• Welcome aboard HomebuiltAirplanes.com, your destination for connecting with a thriving community of more than 10,000 active members, all passionate about home-built aviation. Dive into our comprehensive repository of knowledge, exchange technical insights, arrange get-togethers, and trade aircrafts/parts with like-minded enthusiasts. Unearth a wide-ranging collection of general and kit plane aviation subjects, enriched with engaging imagery, in-depth technical manuals, and rare archives.

    For a nominal fee of $99.99/year or $12.99/month, you can immerse yourself in this dynamic community and unparalleled treasure-trove of aviation knowledge.

    Embark on your journey now!

    Click Here to Become a Premium Member and Experience Homebuilt Airplanes to the Fullest!

Fuel price insanity: can we adapt?

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Old Jupiter

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
41
If fuel keeps going up, the outlook for hobby flying (and other motorsports) looks grim. Oh, the price of big, beautiful old birds like my favorite, the Cessna 190/195, will come back down into the reasonably affordable range, but only because actually flying them regularly will be UN-affordable, or at least unjustifiable.

Maybe Burt Rutan's earliest, slipperiest little designs will become popular again. I don't want a 1-place airplane, but if I were aero-commuting Rutan's first Quickie was getting the equivalent of about 60 ground miles per gallon!! The 18hp Onan flathead that he used on the prototype was less than ideal, being rather fuel-inefficient and having fragile aluminum con-rods, but more worthy engine options are available. I hardly see any Quickies, Q-2s, Q-200s, and not many Long Ezes at the airshows anymore. Have they fallen from favor among builders?

I believe that private flyers, like hot-rodders, powerboat racers, and other motorsportsmen, can mitigate some of the fuel cost increases with creative adaptation. For starters, there are considerable gains to be made in the area of engine fuel-efficiency. Most would have to be done during overhauls, and would have to meet FAA approval. Can the FAA be persuaded to do its part in helping General Aviation conserve petroleum?

Here is a quote from a noted hot rod engine builder and mechanical engineer about an airplane project that was brought to him:

"Here is an example of the dated design of main stream private sector aero engines. About 1997-ish I got involved with Magnum Engines on an upgrade of an IO-540. When I checked the cam on my computerized checker I could hardly believe that this was what they were using for however many years the engine has been in existance. Remember we have an engine that is supposed to turn no more than 2700 rpm. Why in the world do they install a cam that is about 300 degrees duration at lash. Also the dynamics were dreadfull. I can tell you with absolute certainty I can file a better cam than that. Any way we had Harvey design some new profiles that were about 30 degees shorter and with top notch dynamics. I can't remember for sure but I think the end result was about a 20 hp at 2500 rpm (about 40 lbs-ft). Along with this the fuel consumption was less! A check with Magnum Engines (in Ontario Ca. last time I heard from them) will get you aero buffs all the details you need."

Besides better camshafts, aero-engine improvers could look at many other areas, including tighter squish-heights, porting for swirl and tumble, squish-height reduction, tuned exhaust, more even cylinder-to-cyliinder mixture delivery, high-tech coatings for heat control, and basic blueprinting and closer balancing.

Maybe only owners of Experimental category aircraft who can work on their own engines will get to do this kind of thing. Sadly, the FAA must act as a barrier between us and hordes of predatory lawyers, so they are terrified of allowing any new thing, however well proven that thing has been in non-aviation fields.

I'm new here, and in looking around the site, I haven't spotted a fuel-economy discussion, so thought I'd post this and see if anyone's interested . . . .
 
Back
Top