21 Dec 2025, 18:17 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
| Username Protected |
Message |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die  Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 15:15 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/11/10
Posts: 13425
Post Likes: +13271
Location: Indiana
Aircraft: Cessna 185
|
|
Username Protected wrote:
Are you posting on BT with your real name?
Yes.
Cool. But the FAA doesn't show anyone with that name who has as much as an instrument ticket. Must be tough in that PC-12.
_________________
Stu F.
"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 15:21 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/05/14
Posts: 2988
Post Likes: +3170
Company: WA Aircraft
Location: Fort Worth, TX (T67)
Aircraft: 1969 Bonanza E33C
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Cool. But the FAA doesn't show anyone with that name who has as much as an instrument ticket. Must be tough in that PC-12. Savage.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 15:30 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 1705
Post Likes: +1581
Company: Centurion LV and Eleusis
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KVNY
Aircraft: N45AF 501sp Eagle II
|
|
|
Chris
You are new here and looks like you have a great way of making friends. LOL
Fact- main bearing clearance is different for different operating temps. Boats generally run cooler, hence larger clearance. Regardless of bearing auto engines have many differences from Maine engines, fact.
I see in your LinkedIn you are a Maritime engineer from the 1990’s. So you for sure would understand before closed cooling Marine engines had larger bearing clearance. The new closed cooling marine engines have thermostats that regulate the operating temp to the same as auto engines. So in that case the bearing is the same. But the rest of the motor is not the same Different cams and valves, etc.. Which again proves they are not the same.
Fact Marine engines are not the same as Auto engines. If they were Mercury Marine, Marine Power, Teague Marine, and Ilmore marine wound not be what they are today. All the boat manufacturers would just buy GM crate motors which they do not for many reasons. Kind of like why Piper does not buy auto crate engines.
Interesting that you went to school in 1990 and didn’t have any work until 20
Years later. You look pretty young to have been in college in 1990. Or maybe that was your attempt at humor? Hahaha ha ha.
Other than supposedly taking some engineer classes what actual experience do you have in the marine engine biz? I do not have a PHD in marine engines but I would bet I have built with my own hands more marine engines than you have. In fact I have literally taken a GM 502 crate motor and changed the bearings for larger clearance before I added new cam, new heads and a Whipple Supercharger. This motor made over 1000hp on the dyno and ran for over 800 hours, which is a lot for a blown marine engine. How many marine engines have you built?
I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing here but it sure seems unproductive.
Mike
PS I am again sorry to keep this stupid conversation going. I promise this will be my
Last off topic post and I will let the new guy think what he wants to think.
Mike
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 16:01 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 12197
Post Likes: +3084
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
|
|
Username Protected wrote: GM sells Marine specific crate motors. I bought one last year. They are not radically different from a truck motor, except many are reverse rotation, and sure you can get away with a regular car version for the load and number of hours most boaters put on them, but you won’t see a 2000 hour TBO. Could be. It was a GM Crate engine. This was in the late 80s, I was a teenager and the mechanics allowed me to spend a couple days helping. I probably slowed down the install a fair amount  Tim
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 16:38 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Are you posting on BT with your real name? Yes.
Everyone troll I know
1.) Post's their public LinkedIn profile.
2.) Has 5 or 6 contacts on their LinkedIn profile who are
a.) Board members of multi-billion dollar publicly listed international conglomerates
b.) Former partners of Goldman Sachs
c.) Investment bankers with Cayman Addresses
3.) Public records linking them to now inactive LLC's
Make of that what you wish.
Onde está acontecendo todo o crescimento incremental do PIB global?
Por que sinalizar sua frota domesticamente? Por que não?
Ter apenas um passaporte é tão anos 80?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 17:00 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 03/11/15
Posts: 181
Post Likes: +119
Company: Trailhead Partners
Location: Austin, TX
Aircraft: 182
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Am I poking holes or just asking questions that when put to paper on a graph (i.e. you do the math) with a correct understanding of how things actually work, show the questions to come from the wrong perspective, and or are ignorant of the causes of and then the implications of weight on induced drag vs parasitic drag? And more importantly what the ratio of parasitic to induced drag is at speed and altitude? 100% of the folks making negative comments about that here CAN NOT draw that graph. If you look back at the profiles of the folks that have up-voted my comments (and their experience in their respective flight regimes) things become clearer.
