Return-Path: Sender: (Marvin Kaye) To: lml Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 10:06:33 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from fire.phys.cmu.edu ([128.2.26.129] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.0b6) with ESMTP id 1680491 for lml@lancaironline.net; Thu, 01 Aug 2002 23:56:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (jbp@localhost) by fire.phys.cmu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g723u9d18732 for ; Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:56:09 -0400 X-Original-Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2002 23:56:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jeffery Peterson X-Original-To: lancair mail list Subject: turbine power. X-Original-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Lorn Olsen: >If what I guess is correct, the fuel burn will be between 21 and 25 GPH at 250BHp. -ATP web site (http://atpcoinc.com) shows 16.6 GPH at 240 HP but they dont describe the test conditions. Gary Casey: >6. Generally the power rating of a turbo-prop is in shaft horsepower. There is significant power available in the way of exhaust thrust, so this is an good way to get the effect brake specific down. ATP says that the 200-hp engine can have an exhaust thrust of 100 pounds. Sounds a little high to me, but with a good exhaust design one can get a few more horsepower out of the engine. I think 50 pounds would be more realistic. -what is 50 lbs converted to HP (roughly)? if i understand this should be added to the SHP when comparing engines. I already have an engine so i wont go for the ATP turbine right now. but i may expand fuel capacity so i could try it later. It will be interesting to see if their claims hold up. -Jeff