Abid,
I appreciate your opinion and I can accept and respect that as your opinion however I also respectfully disagree.
Out of curiousity, why do you say "turbine engines will not be very efficient on LSA"? I don't agree but I'd like to hear why you think that.
My opinion:
We have many examples today of successfull power technology that can be scaled up or down to fit any need. Gas Turbine is only one. We know that the weight to power ratio fits the aviation application. We have working examples of heat recovery and noise elimination that would be conducive to light aviation (for lack of a better term for GA and LSA and UL) and even heavy aviation. If we combined just the knowledge and technology we already have and scaled it to fit the application, I believe we can have a far more advanced power unit than we presently have and many varieties. We have few choices today and that shouldn't be the case.
I can list what we have, or what I know we have. You may know of more.
If we were then to take that list and scale each technology to the size, weight and power that we need for a given aircraft (1, 2, or 4 place aircraft) we would see that we far more choices than are available today.
I won't go into all that right now but I would be happy to explore it with you if you would like. We can do it off line so as not to bore the people on the list. It can be an interesting exercise.
The main thing is to not be negative about anything and to examine everything objectively.
Be back shortly, have to get my grandson.
Bruce
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:44 PM, apollonorthamerica <apollonorthamerica@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Bruce,
I got your point but I will tell you this as well.
Turbine engines will not be very efficient on LSA.
Battery will still store the energy and power electrical motors rotating the prop. That battery may get its re-charge in a hybrid fashion whether it be from an idea of Van De Graf generator or simply plugging it into the grid on the ground or both or more than both.
That will be the next step. That's just my opinion.
Best and Merry Christmas,
Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> Abid,
>
> Thank you, you do get it! You can see a glimmer of change! You can envision
> an electric powered Aeroplane . . excellent! Will it have batteries possibly
> or make it's own electricity or possibly capture some electrostatic
> lightening? Fortunately you're a true visionary after all because it may use
> all of the above but remember you're making my point you're arguing on my
> side of technology. You and I bud, against all of those nay sayers out
> there who say we have reached the pentacle of technology and cannot possibly
> go a step further. They say there are no more steps left. This is as good as
> it can possibly get!
>
> If you're envisioning batteries how will they be charged? Do you realize
> that a large amount of our electrical grid is supported by those round
> things you can't envision propelling your plane? The round things being
> large scale *gas turbine generators*? Those inefficient things that can only
> operate at 30000 ft by the military and commercial aviation? Check em out.
> They actually run on the ground (at sea level and slightly above, and they
> also run at 30,000 ft. Because they run at one place however doesn't mean
> they don't run at the other. Yep they sit there and run day in and day out
> and they could be right behind your house in a power plant near you and
> you'd never hear them or know they are there because they are so efficient.
> No they would not be that efficient on your LSA because they weren't
> designed to be on your LSA. To have an efficient one on your LSA, it would
> need to be "designed" to be on your LSA. Make sense now? I'm so glad you
> brought this up, you are truly my friend and inspiration on this subject of
> round things that go 'round and 'round :-) How do I know this, because they
> are one of the many things on my resume that I get paid big bucks to do and
> to know about . . . one of my many specialities that I *"didn't"* go to
> school to learn about so I have no barriers of blocks in thinking about
> them. I was was not told or taught that I had to have limitations in my
> thinking and we should be so happy that the Wright Brothers didn't have
> those FAA rules, regulations and mental blocks or we would still be on our
> bicycles and not in our LSA's, utralites, E AB's or commercial airliners.
>
> Ok so we generate the electricity on the ground. Electricity is only a
> energy medium. It's not propulsion, it doesn't do work, it provides a means
> to do work. It's the in-between guy. In this case, the gas turbine converts
> chemical energy to mechanical energy (motions) to electrical energy which
> can then be metered and sold and transmitted to the consumer who buys it and
> converts it to doing something . . That guy is you, me, pilots who wish to
> fly like the Wright brothers. Then you, I say you because you can envision
> that electrical conversion taking place in the air but your still a little
> short of envisioning the chemical conversion in the air but that's ok
> because you're coming along. You do agree it can be done with pistons but
> that's it as far as you know. You may have played with a balsa model as a
> child like I did where it has a rubber band we wound up and let it fly? And
> it did fly right? That was mechanical storage and conversion to motion and
> propulsion. Now hold that thought. You are also envisioning and predicting
> that electrical storage and conversion to motion can also be used as
> propulsion. Great we have those dots connected now. You can also see 1 to 38
> or more pistons flopping around going every which way to do the same thing.
> You tie the brand name ROTAX to that rather crude and cumbersome phenomena
> of getting the job done. That's cool, it works too but not very efficiently
> but it works. You most likely use about 4 floppy pistons in an LSA right?
> That's still chemical conversion with a mechanical medium correct. That's
> good but it's old technology, just as the computer floppy disk got old and
> is gone, done, obsolete. Not so in Aviation, we like to run an idea until
> the cows come home. Squeeze every last breath of air (pun intendeded) out of
> it. Aviation and Automotive! That's the history while every other industry
> is growing expanding, learning changing, evolving but not us. We are a head
> strong bunch are we not?
