Turbines - will Innodyn succeed?

[Montblack]

Saw a story on Innodyn turbines. Are their claims realistic? Will they
succeed?

188 pounds?
7 gallons per 100 hp?

Can they scale this ...DOWN?

Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit? Burning
5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?

Again, can their 165 hp - 255 hp turbines be scaled DOWN to a Rotax 582/912
size?

http://www.innodyn.com/aviation/faq.html

(From Products page)
Innodyn offers a number of Turbines to meet the experimental pilot's needs.
While every model is based on Innodyn's core Turbine design, each is
optimized to provide the strongest performance.

Each Turbine weighs no more than 188 pounds, and is designed for use with
our firewall forward kits. We're confident that our Turbines and firewall
forward kits are right for the vast majority of experimental applications.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions.

Our Turbines are designed for output speeds of 2,000; 2,250; 2,500; 2,750;
3,000; and 3,600 RPM. We recommend the use of 2,750 RPM for fixed-wing
aircraft applications.

Innodyn 165TE
165 Horsepower
Introductory Price: $26,500

Innodyn 185TE
185 Horsepower
Introductory Price: $28,000

Innodyn 205TE
205 Horsepower
Introductory Price: $29,500

Innodyn 255TE
255 Horsepower
Introductory Price: $34,500


Montblack

[Sparkle]

Montblack wrote:

> Saw a story on Innodyn turbines. Are their claims realistic? Will they
> succeed?
>
> 188 pounds?
> 7 gallons per 100 hp?
>
> Can they scale this ...DOWN?
>
> Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit? Burning
> 5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?

They'll all weigh the same, regardless of power output.
Innodyn took the initiative in inventing 188 pound turbines.

[Rich S.]

"Sparkle" > wrote in message
...

>> Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit? Burning
>> 5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?
>
> They'll all weigh the same, regardless of power output.
> Innodyn took the initiative in inventing 188 pound turbines.

The Boeing Model 502 - in the 1950's - weighed 140 lbs. and put out 200 hp.

Oh, wait - you said 188 pounds. I stand corrected. Why would they want such
a heavy engine?

Gawsh, technology has sure come a long way in fifty years.

Rich S.

P.S. The Boeing Model 500 Turbo-jet weighed 85 pounds, developed 150 pounds
of thrust, and was 29" long, 22" in diameter. The extra 55 pounds of the 502
was the gear reduction.

[Anthony W]

Rich S. wrote:
> "Sparkle" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>
>>>Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit? Burning
>>>5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?
>>
>>They'll all weigh the same, regardless of power output.
>>Innodyn took the initiative in inventing 188 pound turbines.
>
>
> The Boeing Model 502 - in the 1950's - weighed 140 lbs. and put out 200 hp.
>
> Oh, wait - you said 188 pounds. I stand corrected. Why would they want such
> a heavy engine?
>
> Gawsh, technology has sure come a long way in fifty years.
>
> Rich S.
>
> P.S. The Boeing Model 500 Turbo-jet weighed 85 pounds, developed 150 pounds
> of thrust, and was 29" long, 22" in diameter. The extra 55 pounds of the 502
> was the gear reduction.

Why aren't more old Boeing engines finding their way into homebuilts? A
140 bound 200HP engine sounds sweet. With a couple of those I could get
serious about my dreams to build an ME262... ;o)

Tony

[[email protected]]

I was trying to figure out the fuel burn on the AMT ( jet models )
engines. As close as I could figure, they burn about 4 gph. And the
thrust was listed in KG and there were other variables related to this
thrust ( air temp, etc. ) but a guy put 2 of them ( poor mans dual
ignition )on his Cri-Cri aircraft and flew at 150 mph. I think they
said he had 35 KG of thrust. Of course, the engines only weigh 5 lbs.
each which is pretty cool.

