X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:52:15 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.122] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5676075 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:35:19 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=71.74.56.122; envelope-from=Wolfgang@MiCom.net X-Original-Return-Path: X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=ZuBv2qHG c=1 sm=0 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:17 a=3Zlka_XeuxsA:10 a=wSXIhIJd0C8A:10 a=ttCsPuSJ-FAA:10 a=rTjvlri0AAAA:8 a=V4B05YJgAAAA:8 a=3oc9M9_CAAAA:8 a=Ia-xEzejAAAA:8 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=p6bO1-SzuvRLfAeIitEA:9 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=LkN52tor5OQA:10 a=U8Ie8EnqySEA:10 a=EzXvWhQp4_cA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=G7UChwJxVsu4KPai:21 a=cTBZctx4C1gNyCoq:21 a=MFrsrjVhojgKgfoYhd0A:9 a=_W_S_7VecoQA:10 a=tXsnliwV7b4A:10 a=MHZY6FYWMEQOp7S43i2QIw==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 74.218.201.50 Received: from [74.218.201.50] ([74.218.201.50:1221] helo=lobo) by hrndva-oedge04.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id 21/3E-21135-3D8FE005; Tue, 24 Jul 2012 19:34:43 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <000e01cd69d3$5f017780$6701a8c0@lobo> From: "Wolfgang" X-Original-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine X-Original-Date: Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:34:41 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD69B1.D7AAB830" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD69B1.D7AAB830 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable With this kind of engine in the pipeline, http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh/2012/news/120723cessna-unveils-turbodiesel-18= 2.html 240HP turbines sucking 28-32 gph are going to have a marketing problem. Wolfgang -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- From: Sky2high@aol.com=20 Sender: =20 Subject: Re: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine=20 Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:31:08 -0400=20 To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 =20 Mark, Yes, but more importantly one should consider the designer's = intended range of performance, stress, speed and loading. The turbine = IV is an example of stretching the design parameters way too far (crappy = wing anyway). For example, my airplane could have fun with an excess of = 200 hp but the CG moves too far aft. OK, let's put the fuel forward - = like in a tank forward of the current firewall? Arrrgghhh. It would be great to see someone design a plane where that = engine's power and weight were some of the parameters. Scott In a message dated 7/22/2012 12:00:37 P.M. Central Daylight Time, = mwsletten@gmail.com writes: I think Rob's point is that the Lancair (or other aircraft = designed around recips) isn't the only kind of aircraft this engine = might be used for. A particular installation might prioritize = size/weight of powerplant over weight/cost of fuel. --Mark -------------------------------------------------------------------------= - What's there to disagree with ? At 10 gph more that's 180 lbs more in take off weight for a 3 hour = flight. A piston engine consumes about 0.5 lbs/hp/hr That turbine is just over 0.8 lbs/hp/hr For 200 HP output, that difference is 10 gph . . . so 125lb turbine + extra fuel or 305lbs for a piston and = less fuel cost . . . for the life of the engine. . . . take your pick. Wolfgang ----- Original Message ----- From: rwolf99@aol.com To: lml@lancaironline.net Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:11 PM Subject: Re: New Turbine Engine I have to disagree with Wolfgang on this one, but I do accept his = premise that a 240 HP turbine will consume a lot more fuel than a 240 HP = recip. But the amazing thing is getting 241 HP out of a 125 pound engine. = *That* is impressive! Put it in context - my IO-360 gets 180 HP and weighs 260 pounds. = Marv's engine provides 33% more horsepower and weighs less than half. = We can run every comparison under the sun and argue all day long to no = conclusion -- how much extra fuel weight we need to carry, how much less = engine weight we need, and so forth -- but the bottom line is that this = little engine enables some aircraft designs that just would not be = possible with a recip. - Rob Wolf=20 ------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD69B1.D7AAB830 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
With this kind of engine in the pipeline,
http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh/2012/news/120723cessna-unveil= s-turbodiesel-182.html
240HP turbines sucking 28-32 gph are going to have a marketing=20 problem.
 
Wolfgang
From: Sky2high@aol.com
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net> =
Subject:=20 Re: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 08:31:08 = -0400=20
To: lml@lancaironline.net=20
 
Mark,
 
Yes, but more importantly one should consider the designer's=20 intended range of performance, stress, speed and = loading.  The=20 turbine IV is an example of stretching the design parameters way = too far=20 (crappy wing anyway).  For example, my airplane could have = fun with=20 an excess of 200 hp but the CG moves too far aft.  OK, = let's put=20 the fuel forward - like in a tank forward of the current=20 firewall?   Arrrgghhh.
 
It would be great to see someone design a plane where that = engine's=20 power and weight were some of the parameters.
 
Scott
 
In a message dated 7/22/2012 12:00:37 P.M. Central Daylight = Time,=20 mwsletten@gmail.com writes:

I think Rob's point is that the Lancair (or other = aircraft=20 designed around recips) isn't the only kind of aircraft this = engine might=20 be used for. A particular installation might prioritize = size/weight of=20 powerplant over weight/cost of fuel.

--Mark
What's there to disagree with ?
At 10 gph more that's 180 lbs more in take = off=20 weight for a 3 hour flight.
A piston engine consumes about 0.5=20 lbs/hp/hr
That turbine is just over 0.8 = lbs/hp/hr
For 200 HP output, that difference is 10=20 gph
. . . so 125lb turbine + extra fuel or = 305lbs for a=20 piston and less fuel cost . . . for the life of the = engine.
. . . take your pick.
 
Wolfgang
 
----- Original Message -----
From: rwolf99@aol.com
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 10:11 PM
Subject: Re: New Turbine Engine

I have to disagree with Wolfgang on this one, = but I do=20 accept his premise that a 240 HP turbine will consume a lot more = fuel than=20 a 240 HP recip.
 
But the amazing thing is getting 241 HP out of a 125 pound=20 engine.  *That* is impressive!
 
Put it in context - my IO-360 gets 180 HP and weighs 260=20 pounds.  Marv's engine provides 33% more horsepower and = weighs less=20 than half.  We can run every comparison under the sun and = argue all=20 day long to no conclusion -- how much extra fuel weight we need to = carry,=20 how much less engine weight we need, and so forth -- but the = bottom line=20 is that this little engine enables some aircraft designs that just = would=20 not be possible with a recip.
 
- Rob=20 Wolf
------=_NextPart_000_000B_01CD69B1.D7AAB830--