On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 20:33:11 GMT, "Colin W Kingsbury"
wrote:

My friend (the one who quit working on his license) had to replace the
engine in his 2001 Audi when the timing belt slipped. It cost him close to
$20,000. He'd done maintenance religiously and didn't abuse the car. My
0-320 will cost $15k for a major overhaul, $25k factory new (ish).



Not to knock your buddy, but either he's driving one of the S8
Bi-turbos or he got royally hammered. New recent model Audi engines
in the same HP range, normally aspirated are running $3000 brand new.
Installation is $1000-2500. These, however, are water cooled.

Funny you bring up Porsche. They actually did try and build an airplane
engine with Mooney back in the late 80s and it was a disaster.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html for one opinion. I don't
disagree that we're dealing with some pretty bronze-age technologies in our
engines, but the homebuilt set has been f---ing around with auto conversions
for 30 years with no really great success stories. If it were so simple,
somebody would have figured it out by now.


Actually, I think the VW engines are quite popular.

However, I'm not talking about conversions. I'm comparing
technologies. VW/Audi and Porsche produced aircooled engines that
are similar to the Lycoming and Contential powerplants.

The point I'm trying to make is that if Porsche ($$$$$) can produce an
aircooled engine for a reasonable amount, then other other companies
using the same technology targeted for aircraft should be able too as
well. There is nothing inherently different about aircooled
automobile and aircraft powerplants, excluding building to FAA
certification standards.

IIRC, the reason for the spectacular failure of the Porsche Mooney was
that instead of redesigning the powerplant from the ground up, the
Porsche design used existing technology adapted for flight; i.e. A
conversion.

I don't neccessarily want glass, but alot of people do. All I'm after
is cheap technological growth. I see FADEC, GPS w/ WAAS approaches
and Sirius WX as important technologies for fuel efficiency, safety
and convienence. Tech growth is cheaper without FAA certification.

Now you're mixing metaphors. I agree that a glass cockpit in an LSA adds sex
appeal, but zero utility. However we are getting to the point where
non-certified pseudo-glass panels are starting to cost less than round
gauges. It will be a long time before the FAA allows easier certification of
IFR instrumentation, and likely they never will. As the skies get more
crowded, they will become more exclusive. Look at RVSM for an example.

Glass can add MASSIVE utility. Automatic performance calculations,
Synthetic vision, GPS terrain avoidance, built-in airport databases
with autotuning radios. FADEC based auto-leaning, spark advance tied
to EGT to prevent detonation. I could continue for quite a while.

A well designed, centralized glass system could be as expandable as a
PC. Want Sirius WX weather? Add a $300 receiver and upgrade the
software instead of a $3000 brain/receiver. If you have autopilot,
complete flight management is only a software upgrade away.
Remember, we are talking microprocessor vs. steam gauge.


My opinion is that LSA is something of a parallel track. Basically, if all
you want to do is pull back on the stick and see the houses get smaller, LSA
will offer a substantially lower-cost path to licensing and ownership. If
you want to use airplanes as real transportation, you will need to go the
traditional GA route with its higher costs.


You could be right and only time will tell. However, there would be a
great amount of utility available to the businessman to be able to fly
himself and a cohort to a customer site in a LSA. How about a couple
for a quick weekend?

I see far more possibilities.

Jim