Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 12:04 AM - Re: Ref: Mystic River (James R. Cunningham)
2. 09:16 AM - Re: Ref: Mystic River (Leo J. Corbalis)
3. 10:34 AM - Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
4. 11:05 AM - Re: Alternate Engines (AI Nut)
5. 11:23 AM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
6. 11:25 AM - Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 01/05/04 (Speedy11@aol.com)
7. 11:27 AM - Re: Alternate Engines ()
8. 11:54 AM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
9. 12:20 PM - Re: Mystic River (Edward Chmielewski)
10. 12:45 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Royce Wise)
11. 12:48 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Royce Wise)
12. 01:00 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
13. 01:02 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
14. 01:34 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
15. 01:35 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Royce Wise)
16. 01:53 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Healy, Joseph)
17. 04:45 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (John Joyce)
18. 08:25 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (Tracy Crook)
19. 09:02 PM - Re: Alternate Engines (sportpilot)
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: Ref: Mystic River |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
This one is at 54M, Wolf River Airport located about 5 miles east of
Collierville, Tennessee and about 1 mile west of Rossville, Tennessee
(about 25 miles east of the Mississippi River at Memphis).
All the best,
JimC
John Joyce wrote:
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
>
> Jim Cunningham:
> Would love to see a Piet. I have the plans and a few pictures from the net
> but have yet to see one up close and personal. I live north of Boston and
> would be happy to drive anywhere in New England.
>
> Thanks
> John Joyce
> North Reading, MA 01864
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James R. Cunningham" <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ref: Mystic River
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "James R. Cunningham"
> <jrccea@bellsouth.net>
> >
> > John, I've got a couple of buddies in the hanger next to me who bought a
> > Pietenpol last month. Do you want me to put them in touch with you?
> > All the best,
> > JimC
> >
> > John Joyce wrote:
> >
> > > I signed on to the Matronix lists to learn about engines and Pietenpol
> > > aircraft
> >
> >
>
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: Ref: Mystic River |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Leo J. Corbalis" <leocorbalis@sbcglobal.net>
Let's not get our knickers all knotted up.
Leo Corbalis
Maj. USAF Ret.
do not archive
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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
100hp that had a belt drive system.
Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
advantages.
Any thoughts?
Joe, N64CB
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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive a
prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive a
turbocharger.
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
> single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
>
> I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
> 100hp that had a belt drive system.
>
> Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
> use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
> connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
> take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
> props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
> course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
> advantages.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Joe, N64CB
>
>
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 |
|
| Subject: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Does anyone have access to a rotary engine E-P diagram that could
quantify how much energy is in the exhaust stream at cruise RPM?
How dramatic are the effects of back pressure on a rotary?
Joe
IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive a
prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive a
turbocharger.
AI Nut
-
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: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 01/05/04 |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
In a message dated 1/6/04 2:57:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
<< From: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ref: Mystic River
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
George:
I signed on to the Matronix lists to learn about engines and Pietenpol
aircraft so why do you forward Ms Neff's saber rattling tirade to the group.
She appears too angry to be rational. I consider your email insulting. I
spent 4 tours in Vietnam in the 60's as a combat airlift pilot. Since then I
have learned that the people most vocal about supporting combat have never
been shot at. I don't believe they'd have the balls to volunteer like I did.
If you gave Ms Neff and her ilk an M16 and dropped them into a fire fight in
Iraq they would immediately change from hawk to dove and head for the hills.
I'd appreciate it if you stuck to aviation related subjects in the future.
Thanks
John >>
John,
I, for one, am glad that George posted Neff's notice. I agree that we should
not support extremist actors. One needn't have been shot at to support the
president or the military. Many of us spent time in the military, and were
shot at, however that alone does not qualify us as the only Americans who can
speak about war making. My years of flying F-16s does not make me any more
qualified to speak in favor of or against war - it simply gives me and all
Americans the freedom to do so. I welcome Ms Neff's remarks and I abhor yours.
I can't imagine why you would want to build a Pietenpol, but I hope you enjoy
it.
