What the fuck is this garbage?

>not posting the torque values or engine configuration
Nice bait

>>17342790
This

/Thread.

>>17342790
Opposed 4 cylinder. no mentioning of torque on wikipedia. only horsepower

>>17342786
>what is compression?

Torque. The Cessna 172 redlines around 2700 RPM if my memory doesn't fail me. But yeah it's a pretty ancient design, you have to adjust the mixture yourself, though that makes it a good training tool.

>>17342802
why isn't this done more often?

File: lsswap.jpg (77KB, 607x455px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 607x455px

Their powerband and torqueband is closer to that of a diesel. The also have to run at full power for hours on end which a big low power output engine excels at.

>car fag sperging when he knows little to nothing about planes
fucking everytime

>>17342802

>fucking Vee-Ate Aeroplane

shiiiiit nigga

>tfw there are monster trucks that use spitfire merlins

>>17342804
2700rpm @160hp = ~310lbft of torque

>>17342821
yea ok, are you a fucking pilot? mr topgun

Airplane engines have to produce the rated horsepower the entire time the plane is in the air, or the plane will no longer be in the air. That's 160 (or whatever) CONTINUOUS horsepower, delivered for hours at a time.

Car engines are peak horsepower. Most driving is not WOT, and a car engine driven only at WOT, for hours straight, would explode a lot quicker than the same-hp airplane engine.

File: DSC0142.jpg (74KB, 575x1024px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 575x1024px

>>17342810

Wow, it's almost like aerospace engineers know what they're doing.

>>17342786
they're designed to be efficient

File: 1487979484975.jpg (24KB, 482x449px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 482x449px

>>17342786
Airplane engines are intentionally under-powered to increase their reliability and longevity.

What the fuck is even the point in shitting on airplane engines. It's such a niche thing to shit on but it at least it breaks up the usual gtr vs corvette shitposting

>>17342843
Well, I learned something today.

same reason truck engines are like 16L and only 400 or 500hp max, they have to do that all of the time especially going up grades and hills, they run at full boost for hours at a time sometimes.

>not having a rotary powered aircraft

enjoy dying when you bend a rod or drop a valve

>>17342851
And reliable as there rarely a place to pull over and wait for a tow truck.

>>17342886
>dorito engine in an airplane
It's like you want an oil reservoir the size of your fuel tank.

File: [email protected]_2-M.jpg (65KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 600x400px

>>17342886
>flying a single engine aircraft

>>17342918
a wankel is not a rotary when talking aircraft

but wankel engines have been used in small aircraft quite a bit
specifically mazda car engines
and they are pretty fantastic from what I understand

>>17342923
>he cant dead stick

>>17342923
enjoy your VMC roll of death

File: supermarine-spitfire-ix-engine.jpg (43KB, 700x340px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 700x340px

>>17342786
> Posts the literal shitbox of airplanes. continues to bitch about power.

Its like op is completely retarded.

Look this is what a performance propeller engine looked like 74 years ago faggot.

1705 hp at 3,000 rpm, +18 psi supercharged

>>17342988
>2 v12s arranged in a W formation

>>17342808
The liquid cooling adds extra complexity, weight, and a rather severe failure point. If you have a coolant leak you may have only a few minutes to land before you find yourself flying a shitty glider.

File: pt6_engines_west_virginia_re_mcmullen_41422_scan.jpg (91KB, 600x607px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 600x607px

All these piston engines, no one posting the glorious PT6.

>Dry weight: 270 lb (122.47 kg)
>Length: 62 in (1,575 mm)
>Diameter: 19 in (483 mm)
>Maximum power output: 578 hp (431 kW) equivalent power at 2,200 output rpm for take-off

File: tecnam_p2006t_3.jpg (224KB, 1200x691px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1200x691px

>>17342923
>got my multi-engine rating on a plane with less combined HP than my Fiesta

Does that count?

>>17343013
PT6 is literally the LS of aircraft engines

>>17342786
Lol. It also revs to about 2500RPM and has an insane compression ratio and runs only on 100 octane gas that still uses lead antiknock compounds. I think it's built more for torque than high RPMs. There's no gearbox on it - crankshaft goes straight to propeller.

plane board when

>>17343063
> /n/

>>17343013
Can I put that in my miata?

>>17342804
Everything's manual on those airplanes. Even if it has a turbo on it, there's no computer controlled wastegate - you're given a boost gauge and you have to set the wastegate yourself.

>>17343080
I haven't flown any turbocharged planes. The later Cessna 172's switched to DI though, so you don't have to play with carb heat.

>>17343008
There's upsides and downsides to both. Air cooled airplane engines can be subject to shock cooling, something you never have to worry about in water cooled engines. Air gets COLD up there and it is possible to put the engine cylinder temperature below where the engine is happiest at.

>>17342786
how rich do you have to be to be able to ride your own plane for fun

i thought cars were expensive

>>17343075
The problem would be keeping it cool and the low redline. You'd need an insane amount of airflow an a special gearbox.

>>17342808
The FAA will turn it into an experimental class aircraft which puts stricter regulations on your plane.

>>17343105
If it flies, floats or fucks - rent it.

But used C-152s aren't that expensive to buy last I checked. Maintenance is what will kill you. No such thing as white trash hooptie planes - you either keep them maintained or they stay on the ground or the FAA has an earnest unpleasant chat with you.

And you can't work on your own plane, not without having a special license. And you're going to need to know how to fly it too, that training isn't all that cheap either.

>>17342886
Enjoy TBO''s and overhauls that are worse than either small opposed engines or turboprop engines.

