Conspicuously missing from the diesel specs is the weight of this thing. And what it does to the CG, having it up in the nose. It's a system solution, and every answer has tradeoffs.
I had a Mooney 252, a phenomenally efficient machine optimized for high altitude with a well-executed turbo system, oxygen, dual alternators, dual vacuum pumps. And no payload -- really a 2-person machine with full fuel. Oh yeah, and because it depended on high altitude to get true airspeed, it was great going east with the big tailwinds at FL270, but pathetic going west into those same headwinds.
Somebody mentioned a pressurized Velocity -- great, what would the payload be? The Socata TBM is really a 2-person airplane with full fuel because of the pressure hull weight; and I recall similar numbers for the Cessna 340.
My solution du jour is a normally aspirated 550 in a Legacy. High IAS yields high speed at low altitude, totally simple systems. Tradeoffs: Traversing the Rockies, I have limited options. Also, poor speed stability on IFR approaches because it flies at or below best L/D throughout the approach. Sorta like an MU-2 I guess. Much less forgiving than the Mooney or even the other Lancairs.
On Jul 25, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Frederick Moreno wrote: Have a look at this And these specs: A quick set of calculations show that 400 HP would burn about 21 gph of jet fuel and yield about 322 knots compared to TSIO 550 at 75% that started at 280 knots. Ready to flip out your checkbook?? Fred -------Original Message------- With this kind of engine in the pipeline, 240HP turbines sucking 28-32 gph are going to have a marketing problem. Wolfgang
| |
|