Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 01:16 PM - Re: RV8A turbine engine (AI Nut)
2. 01:45 PM - Re: RV8A turbine engine (Royce Wise)
3. 03:01 PM - Re: RV8A turbine engine (Fergus Kyle)
4. 03:23 PM - Re: RV8A turbine engine (Robert McCallum)
5. 05:59 PM - Small Turbines (Al Latham)
6. 06:43 PM - Re: Small Turbines (Archie)
Message 1
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8A turbine engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
I'm not trying to rain on your parade or disparage your preferences, but it
seems to me and my little calculator that a turbine engine will cost you
LOT's more per mile with little to no added thrust as compared to a regular
reciprocating engine. The only advantage that appears to me is lower
under-cowl weight, but even that is cancelled by the huge amount of extra
fuel required, as compared to a piston engine. The theoretical longer TBO's
might be an advantage but that isn't proven to my little mind.
Further, "drivability" sucks with a turbine -- one has to lead an
acceleration event by as much as 25 seconds to get the dang thing to spool
up enough. That could be disaster on an unplanned go-around.
Maybe I'm all wet, though. Turbines are really sexy.
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ritter" <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
Subject: Engines-List: RV8A turbine engine
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Doug Ritter <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
>
> Knowing how critical the participants of this list are I anticipate a
> certain degree of criticism for my ideas so here goes I am dead-set on an
> alternative engine for my RV8A project that does not include an "old
> fashioned" gasoline piston engine. A small gas turbine is my number one
> choice, a piston diesel is second and a rotary is third. Two choices for
> the turbine are an Allison 250 series T63 (250 to 300 hp) and the newly
> under development ATP (Affordable Turbine Power 200+ hp) I have done a
lot
> of product research and selected several vendors for the Allison at around
> $13k for a basic engine. My request is to make contact with any of you
who
> have a similar desire and/or experience. I'm not trying to push the RV to
> the limits of the envelope just I just love turbines and want to be a
> little different. Thanks
>
> Doug Ritter
> Alexandria, VA
> 703-360-5219
>
>
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8A turbine engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
AI Nut wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlinknet>
>
>I'm not trying to rain on your parade or disparage your preferences, but it
>seems to me and my little calculator that a turbine engine will cost you
>LOT's more per mile with little to no added thrust as compared to a regular
>reciprocating engine The only advantage that appears to me is lower
>under-cowl weight, but even that is cancelled by the huge amount of extra
>fuel required, as compared to a piston engine The theoretical longer TBO's
>might be an advantage but that isn't proven to my little mind
>
>Further, "drivability" sucks with a turbine -- one has to lead an
>acceleration event by as much as 25 seconds to get the dang thing to spool
>up enough That could be disaster on an unplanned go-around
>
>Maybe I'm all wet, though Turbines are really sexy
>
>AI Nut
>
>
If you are going to run a turbine, you need a variable pitch prop Then
you run the engine at a constant rpm where it is producing power The
fuel control/FADEC will maintain that rpm within a few percent Thrust
is controlled with prop pitch
We ran the OV's at 6k rpm in the gearbox the power was always available
just by pitching the prop It ran at 2k rpm But it was 3 bladed and I
think like 78" big enough to absorb 750hp
All turbines love fuel, but they weight less per hp than a piston
engine, and with adequate care will be like the enegizer bunny, just
going, and
Royce
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Doug Ritter" <ddritter@verizonnet>
>To: <engines-list@matronicscom>
>Subject: Engines-List: RV8A turbine engine
>
>
>
>
>>--> Engines-List message posted by: Doug Ritter <ddritter@verizonnet>
>>
>>Knowing how critical the participants of this list are I anticipate a
>>certain degree of criticism for my ideas so here goes I am dead-set on an
>>alternative engine for my RV8A project that does not include an "old
>>fashioned" gasoline piston engine A small gas turbine is my number one
>>choice, a piston diesel is second and a rotary is third Two choices for
>>the turbine are an Allison 250 series T63 250 to 300 hp and the newly
>>under development ATP Affordable Turbine Power 200+ hp I have done a
>>
>>
>lot
>
>
>>of product research and selected several vendors for the Allison at around
>>$13k for a basic engine My request is to make contact with any of you
>>
>>
>who
>
>
>>have a similar desire and/or experience I'm not trying to push the RV to
>>the limits of the envelope just I just love turbines and want to be a
>>little different Thanks
>>
>>Doug Ritter
>>Alexandria, VA
>>703-360-5219
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8A turbine engine |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Fergus Kyle" <VE3LVO@rac.ca>
----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Ritter" <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
Subject: Engines-List: RV8A turbine engine
| --> Engines-List message posted by: Doug Ritter <d.d.ritter@verizon.net>
|
| Knowing how critical the participants of this list are I anticipate a
| certain degree of criticism for my ideas so here goes I am dead-set on an
| alternative engine for my RV8A project that does not include an "old
| fashioned" gasoline piston engine. A small gas turbine is my number one
| choice, a piston diesel is second and a rotary is third.
