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

You may have better information than I do but Mazda has been running rotary engines for years at sea level with no appreciable fuel issues. I don't know what kind of mileage they get as far as automotive MPG but I know they use the same engine converted for aviation in experimental aircraft.

 

Small rotary engines are used on motor gliders too. Anyone know anything about them?

 

If that can be done, then smaller units can surely be produced in the 25 to 50 hp range.

 

The cri cri is seen with two tiny jet engines on it however I've never seen the data on it. Anyone know anything about it?

 

As noticed I talk about jet engines and rotary's in the same conversation because they all go around and around rather than up and down and all over the place like recips do.

 

 

On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:08 AM, James Ferris <mijniljj@yahoo.com> wrote:

 

They aill eat you up on fuel at low alitude, tou need to be at at least 30, 000 feet.

---

Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 6:43:57 PM

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

 

Aren't cruise missiles powered by small turbine engines? Perhaps one of those would be a good fit for a small aircraft?

 

----- Original Message -----

From: l_morrison61

To: Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 6:08 PM

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

 

Not that many years back. Allison Aircraft Engines, now Rolls Royce, built a small turbine that produced about 150 HP and weighed in at around 70 Lbs. It was installed in some "experimental" vehicles and they were driven by company personel. That same engine is stil in production and is used by the military.

--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, b d <gpabruce@...> wrote:
>
> HI Rick and thank you,
>
> What I was originally browsing for was this, and I know I'm asking for a
> firestorm from this but here goes:
>
> The direction for all aviation and man kind is in simple efficient power
> units that can convert "something" (some form of energy) into motion in the
> most simple and effective manner. Many times man loses sight of this and
> gets hung up on a "step" in that process like he has with the reciprocating
> engine. The recip is an antiquated, obsolete design that the American
> Industry cannot seem to grow beyond. This is the downfall of American big
> industry. When they make money on ABC, they refuse to move on to BCD and CDE
> until they have exhausted all the resources and profits from ABC and
> squeezed every drop of profits out of it. The Oil cartel (industry) is a
> prime example. The Auto Cartels are another and so on.
>
> To date we find some great power technologies in large airlines, in large
> ships, trains and heavy equipment and also down in the mini, micro and nano
> technology. Just model aircraft are far more advanced than General Aviation.
> General Aviation could be affordable but the people who control it have the
> old mentality of "bend over a dollar to pick up a dime". Homebuilders and
> experimentalist should not get hung up with GA and their direction. We as
> experimental home builders should always be searching for new and better
> ways to get the job done. Rotax is not it, it's only another more expensive
> version of the same old obsolete technology, pistons flopping every which
> way trying to extract energy from fossil fuel, trying to please the fossil
> fuel people while converting it to motion . . . . It's plum silly even to an
> old bastard like me! I came from the old radial engine and steam engine
> days. They were quite the thing then and still are (for museums) but they
> are no longer efficient, effective, or practical and we (our young brillient
> children) should be looking beyond that technology, hense my browsing to see
> if anyone in the business is producing a turbine or rotary power unit,
> something where the parts turn a continuous direction rather than the old
> "design to self destruct mentality" of the past. I'm waiting for that
> lightweight power unit in he 50 to 250 hp category that has been overlooked
> for centuries (a huge auto and aviation market by the way). I can buy one
> off the shelf for a model airplane and I can buy one off the shelf for a
> huge airliner but I cannot buy one off the shelf for a LSA. So my question
> is, "what's wrong with this picture"?
>
> That's only part of the subject but enough for now. Okay, everyone on the
> list go ahead and hit me now . . . LOL
>
> Bruce
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Rick <lightflyer@...> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com <Sport_Aircraft%40yahoogroups.com>,
> > b d <gpabruce@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thank you, I must have missed it. For those who have a wider experience
> > with
> > > this size, weight and power of engine, how does $5450.00 sound for a
> > price
> > > for that power range? Anyone have any thoughts or experience in this?
> > >
> > >
> > > Bruce
> > >
> >
> > The price seems to be comparable to the well-proven Rotax 503 and 582. But
> > the price isn't the whole story.
> > The race-Kart engine is rated for use in a land-based go-kart and capable
> > of producing max power for short durations and probably NOT going to get you
> > to a TBO that is satisfactory for aircraft use.
> > As an example, the 64 horse Rotax 582 is rated at over 125 horsepower when
> > used in a jet-ski or snowmobile.
> >
> >
> >
>

__._,_.___

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

__,_._,___