Very confused..

Apples to apples sounds good to me!
The bit about the smaller disc was revealing. Thanks for the info.
But it is right there on the borderline. Drag from a bigger ship will be an issue.
I understand what you are saying Birdy but I still leaning to the other side.
Now what is going on in Bones head? (oops . . .pun coincidental)
Raton is set on something else, whatever you have done will not sufice, many variants are in play.
I think we have to wear gloves when talking personally, uh Bones?
. . . and I don´t think Raton is confused anymore.
Heron
 
Dont wurry raton, i wont give up on ya. ;)

Never the less , here we go aging, arguing that a Rotax with 100 HP or so would outperform a Subaru with 170HP is somehow erroneous.

Its common knowlage, that twice the hp dont mean anythn near twice the lifting capacity/airspeed.
To double the AS and/or weight, youd need [ only gessn ere] sumthn like x3 the HP at least.

So, if you take 70 odd kg off a machine that hada enpty weight of bout 300kg [ round figures], but still had the same hp [ even more, coz theres no way known the ej22 can make 130hp ere] youd at least break even, or as iv found from experiance, improved the all round performance.
Im not go'n to argue bout anythn theoretical, only bout wot i KNOW.

Oh..! yes nearly forgot, boosting flying hours doesn’t give some the wisdom on everything technical related.
Couldnt agree more.
I know sum that have thousands of hours airtime.
They cant tell you jacsh1t bout things tech/ theoretical, but they sure as hell KNOW plenty.

Not being a show pony like some
Who is??

Fuel consumption for the engine ‘alone’ comes for the Rotax factory specification. Could be wrong..?
Think bout it raton.
Wots the average 912 installed in?
Wots the average AS itll be do'n?

over what distance..?
Ummmm, 7 hours, 100kmh.....................mmmm, 700km???


Sorry mate , very confused raton..
I know.
You gota compare apples to apples mate, otherwise nuthn will add up.


Dont wurry raton, i wont give up on ya

Well glad you have the bones

You wrote this:

Crossn Oz [ 1800km one way, no ground assistance, 7hours fuel duration + me + a few days of rations and bout 30kg of other sh1t, across the 500km of Simpson desert, where there are no roads, no buildns, no people, no nuthn] is hardly around the patch shenanigans.

I query it with this: Let’s say the power setting for a 914 Rotax with wings was @ 65-75% at 5000 RPM (+-) developing 73HP (+-) the engine would need 21l (+-) of fuel per hour and in 7 hr means 147l (+-) of fuel @ 257kl (+-) p/h in 1800kl..? ( calculated on a FW but on a gyro it would use more fuel coming from the drag of the rotor)

Your answer was this: If the 914 burned 21 LPH, i wouldn’t have made it to the first fuel drum.

The question was simple; no assistance, now you would not make it to the next fuel drum, 1800Kl with 7 hours fuel duration no EPIRB either middle of the desert..? Hope I am not confusing you.

raton
 
Hope I am not confusing you.
Nah mate, you cant confuse a SCG. ;)

Yes, i said the unassisted trip was 1800km.......... total one way.
I had a fuel capacity of 7 hours.
I allowed for plenty of head wind crossn the 500km of desert. I had 7 hours of fuel, but it only took 5.
No gyro yet built will do 1800km in 7 hours on 120L of fuel.

Go'n by the manifold pressure in the rotax book, itll cruise steady at bout 100/120 kmh at bout 50% power.
I forget wot the number is, but at 50%, its no way near 20lph.

calculated on a FW but on a gyro it would use more fuel coming from the drag of the rotor
You comparen apples to rocks there raton.
More fuel per mile yes, but less per hour.
Sure, if i left it nailed from start to finish, i woulda gotn there alot quicker, but i wouldnt have gotn as far.*
If i was ina hurry, i woulda rang up Quantas.
But seen as i was on holiday, i was just puttn along with plenty of time n fuel. :)

no EPIRB either middle of the desert..?
Anatha blind assumption on your part. :(
Who said i had no beacon??
I hada beacon, sat fone, GPS, spare box of matches...........
Anythn else inconsiquential youd like to know?