Doug,
I'm out of it for the last 5 years, but seems to me you'd want a
modern 3spool turbine to cut down on fuel flow and bypass much burning air
if you want to avoid necessary flight above FL280 for consumption. Mind you,
what do I know about the latest mill?
Ferg
Europa A064 mono
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: RV8A turbine engine |
HTML_TITLE_EMPTY
--> Engines-List message posted by: Robert McCallum <robert.mccallum2@sympatico.ca>
AI Nut wrote:
>--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
>
>I'm not trying to rain on your parade or disparage your preferences, but it
>seems to me and my little calculator that a turbine engine will cost you
>LOT's more per mile with little to no added thrust as compared to a regular
>reciprocating engine. The only advantage that appears to me is lower
>under-cowl weight, but even that is cancelled by the huge amount of extra
>fuel required, as compared to a piston engine. The theoretical longer TBO's
>might be an advantage but that isn't proven to my little mind.
>
>Further, "drivability" sucks with a turbine -- one has to lead an
>acceleration event by as much as 25 seconds to get the dang thing to spool
>up enough. That could be disaster on an unplanned go-around.
>
>Maybe I'm all wet, though. Turbines are really sexy.
>
>AI Nut
>
>
Don't overlook that a large part of the attraction isn't necessarily
efficiency or minimum cost or long range or $$ per mile or extra thrust
or weight or any other physical attribute, but the desire to do it to
see if you can. Or rather to see how well you can. To do the
"experimentation". Bolting in a known quantity "lycosaurous" is easy,
everyone does it, there is a ton of information and examples available
to copy or at least refer to. The turbine choice opens up the unknown,
the thrill of being adventurous, the "experimental" aspect.
Bob McC
do not archive
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Al Latham" <geebeed@grm.net>
Hi Guys,
Several days ago someone asked about the power output of the small Solar Turbines.
I was a Crew Chief on F-16 A,B,C,&D's for almost 16 years our little APU's would
put
out either 365 or 265 HP I can't remember for sure although I think it was 365.
It could
only run for 5 minutes at a time. I was told that the Navy Sea Stallion helicopter
had the
same engine and put out 165 HP and could run until the fuel ran out. There have
been
several of these engines on exp. aircraft, one was a Mitchell Wing it was as a
pure thrust
engine and the other was a KR-1 and it naturally had a prop. The fuel control on
the F-16
was an all or nothing affair as I would think it would also be on the Sea Stallion.
They were
very good engines as in all the time I was around them I only know of two failures,
one right
in front of my face, actually about 6' from me and it took us over an hour to find
the chunk of
T wheel it spit out. International Harvester got the overhaul contract for our
engines and it felt
odd to see a IH data plate on a multi million dollar fighter jet. I can't remember
the overhaul
times for them, we didn't track actual time but rather APU starts and I think it
was 1000 starts,
forgive me but I retired in 97 and felt no need to retain such information.
The Allison that has been the topic of discussion is a fantastic engine from what
I have seen
and heard from people that have been around them much more than I. They sure made
the
Maule fly like a mad man. They used to bring them into Valdosta were I worked as
an A&P
during the day. While I have never worked on one we have an upcoming project that
will put
me up to my neck with one.
Yes they burn a lot of fuel and they stink but I'd love to have on bolted onto
the front of a
Brokaw Bullet...
I do think Van would have a fit if someone was to put one in an RV. I think he
had softened up
some but he used to be very anti alternative engines. That is a lot of beans for
something designed
to run on 200HP.
Al Latham
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: Small Turbines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Archie" <archie97@earthlink.net>
> There have been
> several of these engines on exp. aircraft, one was a Mitchell Wing it was
as a pure thrust
> engine and the other was a KR-1 and it naturally had a prop.
I saw the Mitchell wing at OSH a few years ago, and had to photograph it.
Could not believe what I saw, but it was wonderful, as well as seeing the
turbine RV there.
> I do think Van would have a fit if someone was to put one in an RV. I
think he had softened up
> some but he used to be very anti alternative engines. That is a lot of
beans for something designed
> to run on 200HP.
>
> Al Latham
I agree with Dick "softening" a bit, but not sure how far it will go.
Thank goodness for innovators willing to experiment with various power
plants.
Obviously, the verdict is still out on an ideal powerplant, but as most of
us realize,
it is not one of the Lycosaurus series.
For those diehards: "None are so blind, that they will not see!"
Archie
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|