the cheap end of flight training because that is what we can just about afford and what is commonly/traditionally available.

[turboplanner]

25 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

I guess its just about a rethink/mental adjustment - asides from a TIF my actual training started with on ground familiarisation, which included the use of the Check List. Fuel & oil, engine/flight/seat adjustment/nav instrument naming & function all included  Then we went flying. 

 

I imagine that an electric aircraft would have none of the engine & related instrument component  - subject to transitioning to IC motor, this would all have to come at a later time in the training schedule - just seems a little odd to an old fart.

 

I see no practical reason why a student could not start at King Air or any more complex aircraft (subject to being able to afford the staggering cost/hr). Most of us start at the cheap end of flight training because that is what we can just about afford and what is commonly/traditionally available.

You're right Skippy and in my case, while doing a long taxy when the engine stopped, and the instructor said "You're the PIC" and I found I had turned the fuel tap the 1/4 turn but turned it off, because the previous student left it on instead of turning it off. I don't believe you could let people transition from electric straight to going off on cross countries without a lot of accidents. It's a little like learning to fly within RAA because "it's cheaper - advice given time and time again on this site, but by the time the student has to learn to fly the less-developed Rec aircraft the extra hours load up, and then there are the extra hours learning GA system and procedures to the point where without some luck it's cheaper to do all the training in GA to PPL.

[RFguy]

"It's a little like learning to fly within RAA because "it's cheaper - advice given time and time again on this site, but by the time the student has to learn to fly the less-developed Rec aircraft the extra hours load up, and then there are the extra hours learning GA system and procedures to the point where without some luck it's cheaper to do all the training in GA to PPL."

That is not true. Little difference between the Brumby and Jab I learned in and the 'big '  Piper I now fly. I did have an instructor that taught like it was GA.... So I had zero extra to learn to fly the bigger airplane in complex situations..... The Instructor makes alot of difference.  I do know RA people who I think fly and do stuff like they got their licenses out of a corn flakes packet.  But I also have seen GA people do some poor airman's ship things.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

50 minutes ago, RFguy said:

"It's a little like learning to fly within RAA because "it's cheaper - advice given time and time again on this site, but by the time the student has to learn to fly the less-developed Rec aircraft the extra hours load up, and then there are the extra hours learning GA system and procedures to the point where without some luck it's cheaper to do all the training in GA to PPL."

That is not true. Little difference between the Brumby and Jab I learned in and the 'big '  Piper I now fly. I did have an instructor that taught like it was GA.... So I had zero extra to learn to fly the bigger airplane in complex situations..... The Instructor makes alot of difference.  I do know RA people who I think fly and do stuff like they got their licenses out of a corn flakes packet.  But I also have seen GA people do some poor airman's ship things.

 

 

 

 

Well it IS true; I went through part of it. I notice you didn't mention the models, so the difference might not be so stark with some, but the LSA55 Jab was not even close to being up to the standard of a Cherokee Warrior, and in the strong sea breezes we had to land in and the technique we had to follow, I was out of rudder authority many times in the J170. 

 

[facthunter]

You'd be crazy to start on a twin even if you had the money. You'd just be introducing a lot of unnecessary risk and complexity early when you need to achieve a thorough basic  training which SOME build on later and some never go near.. A good trainer is built stronger  for obvious reasons. Most of the planes we use aren't anything special and that often limits what you can safely be taught.  Nev

[facthunter]

 Sorry the one above didn't get sent immediately.

 

Many RAAus planes are quite difficult to fly compared with the Production GA planes which HAVE to be more predictable and easy to satisfy the market they are in. Being smaller dimensionally and lighter makes them respond to gusts etc more as does their required lower landing speeds. They can make you a better pilot also. Some should stay in the hangar on Iffy days but know your and the Planes limits. Don't find them out the hard way when you just go along for the ride and hope. Nev

[RFguy]

Turbs, and J170C as you probably know did get a ventral fin to improve the tail authority. I reckon that aircraft might have been too much 'she'll be right'.  Tail- yep, same with LSA55.

