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
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> 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 TMconfiguration 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: 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:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.n2turbines.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Chip W. Erwin
> >>
> >> chip@...
> >>
> >> 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".
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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