Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "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.
>
> 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@...> 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@...>
> 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
>
> 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