* bout a munth ago a passenger (r22 owner)asked me how fast it would go.
I said "im buggered if i know, coz iv never left the tap open long enuff to find out."
Needless to say, i opened the tap and left it there for a few seconds at bout 10' alt, and last i saw we were do'n bout 80kts and still gaining.
Other than hight, my other greatest fear is speed. ;)



But it is right there on the borderline.
Wots rite where on which line Heron??

Raton is set on something else, whatever you have done will not sufice, many variants are in play.
I know this, it was obvious from the opening post.
And in no way am i tryn to convert anyone to a rotax, far from it.
All im do'n is tryn to inform raton of a few observations [ facts] iv learned over the coupla years iv been flyn.

Basicaly, theres only one ruel to remember wen buildn any aircraft.
And that is WEIGHT IS EVERYTHN.
Less weight means less power needed, less rotor needed=less drag, less fuel, less structural weight, less less less.......... .
Unlike a car, weight is costing you every second your off the ground.
 
Hope I am not confusing you.
Nah mate, you cant confuse a SCG. ;)

Yes, i said the unassisted trip was 1800km.......... total one way.
I had a fuel capacity of 7 hours.
I allowed for plenty of head wind crossn the 500km of desert. I had 7 hours of fuel, but it only took 5.
No gyro yet built will do 1800km in 7 hours on 120L of fuel.

Go'n by the manifold pressure in the rotax book, itll cruise steady at bout 100/120 kmh at bout 50% power.
I forget wot the number is, but at 50%, its no way near 20lph.

calculated on a FW but on a gyro it would use more fuel coming from the drag of the rotor
You comparen apples to rocks there raton.
More fuel per mile yes, but less per hour.
Sure, if i left it nailed from start to finish, i woulda gotn there alot quicker, but i wouldnt have gotn as far.*
If i was ina hurry, i woulda rang up Quantas.
But seen as i was on holiday, i was just puttn along with plenty of time n fuel. :)

no EPIRB either middle of the desert..?
Anatha blind assumption on your part. :(
Who said i had no beacon??
I hada beacon, sat fone, GPS, spare box of matches...........
Anythn else inconsiquential youd like to know?

* bout a munth ago a passenger (r22 owner)asked me how fast it would go.
I said "im buggered if i know, coz iv never left the tap open long enuff to find out."
Needless to say, i opened the tap and left it there for a few seconds at bout 10' alt, and last i saw we were do'n bout 80kts and still gaining.
Other than hight, my other greatest fear is speed. ;)



But it is right there on the borderline.
Wots rite where on which line Heron??

Raton is set on something else, whatever you have done will not sufice, many variants are in play.
I know this, it was obvious from the opening post.
And in no way am i tryn to convert anyone to a rotax, far from it.
All im do'n is tryn to inform raton of a few observations [ facts] iv learned over the coupla years iv been flyn.

Basicaly, theres only one ruel to remember wen buildn any aircraft.
And that is WEIGHT IS EVERYTHN.
Less weight means less power needed, less rotor needed=less drag, less fuel, less structural weight, less less less.......... .
Unlike a car, weight is costing you every second your off the ground.

Thanks for clarifying it ..

raton
 
Now what is going on in Bones head? (oops . . .pun coincidental)
Heron

nothing is going on, i am just tired of repeating the same thing to the same person over and over and over
BUT
Birdy puts this
Basicaly, theres only one ruel to remember wen buildn any aircraft.
And that is WEIGHT IS EVERYTHN.
Less weight means less power needed, less rotor needed=less drag, less fuel, less structural weight, less less less.......... .
Unlike a car, weight is costing you every second your off the ground.

And i think the penny might have just dropped hopefully :drum:

As for the fuel burn on a 912, 2 days ago i was escorting some moos from one end of the paddock to the other, i left with 70lts of fuel, landed 4hr15mins latter and still had 10lts left, that was from cruising at 60kts, about 4800rpm, to open tap for a couple of mins at a time, they didnt like where they were going :lol:
 
Having a fuel flow meter installed in my MT03/912 I can maybe add some numbers here. In a fast cruise (140 km/h) the fuel flow is 18 l/h, WOT gets it up to 29 l/h and if you want to just putter around without getting anywhere fast (90 km/h), you burn 13 l/h.