File: IMG_0121.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Wasting tens of thousands of $ and years of my life to be a pilot was the worst mistake of my life, but at least I got to experience what it's like to fly through the Rocky Mountains.

>>17343137
where is this?

>>17343070
/n/ is stocked to the rafters with faggots

>>17343141
I thought /n/ was all cyclists and busriders anyway?

>>17343100
It's only a real issue if you are descending from high altitudes too fast. Most people fly their Cessnas at 6-8,000 ft.

>>17343145
Like I said, stocked to the rafters with faggots.

>>17343164
Well unless you're Mr Rocky Mountain above - and then you're flying at 10000 or 11000

>>17342843
Also see: Corvette C7 overheating...

>>17342844
Almost. Most of the time.

Superior rotarcraft pilot reporting in.

>>17343244
go away.

File: robbed.jpg (542KB, 1719x1212px) Image search: [Google]

542KB, 1719x1212px

>>17343254

I spent five hours on the tarmac marshalling a hundred light airplanes the other day. How much lead do you think I inhaled?

>>17343262
That's a large anus

File: fhc-spitfire-merlin.jpg (103KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 960x640px

>>17342786
Something tells me small two seater, single engine planes don't need big fuck off twin turbo engines making over 1000 horsepower.

I bet that engine is all kinds of reliable and efficient.

>>17343207
and the weight of an Ls1 as compared to a PT6 of greater power.

File: IMG_2050.jpg (67KB, 695x449px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 695x449px

The XF-84H
https://youtu.be/YItexQxJS9U
>6000 HP Allison Turbine
>worlds fastest prop plane, rivaling the Tupalev TU-95
>prop generates 900 Sonic Booms per minute
>worlds loudest aircraft

Now this is podracing.

>>17343337
Turn it into a car.

>>17343340
Chrysler Turbine

>>17343337
it looks like they tried to design a jet but then couldnt figure out the engines properly so just decided to slap a big fuck off prop engine in there.

>>17343353
Actually it was ordered by the navy, who wanted a supersonic carrier based fighter.

This was before steam catapults and ramps were a thing though.

File: IMG_4635.jpg (155KB, 2048x1151px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 2048x1151px

>>17342996
Fuck yea

>>17343095
It's standard electronic injection not direct injection, unless that's something they have changed really recently.

t. Guy with about 50 hours in 172Rs

>>17343276
Some, not remotely enough to do any damage. There used to be way more lead in the environment when car gas and paint had lead in them.

>>17343276
As long as you don't chew on the airplanes you should be fine.

>>17343342
Ok how about a quality car?

>>17343486
Mada 787b

File: Boners.jpg (87KB, 736x600px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 736x600px

>>17343451
My grandpa worked in the petroleum industry in the 50's. He worked in the lab, but his buddy did something involving gasoline production. Over time he started getting confused, slurring his words, forgetting things, stumbling around. He had pretty severe lead poisoning, although nobody really knew that back then, or even gave a shit. He took a medical leave and was back to normal with a month or two, if I remember correctly. Just ridiculous.

Any A&P bros here? Looking to get a job at Enovy at O'hare, anyone have any experience with them?

File: 1330870918239.png (83KB, 334x393px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 334x393px

>>17342786
God fuckin' damn are you stupid. Let me explain this nigger.

Airplane engines are rated for power output at OPERATING ALTITUDE.

That big dumb flat four will make rated power at 20k feet. It'll do it on a hot as shit day with 100% humidity, and it'll do it with in a fucking thunderstorm. And it will do it for 12 hours without a goddamn hiccup.

File: Chin.jpg (103KB, 800x866px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 800x866px

>>17343534
>Hot as shit, 100% humidity, and a thunderstorm at 20,000 feet

Sure bud

>>17343534
A naturally aspirated aircraft engine will be lucky to crack 10,000ft. So are humans without supplemental oxygen.

>>17342786
Just to make someone mad, look at Merican engines, 8 litres for 200hp for example. Now think about it. But since the planes have different work environment it must be something else than bad American engineering.

>>17343608
So are humans without supplemental oxygen.

lmao you sea level pussy. I carry 50lbs of bike and gear up higher mountains than that every weekend.

>>17342786
IT NEEDS TO PRODUCE ITS MAX POWER AT LOW RPM FOR USABILITY AT HIGH ALTITUDES

HAVING A THIRSTY HIGH REVVING TINY DISPLACEMENT CAR ENGINE IN A PLANE WOULD BE FUCKING RETARDED

>>17343608
I was jogging around that high and was fine..

File: pa44.jpg (605KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

605KB, 1200x900px

>>17343049
>not training on the seminole
thats where you fucked up m8

>tfw multi check ride in one week RIP

>>17343137
its not a waste if you can get to the airlines m8

File: IMG_0133.jpg (183KB, 960x655px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 960x655px

>>17343337

File: Antonov_An-22_3.jpg (298KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 1200x800px

>>17343337
aircraft equipped with 4 NK-12 turboprops like the AN-22 and TU-95 put out a total of 60,000hp.

>>17343056
The propeller is literally a torque converter.
Pilots=confirmed automatic-fags.

>>17344016
More like semen hole
>Seneca master race

>>17344078
It never reached supersonic speed...

>>17344093
I audiably keked

>>17344093
>propeller=torque converter
Only constant speed props could be called automatic, there are ones that can manualy be changed in pitch to get in the correct rpm range.

>>17342996
>>17343396

The Merlin is the best engine ever made.

File: 1280px-Daimler_Benz_DB_610.jpg (196KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

196KB, 1280x960px

>>17344234
>not the glorious DB-610 with over 3000hp
>not the insane DB-605-C or ASC with 2000hp
plebs

File: 800px-Daimler_Benz_DB_605A.jpg (158KB, 800x885px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 800x885px

>>17344261

>>17344261
https://youtu.be/SPR8zBSNOgE

>>17344082
can it beat the gt-r time in a lap at the ring ?

