VW Reality

Charles Vincent wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
I could be very, very wrong, but my understanding of efficiency is
that 25% efficiency means that a quarter of the energy goes to torque
and 3/4 to heat. That would mean you throw away THREE
horsepower's-worth instead of four, no?

Jim



since such engines are no more than 25% efficient when it comes to
converting the heat of combustion into torque at the crankshaft. That
means that for every horsepower measured at the crank you must
generate at least four horsepower's-worth of heat in combustion.


You are correct, but that is also exactly what he said ---. i.e.
generate four hp in heat, only one available at the shaft.

Charles


Well that's better than a 100 watt electric light bulb, which is a 90
watt heater and 10 watt light source...

John

the modern 'VW engine': http://www.ulpower.com/

"John" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
Charles Vincent wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
I could be very, very wrong, but my understanding of efficiency is that
25% efficiency means that a quarter of the energy goes to torque and 3/4
to heat. That would mean you throw away THREE horsepower's-worth
instead of four, no?

Jim



since such engines are no more than 25% efficient when it comes to
converting the heat of combustion into torque at the crankshaft. That
means that for every horsepower measured at the crank you must
generate at least four horsepower's-worth of heat in combustion.


You are correct, but that is also exactly what he said ---. i.e. generate
four hp in heat, only one available at the shaft.

Charles


Well that's better than a 100 watt electric light bulb, which is a 90 watt
heater and 10 watt light source...

John

On Feb 6, 1:28 am, "oilsardine" wrote:
the modern 'VW engine':http://www.ulpower.com/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice.

It's a real shame that the typical VW 'expert' knows so little about
engines :-) The ulpower people have gone out of their way to provide
easily understood explanations of how to measure torque; of torque vs
power, of Specific Fuel Consumption and so forth.

Indeed, these things are so simple -- and so fundamental to engines --
that it is difficult to understand why the EAA does NOT endorse a
program of publicly testing engines at its annual convention. The
'Experimental - Amateur-built' license is supposed to foster EDUCATION
and there are few things more educational than allowing the public to
see such demonstrations with their own eyes.

-R.S.Hoover
-EAA 58400 (Life Member)

Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.

Jim



Indeed, these things are so simple -- and so fundamental to engines --
that it is difficult to understand why the EAA does NOT endorse a
program of publicly testing engines at its annual convention.

RST Engineering wrote:

Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.

Jim



Indeed, these things are so simple -- and so fundamental to engines --
that it is difficult to understand why the EAA does NOT endorse a
program of publicly testing engines at its annual convention.




Endorsement would equate to liability.

BEsides, EAA has never really been about the reality of it - they
sell the dream.

Richard

On Feb 6, 1:20 pm, cavalamb himself wrote:
RST Engineering wrote:
Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.

Jim

Indeed, these things are so simple -- and so fundamental to engines --
that it is difficult to understand why the EAA does NOT endorse a
program of publicly testing engines at its annual convention.

Endorsement would equate to liability.

BEsides, EAA has never really been about the reality of it - they
sell the dream.

Fantasy, even.

On Feb 6, 8:04 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Smiley :-)

The real question is what happens to all those bucks? Add up the
Total Compensation Package for all those wunnerful folks running the
EAA and it's enough to make Warren G. Buffett heave a sigh of envy.

But you're right. Valid, useful information doesn't buy full-page
ads. And of course, it IS all about money. On the other hand, the
more emphasis placed on selling a dime's worth of info for a dollar,
the quicker the demise of grass-roots aviation.

-R.S.Hoover

wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:04 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Big Smiley :-)

The real question is what happens to all those bucks? Add up the
Total Compensation Package for all those wunnerful folks running the
EAA and it's enough to make Warren G. Buffett heave a sigh of envy.

But you're right. Valid, useful information doesn't buy full-page
ads. And of course, it IS all about money. On the other hand, the
more emphasis placed on selling a dime's worth of info for a dollar,
the quicker the demise of grass-roots aviation.

-R.S.Hoover

So the obvious answer is to take the advertising out of it. What we need
to do is lobby Aviation Consumer to have an annual homebuilt issue.

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 6, 8:04 am, "RST Engineering" wrote:
Come on, Bob. How do you expect the EAA to make a buck out of
something as
useful as this? Sheesh, man, cherchez le dinero.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Big Smiley :-)

The real question is what happens to all those bucks? Add up the
Total Compensation Package for all those wunnerful folks running the
EAA and it's enough to make Warren G. Buffett heave a sigh of envy.

But you're right. Valid, useful information doesn't buy full-page
ads. And of course, it IS all about money. On the other hand, the
more emphasis placed on selling a dime's worth of info for a dollar,
the quicker the demise of grass-roots aviation.

-R.S.Hoover

So the obvious answer is to take the advertising out of it. What we need
to do is lobby Aviation Consumer to have an annual homebuilt issue.


To get that idea rolling I just sent a letter to the editor. Here's a
link so others can do the same and a copy of my letter.

Dear Sirs,

I have been a subscriber for a few years now and have been very happy
with the unbiased reviews and information you provide.

I am currently building home-built aircraft and sadly the same kind of
reporting isn't currently available for experimental specific kits,
equipment or engines.

It would be great and I think you would see a fairly large audience if
you were to produce either an annual experimental issue or add a monthly
section on experimental aircraft.


http://www.aviationconsumer.com/cgi-...form&link_id=3

oilsardine wrote:

the modern 'VW engine': http://www.ulpower.com/


Now that is a sweet little motor!

165 pounds
2600 cc
claims 81 HP at 2800 RPM
500 hour TBO
FADEC
No Carb Ice problems

Only problem - I didn't catch the price?