Mailing List lml@lancaironline.net Message #62674
From: Mark Ravinski <mjrav@comcast.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Subject: Re: [LML] Re: New Turbine Engine
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 11:22:08 -0400
To: <lml@lancaironline.net>
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
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 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


Subscribe (FEED) Subscribe (DIGEST) Subscribe (INDEX) Unsubscribe Mail to Listmaster