Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New chinese engine

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WaspAir View Post
    This is an interesting forum on which to find concern about flying with Chinese-built engines, given that many of our members have been content to fly with McCulloch drone engines, never "man-rated", designed to be launched once and then shot down, and infamous for quitting at any time. Others fly with converted auto engines, never intended to operate at 75% power all day. Tolerance for powerplant peculiarities is higher here than in any other branch of aviation I've ever encountered.

    (Of, course, I understand distrust about such things; the gyros I fly are Lycoming powered, which tells you much about my personal comfort levels when carrying friends and family.)
    You will "never" find me behind that McCulloch so I don't think your point applies to me. Just to clarify, I am pretty sure this is the actual Rotax engine with just the valve covers changed. Many Chinese companies tend to do things like that even with full aircraft and call them their own to gauge interest in the product before they actually put up a production line and copy it.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by jm-urbani View Post

      I am ready to buy a 70 kilos 120 hp lyco to power my second home built, if you know one for sell please note I am ready to make this choice .
      True however when you start looking at 915iS which requires a 25 pound constant speed prop to get out its 135 HP and take its complete weight and compare it to a Titan at 160 HP, the difference disappears really.

      Comment


      • #18
        absolutly the faster piston airplane was the spitfire, his engine V12 "upright" was a liquid cooled engine (born in 1936) ... I just can't understand why the hell are we still seing old combine harvester flat four air coold engines flying in 2017 on brand new planes ....4stroke rotax, lyco or conti same story...

        we all need modern engines, lycos and conti's are used by defaults
        Last edited by jm-urbani; 10-08-2017, 09:43 PM.

        Comment


        • #19
          another one engine chinese

          http://www.ticeri.com/newsshow5.asp?D_id=6641


          Image



          Image



          Last edited by René; 10-09-2017, 01:45 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by jm-urbani View Post
            . I just can't understand why the hell are we still seing old combine harvester flat four air coold engines flying in 2017 on brand new planes ....4stroke rotax, lyco or conti same story...

            we all need modern engines, lycos and conti's are used by defaults
            It may be because we are still buying Lycoming and Continental aircraft engines.

            It may be that Lycoming and Continental engines are being purchased because they are light, have reasonable consumption and are reliable.

            It may be that liability and regulations discourage others from entering the somewhat small aviation engine market and make return on investment and making a profit unlikely.

            I have seen many seemingly advanced engines introduced at AirVenture only to fade into oblivion.

            I don't need a more modern engine to fly my gyroplane.
            Last edited by Vance; 10-09-2017, 08:03 AM.
            Regards, Vance Breese Gyroplane CFI http://www.breeseaircraft.com/

            Comment


            • #21
              Hi Vance , I am happy that you are happy with your ligth and fuel efficient old engine really

              Comment


              • #22
                Waspair: OK, touche regarding the reliability of McCulloch engines and their kin. But, but...

                The departures from quality control in products from Red China feel like malice aforethought. Toxic toothpaste? Really? I generally don't get the same case of the willies about Euro-American-Japanese goods.

                McCullochs, VWs and Subarus at least appear to have been honestly designed to meet the needs of the people who originally ordered them. If we "adapt" them to some other needs, we at least know that these engines complied with certain original specifications. If we modify them to meet other needs, we start from known initial conditions. E.g. the Mac has a design life expectancy of one hour, the VW was designed around a continuous power output of maybe 35% of max, etc. All were designed using 1940's metallurgy, casting and forging technologies. It's a place to start.

                With Chinese stuff, the product is apt to be spectacularly unsuited even for its original purpose. It's hard to locate a baseline.

                Comment


                • #23
                  China can produce top quality items that compete with the best of them. Have some doubts, google worlds fastest super computer. Guess what, its in China. The problem with China is there is a substantial amount of crap that is passed off as a quality product. The buyer has to be savvy enough to know the difference.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    I think that anyway no sport engine maker will start a real engine research to make an engine to be used for the next 50 years when in max 20 years internal combustion engine will disapear

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by jm-urbani View Post
                      I think that anyway no sport engine maker will start a real engine research to make an engine to be used for the next 50 years when in max 20 years internal combustion engine will disapear
                      How will we produce more clean electrical power? How to make the carbon footprint of an electric vehicle battery not be an ecological disaster? How to ensure that recycling a battery is not an ecological disaster? How to find enough rare raw material to make the cells and chemistry of the batteries in the long term? Who is today asking the question broadly enough from a societal point of view to take account of all these parameters? This is Carlos Tavares, general manager of PSA-Peugeot-Citroën's cars warning about electromobility.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Storing electricity in batteries is a viable option where effiency is the topmost priority and weight/volume/endurance is not. That doesn't sound like battery powered aircraft will be commonplace any time soon.