File: 1471542190541.jpg (233KB, 1017x1017px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1017x1017px

>>17343396
>>17343320
>>17342996
his engine is the wrong way up

>>17344280
Maybe, I guess it can caorner at 2G or more, so that would be possible.
Smaller planes usually can tke up to 5G, acrobatic planes sometimes more than 10G...

>not being able to afford a jet

>>17342786
>>17342802

I am a pilot and knew a guy who ran a shop installing LS engines in aircraft. They were very good. Fun to fly.

BUT car engines are not designed to sit at high power settings for long periods of time. Think about it. How long are most auto engines at full load? On the street 30 sec? On a race track maybe 3 minutes? Then you back off. An aircraft can sit at high power for hours. Aircraft engines are designed to make peak power at a given RPM range.. Also it is meant to be dead reliable. Or you are dead. That is why they are so simple. More complexity = more to go wrong. When you are climbing out of a tight field at high power with your plane low and slow you don't want to worry about a GM ECU (or other part) failing putting you in the woods.

Oh and the gentleman who ran the LS conversion company sadly died in a crash of one of his aircraft due to an engine failure on take off. Ended up stuffing the aircraft into the airport perimeter fence. He was a really good guy and it is sad his dream ended that way.

>>17344385
>How long are most auto engines at full load? On the street 30 sec? On a race track maybe 3 minutes?
30 minutes on my commutes are without speed restriction, my econobox gets over 110mph at that time.
The longest time I did that was when I was in a hurry to get back from holliday when I went full speed for 2hours without interruption.

>>17344397
Well if you are in German then I can see that but in the US I can't see anyone at WOT for that kind of time.

But lets say you are. If you smoke your engine you slow to a stop and call someone to tow it off and post on fb about how it sucks that you need to put an new engine in your car.

If I smoke an engine if I am lucky I am only on the news and am out $350K for a new one but more likely I am on the news, my plane is dead and maybe me along with it. Oh and if I do live get ready for an unpleasant visit from the FAA / NTSB. You get that one no matter what. Of course if you are dead then they go after your family and doctor.

>>17344422
Don´t you practise start interruptions?
I´m a gliding pilot and have to do so for safety reasons.

>>17344217

Its propeller blades did

>>17344438
Yes, engine problems are a big part of training but as you know there are times when your life is hanging on that engine. Say under 500 feet AGL just after take off. You are too low and slow to make the 180 turn back to the runway and often there is no place good to go straight ahead. Also for me living in Mane its all woods. On one route I fly often its 100 N miles straight north with only one airfield about mid way if I have a problem. The rest is all woods and water. Very pretty to look at but not so good if things get stressful.

I would love to try going up in a glider. Never had the chance. Looks like a blast.

>>17344397
>30 minutes on my commutes are without speed restriction, my econobox gets over 110mph at that time.
Without more info this is completely useless information. We would need to know your engine load? Could be determined by your fuel efficiency at that speed vs normal.

My 2001 Saab 9-3 spends 30 .inside of my commute at 85mpg. The engine load is about 35% if that. Fuel efficiency is about 32 miles per gallon .

>>17342902
yes AAA? i'm in a kind of a bind here, could you send someone over real quick?
where am i? oh i'm at 10,000 feet and falling

File: Mazda RB26 quad rotor BSFC.jpg (132KB, 1000x1150px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 1000x1150px

The biggest problem with auto engine conversions is that people set engines to run at maximum power, rather than peak efficiency. Especially since fuel consumption is so important on airplanes.

>Why don't airplane manufacturers use car engines instead?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_PFM_3200

File: Packard_Merlin_V1650_7_2.jpg (1MB, 1600x1198px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1600x1198px

>>17342996
nice

>>17344462
WOT at max power, so 100%
Fue efficiency is 7-8l/100km

>>17344460
Well, I practised basicly everything from 0-400m (0-1200ft) for a reason.
>I would love to try going up in a glider. Never had the chance. Looks like a blast.
Go to your local gliding club, give them about 20-30 bucks and they´ll fly with you.

File: consumo avioes (cr g por km passageiro) pistão.png (114KB, 1025x637px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 1025x637px

>>17344485
You're not doing 7-8l/100km at max power, and that's for sure. You're maybe doing that after the whole regular commute.

>>17344500
It is a small econobox powered by a 1L naturaly aspirated 3-cylinder engine.
I do 3L/100km on the rest...

>>17344494
Remember your glide performance is VERY different from mine. Under 1000 AGL I am in BIG trouble. Below 500 I can go a mile if I am lucky. If I try and make a turn its much less.

Sadly in Maine we don't have many gliding clubs due to the fact that its all woods. It really does not lend its self to it sadly. But if offered the chance to go I would.

File: 1491086878136.gif (3MB, 448x251px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 448x251px

>>17343137
>>17343144
>>17343147
>>17343155
>>17343161
I am erect

>>17344234
WRONG
R-2800 is.
>>17344261
>Nazi meme engines

>>17343137
That's beautiful man

>>17344514
Dude, I fly a Ka-8 most of the time, it glides only 1:25 if you stay at 75km/h.
If there is any wind, it kind of doesn´t move at all...
Sometimes I can get my hands on a Ka-6, wich glides 1:30 at 85 km/h.
Since we can only winch up planes at our airfield, I start between 300 and 400m or like 900-1200ft.
At 500ftl I´m still searching for thermals...