To answer your very wise and thoughtful "perhaps".... I don't know for sure. But what I believe is he will be within 75% of his range number and 90%++ of his cruise TAS speed if.....
The powerplant/redrive system holds together. Think that is the single biggest risk. And I am feeling better and better about that as he sorts things out.
Have zero concerns about the ship flying/performing above and beyond what are acceptable for any one off experimental. I take it that you're asking some questions you already know the answers to, so maybe you're leading others to burst their own bubbles. Either way, I didn't mean the poking holes thing negatively. I don't have the knowledge to poke holes or even question the technical arguments here. Thanks for stating your estimates. I think that's useful to hear. Clearly you're seeing something in this design that most of us aren't. My ignorant, not-backed-by-anything-technical guess puts me squarely in the naysayer camp: the Raptor may perform (if it goes on a diet, if the engine produces power and stays cool at altitude, if the redrive system doesn't explode, if...), but 3600nm on 7gph at 208kts carrying 677lbs for $130k is so far beyond on the market that it's unrealistic. I feel good enough about that to place a bet, but it's based on feelings and beliefs and other non-technical things.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 17:31 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Chris
You are new here and looks like you have a great way of making friends. LOL
Fact- main bearing clearance is different for different operating temps. Boats generally run cooler, hence larger clearance. Regardless of bearing auto engines have many differences from Maine engines, fact.
I see in your LinkedIn you are a Maritime engineer from the 1990’s. So you for sure would understand before closed cooling Marine engines had larger bearing clearance. The new closed cooling marine engines have thermostats that regulate the operating temp to the same as auto engines. So in that case the bearing is the same. But the rest of the motor is not the same Different cams and valves, etc.. Which again proves they are not the same.
Fact Marine engines are not the same as Auto engines. If they were Mercury Marine, Marine Power, Teague Marine, and Ilmore marine wound not be what they are today. All the boat manufacturers would just buy GM crate motors which they do not for many reasons. Kind of like why Piper does not buy auto crate engines.
Interesting that you went to school in 1990 and didn’t have any work until 20
Years later. You look pretty young to have been in college in 1990. Or maybe that was your attempt at humor? Hahaha ha ha.
Other than supposedly taking some engineer classes what actual experience do you have in the marine engine biz? I do not have a PHD in marine engines but I would bet I have built with my own hands more marine engines than you have. In fact I have literally taken a GM 502 crate motor and changed the bearings for larger clearance before I added new cam, new heads and a Whipple Supercharger. This motor made over 1000hp on the dyno and ran for over 800 hours, which is a lot for a blown marine engine. How many marine engines have you built?
I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing here but it sure seems unproductive.
Mike
PS I am again sorry to keep this stupid conversation going. I promise this will be my
Last off topic post and I will let the new guy think what he wants to think.
