A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Using ship fuel as aviation fuel?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old April 24th 04, 09:21 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote:


I always find it intriguing, that almost everything we develop today as
supposedly latest techology has been there half a century ago. The only
really new thing in engines today is electronic control.

regards,
Friedrich


Exactly...and it's one of the reasons that, although I consider
myself quite knowledgeable engine wise, when I open the hood of
an ailing engine I quickly close it and get on the fone for a
towtruck...there's just so much complication in all the
electronic sensors, computers etc to squeeze every ounce of
efficiency out of a litre of fuel that I find it daunting.

My wife's Corolla just finished it's lease and I bought it and
leased another Toyota for her. A 'Matrix'. They have an
intriguing feature called VVTi (Variable Valve Timing). Neat
system!...hope it's rugged!, looks expensive if it comes adrift
in flight...

Cheers
--

-Gord.
  #72  
Old April 26th 04, 09:28 PM
Alisha's Addict
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:58:30 +0200, "Friedrich Ostertag"
wrote:

Hi Gord,

Well, just a comment about domestic automobiles, I didn't mean to
indicate that I operate them below the manufacturers specified
octane ratings, after all, I believe that the manufacturer knows
his engine best and I'd never try to second guess him, but I have
all kinds of friends and relatives who use hi octane fuel in
their cars even though low octane is recommended. (complete waste
I feel)


Ah, you're absolutely right there! Sorry for the misunderstanding.
There is no point in using higher octane than what the engine was
designed for. Even knock control will not advance ignition beyond the
calibrated map for the designated fuel.

However a lot of people over here fell for a marketing trick of Shell
Oil: Instead of the 98 octane highest grade fuel sold in Germany and
most euroean countries they offered a 100 octane (by the way, this is
ROZ, not ROZ+MOZ/2 as in the US) fuel called "V-power" with supposedly
all kinds of mysterious additives at 10 ct / Liter premium over other
oil company's 98 octane. Lots of car magazines and also the ADAC (your
AA) tested it in various models and found no difference whatsoever in
power and consumption. Yet Shell sells 10% of it's turnout in V-Power
while the other's only sell 5% 98. Talk about snake oil...


Definitely agree with you there ... The Puma that I have has a
reaction to the higher octane 98 RON Optimax fuel that Shell sell over
here.

It's not a good reaction, like increased power or economy, it's a bad
one. The bad reaction takes the shape of the engine management
struggling for the first couple of miles to get used to the differing
octane rating. Symptoms included poor running including reluctance to
idle. I suspect that the anti-knock control was self adjusting itself
for the increased octane rating. It also takes a little while to get
used to 95 RON unleaded when that goes back in.

Anyway, no measurable economy improvement (I nerdishly track my mpg)
and no perceptible power improvement. Although other people reckon
they see power improvements with other cars.

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)
  #73  
Old April 26th 04, 09:38 PM
Alisha's Addict
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 17:29:50 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:

"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote:


I always find it intriguing, that almost everything we develop today as
supposedly latest techology has been there half a century ago. The only
really new thing in engines today is electronic control.

regards,
Friedrich


Exactly...and it's one of the reasons that, although I consider
myself quite knowledgeable engine wise, when I open the hood of
an ailing engine I quickly close it and get on the fone for a
towtruck...there's just so much complication in all the
electronic sensors, computers etc to squeeze every ounce of
efficiency out of a litre of fuel that I find it daunting.


I like to think I know a pretty decent amount about engines, enough to
do my own maintenance when I was too poor to go to garages. But when I
got the Puma, I didn't even bother opening the bonnet. I knew I
wouldn't recognize much of what was under there and that the key
things would be hidden from view. All I needed to convince me that the
running gear was in excellent shape was a flying trip down the local
dual carriageway :-) (Happily 3 years later nothing serious has gone
wrong)

My wife's Corolla just finished it's lease and I bought it and
leased another Toyota for her. A 'Matrix'. They have an
intriguing feature called VVTi (Variable Valve Timing). Neat
system!...hope it's rugged!...


This is on the Puma too, as Variable Cam Timing. I think it's fairly
failsafe. Taking a mechanical engineer (which I'm not - I'm an elec)
view, I'd say they do it by retarding/advancing the valve timing
according to revs and load. So if the system fails or degrades, the
valve timing wouldn't adjust but the cams would still go round and the
valves would go up or down. Not heard of rampant engine trouble in the
variable timing cars so they must have got it licked.

It seems to work on the Puma ... I moved from Rover 2.0 16 valve to
Ford 1.7 16 valve and the Ford unit has just about equal power but
it's far more flexible across the rev range. The Rover unit was fairly
quiet until about 3250 rpm where it would take off. The Ford unit has
usable power down at about 1800/2000 rpm.

Pete Lilleyman

(please get rid of ".getrid" to reply direct)
(don't get rid of the dontspam though ;-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) Rich Stowell Aerobatics 28 January 2nd 09 03:26 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aerobatics 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
General Aviation Legal Defense Fund Dr. Guenther Eichhorn Aviation Marketplace 0 May 11th 04 10:43 PM
Here's the Recompiled List of 82 Aircraft Accessible Aviation Museums! Jay Honeck Home Built 18 January 20th 04 05:02 PM
Associate Publisher Wanted - Aviation & Business Journals Mergatroide Aviation Marketplace 1 January 13th 04 09:26 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.