X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml@lancaironline.net Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:22:08 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.59.228] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 6.0c1) with ESMTP id 5678208 for lml@lancaironline.net; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:17:53 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=76.96.59.228; envelope-from=mjrav@comcast.net Received: from omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.43]) by qmta15.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id epBu1j0010vyq2s5FpHU7w; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:17:28 +0000 Received: from MarkRavinskiPC ([66.30.31.1]) by omta05.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id epHS1j00A01T6pe3RpHT0e; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 01:17:27 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: <086FF521B3C147A0B936C66909AF981A@MarkRavinskiPC> From: "Mark Ravinski" X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" References: In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine X-Original-Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:17:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002C_01CD6AAA.E06125A0" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 14.0.8089.726 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V14.0.8089.726 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CD6AAA.E06125A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I was thinking that one of these beauties in my 360 would be a lot of = fun. (I fly for fun mostly) Say about 6 lbs per HP. I expect CG issues could be controlled with a long engine mount, = Hartzell up front and everything heavy on the firewall. Is this turbine compensated for altitude? I know that some turbines = intended for helicopters are not and get no better fuel consumption up = high than down low. A turbo Bonanza I got a ride in was like that. - 35 = GPH everywhere. Mark Ravinski 360 1536 hrs From: GT PHANTOM=20 Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:58 PM To: lml@lancaironline.net=20 Subject: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine Despite my earlier criticisms, I can imagine a niche where this engine = might (and I emphasize might) shine. Looking at the twin engine Velocity rolled out at this years' air show, = imagining two of these tiny engines with appropriate tin nacelles; and = further imagining said Velocity pressurized for 10,000' cabin altitude = at 35,000'... Maximum hp available 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 thinner air @ 2 knotts / 1,000' SWAG. Climb would be = brisk with 480hp at takeoff, so you needn't spend too much time in the = "oh my god were bleeding fuel!" altitudes. With no cooling drag, 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 16gph with the tankage in a Velocity you could = travel a good long way. Bill ------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CD6AAA.E06125A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I was thinking that one of these = beauties in my=20 360 would be a lot of fun.
(I fly for fun mostly)   = Say about 6=20 lbs per HP.
I expect CG issues could be = controlled with a=20 long engine mount, Hartzell up front and everything heavy on the=20 firewall.
 
Is this turbine compensated for = altitude?  I=20 know that some turbines intended for helicopters are not and get no = better fuel=20 consumption up high than down low.  A turbo Bonanza I got a ride in = was=20 like that. - 35 GPH everywhere.
 
Mark Ravinski
360  1536 hrs
 

From: GT PHANTOM
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 3:58 PM
Subject: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine

Despite my earlier criticisms, I can imagine a niche = where this=20 engine might (and I emphasize might) shine.

Looking at the twin = engine=20 Velocity rolled out at this years' air show, imagining two of these tiny = engines=20 with appropriate tin nacelles; and further imagining said Velocity = pressurized=20 for 10,000' cabin altitude at 35,000'...

Maximum hp available up = there=20 from both engines would be around 120hp - enough for a brisk but not = amazing=20 indicated airspeed bus with a 70 knot true bonus for thinner air @ 2 = knotts /=20 1,000' SWAG.  Climb would be brisk with 480hp at takeoff, so you = needn't=20 spend too much time in the "oh my god were bleeding fuel!" = altitudes.  With=20 no cooling drag, you might see 250 knots TAS for roughly 16gph - which = is not=20 altogether unreasonable for that speed - and the light weight would help = you get=20 up there in a hurry.  At 16gph with the tankage in a Velocity you = could=20 travel a good long way.

Bill


------=_NextPart_000_002C_01CD6AAA.E06125A0--