Date:         Sun, 12 Jul 2009 11:49:11 -0600
Reply-To:     Bob Stevens <mtbiker62@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Bob Stevens <mtbiker62@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: aircraft engine NVC
Comments: To: Poppie Jagersand <poppie.jagersand@yahoo.ca>
In-Reply-To:  <985507.79784.qm@web45307.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

One of the most commonly used gas engines, rebuilt and converted for use in
aircraft today is the Subaru. CCR in Denver makes its living off of that
business.
bob
'87 Syncro Westy w/Subaru 2.2 aircraft engine. ;-)

On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Poppie Jagersand <
poppie.jagersand@yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Aircraft engines have some nice features:
> Usually good power to weight ratio.
> Various redundant systems for failproofness in the air.
>
> Some have much better efficiency than car engines. For example, the
> Continental watercooled engine Rutan used in the around the world flight
> Voyager consumed only 200g fuel per kWh produced. That is an amazing 50%
> better efficiency than fuel injected car engines of the time (80's).
>
> I'm wondering what the specific fuel consumption is of today's more
> advanced gas engines? For example, Toyota seems to have the MPG lead in
> several categories (e.g. Corolla, Echo, Yaris) with their 1.5 and 1.8 VVT
> engines. Some of this is likely due to superior engine efficiency.
>
> Martin
>
>