Neal

Richard Riley wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 23:33:10 -0500, "Montblack"
> > wrote:
>
> :Saw a story on Innodyn turbines. Are their claims realistic? Will they
> :succeed?
> :
> :188 pounds?
>
> Entirely possible.
>
> :7 gallons per 100 hp?
>
> Not without violating the laws of physics. Their compression ratio
> isn't nearly high enough.
>
> ::Can they scale this ...DOWN?
>
> Sure
> :
> :Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit?
>
> Well, that's kind of what it was derived from - the Solar T62-2A 95 hp
> from 50 lb weight.
>
> :Burning
> :5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?
>
> Not a chance. The smaller a turbine, the more fuel it will burn for
> the HP (it's really more complex than that, but that's a good rule of
> thumb). You could easily get a turbine to burn 5 GPH - while
> producing about 20-25 HP.
> :
> :Again, can their 165 hp - 255 hp turbines be scaled DOWN to a Rotax 582/912
> :size?
>
> Sure. As long as you aren't worried about fuel burn.
> :
> :http://www.innodyn.com/aviation/faq.html
> :
> :(From Products page)
> :Innodyn offers a number of Turbines to meet the experimental pilot's needs.
> :While every model is based on Innodyn's core Turbine design, each is
> :optimized to provide the strongest performance.
> :
> :Each Turbine weighs no more than 188 pounds, and is designed for use with
> :our firewall forward kits. We're confident that our Turbines and firewall
> :forward kits are right for the vast majority of experimental applications.
> :Please feel free to contact us with any questions.
> :
> :Our Turbines are designed for output speeds of 2,000; 2,250; 2,500; 2,750;
> :3,000; and 3,600 RPM. We recommend the use of 2,750 RPM for fixed-wing
> :aircraft applications.
>
> Before you invest a moment more of your time or a cent more of your
> money, ask two questions:
>
> 1) Have they ever delivered one of their engines to anyone, anywhere?
>
> 2) If you were to build a homebult with a turbine engine could you get
> it insured by any aviation underwriter currently in business?
>
> Hint - the answer to the second question is not "yes".

[Montblack]

wrote)
>I was trying to figure out the fuel burn on the AMT ( jet models )
> engines. As close as I could figure, they burn about 4 gph. And the
> thrust was listed in KG and there were other variables related to this
> thrust ( air temp, etc. ) but a guy put 2 of them ( poor mans dual
> ignition )on his Cri-Cri aircraft and flew at 150 mph. I think they
> said he had 35 KG of thrust. Of course, the engines only weigh 5 lbs.
> each which is pretty cool.


IIRC, LBS thrust = ("roughly" ...be gentle) 65% for its horsepower
equivilant.

100 lbs thrust will be about 65 hp. Is this close to being a workable rule
of thumb?

http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html
(I want one!!!)

http://www.flight.cz/cricri/english/index.php
(more Cri-Cri pics)


Montblack

[UltraJohn]

M> IIRC, LBS thrust = ("roughly" ...be gentle) 65% for its horsepower
> equivilant.
>
> 100 lbs thrust will be about 65 hp. Is this close to being a workable rule
> of thumb?
>
>
>
> Montblack

I understand it is speed dependent. At standstill it is 100 lbs = 0 HP and
at 600+ mph it is close to 100lb = 100 HP. I'm no expert so be gentle on me
too! ;-)
John

[Marc J. Zeitlin]

Montblack wrote:

> IIRC, LBS thrust = ("roughly" ...be gentle) 65% for its horsepower
> equivilant.
>
> 100 lbs thrust will be about 65 hp. Is this close to being a workable
> rule of thumb?

Nope.

Power = Force x Velocity

For a "thrust" engine, the equivalent "power" it's producing will be
dependent upon how fast it's going. At 60 MPH, 100 LB of thrust is
equivalent to about 16 HP. At 150 HP, 100 LB of thrust is about 40 HP,
so you can see that a rule such as you postulate isn't going to work.

