Give a Rotax 912 over any rotary of the same power at present time any day. Thank You.
Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> We wouldn't know because we're too busy producing and selling the same old
> thumpers. Glad the airlines doesn't see it that way or we would still be
> flying the old DC-6's and 7's and Superconnies.
>
> You're comparing a Rotax with a Continental not a developed Rotary or
> Turbine. And if we threw our resources at a small round engine as we have at
> electronics, space flight, computers, we no doubt would be further ahead
> with a small lightweight economical power unit for cars, planes, motorcycles
> and every thing in that range . . . but we didn't because there is too much
> profit being made on our inefficiency. Example: Does the oil company want to
> us to buy less fuel or buy more fuel? Well you know the answer to that. So
> it's not to their advantage to make our habits more efficient and economical
> no matter what they say. They are in the business of selling fuel no saving
> it. The airlines on the otherhand is in the business of saving fuel and
> getting better profits.
>
> Anyway have a Merry Christmas, we'll take it up again next year. LOL
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 8:53 PM, apollonorthamerica <
> apollonorthamerica@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > wow Bruce. You are on a roll. I think we use those piston engine because
> > the things that are supposed to go round and round (rotary??) do not keep
> > going round and round reliably for 2000 hours easily using less fuel.
> >
> > 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 <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.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<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".
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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