Hybrid Flight C170

A place to relax and discuss flying topics.

Moderators: GAHorn, Karl Towle, Bruce Fenstermacher

User avatar
MoonlightVFR
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:55 pm

Hybrid Flight C170

Post by MoonlightVFR »

It will be a viable topic.

Consider PARIS airshow.

A USA company Cape Air inked the deal; always wonder if they used a Mont Blanc pen with Blue ink. attorneys are involved. Double digit order for purchase of ALICE. Pure Electric flight, Nice looking airplane. 9 passengers short flights.

Flight distance of 650 miles at 450 mph. Utilizes a 900 Kwh Lithium battery. Will enter service in USA. NICE!

What you do not see is announcement that 5 Hybrid Flight engineering companies are filing patents at at USPTO.

Unimaginable variations will flourish.
Remember the POD hanging below fuselage of fixed gear Cessnas? Could there be a POD containing a hybrid system?

Saw a C206 really straining recently. He could have used a boost.

Any ideas for the C170?

Electric flight cost is 10 times Cheaper than fossil fuel. Think
gradyb, '54 B N2890C
User avatar
n2582d
Posts: 2808
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 4:58 am

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by n2582d »

Although you wouldn’t know it from their website, the futuristic plane is a taildragger!
63FD78C3-EA3D-481F-88EE-F632D2EB5C1C.jpeg
They’re going to be looking for 170’s to give pilots some tailwheel time. :lol:
Last edited by n2582d on Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Gary
User avatar
eskflyer
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:48 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by eskflyer »

Really? electric flight is 10 TIMES CHEAPER. HMMM dont think so not in this day and age. How much energy does it take to charge the batteries and how long. how much weight do you think a 170 could carry with enough batteries on board for flight of 4.5-5 hrs. yeah no aint gonna happen. You might get one in the air but that would be about it.

I will keep on burning fossil fuel in my bird and save a hell of alot of money and time wasted.

Just my 10 cents .
AA16, SHORTWING and SPAMCAN FLYER, JP
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by ghostflyer »

Is Santa Claus now going to wear a blue suit? We all have to obey the laws of physics. The efficiency of batteries is well down the list , I will be sticking to using fossil fuels ,best bang for buck. No pun intended. :lol:
User avatar
MoonlightVFR
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by MoonlightVFR »

Electric flight 10X times cheaper. Not my words

Just viewed tesla fans Now You Know - they stated 4X times cheaper.

The denisity of Lithium carries more Charge.

Weight of batteries probably influenced the tail dragger design -

If I ever fly in ALICE at 400 mph I want to be served Salad!
gradyb, '54 B N2890C
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20968
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by GAHorn »

MoonlightVFR wrote:..

Weight of batteries probably influenced the tail dragger design -

...
The weight of the batteries is not like what determines landing gear configuration. After all, the thing must still be capable of a CG range within the chord of the main wing (lifting surface) if it’s to fly. More likely it’s the distribution of that weight (and further, distribution/CG also determines the placement of the main wing/lifting surface.)

One reason for a tail wheel might be structural considerations (for example the lifting surface is mid-fuselage). But a tricycle gear arrangement could still be used if the main gear (ordinarily considered to be the main weight bearing gear) were place further aft. The aircraft CG must lie between the fore/aft chord of the wing and the gear must be placed fwd/aft of that same CG. In the case of the picture above, I suspect the fwd fuselage/wing made the location of the main gear determination. Where would structural considerations of a wide main gear-attachment allow it otherwise?
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by hilltop170 »

I just love the smell of burned 100LL in the morning. NO THANKS to electric vehicles.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
MoonlightVFR
Posts: 624
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:55 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by MoonlightVFR »

I used to love the smell of 80 Octane fuel burning. Just what my engine was designed to consume.

Think we were promised a Direct replacement. Did that happen?
gradyb, '54 B N2890C
User avatar
eskflyer
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:48 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by eskflyer »

I burn 87 octane car gas here in AK. NO NEVER NOT will i ever use MMO. Since i bought the airplanei have burned 300 gallons of 87 car gas in her and the engine is starting to clean up and shedding the lead deposits. I will fly her a few more hours then do another oil change and see what come see what the oil has suspended in it and in oil filter.

IN AK we have straight good ole american made pure gasoline with the pertinent companies additives , but NO ALCOHOL in it .
AA16, SHORTWING and SPAMCAN FLYER, JP
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by hilltop170 »

Where are you buying your mogas?
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
eskflyer
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:48 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by eskflyer »

I was buying if from the kenai CHEVRON gas station. but am now buying at the Nikiski Tesoro-2go station . I filter all my fuel putting it in my bulk tank and taking it out. both stations have never had any water in the fuel or contaminants that i have found. I have been buying gas from both places for many yrs. for my shortwing birds running a o320 in them. my SNOGO's and now our 170

JP
AA16, SHORTWING and SPAMCAN FLYER, JP
hilltop170
Posts: 3481
Joined: Sat May 06, 2006 6:05 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by hilltop170 »

I used to use leaded regular mogas for years in my C170 and O470 powered C180. I found the same results, never a problem with any of it. The 170 engine went to 1750SMOH and the 180 engine went to 1650SMOH and neither had any issues related to fuel when disassembled for overhaul. But since leaded regular was eliminated, I haven't used mogas.