ALthough - I think,  if you can fly those airplanes which are arguably less forgiving than the Piper, it puts you in a place where other planes are easier, or at least "better different". Those planes are very much lower inertia, I feel there is more scope to muck it up in the light, slow flying , low inertia airplane in the landing phase. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by RFguy

[facthunter]

This may be contentious but IF you're flying by just a power off glide in gusts you are making it hard for yourself to touch down where you want to at the right speed for the circumstances and you won't be as ready for a go around as well if it's required. You have to be more active on the controls as well. That applies to all planes.  Nev

[RFguy]

Nev are you talking  about holding some power in the flare to slow the whole  transition down  in gusty condix instead of power to idle in the flare when in benign condix ? Certainly to fly and down a wheel down first, I am not sufficiently skilled yet to (quickly)  put the aircraft wing down on one wheel in one  flare movement at IDLE..... I will fly it under some power into  the wingdown, one wheel down  flare in Xwind.

Same goes for straight down the runway gusty condix, I will fly maybe half flap or no flap with some power on to slow the transition down..... In EFATO, well you dont have that option so its all going to happen quick anyway. 

[facthunter]

I don't like to give critical advice like this ON LINE. But IF you have power on and stabilised and are not going too fast pulling it off quickly will generally result in it staying on the ground better. That's an energy management thing. SPOILERS are far better. With out spoilers many jets would be doing some very amusing arrivals. Some Smaller planes do achieve this by a bit of well timed stick forward at touchdown on a taildragger BUT ONLY IF you are doing a wheeler and the tail is STILL high and you haven't bounced or skipped. Don't for %#*&@ sake do it on anything else or any other circumstances. Better to review  always with your instructor onboard in these matters. I tend to 3 point normally but in strong /gusty winds that's not always appropriate  Nev

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

Turbs, and J170C as you probably know did get a ventral fin to improve the tail authority. I reckon that aircraft might have been too much 'she'll be right'.  Tail- yep, same with LSA55.

ALthough - I think,  if you can fly those airplanes which are arguably less forgiving than the Piper, it puts you in a place where other planes are easier, or at least "better different". Those planes are very much lower inertia, I feel there is more scope to muck it up in the light, slow flying , low inertia airplane in the landing phase. 

That's my point; that's not where you want students for a start if they are training for PPL. It chews up hours of practice overcoming those characteristics.

 

There were a few people on here about ten years ago arguing that if you could fly X you could fly anything (and that was supposed to be good sound advice). Several sold their aircraft without warning the buyer, several just parked their aircraft, and one of the buglers who we would assume could "fly anything", sold his aircraft as parts.

 

 

[skippydiesel]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

You'd be crazy to start on a twin even if you had the money. You'd just be introducing a lot of unnecessary risk and complexity early when you need to achieve a thorough basic  training which SOME build on later and some never go near.. A good trainer is built stronger  for obvious reasons. Most of the planes we use aren't anything special and that often limits what you can safely be taught.  Nev

Cant agree Nev -Certainly a pilot starting up the complexity scale, would miss out on a lot of knowledge/skills that may (or not) come in useful sometime in the future (just as having glider skills have helped many to be more intuitive pilots) BUT money/cost is the only reason a student  pilot can not be trained to fly whatever. Sure he/she may take 100 hrs to solo but what of it, if you have the dosh to learn on Dads Lear? There may actually be some advantages in not carrying unnecessary knowledge/skills "baggage"  forward, to be unlearned in the newer/faster/higher high tech cockpit 

Edited October 26, 2023 by skippydiesel

[BrendAn]

Here is an nrma car charger.

[BrendAn]

Just now, BrendAn said:

Here is an nrma car charger.

Here is the diesel Genset that powers it.

[BrendAn]

So if you live in a regional area with these type of chargers would you call your car a Tesla diesel . 😁

[turboplanner]

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

The ONLY part of an EV being pollution free is their claim on Zero Tailpipe emissions.

Hydrogen make this claim as well, but conveniently ignore the manufacture of the fuel.