>>17344533
They where no meme, they had insane power.
2000hp in a Me-109 is no joke.

>>17342786
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propeller_speed_reduction_unit
propellers move slow
gotta get dat torque

File: p3jt5.jpg (234KB, 692x613px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 692x613px

>>17344541
Very different kinds of flying. I can glide about 13 miles from 5000 AGL with no wind and a full load.

File: gcc-autobild1.gif (20KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 640x437px

>>17344503
Yes but to use an example with a prius engine, which has a higher specific efficiency than yours (especially since efficiency drops at max power), that engines consumes 17,8l/h while producing 80 horsepower.

With 80 horsepower you are at best doing 120 miles per our, meaning the fuel consumption is 9 l/100Km. And that's being extremely optimistic, since by comparing to the graph here you can see that real world consumption at those speeds is more 15 l/100Km (15,6MPG)

>>17344562
That is a gliding ratio of about 1:13, but you don´t have to worry that much about wind sice you ar much faster than I am, you have almos doubble the speed and a much higher altitude than I have.

File: 1KR-FE brake specific fuel consumption.png (282KB, 885x549px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 885x549px

>>17344574
1. My engine doesn´t even have 80 hp, it has 68 hp
2. I don´t reach 120mph
3. my car is much smaller than the cars on your example
pic related is a part of the brake specific fuel consumption of my engine.

>>17344579
True. Once I am in cruse flight I have time to think and plan should things go wrong. When flying cross country you are always looking for places to go should you have a problem. Its when I am low and slow that engine trouble is a big problem.

>>17344605
>When flying cross country you are always looking for places to go should you have a problem
That is what we gliding pilots have to do anyway...

>>17342790
>Implying torque matters in the air.
>There's no resistance you dunce

>>17344619
A 71,4L supercharged engine with a manifold pressure of 1,8 bar (DB-610) should have like 20.000Nm of torque if that was what he was about...

>>17344611
That is flying 101. Good chatting with you.

>>17342843
That's really interesting. So is there a similar concept of WOT for planes or is it at its peak performance throughout the entire flight?

>>17344641
You have your max rated take off power in small aircraft it's WOT. But you can only maintain that for a set amount of time then you back off to what is known as climb power. That is used for gaining altitude. Then you have max cruse and economical cruse.

>>17344657
If you are a gliding pilot and happen to have a engine as well, it will only see WOT th whole time.
Some don´t even have a throttle.

Also rotarys are a thing in motor gliders because they don´t seize in a cold start situation and bring you home even if you kill the engine.

>>17344385
Well that was a rollercoaster of emotions

>>17342786
Horsepower is a function of rpm

Prop loses thrust as tip speeds approach supersonic

Learn engineering and fluid dynamics

>>17344584
That graph doesn't show higher revs though, and i don't think your car tops at 3400 RPM...I'm using 225g/kWhr as reference so again i'm being pretty conservative.

But regardless assuming that engine is producing 60 hp, then it would be consuming 13,35 l/h meaning you would have to go at 105 MPH to do 8l/100Km, but that's at peak efficiency. Max power loss of efficiency and transmission losses means real world value is worse. Maybe if the onboard computer isn't considering the entire distance, then its fairly optimistic (or maybe it's the speedometer that exagerates).

>>17342996
>and crazy cunts put them on 4 wheels
>in old shitty cars with no suspension
>and raced them

huge balls

>>17344697
I do about 115mph, I measured it with my trip meter and a full tank of gas.

>>17344713
The Polo Slowmotion does 115mph?
Hiw long does it take to get there?

>>17344711
a quote
"When you hear the 24-litre aero engine running : grown men weep, children gasp, angels sing. The aero engine at the heart of the Napier-Railton is the sound of a thousand storms. It’s the sound of… victory."

>>17344722
It is not even a Polo, it is a Aygo...

>>17343427
Nothing on an aircraft engine is computerized. Because computers fail. And then people die.

>>17342786

Yet an idiot. Car and aircraft engines have different design objectives. Load duty in and aircraft is 80%+ cars avg < 20%.

>>17344735
SOME General aviation aircraft engines aren't computerised because certifying a new engine in aviation costs too much for how little engines end up being produced.

Rotax for example makes fuel injected and electronic ignition engines like the 912is. And no jet/turboprop engine isn't computerized.

>>17342842
> ea ok, are you a fucking pilot? mr topgun

Not that guy, but I am and he is dead on. Stop leaping about things you know nothing about.

>>17342843
This.
/thread

>>17344677
Yeah it is really too bad. He was a smart guy.

>>17342923
>flying piston not turbine masterrace

>>17345098
Yeah go price out an aircraft with a turbine

A plane thread? In /o/? It's more likely than you think.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVvt7hP5a-0

>>17342786
> Runs at high RPMs for hours on end
> Uses AVgas rather than unleaded
> Air-cooled
> Has to be 100% reliable, because if it dies you die

Why are car engines so unreliable and tiny?

>>17345193
why do austist feel the need to put memebeat in every video that shows something going sideways

>>17342799
Max RPM is around 2500, I don't know where max torque is at.

File: imblyign.png (17KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x200px

>>17343137
>Flying
>A waste

>>17343337
You forgot:
>So annoying that it's no tallowed to do runups at the airport, has to be towed 25 miles into the desert
>Gave a crew chief a BRAP induced seizure when it was run up next to his plane
>Annoyed everybody at the airport and the neighboring cities
>Every landing was a crash landing
Truly too pure for this world.