Do you mix the mogas with 100LL? 80/87 had lead in it and most recommend a 25% 100LL/75% unleaded mogas mixture.
Richard Pulley
2014-2016 TIC170A Past President
1951 170A, N1715D, s/n 20158, O-300D
Owned from 1973 to 1984.
Bought again in 2006 after 22 years.
It's not for sale!
User avatar
eskflyer
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:48 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by eskflyer »

No sir.
I burn straight 87 octane regular pump gas. My last o320 was at 3800 hrs on the bottom end Top had cylinders replaced once and rings once. no additives NO MMO junk gunk. NO LEAD. tolerances were at new limits on crank and rods cylinders were in great shape and ring lands all clean. Never EVER had a issue with stuck valve syndrome or wearing out parts because of no lead. I run my engines hard do not baby them . Never pull the prop thru unless you are going to go fly and for more than a hr. . 50 hr oil changes and change airfilter at every oil change also. sometimes if doing alot of beach work and in sand quite a bit then i change the air filter more often. I run Phillips 20/50 year round in AK in the o320's.
The o300D has always had straight 80 in it since Keith had the engine built and installed 700 hrs ago.

JP
AA16, SHORTWING and SPAMCAN FLYER, JP
User avatar
ghostflyer
Posts: 1390
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 3:06 am

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by ghostflyer »

Maybe it could be the oil that you are using . I am a fan of Phillips oil and have used it for years. While most oils have a MIL spec number ,but some oils have a better design in their formulation. Many years ago I used to work for a small RPT organisation where we used aero commanders [500 shrikes , 680 FLP,s etc] .each aircraft was doing at least 6 hrs flying each day while some were up to 10 hours a day. A lot of it as was over water. So engine reliability was high on the list plus engine condition was monitored very closely. It was found that Phillips oil gave the best long term results. We had our own maintenance system where each engines life was noted . It wasn’t unusual for a engine to reach 2100hrs without pulling a cylinder . The 2000 hrs TBO was often exceeded [legally] with great margins and on pull down found very little wear on the bottom end. The pilots were trained on “correct” engine management also. If they wanted to keep their jobs.
User avatar
GAHorn
Posts: 20968
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 8:45 pm

Re: Hybrid Flight C170

Post by GAHorn »

The very common idea that lead is good for engines is simply wrong. One of the highly-respected “engineers” at Shell was a regular contributor to GenAviationNews and other mags and he often promoted the idea that lead was an important and necessary ingredient for engine longevity, primarily based upon what he promoted as “valve lubrication” and “cushion” for valve seats.
It is hogwash.
I several times challenged him to provide information that demonstrated that engines were suffering valve problems and that lead was introduced into fuel to solve that problem. He never was able to do so. He eventually quit his leaded gas promotions.
There is only ONE reason lead was ever put into fuel and that reason was to delay detonation at higher compressions. It was never an ingredient for any other reason.

The idea that it was necessary for valves came about when lower leaded fuels (100LL) was universally selected as a “one-fuel-for=all”. The higher compression engines suffered from valve issues because they were running at detonation-limited with the lower lead levels ... and the lower compression engines (like our little Continentals) suffered valve problems because of the INCREASED LEAD levels from the previous 80/87.
Industry solutions were found by changing the valve seat angles to allow better lead by-product scavenging to reduce lead build-up in lower compression engines...and hardened valve seats in high compression engines to accommodate the locally higher “spot welding” of valves which had previously enjoyed temperature relief in the form of lead deposits.
But NO LUBRICATION qualities of lead was ever a reason for it’s inclusion in fuels.

Lead is abrasive and ruinous for engine mechanicals and causes early failure of spark plugs, valves, and adds a grey “sludge” to the bottom of your crankcase where it contributes to engine wear. NO LEAD fuels are so much better for engine longevity, and that is well-proven by modern engines increased mileage/lives since it became almost universal in the automotive world.

In my personal opinion the best thing that could happen for us small engine operators would be for lead to become an additive which the pilot could select at the fuel pump. If the tank contained UN-leaded AvGas it would hover around 90 octane. If a button could be pushed at the pump which injected TetraEthylLead into the fuel-stream for those operators who needed it (their need would be met.)

Phillips versus Shell versus BP or other aviation oils is largely brand loyalty based more on personal opinion than fact.
Any of them will meet the needs of the engine as long as it’s serviced properly/regularly and oil-arguments (are) sillier than most political arguments. IMO
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention.
An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons. ;)
Post Reply