Mike Since you won't answer the damn question, "What is the difference in bearing clearances between an OEM motor and and a marinzied motor" I will. With the factory manuals. The answer is they are THE EXACT SAME. 1. From www.Skidim.com for the marinized 5.7 GM 350 CID https://www.skidim.com/images/L510015.pdfPage 6 - From the PDF. CrankshaftCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #1-Production)0.018-0.053 mm0.0007-0.0021 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #2, #3 and #4-Production)0.030-0.068mm0.0012-0.0027 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #5-Production)0.020-0.060 mm0.0008-0.0024 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #1-Service)0.025-0.051 mm0.0010-0.0020 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #2, #3 and #4-Service)0.025-0.064 mm0.0010-0.025 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #5-Service)0.038-0.063 mm0.0015-0.0025 inCrankshaft End Play0.050-0.20 mm0.002-0.008 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #1)62.189-62.212 mm2.4484-2.4493 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #2 and #3) 62.181-62.207 mm2.4481-2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #5)62.185-62.207 mm2.4482-2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round (Production)0.005 mm (Maximum)0.0002 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Out-of-Round (Service)0.025 mm (Maximum)0.0010 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Taper (Production)0.005 mm (Maximum)0.0002 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Taper (Service)0.025 mm (Maximum)0.0010 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Runout at Rear Flange0.038mm (Maximum)0.0015 in (Maximum) 2.) GM Power Trains - OEM 5.7 GM 350 CID http://www.kohlerpower.com/onlinecatalog/pdf/tp6104.pdfPage 14 - From the PDF CrankshaftCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #1 – Production0.018–0.053 mm0.0007–0.0021 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #2, #3, and #4 – Production0.030–0.068 mm0.0012–0.0027 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #5 – Production0.020–0.060 mm0.0008–0.0024 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #1 – Service0.025–0.051 mm0.0010–0.0020 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #2, #3, and #4 – Service0.025–0.064 mm0.0010–0.0025 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance Service – Journal #5 – Service0.038–0.063 mm0.0015–0.0025 inCrankshaft End Play0.05–0.20 mm0.002–0.008 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #162.189–62.212 mm2.4484–2.4493 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #2, #3, and #462.181–62.207 mm2.4481–2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #562.185–62.207 mm2.4482–2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round – Production0.005 mm – Maximum0.0002 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round – Service0.025 mm – Maximum0.0010 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Taper – Production0.005 mm – Maximum0.0002 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Taper – Service0.025 mm – Maximum0.0010 in – MaximumCrankshaft Runout at Rear Flange0.038 mm0.0015 in The spec for the Crankshaft are the exact same... Surprisingly... the specs for the connecting rods, cam shaft, cylinder heads, cylinder bores, exhaust manifold, pistons, piston pins, piston rings, and valve system.... are all.. you guessed it... THE EXACT SAME. Questions?
Last edited on 25 Oct 2019, 17:58, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 17:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Am I poking holes or just asking questions that when put to paper on a graph (i.e. you do the math) with a correct understanding of how things actually work, show the questions to come from the wrong perspective, and or are ignorant of the causes of and then the implications of weight on induced drag vs parasitic drag? And more importantly what the ratio of parasitic to induced drag is at speed and altitude? 100% of the folks making negative comments about that here CAN NOT draw that graph. If you look back at the profiles of the folks that have up-voted my comments (and their experience in their respective flight regimes) things become clearer.
To answer your very wise and thoughtful "perhaps".... I don't know for sure. But what I believe is he will be within 75% of his range number and 90%++ of his cruise TAS speed if.....
The powerplant/redrive system holds together. Think that is the single biggest risk. And I am feeling better and better about that as he sorts things out.
Have zero concerns about the ship flying/performing above and beyond what are acceptable for any one off experimental. I take it that you're asking some questions you already know the answers to, so maybe you're leading others to burst their own bubbles. Either way, I didn't mean the poking holes thing negatively. I don't have the knowledge to poke holes or even question the technical arguments here. Thanks for stating your estimates. I think that's useful to hear. Clearly you're seeing something in this design that most of us aren't. My ignorant, not-backed-by-anything-technical guess puts me squarely in the naysayer camp: the Raptor may perform (if it goes on a diet, if the engine produces power and stays cool at altitude, if the redrive system doesn't explode, if...), but 3600nm on 7gph at 208kts carrying 677lbs for $130k is so far beyond on the market that it's unrealistic. I feel good enough about that to place a bet, but it's based on feelings and beliefs and other non-technical things.
I think I know the answer... But I am guessing like everyone else. No one will be the owner of the truth till we see it fly. If you look at a total drag chart over given speeds for any polar/power combo you will see that parasitic drag climbs exponentially with airspeed while induced drag actually decreases. Am just trying to make the case that...
1.) Weight matters not. Except to shift the polar left or right on the speed axis. (Best l/d) and on total service ceiling. It effects climb performance but less so than overall polar constraints. (The Pawnee loaded to gross vs the Pawnee over gross if you consider the mass of the glider it is towing.)