Stan Sutterfield
Tampa, FL
Message 7
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: <klwerner@comcast.net>
In WW-II they used exhaust gas turbines to feed some power back into the crankshaft
of the BIG radials. They were correctly called "Power Recovery Turbines".
Functional, but not very practical on small volume engines (. . . otherwise
Detroit would have made use of this technology, like they did with Turbo- & Super
Charger's!)
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: AI Nut
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive a
prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive a
turbocharger.
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
> single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
>
> I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
> 100hp that had a belt drive system.
>
> Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
> use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
> connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
> take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
> props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
> course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
> advantages.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Joe, N64CB
>
>
Message 8
| 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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
That's a good point and verifies that this idea is not entirely new.
I recall a Russian single seat piston fighter with a V12 engine that had
a recovery turbine. The technology didn't proceed beyond prototype
because in (cost is no object) fighter plane game the pure jet far
outperformed the hybrid. However, in the civilian low altitude arena,
the recovery turbine may deserve another look. Especially when paired
with a rotary (i.e. Mazda 13B) engine. They hadn't perfected the rotary
engine for aircraft use in WWII.
Note that Detroit has a lot of other design considerations that don't
apply to aircraft. Plus, they don't do anything the market doesn't
dictate. Auto racing has very different considerations when it comes to
acceleration and engine longevity. I hesitate to jump on their wagon
when it comes to aviation design innovations.
Nowadays I read a lot of interest in the rotary 13B engine for
experimental aircraft. It occurred to me that recovering the wasted
energy of these engines for shaft power (not just intake boost) is worth
looking into.
Joe
In WW-II they used exhaust gas turbines to feed some power back into the
crankshaft of the BIG radials. They were correctly called "Power
Recovery Turbines". Functional, but not very practical on small volume
engines (. . . otherwise Detroit would have made use of this technology,
like they did with Turbo- & Super Charger's!)
Konrad
Message 9
| 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: Mystic River |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Edward Chmielewski" <edchmiel@mindspring.com>
Engine listers,
I, too, have signed on to this list for its relevant info, which at the time
I thought
was not in any way related to politics and government affairs. There are enough
other web
sites for that, we don't need this one cluttered up with non-List trivia. Please,
engine-list related only.
Do not archive.
Ed in JXN
----- Original Message -----
From: <Speedy11@aol.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Re: Engines-List Digest: 7 Msgs - 01/05/04
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Speedy11@aol.com
>
> In a message dated 1/6/04 2:57:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> engines-list-digest@matronics.com writes:
>
> << From: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Ref: Mystic River
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
>
> George:
> I signed on to the Matronix lists to learn about engines and Pietenpol
> aircraft so why do you forward Ms Neff's saber rattling tirade to the group.
> She appears too angry to be rational. I consider your email insulting. I
> spent 4 tours in Vietnam in the 60's as a combat airlift pilot. Since then I
> have learned that the people most vocal about supporting combat have never
> been shot at. I don't believe they'd have the balls to volunteer like I did.
> If you gave Ms Neff and her ilk an M16 and dropped them into a fire fight in
> Iraq they would immediately change from hawk to dove and head for the hills.
> I'd appreciate it if you stuck to aviation related subjects in the future.
> Thanks
>
> John >>
>
> John,
> I, for one, am glad that George posted Neff's notice. I agree that we should
> not support extremist actors. One needn't have been shot at to support the
> president or the military. Many of us spent time in the military, and were
> shot at, however that alone does not qualify us as the only Americans who can
> speak about war making. My years of flying F-16s does not make me any more
> qualified to speak in favor of or against war - it simply gives me and all
> Americans the freedom to do so. I welcome Ms Neff's remarks and I abhor yours.
> I can't imagine why you would want to build a Pietenpol, but I hope you enjoy
> it.
> Stan Sutterfield
> Tampa, FL
>
>
Message 10
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
"Healy, Joseph" wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
> single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
>
> I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
> 100hp that had a belt drive system.
>
> Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
> use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
> connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
> take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
> props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
> course much worse on a rotary engine).
What do you mean "(which are of
course much worse on a rotary engine). "?
