X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:58:42 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com ([65.55.116.103] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5677727 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:34:29 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=65.55.116.103; envelope-from=gt_phantom@hotmail.com Received: from BLU151-W40 ([65.55.116.74]) by blu0-omc3-s28.blu0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 25 Jul 2012 11:33:53 -0700 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: gt_phantom@hotmail.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_422df079-92d6-4427-b44e-1134b40f9cea_" X-Originating-IP: [66.6.147.80] From: GT PHANTOM X-Original-To: Subject: Re: New Turbine Engine X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 14:33:53 -0400 Importance: Normal MIME-Version: 1.0 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 25 Jul 2012 18:33:53.0364 (UTC) FILETIME=[0ADE0940:01CD6A94] --_422df079-92d6-4427-b44e-1134b40f9cea_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Despite my earlier criticisms=2C I can imagine a niche where this engine mi= ght (and I emphasize might) shine. Looking at the twin engine Velocity rolled out at this years' air show=2C i= magining two of these tiny engines with appropriate tin nacelles=3B and fur= ther imagining said Velocity pressurized for 10=2C000' cabin altitude at 35= =2C000'... Maximum hp available up there from both engines would be around 120hp - eno= ugh for a brisk but not amazing indicated airspeed bus with a 70 knot true = bonus for thinner air @ 2 knotts / 1=2C000' SWAG. Climb would be brisk wit= h 480hp at takeoff=2C so you needn't spend too much time in the "oh my god = were bleeding fuel!" altitudes. With no cooling drag=2C you might see 250 = knots TAS for roughly 16gph - which is not altogether unreasonable for that= speed - and the light weight would help you get up there in a hurry. At 1= 6gph with the tankage in a Velocity you could travel a good long way. Bill = --_422df079-92d6-4427-b44e-1134b40f9cea_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Despite my earlier criticisms=2C I can imagine a niche where this engine mi= ght (and I emphasize might) shine.

Looking at the twin engine Veloci= ty rolled out at this years' air show=2C imagining two of these tiny engine= s with appropriate tin nacelles=3B and further imagining said Velocity pres= surized for 10=2C000' cabin altitude at 35=2C000'...

Maximum hp avai= lable up there from both engines would be around 120hp - enough for a brisk= but not amazing indicated airspeed bus with a 70 knot true bonus for thinn= er air @ 2 knotts / 1=2C000' SWAG. =3B Climb would be brisk with 480hp = at takeoff=2C so you needn't spend too much time in the "oh my god were ble= eding fuel!" altitudes. =3B With no cooling drag=2C you might see 250 k= nots TAS for roughly 16gph - which is not altogether unreasonable for that = speed - and the light weight would help you get up there in a hurry. = =3B At 16gph with the tankage in a Velocity you could travel a good long wa= y.

Bill

= --_422df079-92d6-4427-b44e-1134b40f9cea_--