Why are turbos rare?

On Oct 18, 7:39*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:31*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:36*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Because electric airplanes are soon to
replace the fossil fueled redneck planes.

If by soon you mean maybe in 50 years or so.

http://energysavinggadgets.net/world...-airplane/2009...

Oh, wow, a single place airplane that can fly for all of 2 hours.

Whoopee.

Electric planes will replace internal combustion
airplanes.

Not in the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Polymer exchange membrane fuel cells:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...ve-fuels/fuel-....

Let us know when you can run any vehicle on a press release.

Ha ha! *Let you know when fuel cells run cars? *Heh!
Guess you haven't hear about Iceland.

Where's the production car available to the general public?

Yeah, that's right, it doesn't exist other than as press releases.

At least you've switched your naive hopes from batteries to a technology
that might actually someday be viable as a practical energy source for
vehicles.

No, the batteries have already been invented. They
just haven't been manufactured for consumers yet.

The word "invented" does not mean "practical", "producable", or "affordable".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I won't follow you down a jackass rabbit
hole. You don't even have a clue what I'm
talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o

---
Mark

On Oct 18, 7:43*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:37*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:36*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Because electric airplanes are soon to
replace the fossil fueled redneck planes.

If by soon you mean maybe in 50 years or so.

http://energysavinggadgets.net/world...-airplane/2009...

Oh, wow, a single place airplane that can fly for all of 2 hours.

Whoopee.

It will fly for 20 hours by using the proven battery
technology which has already been developed at
the Univ. of Maryland. The "self-assembly" prevalent
with nanoengineering was achieved with the M13
tobacco virus, creating an energy density ten times
that of a lithium ion battery.

You mean it will fly powered by a breathless press release and doesn't
need a battery that is actually in production?

You mean it should be kept a secret until they
carry it at Walmart? (cause you keep implying this)

No, I mean it doesn't exist as a production item and probably won't in the
lifetime of anyone currently reading this.

The value of a press release is the value of the paper it is printed on at
the recycle center.

Guess you don't know what proof of concept means.

I know what "proof of concept" means.

What you don't seem to know is that "proof of concept" does not mean any
of "producable", "in production", "practical", or "affordable".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o

On Oct 18, 7:36*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:35*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 8:29*am, Mark wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:36*pm, wrote:

Mark wrote:
Because electric airplanes are soon to
replace the fossil fueled redneck planes.

If by soon you mean maybe in 50 years or so.

http://energysavinggadgets.net/world...-airplane/2009...

Oh, wow, a single place airplane that can fly for all of 2 hours.

Whoopee.

Electric planes will replace internal combustion
airplanes.

Not in the lifetime of anyone old enough to read this.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Polymer exchange membrane fuel cells:http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-e...ve-fuels/fuel-...

More specifically, your hydrogen is easily
obtained by even the poorest of solar panels.

Typical naive comment; it is techincally easy to obtain hydrogen though not
particularly cheap to do so and a giant pain in the butt to collect, store,
and transport.

Once again, you don't know what either I, or you,
are talking about. *Artificial photosynthesis splits
water at low voltage, and the recombination of it
creates electric voltage. This will charge batteries
to serve all our flying needs.

Maybe in theory, but it has nothing to do with your statement of "...your
hydrogen is is easily..."

Artificial photosynthesis is yet another labratory "product" with no
practical applications or product in sight just like all your other
marvels that will be here "any day now".

Such as electric cars that go 300 miles
on a charge which you say are nonexistent?

You're clueless. At least watch this to
get an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o

As usual, no sense whatsoever for the big picture, much like your thinking
that Part 141 schools are the entirety of flight training.

I never made that claim.

Correct, you never made that precise statement

Then why say it? I never claimed anything even
remotely like that. Furthermore I've already clarified
this more than once. It doesn't sink in with you.

what you did was extrapolate
on the requirement for Part 141 schools to have a FAA approved syllabus

I didn't extrapolate it. I actually cited the FAA
far which specified it. But you apparently can't read.

and applied that requirement to all flight training,

That's patently untrue and nothing short of a lie. You
are the one that tried to change the subject to include
all flight training, not me.

which is nonsense.

Moreover you claimed the FAA provides the syllabus,

I never claimed that. That's a lie.

which is more nonsense.

You're wasting my time again due to your
"comprehension problem".


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mark wrote:

Such as electric cars that go 300 miles
on a charge which you say are nonexistent?