>>17343337
Oh also:
>Prop tips were whirring about at mach 2

File: accepting youre death.png (291KB, 691x576px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 691x576px

>>17344460
>Learning to fly in NH
>Everything is mountains/trees

File: image.jpg (1MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3264x2448px

>not using a turbo-normalized twin
>not huffing Jet-A during preflight
It's pretty fantastic burning 13 gallons per hour total at 75%

>>17345955
perfect

File: pa28.jpg (118KB, 1024x616px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 1024x616px

Piper > everything

>>17342810
No turbos, no dice. Send it back to Africa.

>>17346164
Gross

>>17345108
I wonder if we should tell them how much a new Lycoming O-160 costs compared to a crate Coyote or LS...

>>17346183
You're gross.

>>17346198
>2017
>No subaru swapping your plane

>>17345970
I live in western Maine. Fly into NH often. Love it. You know what it is like flying around here. Not many places to go when you have a problem.

>>17346198
I am not sure they are ready to hear that HAHA.
>>17346204
Love their cars but I will pass on one of there engines in an aircraft for reasons stated above.

>>17346164
Sexy! You speak the truth.

Tho I will always have a soft spot for the little old Cessna 150

>>17346230
Think of it though, you can avoid the headgasket meme by constantly rolling, therefore making it the most reliable engine ever. Boeing pls hire me.
Ever been to EEN?

>>17346199
>fat Hershey bar wing
>glide ratio comparable to a brick
>likes to float cause of low wing
>high fuel burn because of thicc wing
Also they're just ugly

File: pa28 from behind.jpg (931KB, 1200x819px) Image search: [Google]

931KB, 1200x819px

>>17346250
#effyourbeautystandards
#aerodynamicsatanydragcoefficient
It's beautiful you shitlord.

>>17346256
DASGUSTIN

File: berkut 540.jpg (107KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1152x864px

>>17346266
NO U
I bet you don't think this is the hottest shit ever either.

>>17346241
No but I have flown over it

>>17346250
Great climb performance, glides as well as any other AC in its class, Does not float when you maintain the correct approach speed, fuel burn is the same as others in its class.

Learned in a high wing. But feel in love when I flew a low wing.

>>17342970
A rotary is not a radial

>>17346198
How much is it?

>>17346598
10-12k
For a used one
From the 60s

>>17346612
That is for a crazy cheap high hours engine that needs an overhaul. You can spend $25K easy used.

>>17346250

The PA-28 is actually an excellent design as it fulfills its mission as an entry level or trainer aircraft. It is stable as hell, very hard to stall, has a very fast roll rate and, best of all, it is cheap to buy and maintain. Great little GA plane.

>>17348245
Nah it's not that bad, I'm just biased towards a Cessna. If I had the spare change for a plane I wouldn't get a piper though

>>17348369
>muh wingrods

>>17348379
HOW WILL PISTONFAGS EVER RECOVER?

How do airplane engines manage being upside down?

>>17348423
Gravity fed carburated engines don't.

>>17342996
>can't take negative Gs
MerlinfagsBTFO Griffon GOAT

>>17348466
Most GA aircraft don't spend any time upside down.

>>17348879
Well they should.

File: 1491668396252.jpg (33KB, 441x396px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 441x396px

>>17344385
I guess this is why rotaries are fantastic for aircraft (or so I've been told).
>Small, light, and incredibly simple
>High horsepower/displacement ratio
>Can handle high RPM's for long periods of time
>Low torque, but who cares?

>>17348898
Thanks but I will keep my wheels below the wings

>>17348907
Flying is all about torque. You don't want to spin that prop at high RPM's

It is not just the fuel system that has to be able to deal with neg G's / inverted flight. Your oil system also needs to be able to handle it.

I was in this Connie helping with the engine run in this video. My friend owned 3 of these. Was a blast working with these R3350-988TC18EA2 engines. 3,400 HP each. Largest prop ever to fly 16'10" dia. I have stood right behind them at 1600 RPM (prop speed) looking for oil and fuel leaks. WHAT A RUSH!!!

Skip to 3 min to see engine run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJJW28Y4ngY

>>17348379
Fuck your cantilever design bish

>>17348949
Kuznetsov NK-12MA has you beat on prop size, with the newer ones measuring in at just over 20 ft diameter

>>17344545

Because they kept dropping the acceptable reliability. Bf109 Ks had a mean time between failures of 750 hours. The Merlin in the Mustang was understressed in order to get a MTBF to 5,000 hours.

The late P-51 H was getting 2,250hp at altitude but it never saw action because Germany was basically finished and Japan didn't have pilots left.

File: article-2226932-15CFB4C3000005DC-639_634x286.jpg (74KB, 634x286px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 634x286px

>>17342996
and now put it in a car

>>17342786
Lycoming trash

>>17344385
is it true that Fukushima sent a bunch of radiation into the atmosphere and that anyone flying in a high-altitude jet is getting swamped with radiation?

>>17342843
Also
>fuel consumption

>>17349126
>is it true that Fukushima sent a bunch of radiation into the atmosphere
No.

>anyone flying in a high-altitude jet is getting swamped with radiation
That's because there's less atmosphere separating you from the solar wind.

>>17348907
Rotaries are great for aircraft because they rarely ever completely fail.
You lose a seal and the thing can run on 2 out of the three chambers.
You lose all the seals and the thing still spins.
Very very low likelihood of something going so wrong that you lose all thrust or having something seize

>>17342786
Airplane engines operate at ~80%+ maximum power pretty much for the duration of their life and are rated for continuous peak power.

Your little 160hp honda motor will shit the bed trying to make 150ish horsepower for hours at a time in the circumstances an airplane would take it. That 160HP honda motor would also eat through fuel trying to make near peak power constantly.

Lower specific output also means lower loading for all bearings and components significantly reducing the chance of failure.