--
Marc J. Zeitlin
http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
http://www.cozybuilders.org/
Copyright (c) 2005

[Matt Whiting]

Anthony W wrote:
> Rich S. wrote:
>
>> "Sparkle" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>>> Would a (80-100 hp) turbine weighing 100-140 pounds be a hit?
>>>> Burning 5-6-7-8 gallons per hour?
>>>
>>>
>>> They'll all weigh the same, regardless of power output.
>>> Innodyn took the initiative in inventing 188 pound turbines.
>>
>>
>>
>> The Boeing Model 502 - in the 1950's - weighed 140 lbs. and put out
>> 200 hp.
>>
>> Oh, wait - you said 188 pounds. I stand corrected. Why would they want
>> such a heavy engine?
>>
>> Gawsh, technology has sure come a long way in fifty years.
>>
>> Rich S.
>>
>> P.S. The Boeing Model 500 Turbo-jet weighed 85 pounds, developed 150
>> pounds of thrust, and was 29" long, 22" in diameter. The extra 55
>> pounds of the 502 was the gear reduction.
>
>
> Why aren't more old Boeing engines finding their way into homebuilts? A
> 140 bound 200HP engine sounds sweet. With a couple of those I could get
> serious about my dreams to build an ME262... ;o)
>
> Tony

I'm not sure, but I'll venture a guess ... fuel consumption is probably
outrageous.


Matt

[Anthony W]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> Why aren't more old Boeing engines finding their way into homebuilts?
>> A 140 bound 200HP engine sounds sweet. With a couple of those I could
>> get serious about my dreams to build an ME262... ;o)
>>
>> Tony
>
>
> I'm not sure, but I'll venture a guess ... fuel consumption is probably
> outrageous.
>
> Matt

Either that or they cost a fortune to maintain.

Tony

[Matt Whiting]

Anthony W wrote:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Why aren't more old Boeing engines finding their way into
>>> homebuilts? A 140 bound 200HP engine sounds sweet. With a couple of
>>> those I could get serious about my dreams to build an ME262... ;o)
>>>
>>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure, but I'll venture a guess ... fuel consumption is
>> probably outrageous.
>>
>> Matt
>
>
> Either that or they cost a fortune to maintain.
>
> Tony

Probably both.


Matt

[Rich S.]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
>>> I'm not sure, but I'll venture a guess ... fuel consumption is probably
>>> outrageous.
>>> Matt
>>
>> Either that or they cost a fortune to maintain.
>> Tony
>
> Probably both.
> Matt

Is that the Hummer® model???

Rich S. :))

[Anthony W]

Rich S. wrote:

>>>Either that or they cost a fortune to maintain.
>>>Tony
>>
>>Probably both.
>>Matt
>
>
> Is that the Hummer® model???
>
> Rich S. :))

I can't say for the H2 but the original Hummer with the diesel engine
isn't all that bad for a vehicle that size.

Tony

[Sport Pilot]

Marc J. Zeitlin wrote:
> Montblack wrote:
>
> > IIRC, LBS thrust = ("roughly" ...be gentle) 65% for its horsepower
> > equivilant.
> >
> > 100 lbs thrust will be about 65 hp. Is this close to being a workable
> > rule of thumb?
>
> Nope.
>
> Power = Force x Velocity
>
> For a "thrust" engine, the equivalent "power" it's producing will be
> dependent upon how fast it's going. At 60 MPH, 100 LB of thrust is
> equivalent to about 16 HP. At 150 HP, 100 LB of thrust is about 40 HP,
> so you can see that a rule such as you postulate isn't going to work.
>
> --
> Marc J. Zeitlin
> http://marc.zeitlin.home.comcast.net/
> http://www.cozybuilders.org/
> Copyright (c) 2005

But generally thrust goes down as the engine accelerates. I believe
jet engines are rated at static thrust, only turbo props have a HP
rating.