RE: Light-Sport Aircraft Yahoo group Can anyone read German

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. 

 

From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of b d
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:51 PM
To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
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@funaerosports.com> 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.

 

From: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of b d
Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:14 AM

To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com
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@verizon.net> 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@wetaero.com> wrote:

 

http://www.n2turbines.com/

 

 

Chip W. Erwin

chip@wetaero.com

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".

 

 

 

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___