2.) Weight has zero effect on parasitic drag.
3.) Parasitic drag is 95%++ the determine factor in cruise speed/power needed/fuel burn.
4.) The polar of this ship is closer to a glider than anything else know of on the market in it's class. That will have a non-linear out sized impact on performance.
If I am wrong in those assertions, I am happy to reconsider my opinion. All the challenges so far come from lack of understanding of the above.
Will be fun to watch.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 17:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: GM sells Marine specific crate motors. I bought one last year. They are not radically different from a truck motor, except many are reverse rotation, and sure you can get away with a regular car version for the load and number of hours most boaters put on them, but you won’t see a 2000 hour TBO. Could be. It was a GM Crate engine. This was in the late 80s, I was a teenager and the mechanics allowed me to spend a couple days helping. I probably slowed down the install a fair amount Tim
This is exactly true. The ones that are reverse rotation are for duel engine direct drive so the engine and prop torque counteract each other.
Last edited on 25 Oct 2019, 18:18, edited 1 time in total.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 18:16 |
|
|
|
|
 |
Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4032
Post Likes: +2048
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
|
|
Username Protected wrote: To answer your very wise and thoughtful "perhaps".... I don't know for sure. But what I believe is he will be within 75% of his range number and 90%++ of his cruise TAS speed if.....
The powerplant/redrive system holds together. Think that is the single biggest risk. And I am feeling better and better about that as he sorts things out. feeling better?
_________________
nightwatch...
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 18:22 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: To answer your very wise and thoughtful "perhaps".... I don't know for sure. But what I believe is he will be within 75% of his range number and 90%++ of his cruise TAS speed if.....
The powerplant/redrive system holds together. Think that is the single biggest risk. And I am feeling better and better about that as he sorts things out. feeling better?
I am. Expect they with tether it and run it flat out for an extended time with cowling on (test the cooling and sustained power under the worst possible cooling conditions) before they fly it. All indications are right now things are moving in the right direction. Was telling to see the amount of runway it did not eat up getting to get to 70 knts in the last vid given the 1000lbs of thrust. Compare that to other birds "in the class."
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 18:25 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 10/06/19
Posts: 139
Post Likes: +45
Company: Water Cleaners
Aircraft: Pilatus PC-12 NG
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Yeah.
But about that pilot's license and the PC-12. . . . Think global. There is a world outside of your self imposed borders. Physically as well.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Raptor Aircraft 5 Seat Pressurized 3,600 NM Range Die Posted: 25 Oct 2019, 18:29 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/19/15
Posts: 1705
Post Likes: +1581
Company: Centurion LV and Eleusis
Location: Draper UT KPVU-KVNY
Aircraft: N45AF 501sp Eagle II
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Chris
You are new here and looks like you have a great way of making friends. LOL
Fact- main bearing clearance is different for different operating temps. Boats generally run cooler, hence larger clearance. Regardless of bearing auto engines have many differences from Maine engines, fact.
I see in your LinkedIn you are a Maritime engineer from the 1990’s. So you for sure would understand before closed cooling Marine engines had larger bearing clearance. The new closed cooling marine engines have thermostats that regulate the operating temp to the same as auto engines. So in that case the bearing is the same. But the rest of the motor is not the same Different cams and valves, etc.. Which again proves they are not the same.
Fact Marine engines are not the same as Auto engines. If they were Mercury Marine, Marine Power, Teague Marine, and Ilmore marine wound not be what they are today. All the boat manufacturers would just buy GM crate motors which they do not for many reasons. Kind of like why Piper does not buy auto crate engines.
Interesting that you went to school in 1990 and didn’t have any work until 20
Years later. You look pretty young to have been in college in 1990. Or maybe that was your attempt at humor? Hahaha ha ha.
Other than supposedly taking some engineer classes what actual experience do you have in the marine engine biz? I do not have a PHD in marine engines but I would bet I have built with my own hands more marine engines than you have. In fact I have literally taken a GM 502 crate motor and changed the bearings for larger clearance before I added new cam, new heads and a Whipple Supercharger. This motor made over 1000hp on the dyno and ran for over 800 hours, which is a lot for a blown marine engine. How many marine engines have you built?
