http://tipjetusa.com/index.html
At Oshkosh he was selling his prototype present there for $90k. Nice guy.
Just thought you may be interested Bruce.
Abid
--- In Sport_Aircraft@yahoogroups.com, "apollonorthamerica" <apollonorthamerica@...> wrote:
>
> 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/
> <http://www.engadget.com/2010/03/17/dragonfly-jet-powered-helicopter-run\
> s-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".
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
------------------------------------
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