                        However, hydrogen in combination with fuel cells might very well be. Hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg whereas gasoline only offers 46 MJ/kg. The weight of the tank to safely contain hydrogen compressed at 700 bar needs to be factored in, however. The engine itself will be fully electric, so no internal combustion engine with its notorious ramshackle of moving parts and maintenance requirements.

                        I would expect that within about 10 years we will not be surprised anymore to meet hydrogen powered aircraft.

                        Greetings, -- Chris.
                        Read about my trip across the USA in an MT03 gyro here.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by ckurz7000 View Post
                          Storing electricity in batteries is a viable option where effiency is the topmost priority and weight/volume/endurance is not. That doesn't sound like battery powered aircraft will be commonplace any time soon.
                          However, hydrogen in combination with fuel cells might very well be. Hydrogen has an energy density of 142 MJ/kg whereas gasoline only offers 46 MJ/kg. The weight of the tank to safely contain hydrogen compressed at 700 bar needs to be factored in, however. The engine itself will be fully electric, so no internal combustion engine with its notorious ramshackle of moving parts and maintenance requirements.
                          I would expect that within about 10 years we will not be surprised anymore to meet hydrogen powered aircraft.
                          Hi, Chris:

                          Here's the state of the business update having to do with fuel cells, where, in Michigan they've been under development for over 20 years:

                          O.K. here we go. For all you acronym using enthusiats:
                          I totally agree, except that the weight factor must also include a massive PEM based fuel cell, that must include some sort of pre-heating of the fuel supply, as well as the cell, itself. Winter time usage greatly increases the need for this. Also there is the need to "pressure charge the PEM cell" to make it more effecient. Now, hi pressure fuel tanks are not the most efficient way to store H2. NiMH powder adsorbs H2 at up to 2.5 times its own weight, which could bring a gyro powered in such a way up to the range of gasoline powered gyros. I quote the master aircraft manufacturer, Carl Goldberg: "You will not appreciated how good a given design is, until you try to make it better". So, onto more problems to overcome, PEM's are not maintenance-free devices, because they get clogged up from the ambient air being forced into them; these are REDOX devices after all. So the PEM's have to be cleaned out on a regular basis (probably have to be rebuilt; the membrane stack degrades from life in the open air ). We trade one set of issues we have with ICE's for another, possible larger set. For example, where's the H2 gonna come from, gonna produce it ourselves? Remember, since the most popular H2 source is H2O, we now have to pass the acquired H2 through dryers, and the process of getting fuel is further complicated with having to store it in more of those expensive NiMH filled 2000PSI canisters. The hi pressure is needed to force the H2 to adsorb into the NiMH.

                          On a positive note, I do know of one case where an enterprising man has powered his Corvette in just this way; of course there is no trunk space. He also had to acquire significant amounts of fissionable nuclear material to supply the energy needed to drive this whole process. Good thing he lives in the desert.

                          So the 10 years needed to bring this technology to market has already been 20. So, I am convinced that "Vance" was even more correct when he said that many new powerplant designs have come and gone over the years at Oshgosh. The financial will required to overcome all the obstacles just isn't there.


                          Regards

                          Frank

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by chrisk View Post
                            China can produce top quality items that compete with the best of them. Have some doubts, google worlds fastest super computer. Guess what, its in China. The problem with China is there is a substantial amount of crap that is passed off as a quality product. The buyer has to be savvy enough to know the difference.
                            "HHHhhhhhhhmmmmmm" wonder where they stole that design? IBM, CRAY, NCR? BTW, supercomputer is a generic term. Super for what? The IBM 3090 is still the best overall business computer, because it has 256 independent I/O channels, so more users, more disk access, it isn't only about the MIPS, or Tflops.
                            Regards

                            Frank

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Russia hasn't been red for almost 30 years but during the USSR years, Russian products seriously lacked quality. The Chinese are slowly moving toward an economy that rewards quality, but make no mistake - the worker pouring his heart into a product and receiving less compensation as the guy next to him getting a raise for ordering cheaper, inferior crankshaft steel will not stick to his principles forever. I have been appalled by some of the junk coming out of China in the last 20 years, and while I'm willing to pay less for a new Chinese made computer or washing machine, knowing they will probably need to be replaced in a few years, I'm not ready to roll the dice on something that can kill me and my pax.

                              Originally posted by Steve_UK View Post
                              ""Not sure I'd trust my life to anything technical, created by the Reds.""

                              Thankfully your NASA astronauts take a different view as they soley rely on our friends in Russia ""................until another US manned spacecraft is ready, crews will travel to and from the International Space Station (ISS) exclusively aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft.""


                              Plenty of your SOG guys enjoying flying US operated Russian built Mil Mi-17s in hot sandy places today too.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                With any engine you wait and see. Rotax and even Lycoming are still coming out with some hefty ADs.If over time they can get it right, here's to them.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X