The manufacture/ disposal  of the lithium batteries exceeds most new ICE pollution..(even Volvo grudgingly admitted this) and then most are charged from Thermal power stations  with very few utilising the much vaunted Solar or Wind... (which is just more of the pseudo pollution free' products). Seems the modern diesel is only become so polluting since the introduction of the Californian pretend omissions induced AdBlue cxxp.. I have still to get an explanation of how wasting fuel in the raw 'burn' is somehow better for the environment.

My 2010 Peugeot uses a DPF Fluid that melts the trapped particles without burning and wasting fuel  .. and I get 6/100 at 'my' driving style.

I am looking forward to Bio Diesel to get rid of the reliance on oil. 

 

3 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

So if you live in a regional area with these type of chargers would you call your car a Tesla diesel . 😁

 

[turboplanner]

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

The ONLY part of an EV being pollution free is their claim on Zero Tailpipe emissions.

Good to see someone picking up on the hypocrisy of the EV Industry.

General Motors Chair and CEO Mary Barra, an Engineer and Mark Reuss President were the first to change their claims to be building "Zero Emission" Autos to "Zero Tailpipe Emission" after being advised that their EV emissions just transferred to the power stations recraging the batteries.

After some claims of Zero Emission on some trucks (in a State which was almost total renewables powered, I checked the US power generation State by State and found this was an exception, offest by a much larger coal-fired generation in industrial states which meant they went backwards with every new EV.  The latest US Energy Information Administration total for all 50 states is just 21% renewable energy generation, 39.5 Nuclear, so 60.5% of US power generation producing more CO2 to charge EVs than ICE emit.

 

In Australia, Brendan's post about an EV charging station powered by Diesel is being multiplied many times because regional Australia just doesn't get enough State Grid power to meet the fast charging demand.

 

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

Hydrogen make this claim as well, but conveniently ignore the manufacture of the fuel.

Hydrogen stories are still vague and it was only recently that acronym HICE (hydrogen internal combustion engine) was introduced to separate it from Hydrogen Fuel Cell, two vastly different vehicles. HICE has to resolve the issue of static sparks, mobile phones, cigarettes at refilling stations, with some enthusiasts depicting a service station attendent "plugging in"  a sealed changeover box. Of Course the vessel wall thickness and size would be similar to CNG tanks, so a fork truck needed.

 

 

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

The manufacture/ disposal  of the lithium batteries exceeds most new ICE pollution..(even Volvo grudgingly admitted this)

This is another factor which manufacturers don't seem to be pointing out. 

 

What is happening out on the roads is that not only have owners been discovering the life of around 10 years, but the replacement cost seems to be coming in much higher than the Leaf's $10,500.00 incl labour.

 

On top of that some people are reporting battery failures after driving through water. 

 

This is affecting resale value and insurance.

 

 

 

 

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

Seems the modern diesel is only become so polluting since the introduction of the Californian pretend omissions induced AdBlue cxxp.. I have still to get an explanation of how wasting fuel in the raw 'burn' is somehow better for the environment.

That's not totally correct.

Engine emission equipment was introduced in Australia on the 1976 model cars. The emissions being controlled were NOx and Particulates; both cause cancers.

In 1979 I was flying out of Los Angeles sitting next to a US Supreme Court Judge. I leant across her to take a photo out of the window of the Los Angeles smog. She looked at me as if I was an idiot,  and said "What are you doing!; there's nothing out there! I explained that I was going to use that slide in presentations to Australian transport operators in trying to explain why, when operating past paddocks with just cattle and sheep beside the road for hundreds of miles to show it all started here. 

 

I was involved in the "Black Smoke" era in Victoria in the late 1980s where some police districts would have a car at the bottom of a hill, the trucks would come down with the throttle backed off and a cloud of black smoke would pour out as the climbed out of the valley. A handy fine would follow, and where those trucks were new and within warranty, I'd be given the bill for new injectors, new fuel pump etc. only to find the truck fined a week later, so in one of the districts we had a come to Jesus meeting with the manufacturer, operator, and police chaired by the local MP. The air was blue for some time, but I'd brought along a set of Ringleman charts, and we all agreed to adopt Ringelman 3. That gave us all a benchmark to allow newer trucks to operate, and allow the police to ping the trucks needing maintenance.

