One hundred miles per gallon

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association ^ | December 30, 2008 | By Dave Hirschman

[Red Badger]

Pilots usually think of airplane flight performance in terms of gallons an hour—not miles per gallon.

AOPA member and aeronautical innovator Klaus Savier, owner of Light Speed Engineering based at Santa Paula Airport (SZP) in Southern California, has been setting speed and efficiency records for two decades in his experimental, Rutan-designed Vari-EZ—a plane that serves as a technology demonstrator for products that hint at possibilities for improving the efficiency of the GA fleet.

“Efficiency and speed go hand in hand,” said Savier, a German-born engineer, glider pilot, and composite materials expert. “They’re so closely related that it’s really a matter of emphasis. Do you go as fast as possible and disregard how much noise you make and fuel you burn? Or do you optimize the airframe, engine, and propeller for maximum efficiency? To me, achieving speed through efficiency has always been more elegant.”

Savier has altered his Vari-EZ and its Continental 0-200 engine by adding computerized fuel injection and ignition systems of his own design. He typically flies at 190 KTAS while getting a Prius-like 50 miles per gallon. If he slows to extend range, Savier’s mileage approaches 100 miles per gallon.

Vari-EZAlthough his Vari-EZ carries just 30 gallons of fuel, Savier has flown it nonstop to Oshkosh, Wis., (1,522 nm) and Panama City, Fla., (1,700 nm).

To improve the flight efficiency of the GA fleet, Savier says magnetos need to be replaced, once and for all, with electronic ignitions, and engines need the kinds of precise fuel injection that allows his Continental to run an almost incomprehensible 300 degrees lean of peak. In fact, Savier says his engine runs so lean, and so cool, that he has trouble keeping cylinder heads and oil temperatures warm enough at altitude—even though his engine has no oil cooler.

On a typical long-distance flight, Savier flies at an altitude of 17,500 feet, about 35-percent power, full throttle, 190 KTAS, burning 3.5 gallons of fuel per hour. He has flown his Vari-EZ about 4,500 hours during 20-plus years of ownership and collected mountains of data. Switching to electronic ignition and computerized fuel injection, he says, would improve the GA fleet’s flight efficiency 20 percent without any airframe modifications.

AOPA member and aeronautical innovator Klaus SavierKlaus Savier, owner of Light Speed Engineering

Savier tires of what he calls the aviation industry’s circular arguments about the merits of electronic ignition, computerized fuel injection, and lean-of-peak operations. Definitive answers, he says, have been provided by the automobile industry and verified in a variety of aircraft and engines over tens of thousands of hours.

“As long as you have magnetos, you simply can’t get the large spark from a big electrode gap or advanced timing you need for peak efficiency,” he said. “For all these guys that think magnetos are so great, I only have one question: Why don’t you put magnetos in your cars?”

[Red Badger]

Rutan-designed Vari-EZ, Klaus Savier, owner of Light Speed Engineering

[Red Badger]

Rest In Peace, old friend, your work is finished.....

If you want ON or OFF the DIESEL ”KnOcK” LIST just FReepmail me.....

This is a fairly HIGH VOLUME ping list on some days.....

THANKS AND A BIG HAT TIP TO: Original message by B4Ranch regarding 100mpg received 01/01/2009 7:10:12 PM PST

[Red Badger]

He is correct, of course. The magneto has had it’s place in history and for specific reasons, but the reliability issue is long since died with the advent of modern electronic control systems. My 2002 Dodge Ram has a similar setup to the aviation engine, in that, each cylinder has a coil of its own mounted atop the spark plug, at the end of the plug wire. This allows low system voltage to be supplied to the coils and cutoff via electronic computer control to fire the plug. The aviation engines usually have two spark plugs per cylinder for redundancy and to allow two different flame fronts to be initiated simultaneously to reduce knock. Each had it own magneto. This old system could be replaced easily with a system similar to whats used by my old Dodge pickup...............

[AmericanVictory]

Bump!

[marktwain]

I would bet that this is an FAA ossified technology issue. The FAA is allows innovation in aircraft design to move forward at only glacial speed, especially for general aviation. The hoops that must be jumped through are so expensive and time consuming that small aircraft manufacturers simply cannot afford them.

[marktwain]

Oops! “is allows” should be “allows”.

[Red Badger]

Though I am not involved in GA, I know what you mean............

[econjack]

The FAA is allows innovation in aircraft design to move forward at only glacial speed...

This is true of most regulatory agencies. Milton Friedman always maintained that the FDA has killed more people than it has saved because its regulatory process is so slow that thousands die needlessly while trials drag on.

[taildragger]

I would bet that this is an FAA ossified technology issue. The FAA is allows innovation in aircraft design to move forward at only glacial speed, especially for general aviation. The hoops that must be jumped through are so expensive and time consuming that small aircraft manufacturers simply cannot afford them.

MT,

It is not the FAA but their "Supplemental Type Certificate" ( STC ) process that is the issue.

You can modify your car within reason i.e. a "K & N" filter kit and need no federal approval.

You can't even do that to your Cessna 150 without in essence making it illegal. You have to go throught the STC process or purchase an STC'd Item. Ironically, their is now an STC for "K & N" filters for many aircraft.

But this process is time consuming and expensive.

This is own reason many have gone the homebuilt route, you can incorporate all the latest advances without needing all sorts of approvals.

As far as Klaus's Ignition, I have not flown behind one, but know those that have purchased them and they have reported very good results.

Klaus's business associate, Paul Lipps has a propeller that is wild and is really out of the box thinking, check this out:

[taildragger]

MT,

Their was for the record a way to make "One Time" changes to your airplane, with local FAA approval called a "337" entry into the logs and paperwork submitted and approved to the local FSDO.

With changes to the local FAA structure, they are almost impossible to get now. Minor stuff like adding a shoulder harness to an older aircraft maybe. But they never let anything like adding Electronic Ignition or Electronic Fuel Injection and probably never will unless you go the "STC" route.

[duffus]

Nor is the average pilot/owner intended to be able to afford them. The truth is that the FAA wants private aviation shut down to make room for the airlines that own and run the FAA. It’s no wonder that the civil fleet is older then its pilots and running the best NAZI designed engine of 1935. You can get a nice diesel engine for a 40-50 year old airframe. But the price is in the realm of extortion, just like a rebuild.

[Squantos]

Wish they could do the 100mpg thang to my dream aircraft.....

http://www.airplanemart.com/sun_fun_2007/sun_and_fun_2007_pix/n9xw_Lancair_4_turbo.jpg

[Kevmo]

For the aviation ping list

[CodeToad]

If we could get rid of the lawyers and half the FAA we might be able to get flying under $40/hour again.

[CodeToad]

“But the price is in the realm of extortion, just like a rebuild.”

I’ve often thought of that issue: If engines are designed to be simple, and therefore realiable, why do they cost $25,000 for a rebuild every 2,000 hours???

[duffus]

FAA certification requirements that are designed to make things as difficult and expensive as possible. They are also hopelessly obsolete. The rest of the manufacturing world knows quite well that you can never “inspect in quality” The industry will then counter this with the argument that their engines are so much more stressed then a Detroit engine as they run at 80% power most of their life. To bring a common automotive engine to this work level is impossible they claim. In truth it’s about sizing and oil pump, radiator and a few other items to handle the load but they don’t want to talk about that. They like their NAZI design 1935 flat opposing engine.