Airplane engines also spin at diesel tier speeds further reducing wear and the likelihood of failure.

>>17349126
>fukashima
No

>radiation at higher altitude.
Absolutly. The higher you are, be it on land or in a plane, the higher your cosmic and solar radiation dose.

People in Colorado receive a considerably larger average radiation dose than people living in Florida. Simply because their is less atmosphere, and thus gaseous mass sheilding them from the cosmic and solar radiation.

>>17342844
>not sunblocking your tat
Fucking women.

File: throttles.jpg (20KB, 301x370px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 301x370px

>>17348369

Both planes fly. High wing vs. low wing blah blah blah. Here is the real issue.

Cessna's throttle is a fuel primer from the piper.

>>17342804

Power makes things fly. Not just torks.

See turboprop

>>17348466
Carburetor is on the bottom of a Lycoming, not the top. You turn it upside down, you're emptying the bowl all over the engine, unless they did some engineering failsafes I'm not aware of.

>>17345208

As soon as you start working with engines other than automotive engines you start wondering why you thought auto engines were any good.

>>17349789
It's economics. Engineers are very very good at finding corners to cut that you'll never notice, as long as you use it as it was intended.

>>17344093
Well, technically, half a torque converter. Or maybe 2/3rds if you count the airframe as the stator.

>>17347071
And again, there's no such thing as a hooptie plane. So when it needs maintenance, it's getting it. Or it stays on the ground. Or the FAA has an unpleasant conversation with you that ends badly.

>>17348925
You do know almost all planes have a reduction gearbox?

>>17349848

>No such thing as a hooptie aeroplane

How could you ever think this is true?

>>17344385
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=135017

:(

>>17349084
WOW I did not know that

File: wright.jpg (59KB, 653x449px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 653x449px

>>17349789
TRUTH!!!

>>17349848
Correct.

The prop is just a big fan to cool the pilot. Don't believe me? When it stops watch him sweat.

>>17349849
Yes. And most aircraft engines red line below 3000 RPM

>>17349925
That is too bad.

File: mustangii.jpg (62KB, 512x342px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 512x342px

Plane tuning.
>Anders’ experiments over many years suggest that 78% is the right ratio, with the inlets being larger.
>The logic may elude you, sounding instead like a recipe for more, not less drag with the air ramming into an engine compartment and being restricted on its exit.
>Interestingly, Schmidtbauer’s engine doesn’t run hotter, as you might expect.
>“I actually noted cooler temperatures after the changes were made even though the inlet volume was reduced by 35%,” he reports.
>In fact, through the use of the venturi effect, you can actually gain thrust from air leaving the engine compartment, Schmidtbauer said.
>The air outlet of his Mustang II is carefully shaped to enhance the venturi and further augmented by using a ducted exit precisely shaped around the engine exhaust.
>Doing so allows Schmidtbauer to employ engine-accelerated exhaust to amplify the venturi effort.
>Call it Bernoulli’s Theorem on steroids.

https://www.bydanjohnson.com/pilotreport/worlds-fastest-mustang-ii/

ITT retards who don't understand that reliability is number one priority in General Aviation airplane engines and performance only needs to be adequate.

>>17348907
Hardly anyone uses them though outside of experimentals/homebuilt, mainly because they aren't as great for aviation as rotards would lead you to believe, and also because nobody wants to make the initial investment on such a risky market.

To counter the many touted advantages, there are drawbacks;

>cooling
Try making a decent sized air cooled wankel, and then realize that the wankel reliability/doesn't-seize-up-ever bit widely touted by rotards is negated by a liquid cooled setup which adds many points of failure, and negates the doesn't-seize-up factor.

>efficiency
Fuel efficiency is increasingly important in small airplanes because avgas is expensive, and GA is already expensive enough. Wankels are notoriously thirsty.

>gear reduction
The gearbox adds more cost, and parasitic losses to power and efficiency.

>cost
The initial cost required in making an FAA certified wankel engine for the general aviation market would be HUGE, and the potential for profitability would be low. Airframes would have to be converted or designed from the ground up to suit the new, lighter engines, so sales volume would be small, driving up cost.

It's just fine for a weekend flyer and his experimental since he doesn't need an FAA certified engine which costs more than the homebuilt plane itself. A 13B built with aviation grade parts will cost a lot less than a new Lycoming or Continental.

File: MerlinStartup.jpg (303KB, 2048x1357px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 2048x1357px

>>17350806
So, he's rediscovering what WW2 fighters used, and airliners use extensively?

Neat.

>>17349849
Not true. Most GA aircraft are direct drive. When you get into smaller turbo diesel aircraft engines and turbines, they will have reduction gearboxes.

>>17350903
They don't understand the consequences of an engine failure in an aircraft. They also don't realize that a light single-engine aircraft doesn't need 350 hp to move
>wow you only have 180 hp in that thing?
I hate when people say this kinda shit.

>>17343105
Quite often people will buy a plane as a group. My dad has a friend at work who is a flight instructor and he partially owns a Cessna with a few other people. As far as I know, they all split rent for the hangar and insurance, then pay for the fuel they use.

For my 15th birthday I got an hour of flying with him as a gift from my parents. It was actually really fun. Because the flight was with a qualified instructor, that hour counts as an hour towards the minimum flight time required to get a licence. But at £60 a lesson and (I think) another 39 hours before I can take the test, I'm going to wait until I finish university and get a full time job before I actually get into it.

Saying that, that was quite a few years ago so that hour probably doesn't count now.

>>17349111
JuMo and BMW where already building jet engines at that point...

