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

Bruce,
You may be interested in this as you like things going round and round :). This one does it with H2O2 and tip jets. I met the inventor of the technology at Oshkosh. They are I believe somewhere in Arizona. My interest was because it is much better for the environment than other fuels besides the obvious "cool" factor of tip jets.
http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/17/dragonfly-jet-powered-helicopter-runs-on-h2o2-shuns-traditional/
Abid
http://www.evolutiontrikes.com


--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "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
>
> --- 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:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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 <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]
> > > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 9:51 PM
> > > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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 <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]
> > > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 10:14 AM
> > > >
> > > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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 <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>[mailto:
> > > Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>]
> > > > On Behalf Of b d
> > > > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2010 12:57 AM
> > > >
> > > > To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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

__,_._,___