I don’t know what you think you are accomplishing here but it sure seems unproductive.
Mike
PS I am again sorry to keep this stupid conversation going. I promise this will be my
Last off topic post and I will let the new guy think what he wants to think.
Mike Since you won't answer the damn question, "What is the difference in bearing clearances between an OEM motor and and a marinzied motor" I will. With the factory manuals. The answer is they are THE EXACT SAME. 1. From http://www.Skidim.com for the marinized 5.7 GM 350 CID https://www.skidim.com/images/L510015.pdfPage 6 - From the PDF. CrankshaftCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #1-Production)0.018-0.053 mm0.0007-0.0021 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #2, #3 and #4-Production)0.030-0.068mm0.0012-0.0027 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #5-Production)0.020-0.060 mm0.0008-0.0024 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #1-Service)0.025-0.051 mm0.0010-0.0020 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #2, #3 and #4-Service)0.025-0.064 mm0.0010-0.025 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance (Journal #5-Service)0.038-0.063 mm0.0015-0.0025 inCrankshaft End Play0.050-0.20 mm0.002-0.008 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #1)62.189-62.212 mm2.4484-2.4493 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #2 and #3) 62.181-62.207 mm2.4481-2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter (Journal #5)62.185-62.207 mm2.4482-2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round (Production)0.005 mm (Maximum)0.0002 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Out-of-Round (Service)0.025 mm (Maximum)0.0010 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Taper (Production)0.005 mm (Maximum)0.0002 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Journal Taper (Service)0.025 mm (Maximum)0.0010 in (Maximum)Crankshaft Runout at Rear Flange0.038mm (Maximum)0.0015 in (Maximum) 2.) GM Power Trains - OEM 5.7 GM 350 CID http://www.kohlerpower.com/onlinecatalog/pdf/tp6104.pdfPage 14 - From the PDF CrankshaftCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #1 – Production0.018–0.053 mm0.0007–0.0021 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #2, #3, and #4 – Production0.030–0.068 mm0.0012–0.0027 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #5 – Production0.020–0.060 mm0.0008–0.0024 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #1 – Service0.025–0.051 mm0.0010–0.0020 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance – Journal #2, #3, and #4 – Service0.025–0.064 mm0.0010–0.0025 inCrankshaft Bearing Clearance Service – Journal #5 – Service0.038–0.063 mm0.0015–0.0025 inCrankshaft End Play0.05–0.20 mm0.002–0.008 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #162.189–62.212 mm2.4484–2.4493 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #2, #3, and #462.181–62.207 mm2.4481–2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Diameter – Journal #562.185–62.207 mm2.4482–2.4491 inCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round – Production0.005 mm – Maximum0.0002 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Out-of-Round – Service0.025 mm – Maximum0.0010 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Taper – Production0.005 mm – Maximum0.0002 in – MaximumCrankshaft Journal Taper – Service0.025 mm – Maximum0.0010 in – MaximumCrankshaft Runout at Rear Flange0.038 mm0.0015 in The spec for the Crankshaft are the exact same... Surprisingly... the specs for the connecting rods, cam shaft, cylinder heads, cylinder bores, exhaust manifold, pistons, piston pins, piston rings, and valve system.... are all.. you guessed it... THE EXACT SAME. Questions?
You use an example of a closed cooling gen set to prove your point. Haha classic. What I said was true, in general automotive engines are different than Marine engines.
What is your personal experience with Marine engine building? How many boat motors that move boats have you built? Or does your experience end at the mouse and keyword.
Again I ask what is your experience on the topics you pretend to know so much about?
How old are you? Show us your FAA pilot info? You went to college in 1990 but didn’t get work until 2012? Lots of questions you are bringing up. More than you are answering.
Damn it I went against my word to not post. I really tried to stay away. LOl.
Mike
|
|
| Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2025
|
|
|
|