Royce
> Obvious centerline thrust
> advantages.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Joe, N64CB
>
Message 11
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
"Healy, Joseph" wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone have access to a rotary engine E-P diagram that could
> quantify how much energy is in the exhaust stream at cruise RPM?
> How dramatic are the effects of back pressure on a rotary?
>
> Joe
Joe, follow this link for rotary information.
Royce
>
>
> IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive a
> prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive a
> turbocharger.
>
> AI Nut
>
> -
>
Message 12
| 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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
There is more energy remaining in the rotary engine exhaust than in a
comparable displacement piston engine. Therefore there is more
opportunity to recover energy from the exhaust of a rotary than for a
piston engine.
Joe
What do you mean "(which are of
course much worse on a rotary engine). "?
Royce
Message 13
| 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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Royce, what link?
Joe
-----Original Message-----
From: Royce Wise [mailto:royce@wayxcable.com]
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
"Healy, Joseph" wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone have access to a rotary engine E-P diagram that could
> quantify how much energy is in the exhaust stream at cruise RPM? How
> dramatic are the effects of back pressure on a rotary?
>
> Joe
Joe, follow this link for rotary information.
Royce
Message 14
| 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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Hey guys,
A web search turns up this idea all over the place.
Lockheed Constellation had turbo compound engines with 0.38 lbs/hr brake
specific fuel consumption (BSFC), an improvement from the typical 0.52
lbs/hr. It turns out that Volvo and others had turbochargers in series
with power recovery turbines for cars. The PRT was connected to the
drive train through a torque converter.
An even more "way out there" concept called a "Giesel" uses a PRT on a 2
stroke diesel drive train and a turbo charger for boost. Then they take
it to the next level and add a combustor to the turbo
charger/compressor. In other words, they have a jet engine for a turbo
charger on a diesel engine with a power recovery turbine. This is now
being applied to light armored vehicles. This provides a loiter mode and
a dash mode without a weight penalty. Kind of like what you would need
in an airplane.
Joe
In WW-II they used exhaust gas turbines to feed some power back into the
crankshaft of the BIG radials. They were correctly called "Power
Recovery Turbines". Functional, but not very practical on small volume
engines (. . . otherwise Detroit would have made use of this technology,
like they did with Turbo- & Super Charger's!)
Konrad
----- Original Message -----
From: AI Nut
To: engines-list@matronics.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
--> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive
a
prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive
a
turbocharger.
AI Nut
----- Original Message -----
From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph"
<WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian
WWII
> single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
>
> I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine
about
> 100hp that had a belt drive system.
>
> Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That
is,
> use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that
is
> connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This
would
> take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter
rotating
> props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are
of
> course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
> advantages.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Joe, N64CB
>
>
==
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
==
==
==
Message 15
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
"Healy, Joseph" wrote:
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Royce, what link?
>
> Joe
Would help to include it wouldn't it? :-)
Here Try this
Royce
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Royce Wise [mailto:royce@wayxcable.com]
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: Royce Wise <royce@wayxcable.com>
>
> "Healy, Joseph" wrote:
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
> >
> > Does anyone have access to a rotary engine E-P diagram that could
> > quantify how much energy is in the exhaust stream at cruise RPM? How
> > dramatic are the effects of back pressure on a rotary?
> >
> > Joe
>
> Joe, follow this link for rotary information.
> Royce
>
Message 16
| 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: | Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Royce, your killing me.
Your link doesn't make it over the firewall. Can you spell it out
differently?
Joe
Would help to include it wouldn't it? :-)
Here Try this
Royce
Message 17
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "John Joyce" <jayejay@comcast.net>
Guys:
If memory serves, the AF used extensively a turbo compound engine, the
R3350, with an engine driven blower or pump up front and a PRT in the back.
Supposedly it cranked as much power as the much larger (no PRT) R4360.
John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
Subject: RE: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Hey guys,
>
> A web search turns up this idea all over the place.
>
> Lockheed Constellation had turbo compound engines with 0.38 lbs/hr brake
> specific fuel consumption (BSFC), an improvement from the typical 0.52
> lbs/hr. It turns out that Volvo and others had turbochargers in series
> with power recovery turbines for cars. The PRT was connected to the
> drive train through a torque converter.
