Message-ID: <3C24B9BD.8C8CC35E@attbi.com>
Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 10:50:05 -0600
From: Harry League <harryleague@attbi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "lancair.list" <lancair.list@olsusa.com>
Subject: Turbine Issue
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: lancair.list@olsusa.com

          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
          <<  Lancair Builders' Mail List  >>
          <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<--->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>
This is directed at Fred Moreno.

Fred,

You provided a very good perspective on the EngineAir issue.   Thank you
for taking the time to do so.   Of interest in the body of your
response, you touched on the Turbine issue and said the topic is for
another day.

Would you now please be willing to comment this day (or sometime soon)
on the comparative tradeoffs of the Turbine option as well as the real
world performance?   A general overview would be great but if you are
able to, please teach us specifically about the Walter choice that
Lancair has made for us and the real world comparative performances and
ranges of the power plants.

I do not want to color your response but my concern about the Walter
Turbine is that the performance published at Oshkosh seemed to assume
that you could get to your cruising altitude in about 6~10 minutes.
Thereafter, you coast to your destination and make a rapid decent.
Maybe this is possible in Bend but almost anywhere east of the
Mississippi, you are going to be vectored and altituded at ATC's whim
and direction.    For example, at Palwaukee, the SD takes you out of the
area at 3000 feet for about fifty miles or more before you get a chance
to go higher.   Then you are stepped up for the next who knows how long
until maybe 250 miles later you are allowed to get to the requested
altitude.   Or may be not.   This is true for bizjets or props; it does
not matter.   Coming back is the same but in reverse.   My understanding
is that the same is true for all the other airports under the Class B
cake.   The important and true issue here, of course: is the Turbine a
real choice for a travel-anywhere vehicle or is it a limited choice for
a special purpose vehicle i.e. going fast over short distances?  Is
there a better Turbine that would do the job and make a more suitable
transportation vehicle?

Please understand that I am favorably disposed to an engine whose parts
all turn in the same direction thereby eliminating the pounding of
normal IC engines.   Also, I like the idea of using a politically
correct fuel since ultimately the socialists will outlaw 100LL, as well
as the better speed, the smoothness and the quiet, and the history of
the engine going to a longer TBO.   I just want to know if it is a real
world viable choice.

Thanks for the help.   I always like hearing your well reasoned
thoughts.

Harry League

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LML website:   http://members.olsusa.com/mkaye/maillist.html
LML Builders' Bookstore:   http://www.buildersbooks.com/lancair
Please remember that purchases from the Builders' Bookstore
assist with the management of the LML.

Please send your photos and drawings to marvkaye@olsusa.com.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>