Make, model, MSRP?

You're clueless. At least watch this to
get an idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o

Whoopee, a babbling youtube video.

I didn't extrapolate it. I actually cited the FAA
far which specified it.

Lying sack, it was more of your arm waving generalizations that started all
that and you didn't cite anything until several posts in.

Moreover you claimed the FAA provides the syllabus,

I never claimed that. That's a lie.

Lying sack, you claimed it several times.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:35Â*pm, wrote:

More specifically, your hydrogen is easily
obtained by even the poorest of solar panels.

Typical naive comment; it is techincally easy to obtain hydrogen though not
particularly cheap to do so and a giant pain in the butt to collect, store,
and transport.

It is very cheap to obtain hydrogen, easy to
collect, easy to store, easy to transport. This
is a fact. But there is no need to transport it
anywhere. It is best used to make electricity.

Delusional nonsense.

For starters it costs more to make hydrogen than the value of any electricity
you could get by burning it to get electricity.

The rest is just childish nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:

I won't follow you down a jackass rabbit
hole. You don't even have a clue what I'm
talking about.

You haven't a clue what you are talking about most of the time.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 7:43Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 18, 1:37Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Oct 17, 9:36Â*pm, wrote:
Mark wrote:
Because electric airplanes are soon to
replace the fossil fueled redneck planes.

If by soon you mean maybe in 50 years or so.

http://energysavinggadgets.net/world...-airplane/2009...

Oh, wow, a single place airplane that can fly for all of 2 hours.

Whoopee.

It will fly for 20 hours by using the proven battery
technology which has already been developed at
the Univ. of Maryland. The "self-assembly" prevalent
with nanoengineering was achieved with the M13
tobacco virus, creating an energy density ten times
that of a lithium ion battery.

You mean it will fly powered by a breathless press release and doesn't
need a battery that is actually in production?

You mean it should be kept a secret until they
carry it at Walmart? (cause you keep implying this)

No, I mean it doesn't exist as a production item and probably won't in the
lifetime of anyone currently reading this.

The value of a press release is the value of the paper it is printed on at
the recycle center.

Guess you don't know what proof of concept means.

I know what "proof of concept" means.

What you don't seem to know is that "proof of concept" does not mean any
of "producable", "in production", "practical", or "affordable".

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTtmU2lD97o

Oh, wow, yet another gibbering fool on youtube.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In article ,
says...


Why do turbocharged piston props seem to be so rare/unfavored? Don't they
provide a substantial advantage over normally aspirated engines?


This only "seems to be" true for someone who has not researched the
subject. In virtually every case, when a standard piston model gets a
turbocharged upgrade, the "turbo" version outsells the normally aspirated
version by a healthy margin. They are extremely popular and common.

http://www.flyingmag.com/pilot-repor...-turbo-skylane

VOR-DME writes:

This only "seems to be" true for someone who has not researched the
subject. In virtually every case, when a standard piston model gets a
turbocharged upgrade, the "turbo" version outsells the normally aspirated
version by a healthy margin. They are extremely popular and common.

Then why have turbos come and gone so often?

In article ,
says...


VOR-DME writes:

This only "seems to be" true for someone who has not researched the
subject. In virtually every case, when a standard piston model gets a
turbocharged upgrade, the "turbo" version outsells the normally aspirated
version by a healthy margin. They are extremely popular and common.

Then why have turbos come and gone so often?
Airplanes come and go all the time - that's their purpose in life!
Seriously I don't understand the question.

A turbo version is a marketing choice manufacturers make, based on their
conviction that a particular model will have added appeal in this
configuration.For a C-172 it doesn't make a lot of sense, because it is
bought and used more for training and economic transport than for long
distance, and anyone looking at a 172 is definitely not looking in the "fast"
market. As soon as you get into a 182, people are looking for not only more
speed, but more utility. Mountain dwellers will naturally be looking into
turbos. The "fast" crowd is completely addicted. Cirrus buyers are not
looking at turbo or normally aspirated, but at "which" turbo they want - the
Tornado Alley turbonormalized package, or the Cirrus factory-built
turbocharged version.

Come and go? The turbocharged 182 has been a mainstay for decades, aside the
pre-GARA hiatus. Same for many Pipers. You won't find many of them in the
aero-club circuit, as they represent higher maintenance costs for little
added training value, but amongst owners they have been a favorite for
decades, and justifiably so.