I'd sure like to see a 180hp Rotax in the works as a C172 swap out for my O300. That's on my Christmas list!
Helen
On 12/24/2010 12:27 AM, b d wrote:
We wouldn't know because we're too busy producing and selling the same old thumpers. Glad the airlines doesn't see it that way or we would still be flying the old DC-6's and 7's and Superconnies.You're comparing a Rotax with a Continental not a developed Rotary or Turbine. And if we threw our resources at a small round engine as we have at electronics, space flight, computers, we no doubt would be further ahead with a small lightweight economical power unit for cars, planes, motorcycles and every thing in that range . . . but we didn't because there is too much profit being made on our inefficiency. Example: Does the oil company want to us to buy less fuel or buy more fuel? Well you know the answer to that. So it's not to their advantage to make our habits more efficient and economical no matter what they say. They are in the business of selling fuel no saving it. The airlines on the otherhand is in the business of saving fuel and getting better profits.Anyway have a Merry Christmas, we'll take it up again next year. LOLBruce
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:53 PM, apollonorthamerica <apollonorthamerica@yahoo.com> wrote:
wow Bruce. You are on a roll. I think we use those piston engine because the things that are supposed to go round and round (rotary??) do not keep going round and round reliably for 2000 hours easily using less fuel.
Why use Rotax 912ULS versus Continental ... well no one has to but if someone does perhaps it is for the following reasons
1) 20% less fuel burn as a worst case
2) Much lighter engine
3) Same TBO except it generally does not need a top end overhaul at 1200 hours like Conti model does.
Abid> No offfense Helen but why would I want to convert to a rotax? They are still> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@...>wrote:
> an obsolete piston slapping recip engine. No sense in upgrading until there
> is something worthy of upgrading to. Like something that goes *"around AND
> around"*, Not *"up AND down"* or *"in AND out"*. I'm sorry but reciprocating
> engines are just a step away in the evolutionary chain from the caveman
> inventing the hammer. We still have them in GA only because the big guys are
> trying to milk the last ouce of profit from the tooling and production, not
> to mention the money they make on parts and labor. they look at it like *"if
> it ain't broke, don't fix it"* . . said another way, *"if we are getting
> rich on it, don't change it"* or another way, *"if no one is complaining or
> knows the difference, keep selling them the same old obsolete technology" *
>
> Bruce
>
> > 90 degrees to the axis of the Power Turbine. This unique Sidewinder TMconfiguration gives us a more efficient transfer of power between the GP
>
> >
> >
> > I've heard of European and possibly Canadian Rotax conversions for C150s.
> > You'd need to get an STC here in the states.
> >
> > Helen
> >
> >
> > On 12/23/2010 11:27 AM, b d wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Chip,
> >
> > I like this and it sounds very promising. I have a Cessna 150A with a near
> > perfect airframe and a hightime O-200 engine. It would be a perfect
> > candidate for a retro fit using something like this engine if it wasn't for
> > all the old rules and regulations that make it almost impossible. We don't
> > really have to build all new aircraft in this country, just upgrade the ones
> > that we have. One great candidate is the Cessna 175. It came with a GO-300
> > and that has a lycoming conversion to a 180hp with a CS prop. It makes a
> > great aircraft, I've owned 2 myself. They are really great with a STOL kit
> > on them.
> >
> > Does anyone know or has heard of anyone doing a one time conversion to a
> > certified aircraft even if the aircraft is placed in the experimental
> > category? I hear it's very complicated to impossible. Rules rules rules . .
> > .that's what kills American innovation rather than wages.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Welcome to N2 Turbines Inc. Our company is proud to announce our new
> > division specializing in the design, development and manufacturing of a
> > light-weight micro turboprop engine, (MTE) for the experimental fixed- wing
> > and rotorcraft markets. Our market research indicates that there is a strong
> > demand for an MTE power-plant that can deliver between 100-130 Shaft Horse
> > Power, (SHP), to accommodate the emerging new generation of light aircraft
> > designs. As the "N2 Turbines" name suggests, our goal from the beginning
> > is to provide a Turboprop engine with a Free Turbine (Split-Shaft) design.
> > This means that there is no connection between the gas producer (GP) and
> > power turbine (PT) reduction drive.
> >
> > We have selected an innovative design, that places the Gas Producer outlet
> > (Gas Producer) and PT (Free Turbine). This approach gives us a ground
> > operation mode that is easy to control, roughly (30-40% N2 at ground idle)
> > with a low fuel burn of 1.2 to 2.2 gals per hour as well as a
> > wide-power-range of in-flight cruise throttle settings without the need for
> > an expensive and complicated prop control system.
> >
> > Our initial discussion with airframe manufactures indicates that
> > approximately 30% of the builders and pilots would favor selecting an MTE if
> > offered as a FWF option. Our task would be to develop with the airframe
> > manufactures support, a Fire-Wall-Forward (FWF) package specifically for
> > those Tractor, Pusher and Rotorcraft applications.
> >
> > Why build a dedicated split shaft Turboprop?
> >
> > In the past few years, we have seen a proliferation in the Experimental
> > Aircraft kit market, with airframe designs based on the availability of
> > 80-100 Shaft Horsepower, (SHP) engines. In a majority of instances, these
> > new and old designs have worked somewhat well with the existing legacy type
> > reciprocating engines.
> >
> > Over these past few years, it has also become apparent to us through our
> > own experiences and others, that aircraft in the pusher configuration have
> > a disparity between their tractor pulling counterparts. Primarily, the
> > limiting factor with these types of engines is due to cooling issues
> > inherent in the pusher configuration, installation weights, and/or available
> > horsepower,
> >
> > Some of the characteristics of the engine are as follows:
> >
> > Minimum 100 Shaft HP
> > Split Shaft - "Free Turbine" design
> > Ground idle of 40% Ngp
> > Maximum prop speed of 3300 rpm
> >
> > ECU Controlled
> >
> > In cruise flight mode, the ECU senses and monitors three key components: N
> > gp, Npt and EGT.
> >
> > Together these (3) three inputs allow for operation at 100% Npt with
> > maximum efficiency setting of the prop for exceptional high altitude
> > performance. The engine retains 60% of its horse power at altitude.
> >
> > Terms Used:
> > Ngp denotes the Rotational Speed of the Gas Producer
> > Npt denotes Rotational Speed Power Turbine
> > EGT stands for Exhaust Gas Temperature
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Chip W. Erwin <chip@...> wrote:> >> chip@...
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.n2turbines.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chip W. Erwin
> >>
> >>
> >> Skype: chiperwin
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> >> Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *b d
> >> *Sent:* Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:57 AM
> >>
> >> *To:* Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> >> *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read German
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Here we go again and I don't mean to be critical but everything you
> >> mentioned is thinking through someone elses mind. Poohing on Allison and P&W
> >> and GE and the big boys. It can be done and it can be done by a homegrown
> >> machine shop. It can't if we don't change our mindset and quit waiting for
> >> them to solve our needs. Cessna, Allison, P&W. Rolls Royce, GE are
> >> profitteers. They could care less about us.
> >>
> >> The idea that Turbines don't comply to LSA's? That's a mans rule not a
> >> natural rule. The cri cri uses turbines, works and flys. So change the rules
> >> rather than accept them or fly around them as I do. ( Ieven fly through an
> >> occassional cloud but don't tell anyone because it's "against the rules".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
No comments:
Post a Comment