Incidentally, this jibes almost perfectly with bones' observation. He used 60 liter in 4,25 hours at 60 kts. That's equal to 14 l/h at 111 km/h.

-- Chris.
 
Having a fuel flow meter installed in my MT03/912 I can maybe add some numbers here. In a fast cruise (140 km/h) the fuel flow is 18 l/h, WOT gets it up to 29 l/h and if you want to just putter around without getting anywhere fast (90 km/h), you burn 13 l/h.

Incidentally, this jibes almost perfectly with bones' observation. He used 60 liter in 4,25 hours at 60 kts. That's equal to 14 l/h at 111 km/h.

-- Chris.


Your figures, Chris, seems to be very real as per Rotax 912 fuel consumption charts and your fuel flow meter very accurate.
Giorgos
 
Having a fuel flow meter installed in my MT03/912 I can maybe add some numbers here. In a fast cruise (140 km/h) the fuel flow is 18 l/h, WOT gets it up to 29 l/h and if you want to just putter around without getting anywhere fast (90 km/h), you burn 13 l/h.

Incidentally, this jibes almost perfectly with bones' observation. He used 60 liter in 4,25 hours at 60 kts. That's equal to 14 l/h at 111 km/h.

-- Chris.

I too have a fuel puter, ;) but if i just stated what you did it would have started a whole new angle, cause no doubt my puter would not have been right :eek:

Your figures, Chris, seems to be very real as per Rotax 912 fuel consumption charts and your fuel flow meter very accurate.
Giorgos
They are very good once adjusted just right, i can carry 105lts on my white machine, and it is usually only out by about 2-3 lts over that amount, there is a little error every now and again, and it just throws them out, but i can fly by it til the last 5-10 lts then i land and check/fuel then go again
 
Last edited:
All ya'll know there is NO winning this argument on either side right?? Because we all know that a 3hp Briggs and Straton lawnmower engine works a beaut and that's all you need you just ask anyone.
:argue::wacko:
 
I duno, i think me n raton are near the same page now.
thats an achievment init?? ;)
 
Dunno Birdy, he seemed to agree far to easily. Not his style.
 
I duno, i think me n raton are near the same page now.
thats an achievment init?? ;)

Oh..! wait a tick, I might on the same page for this instant alone but ain’t going to bed with you. This discussion was not about weight only I wanted to use a real engine in a given gyro, any toad would know the lighter a gyro would be limited ( albeit flimsy contraption) will climb faster use less fuel and only needs a we-we engine. All I wanted form the inception if I could get a real gyro capable of taking a real engine, after much discussions about engines found a nice gyro but the monsignor le Xenon come out in defense saying no no le xenon e virgin and no screwing around. So that was it for the French connection. After some research found some real gyros (SportCopter/Aerocopter) capable of taking the real engine. Ratonship will be real heavy machine, real long range, climb higher, take more loads, and use more fuel, full enclosed, A/C and heated cabin and for that I need a real and powerful (dare not to mention the engine) long lasting engine.

raton
 
All ya'll know there is NO winning this argument on either side right?? Because we all know that a 3hp Briggs and Straton lawnmower engine works a beaut and that's all you need you just ask anyone.
:argue::wacko:

Hehehe… good on ya bananabender:lol: ,come to think it all started with simple 100cc Mccullough ,nowadays it has been unjustly avoided by homebuilders.

raton
 
Everyone's flying needs are different and love blinds, even if it is love of a motor.
It's true a higher climb rate, longer range, higher speeds would be useful, for a heavy machine as you describe but Xenon and others with much more experience have researched Subaru's too, you know your not the first one Raton, right? To many with experience believe your dream craft sounds much more like it will end up as our "Spruce Goose" for the type of flying most actually use gyros for. And there is a lower resale value selling a gyro with a motor only you recommend and are in love with.
Ratons needs may be very different than the majority of us. It would great to be able to climb over a high obstruction in a heavy rotorcraft at 2000 FPM (until the engine stopped) and fly 200 KPS but its just sounds like you need a fixed wing aircraft for the way you wish to fly.
 
