Return-Path: <lancair.list-request@olsusa.com>
Received: from marvkaye.olsusa.com ([205.245.9.116]) by ns1.olsusa.com
          (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-64832U3500L350S0V35)
          with ESMTP id com for <lancair.list@olsusa.com>;
          Mon, 8 Jan 2001 14:34:54 -0500
Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.2.20010108144256.03e59040@olsusa.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:43:43 -0500
To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
From: Marvin Kaye <marvkaye@olsusa.com>
Subject: Turbines in our IV
X-Mailing-List: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com
Mime-Version: 1.0

<x-flowed>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
Posted on behalf of "Lance A. Neibauer" <lancen@lancair.com>:

Folks,

I recently read some comments on turbines that lacked some areas of 
accuracy so here I go again.  Other than always wanting more power, the 
turbines possess worth in other areas as well.  The Walter run-outs from 
fields in outback Russia are indeed a bad idea, almost as bad as the 
chopped off Avia props that usually go with them.  Consequently, I went 
straight to Walter and we've worked out a good program for factory rebuilt 
601E's.  750 hp, .67 SFC's, with good ram recovery up to 400 hp at 25,000 
ft., 2,000 TBO that is very realistic and 8 years (for seals etc.).  Total 
overhauls are about 40,000, maybe less.  So, cutting to the chase  at the 
lower flight levels we typically run 265 hp with the Continental, burning 
around 21 gph since the Cont. doesn't care for lean of peak operations in 
the flight levels.  That comes to about .46 sfc.  The Walter will burn 26 
at that power setting for a .67 sfc., 27% more fuel by gallons.  If the jet 
fuel cost were 27% less then fuel costs would be equal.  (Actually one 
would save considerable fuel dollars operating in Europe, Asia or South 
America - virtually anywhere other than good old USofA.) But, while jet 
fuel is generally less in the USA, it's not that much less so there is 
added fuel cost here but it's really not too bad.  The difference is that 
there will be over 100 hp still available, it will run quieter and 
smoother.  And while I can't complain at all about reliability with the 
Continental, there is little discussion as to the great reliability with a 
good turbine.  By the way, cooling drag drops from significant to nearly 
non-existent and prop efficiency should go up.  The Walters that we've 
selected all come with Auto-start.  Push the button and in 19 seconds, it's 
either sitting there running and ready to go or it has shut itself down 
automatically.  There is also a very nice braking feature available with 
the engine/prop.  Hartzell is now building a custom prop that will be 
similar to that which we ran on the Tigress.

    Having looked seriously at all the possible turbines, this was the only 
one that fit - generally from a cost viewpoint.  While every maker offered 
us a demo engine, literally all others were too expensive.  The Garrett had 
the best sfc's being a direct drive, it's exhaust straight out the back 
would be a serious cabin heater, Allison was too low of hp and the new 
Williams - too light if you can believe that!  I'd need two of them up 
front - hmmm?

Lance


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://www.olsusa.com/Users/Mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
</x-flowed>