Light-sport aircraft means an aircraft, other than a helicopter or powered-lift that,
since its original certification, has continued to meet the following:
<snip>
(6) A single, reciprocating engine, if powered.
<trim>
I have yet to locate a reciprocating electric or a reciprocating turbine engine.
Perhaps if you can pass over a link to either of these, then you are discussing an off
{LSA} topic powerplant.
While perhaps fun to discuss, you'd need the FAA to change the rules to allow any non-
reciprocating powerplant to power your LSA.
Snipped from:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?
type=simple;c=ecfr;cc=ecfr;sid=02a0f4784791cccd9581c87f36536a34;idno=14;region=DIV1;q1=
reciprocating;rgn=div8;view=text;node=14%3A1.0.1.1.1.0.1.1
Bill Watson
bill@sportpilot.info
---------- Original Message -----------
From: "barnabywalker" <barnabywalker@gmail.com>
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, 27 Dec 2010 02:23:28 -0000
Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read "Efficiency"
> --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, Gary<garyo@...> wrote:
> >
> > You are certainly welcome to join any number of experimental groups on Yahoo
> > and design/experiment with anything you want. We are here on this group to
> > discuss SLSA type craft and that is the main reason for being here.
> >
> > Some of the latest discusions have been quite interesting but do not have
> > anything to do with our subject matters.
>
> Alternate Power Plants have NOTHING to do with your subject matter???
>
> By your quite touchy reaction, suggesting we go somewhere else to discuss
> subject of power plants, it definitely sounds like "The TRUTH Hurts!
>
> Barnaby
>
> > Name calling, put downs, and long
> > useless discertations are frowned upon as a contribution to this list.
> >
> > As you all have seen, Helen and I have been quite lenient in allowing these
> > threads to continue.
> >
> > Sent via DROID X on Verizon Wireless
> >
> > -----Original message-----
> > From: barnabywalker <barnabywalker@...>
> > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Mon, Dec 27, 2010 00:56:58 GMT+00:00
> > Subject: Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read "Efficiency"
> >
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you have any info on it?
> >
> >
> > My, my, how a thread can take an interesting turn and allow intriguing
> > revelations, if only a Trigger-Happy "moderator" (aka CENSOR) would step out
> > of the way!
> >
> > Perhaps we'll be flying with electric motors after all, with self-contained
> > power.
> >
> > http://www.solarstik.com/stik_vs_gen.php
> >
> > "Solar" in this case is a brand name for Gas turbines, however. Adding very
> > much to the confusion.
> > http://mysolar.cat.com/cda/layout?m=35503&x=7
> >
> > A bit larger than 20 pounds.
> > http://www.generatormart.com/200901232225188538.shtml
> >
> > Still would be interesting to find more details of smaller type on
> > homebuilts.
> >
> > "No quicker way to kill off a group, than with CENSORSHIP"
> > Barnaby
> >
> >
> > > On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 10:01 AM, James Ferris <mijniljj@> wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The John Deere solar turbine used on ground power units to supply
> > > > electric power to airecraft on the ground have been used in small home
> > build
> > > > aircraft (about 100 HP) and weigh about 30 Lb.
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------
> > > > *Subject:* Re: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read
> > > > "Efficiency"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
> > <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > > > b d <gpabruce@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I'll defend my rAbid little "buddy" with this statement comparing
> > > > reciprocating piston engines to gas turbines.
> > > >
> > > > Turbine engines produce a great deal more power for their weight than
> > > > piston engines, but they burn more fuel and are much more expensive to
> > > > manufacture.
> > > >
> > > > Shouldn't take more than a line or two from Bruce to give a specific
> > > > example of a turbine (even his so-called "scaleable" turbine) which
> > gives
> > > > higher horsepower output per pound of fuel burnt than a piston engine.
> > > >
> > > > Bruce will most likely find himself striking out when the question of
> > > > "efficiency" is asked in such a straight-forward manner.
> > > >
> > > > Barnaby
> > > >
> > > > > 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@> 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
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
Sport_Aircraft-digest@yahoogroups.com
Sport_Aircraft-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Sport_Aircraft-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
No comments:
Post a Comment