Last edited:
Everyone's flying needs are different and love blinds, even if it is love of a motor.
It's true a higher climb rate, longer range, higher speeds would be useful, for a heavy machine as you describe but Xenon and others with much more experience have researched Subaru's too, you know your not the first one Raton, right? To many with experience believe your dream craft sounds much more like it will end up as our "Spruce Goose" for the type of flying most actually use gyros for. And there is a lower resale value selling a gyro with a motor only you recommend and are in love with.
Ratons needs may be very different than the majority of us. It would great to be able to climb over a high obstruction in a heavy rotorcraft at 2000 FPM (until the engine stopped) and fly 200 KPS but its just sounds like you need a fixed wing aircraft for the way you wish to fly.

The FW can’t do what a real gyro could be doing, getting down a FW need airport-landing strip, paper work and whatnot, while I can park a gyro on a post stamp, so to speak..and no one needs to know where I am going, and worst of cant touch nothing on it or loosing certification, I have an old C150 (converted taildrager) needs soon a TBO thinking to stick a Rolls Royce in it.

raton
 
There is no winning side when we are talking different things.
Now I am confused . . .why don´t give Raton the info he needs and keep trying to get a Rotax in the picture.
Get over it . . .it will not take a Rotax . . .period.
Raton Baby . . .it will take more than you are planning to get that machine in the air.
We can do it!
Heron
 
There is no winning side when we are talking different things.
Now I am confused . . .why don´t give Raton the info he needs and keep trying to get a Rotax in the picture.
Get over it . . .it will not take a Rotax . . .period.
Raton Baby . . .it will take more than you are planning to get that machine in the air.
We can do it!
Heron
We have told him to use an upgraded (2 plugs etc) Subaru just get the gyro engineered by the manufacture he chooses?
The only thing the pros have taken exception with are his facts on the best engine to use.
Nothing wrong with those who want a hauler that will climb at 2000 FPS, Vance is going to build a heavy 2 place also, but he is going to put an air cooled engine, that's been redesigned from years of testing, An aircraft engine designed for this specific purpose an IO 360 which is what I would choose also and we will both be operating from runways or very flat hard-packed lake beds with our heavy 2 place high climbing rocket ships!
 
Last edited:
The FW can’t do what a real gyro could be doing, getting down a FW need airport-landing strip, paper work and whatnot, while I can park a gyro on a post stamp, so to speak..and no one needs to know where I am going, and worst of cant touch nothing on it or loosing certification, I have an old C150 (converted taildrager) needs soon a TBO thinking to stick a Rolls Royce in it.

raton
Yo, Raton I love the avatar!!! Raton the Rat I love your humor!
I can understand exactly were you wish to play, now that you told me more.

That’s exactly what I wish to do!!! Off-road it, who needs runways!!! Yaw Mon and I can't wait!


But I discovered that in order to land anywhere I wished with a heavy gyro required much more runway and I mean runway, the longer the takeoff roll the greater the chance you will flap your blades on rough off runway roads.
That's why my single place is going to the lightest I can make it with the fastest prerotator then being the main consideration after weight including power to weight ratio of the engine.

Landing is NOT where you will encounter problems form your selection of heavy.
I have landed a FW in a real engine out and only had a 15’ roll out on landing; of course it was in sand. I almost wrecked a plane trying to just take off in a plowed farmer field, thought we were going to have to take her apart and tow her home on a trailer, how embarrassing would that be?
Come to think about it every forced landing I've had I only got the tires dirty, it was always taking off again that been a problem.

If you really wish to land anywhere (and take off again) some trade offs must be made! Weight is the 1st thing to go!

PS:
And don't knock fix wing ultralights, I've seen a video of one that was posted here that could take off in less distance than a Magni or many other heavy 2 place gyros!!!! And from more locations no blade flap.
 
Last edited:
Top