>
> Back to the Electricity idea that you envisioned. Taking the electricity
> from the ground source (the gas turbine generator), stuffing it into a
> battery, loading that battery on an aeroplane of some sort and converting
> that electrical energy from a rotating source on the ground to
> another rotating source in the air, an electric motor would bet, with a
> propeller attached to the shaft. Great idea although when one adds up all
> the pieces from fossil fuel to the rotating prop, it doesn't seem very
> efficient . . . but it is progress.
>
> That is only one way to use an electrical medium to convert to turn the prop
> or motivate the plane. We have fuel cells coming up the tube, we also have
> electrostatic charges that could be used but that's another controversial
> subject we just can't handle right now. That would really piss everyone off
> to get that far away from the "man made phrase LSA"
>
> I see hope that you and others are coming around to see my way with this new
> "rotating mentality" where an object can keep going the same direction and
> not stop in midway, change it's mind, and then go the other way only to stop
> and change it's mind again.
>
> I'm not trying to be a smart ass, (but I am) I'm really trying to have fun
> with this to prove a much larger point. We as Americans, as Humans can do
> anything we want unless we allow someone to limit our thinking with rules
> made of words, made of letters, like the LSA. LSA is a category not a
> limitation. We can always change or redifine a category or a word as we
> learn more. What is a LSA with a turbine engne on it? A category-less
> airplane, that's all. It won't fall out of the sky . . .really.
>
> Have agood sense of humor and thanks again for seeing my way,
>
> Also thanks for tolerating my morbid sense of humor.
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 9:09 AM, apollonorthamerica <
> apollonorthamerica@...> wrote:> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>,
>
> >
> >
> > The future of light aviation will eventually go to electric but its not
> > even close to it yet. I believe it will eventually happen when the battery
> > technology is far enough.
> >
> > Abid
> >
> >> > > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > "Lyle Cox" <LyleCox@> wrote:
> > >
> > > I don't remember bailing out Ford.or Toyota.or Nissan..or Kia..or
> > > Cummings..or Perkins.or.Detroit..or.or..or..
> > >
> > > I'm not convinced the cast iron engine is what took down GM or Chrysler.
> > >
> > > What industry SHOULD we base it on? Maybe we should base the aviation
> > > industry on .....what..the aviation industry???????? Now then, I'll agree
> > > that Continental and Lycoming need to embrace the newer automotive engine
> > > technology use some of the computer controlled processes that we have
> > > enjoyed in our vehicles for many years. There is a company using Subaru
> > > (can't remember their name.from Canada.saw them at Sun N Fun) for
> > > replacements for some of the higher powered motors.such as the 540 in my
> > > cousin's Saratoga. At least Rotax has embraced many of those newer ideas
> > > and produced a reliable engine. Yes, they still rely on the ol "Suck,
> > > Squeeze, Bang, Blow" theory, but it works. Just wondering, has any one
> > > considered the huge amount of centrifugal force being exerted on those
> > > turbines blades when they are spinning? Isn't that what took down that
> > > airliner in Souix City?
> > >
> > > For all of the reasons mentioned, efficiency of fuel, weight limitations,
> > > altitude restrictions, and restrictions by definition, turbines are
> > simply
> > > not a viable power plant for LSA aircraft. Yes, you can use them for
> > > experimental aircraft and many production aircraft, as you have stated,
> > use
> > > them. Aircraft that use turbines are typically high flying and relatively
> > > fast aircraft, neither which fits into the LSA category. You can mount
> > that
> > > P&W on your Airbike, it's just not an LSA anymore, by definition. It has
> > > then become an experimental.
> > >
> > > Preach to the rule makers.
> > >
> > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:51 PM> > > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read German
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > You're absolutely right, they are still using the old cast iron
> > technology
> > > from early 1900's . . . could it be why we had to bail them out? Do we
> > > really want to base anything on the automobile industry? Wouldn't that be
> > > like the blind leading the blind?
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:45 PM, Lyle Cox <LyleCox@> wrote:
> > >
> > > With all the technology you'd think the car makers would have gone from
> > "up
> > > and down" if it is such a bad thing. Notice, they don't use turbines
> > > either.
> > >
> > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:14 AM
> > >> > > From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read German
> > >
> > >
> > > No offfense Helen but why would I want to convert to a rotax? They are
> > still
> > > 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
> > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Helen Woods <Helen_Woods@>
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > 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
> > > 90 degrees to the axis of the Power Turbine. This unique Sidewinder TM
> > > configuration gives us a more efficient transfer of power between the GP
> > > (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:
> > > Ngp, 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
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Error! Filename not specified.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 12:00 AM, Chip W. Erwin <chip@> wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.n2turbines.com/
> > >
> > >
> > > Chip W. Erwin
> > > chip@
> >
> > > Skype: chiperwin
> > >
> > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]> > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>
> > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:57 AM
> > >
> > > 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".
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
__._,_.___
Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment