4 ms·
> At almost 6 liters, yet producing only 200hp, it's wildly fuel inefficient Is it? I've always thought that while GA engines are in many ways stuck in the 194
by jabl 4y ago
> At almost 6 liters, yet producing only 200hp, it's wildly fuel inefficient
Is it? I've always thought that while GA engines are in many ways stuck in the 1940'ies, they are actually quite efficient. Wikipedia seems to back that up at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumption https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake-specific_fuel_consumptio... , with a couple of Lycoming engines producing BSFC numbers in the same ballpark as a modern car engine or Rotax.
- FL410 4y agoYeah, the thing people always miss is that these engines are flat-rated at whatever hp. I.e., they'll do it for most of their operating lives, vs. the occasional WOT in a car.
- tyingq 4y agoRight...it's 200 BHP @ 2700 RPM, which is way below the RPM range you would measure peak horsepower in a car. Edit: A dyno graph from an late 1990's Corvette C5 engine (5.7L) shows about 170HP @ 2700 RPM. That's at the wheels, so probably close-ish to 195HP at the crank: https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin/1297x975/20171125_160043_4b29e98e8a19d361dc7b75693a685ee39b3e4a5c.jpg https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.corvetteforum.com-vbulletin...
- ericpauley 4y agoExactly this. Lycoming engineers weren’t stupid, and airplane engines are well-designed within the (admittedly potentially contrived) direct drive constraint.