>>17345193
giggled

>>17351128
>a light single-engine aircraft doesn't need 350 hp to move
And moreso that extra power a small GA plane which is designed to fly relatively slowly is quite pointless unless you need STOL or fast climb capabilities. All going faster than designed cruise speed does is burn more fuel and cost a lot more to do.

>>17342804
It's a wonderfully reliable and maintainable design. Complexity means more shit to break. AMT here who loves simple aircraft because they've an elegance all their own.

>>17351180
Flying is fucking expensive, and you only get to pilot tiny cheap aircraft with next to no freedom, and you're unable to do much once you get anywhere.
Call me when I'm allowed to punt a Spitfire around the countryside at low level whenever I damn well feel like.

Motorbiking is cheaper, and doesn't waste the lovely twisty road going past the airfield. Even if I'm battling the strong winds here.

File: cubdonut.gif (3MB, 640x302px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 640x302px

>>17351435
Are bush planes as expensive as Cessna's? They seem pretty simple and landing wherever you have the balls to land seems pretty fun and free.

>>17351468
A Cessna 185, proper man's bush plane, will cost you several arms and legs. A cub won't break the bank but you gotta understand that they are simple and don't go fast. If you know what you're doing a Piper Cub be damn fun

>>17351500
Yeah they're slow but a pigfat Cessna can't do this shit. Seems more fun than just cruising in a straight line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zDo7hkmCNY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQJKW5vfvog

File: floatplane-trailer-launch.webm (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>17351468

That video is as cool as hell.

File: B52BuzzingCarrier.jpg (37KB, 800x554px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 800x554px

>>17351538
Does it just not have amphibian wheels?

>>17351531
Woo, ground handling. Super impressive. Real men don't land, and just fly realllly low.

File: C130Flyby.jpg (53KB, 700x525px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 700x525px

>>17351562
REALLY low.

File: F4LowPass.jpg (68KB, 700x504px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 700x504px

>>17351570
Low enough to have to pull up for infantry.

File: FairchildB52Crash.jpg (52KB, 682x520px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 682x520px

>>17351575

File: ChinookBoarding.jpg (78KB, 720x480px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 720x480px

>>17351582
Other times, it's about precision, rather than length.

File: UH60WreckingBall.jpg (145KB, 1280x1024px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1280x1024px

>>17351583
Or what you're carrying.

>>17342844
thank you for this hours fap material
any more?

File: 0417namfall01.jpg (1MB, 3678x2638px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3678x2638px

>>17351583

>>17351435
You can do that now. Were I live most of the state is class G airspace so just stay VFR, 500' from people or structures and under 25o knots below 10,000 MSL. Have fun.

>>17351562
Not all float planes have wheels. In fact many don't.

>>17351651
Can't do that here, though. Too close to Heathrow, all the old airfields have been torn up and turned into housing estates or civil airports, with a few ending up as museums.

>>17351668
Well, how did they land it without them? Pickup and trailer again?

>>17349111
The biggest limitation for german engines were low octane fuel though, given the same fuel they could have increased the MTBF.

File: 20170226_101656.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>17349789
I maintain turbofans, (v2500's, RB211's, CF6's, PW4000's etc) and I'm more interested in car engines to be honest. But then it depends on whether youre looking at it from a design or maintenance point of view.

>>17351674
If it needs maintenance they can land it in water and tow it out like a boat. But the takeoff from a trailer is a bit non-standard, although it works just fine

>>17342886
They exist (ed)

File: itkistä.jpg (27KB, 350x468px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 350x468px

>>17351591
What are you fukin amish? This doesn't even try to tingle my birdie. Go to a porn site you degenerate.

>>17352249
Glorious tan-lines are miles more arousing than your gay vanilla shit.

>>17349544
why is this bad?

>>17346320
a radial is not a rotary

>>17351591
If this is fap material you're a fucking beta

File: 9432a8ed633715e83c82950ff808337d.jpg (90KB, 680x511px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 680x511px

>fucking v fags

File: Untitled.png (641KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

641KB, 1600x900px

Anyone play SimplePlanes here?

>>17343075
It drinks more fuel then your miata weighs in a run to the store

>>17353102
Beat you to it.
>>17344279

>>17344460
>Do not fly low and slow or the ground will rise up to smiteth thee

>>17348888
How the fuck do the counter ballence this. Also
>8888

>>17352249
>>17352957

Virgins who only watch porn detected

>>17351531
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbZuIkQbLos

>>17353878
It's ironic because the fact you get so excited over a slightly scandalous picture that shows nothing would imply you're the easily excited desperate virgin.

>>17354612
You sweet, innocent child. You'll understand one day.

>>17342804
Well that's due to thinner air as you climb, otherwise the mixture would become excessively rich, something you don't have to worry about with cars.

File: P-47_turbo_R-2800.jpg (92KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 960x720px

>>17344533
P-47 > P-51

So what happens if you take one of those little Cessnas and stick one of those spitfire Merlins in them?

>>17342786
From benchracing to benchflying.

/o/ is evolving.

>>17354894
>something you don't have to worry about with cars.
You don't worry about it because the engine computer compensates automatically.

>>17354941
You fall out of the sky because you exceeded the Cessna wing loading and center-of-gravity limits.

>>17354946
My car has is carbureted.

>>17354961
Then you will have to adjust the mixture if the altitude changes significantly.

>>17354961
>My car has is carbureted.
You need to upgrade. It's the tits being able to start your car any time of day, any day of the year.

>>17354951
Mostly the plane becomes uncontrollable, because the center of lift and the center of gravity don't line up like they're supposed to. You may not even be able to take off.

>>17354964
That's the point, most people won't need to, otherwise carbureted cars would have a more convenient way of changing it.

Of course, a car with a mixture control like a plane, you'd probably get a lot of drivers running excessively rich or something cause they think it'll give more power or something.

>>17354972
Oh, and it's a slant 6 too, so carb sitting on hot exhaust = vapor lock

File: 90s cup.jpg (45KB, 750x550px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 750x550px

>>17342786
Last week we had a 172 come in with that exact paint scheme.

>>17354941
The engine probably weighs about as much (if not more) as the plane itself, and the torque would literally bend the airframe

>>17354973
On conventional aircraft the center of gravity must be forward of the center of lift. Obviously a Merlin would be too much weight, but still

File: e1e40611a5389d1e77b3c767a9b369b2.jpg (104KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 736x552px

>>17345098
>he doesn't know about Six Turning, Four Burning masterrace

>>17343137

that isolated patch of trees to the right, far above the treeline looks like a great spot for camping

>>17348907
>>High horsepower/displacement ratio

no nigga
this is an unscientific myth created to sell the worlds shittiest engines

you are inputing 3x the amount of energy in a rotary for the return in output you are getting.
this is extremely stupid in an airplane

burning lots of fuel for very little power in return

>>17358437
"Sir, how much fuel will it require to fly?"
"All of it"

File: NB-36H_producing_contrails_in_flight.jpg (140KB, 1600x1034px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1600x1034px

>>17358506
>sir, we're out of jet fuel
No problem, just use uranium!

>>17342843
This and also they wouldn't bother to change engines that are fucking bulletproof after a long history of working so well.

Reliability is the number one reason we use the same engines since many decades ago.

t. commercial pilot

File: 1200px-PZL104_Wilga_AI14_PICT0072.jpg (180KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1200x900px

>>17358668
Hello fellow commercial pilot

Radials need to make a comeback, engines just don't sound the same as they used to

File: Stearman.jpg (379KB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2048x1367px

>>17359299
What do you think I fly on the weekend?

Pic related

Also fly a T28-D, feelsgoodman. Radials forever.

>>17359301
Shit man I'm jealous, I hear those are fun as fuck

>>17359301
Whats with wearing roundels on your plane
is there some law or legal shit you have to watch out for or sign or whatever?

>>17359329
make friends with someone who owns one, with the Pratt and Whitney Wasp Jr... 450HP of fun. The T28 is way more at 1435HP but a different kind of fun, hard to beat taildragging biplanes.

>>17359330
This specific aircraft was built in 1943 and restored in 94, just keeping to the same paint scheme as the U.S Army when they had it back then for training pilots

>>17359331
b-but that roundel was used until mid 1942

>>17343698
wow anon you're so cool

Aeroplane engineer here, damn, why haven't we thought of that before?

Fuck this thread is going to change aeronautive history.

>>17342786

even an engine that weak is strong enough to make the plane go so fast that it rips itself apart in mid air

File: Napier_Sabre_III_engine_at_RAF_Museum_London_Flickr_5315923637.jpg (2MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3072x2048px

You want power? You want 24 cylinders? You want sleeve valves?

Get the Napier Sabre and accept no substitutes

- H-Engine (like a double-deck boxer)
- 2240CUI / 36650cm3
- Bore: 5.0 in (127 mm)
- Stroke: 4.75 in (121 mm)
- 3040hp at 13PSI and removed governor

>>17349778
Most engines dont produce 160hp at 2700 RPM.

There simply are physical limitations that require aircraft to have lots of low-end power which means huge displacement is the way to go.

>>17359551

>There simply are physical limitations that require aircraft to have lots of low-end power which means huge displacement is the way to go.

Those are design preferences. Not physical limitations. Otherwise many aircraft between ultralights and large turbo-props won't exist. Turbo fan is a totally different beast.

100,000 lbs*ft at 0.001 rpm isn't going to lift shit. Power is literally Work Done, which you people seem to forget

>>17343137
its the only good use of an above average >115 IQ

>>17359717
Im talking about the limits of RPM.

500bhp at 12.000RPM is useless for a plane unless you want to add gears.

File: B47JATO.jpg (419KB, 1800x1416px) Image search: [Google]

419KB, 1800x1416px

>>17358437
>>17358506
> Props
> Ever

Also, fuel economy is for COMMUNISTS.

>>17360055
>It's a good idea to leave a big trail of smoke so enemy planes can spot you

good job being autistic

>>17360055
so much thrust its ripping the sky

File: F4.jpg (49KB, 747x503px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 747x503px

>>17360058
Oh, that's just JATO and methanol injection. Y'know, to get airborne before the nukes hit.

Otherwise, you can get rid of smoke just by lighting an afterburner. That's what pic related did.

>>17360065
>turn afterburners on
>enemy can spot your heat signature

File: F15_ASAT_Ignition.jpg (1MB, 2400x2977px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2400x2977px

>>17360075
Still the world's leading distributor of MiG parts.

>>17345955
The 50s and 60s were truly an amazing time for all the wild shit made to try and kill russians better.

>>17359924
And gearboxes are another point of failure. Same thing with driveshafts. You can do it but when they fail, you're dropping out of the sky.

File: 17352236_10210165631790295_2799223997144128975_n.jpg (24KB, 480x362px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 480x362px

>>17344619
>>Implying torque matters in the air.
>>There's no resistance you dunce

>>17360142
>There's no resistance
Yes there fucking is. Do you think the propeller spins for the sake of aesthetics?

File: tsuchiya facepalm.gif (1014KB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x213px

>>17344619
>>There's no resistance you dunce

File: retard.jpg (12KB, 238x192px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 238x192px

>>17344619
>>There's no resistance you dunce

I've never been in a plane thread before but I like it.