>
> An even more "way out there" concept called a "Giesel" uses a PRT on a 2
> stroke diesel drive train and a turbo charger for boost. Then they take
> it to the next level and add a combustor to the turbo
> charger/compressor. In other words, they have a jet engine for a turbo
> charger on a diesel engine with a power recovery turbine. This is now
> being applied to light armored vehicles. This provides a loiter mode and
> a dash mode without a weight penalty. Kind of like what you would need
> in an airplane.
>
> Joe
>
> In WW-II they used exhaust gas turbines to feed some power back into the
> crankshaft of the BIG radials. They were correctly called "Power
> Recovery Turbines". Functional, but not very practical on small volume
> engines (. . . otherwise Detroit would have made use of this technology,
> like they did with Turbo- & Super Charger's!)
>
> Konrad
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: AI Nut
> To: engines-list@matronics.com
> Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2004 12:06 PM
> Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "AI Nut" <ainut@earthlink.net>
>
> IMO, there isn't enough energy in the exhaust gases to directly drive
> a
> prop. You'd be much more efficient using that wasted energy to drive
> a
> turbocharger.
>
> AI Nut
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@brplusa.com>
> To: <engines-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
>
>
> > --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph"
> <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
> >
> > Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian
> WWII
> > single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> > exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
> >
> > I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine
> about
> > 100hp that had a belt drive system.
> >
> > Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That
> is,
> > use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that
> is
> > connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This
> would
> > take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter
> rotating
> > props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are
> of
> > course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
> > advantages.
> >
> > Any thoughts?
> >
> > Joe, N64CB
> >
> >
>
>
> ==
> direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> ==
> ==
> ==
>
>
Message 18
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
--> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
100hp that had a belt drive system.
Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
advantages.
Any thoughts?
Joe, N64CB
The "much worse" on the rotary engine is greatly exaggerated. It amounts to perhaps
5% difference. The exhaust turbine recovery is an old idea which was used
on the old 3340 (?) radials used on the Constellations (Connie). They were
a maintenance nightmare then and I suspect they would be now. In practical terms,
it would never pay for itself even though it does offer some increase in
efficiency.
The 5% disadvantage is now gone on the new Renesis rotary engine used in the RX-8.
Exhaust temp is now same as on piston engines. Was 150 - 200 F higher on
the 1971 - 1997 rotary engines.
Tracy Crook
Message 19
| 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: Alternate Engines |
--> Engines-List message posted by: "sportpilot" <sportpilot@moneypit.com>
what is the difference between a 0235 lycoming and a 290 ? any info would
help alot..
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Engines-List: Alternate Engines
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Tracy Crook" <lors01@msn.com>
>
>
> --> Engines-List message posted by: "Healy, Joseph" <WJH@BRPLUSA.COM>
>
> Does anyone remember, in the beginning of jet propulsion, a Russian WWII
> single seat piston prop fighter plane that used a turbine to recover
> exhaust stream energy and help drive the prop?
>
> I also recall at Sun-n-Fun an experimental turboprop jet engine about
> 100hp that had a belt drive system.
>
> Anyway, put the two concepts together using a rotary engine. That is,
> use the exhaust gasses from the wankel engine to run a turbine that is
> connected to a concentric counter rotating propeller shaft. This would
> take advantage of the increased prop efficiency of the counter rotating
> props and make use of the otherwise wasted exhaust gasses (which are of
> course much worse on a rotary engine). Obvious centerline thrust
> advantages.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Joe, N64CB
>
> The "much worse" on the rotary engine is greatly exaggerated. It amounts
to perhaps 5% difference. The exhaust turbine recovery is an old idea which
was used on the old 3340 (?) radials used on the Constellations (Connie).
They were a maintenance nightmare then and I suspect they would be now. In
practical terms, it would never pay for itself even though it does offer
some increase in efficiency.
> The 5% disadvantage is now gone on the new Renesis rotary engine used in
the RX-8. Exhaust temp is now same as on piston engines. Was 150 - 200 F
higher on the 1971 - 1997 rotary engines.
> Tracy Crook
>
>
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! --
|