 

By 1992 I would have thought we were doing well, but the pressure came from Europe and California to eliminate NOx and diesel Particulates, so Australia introduced ADRs for them and our engines dropped down on power.

 

By around 2006 the regulations had tightened again, and engine manufacturers around the world came up with their own methods of further reducing NOx and PM (particulate matter). Caterpillar cam up with ACERT which required two turbochargers, but this was a blind alley and a few years later they opted out of the road industry. The US manufacturers went for exhaust gas recirculation to cook diesel particulates with a DPF diesel particulate filter for the stubborn ones. Europe went for SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction,  leaving the engines as they were (dirty) which retained full power, and injecting urea (AdBlue) into the exhaust downstream from the engine, which destroyed them.

 

Where we are today with emissions on new diesels is:

 

NOx :  reduced 99.4% since 1992

PM:     reduced 98.4% since 1992

 

Given that from 1976 to 1992 we had made substantial reductions, this is an exceptionally good result.

Vehicle emissions are a lot less that factory emissions where factory owners are allowed to average their emissions over a 24 hour period. With a vehicle you're on the clock when you turn the key.

 

So we get to CO2 emissions.

California was also at the front of driving CO2 reductions, even though they were unrelated to health. 

 

We have no CO2 figures for our cars and trucks, because CO2 is a byproduct of both the engine output and the fuel standard. Estimates, wild estimates and modelling can be used to tell a story.

 

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

 

My 2010 Peugeot uses a DPF Fluid that melts the trapped particles without burning and wasting fuel  .. and I get 6/100 at 'my' driving style.

That sounds like SCR to me. Quite a few car models in Europe have it.

10 hours ago, Arron25 said:

 

I am looking forward to Bio Diesel to get rid of the reliance on oil. 

Bio Diesel is the same as LPG - can't meet the Emission standards of today.

 

 

[FlyBoy1960]

Well, my Tesla charges 100% from Solar Power. 

 

It is hooked into my solar panels through a charger called the ZAPPI. 

 

I have it set in eco-plus plus mode and it charges at about 8 kW when the sun is out. Since I have owned it I have never needed to pay for one cent of electricity!

A friend has one exact same unit but 3 phase in his work and it can charge at 22 kW because it is three-phase and has more cells. I am limited to single phase at home.

One day I will have to pay for energy if I travel to somewhere further than what I travel 99% of the time but for me now, this is the absolute best for my pocket and supposedly the planet.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Well, my Tesla charges 100% from Solar Power. 

 

It is hooked into my solar panels through a charger called the ZAPPI. 

 

I have it set in eco-plus plus mode and it charges at about 8 kW when the sun is out. Since I have owned it I have never needed to pay for one cent of electricity!

A friend has one exact same unit but 3 phase in his work and it can charge at 22 kW because it is three-phase and has more cells. I am limited to single phase at home.

One day I will have to pay for energy if I travel to somewhere further than what I travel 99% of the time but for me now, this is the absolute best for my pocket and supposedly the planet.

Two things are critical when talking about charging and range; where the charge comes from, and how long it takes to charge the last 40%.

 

EV was sold on the commuter who trundles down to the railway station in the morning and back at night, charges it on single phase and does that within 60% charge. Power demand on the road is low, who no Airpower calc needed to be included, the car will be at 60% next morning so range doesn't come into it, annual distance is low, so total cost of life calcs don't have to factor in tyres and other wear components, and these people joined in every social media discussion telling us how good they were.

 

In your case you've reduced CO2 emissions by charging it with renewables.

 

The problems are emerging as people exceed the range, which is based on the immovable equation that if you need more power your battery will drain much faster, loads and trailers and high frontal areas, and inability to recharge in time for departure with single phase power, and for the Australian Grids the EV will be generating CO2 at the power station site,removing the whole plint of EV.