turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft?

[Shin Gou]

I googled, but there's not much infor. about converting the turbine in
the microturbine generator for aircraft use. So I am tossing my idea
here. The Capstone's microturbine generator looks very neat. The
generator has 60kw output, and the turbine itself should have higher
output, enough for a two-seater and it's light,very light.
http://www.capstoneturbine.com/
So how do you think about the idea?

Thank you.

Shin

[Larry]

"Shin Gou" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> I googled, but there's not much infor. about converting the turbine in
> the microturbine generator for aircraft use. So I am tossing my idea
> here. The Capstone's microturbine generator looks very neat. The
> generator has 60kw output, and the turbine itself should have higher
> output, enough for a two-seater and it's light,very light.
> http://www.capstoneturbine.com/
> So how do you think about the idea?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Shin



A pretty feeble attempt at SPAM.

> So how do you think about the idea?
You really don't want to know.

Larry

[Dave Hyde]

Shin Gou wrote...

> I googled, but there's not much infor. about converting the turbine in
> the microturbine generator for aircraft use.

Probably for good reason - it sure doesn't look like it's
suitable for airplane propulsion without *significant*
modifications. Electrical power? Maybe, but it's got a long
way to go before I replace my ND alternator (<$100 a pop).

> enough [power output] for a two-seater...

A two-seater *what*? The thing doesn't even appear to
have a PTO shaft or provisions for one and the exhaust
outlet is completely unsuitable for thrust. Other than
that I suppose it's OK.

Dave 'all thrust, no vector' Hyde

[Shin Gou]

Thanks for the input. I see. So seems the microturbine used in
generators have inherent problems to be converted to use on aircraft.
Thank you.

[John Kimmel]

Those "air bearings" probably work well on a stationary generator, but
I'll bet they bottom out with any bumps or gyro forces. Speaking of
micro turbines, I read an article somewhere about a new gas turbine
being developed to power cell phones. There may yet be a future for
affordable gas turbine powerplants for aircraft--how long before someone
comes up with a gas turbine electric hybrid car?

Shin Gou wrote:

> I googled, but there's not much infor. about converting the turbine in
> the microturbine generator for aircraft use. So I am tossing my idea
> here. The Capstone's microturbine generator looks very neat. The
> generator has 60kw output, and the turbine itself should have higher
> output, enough for a two-seater and it's light,very light.
> http://www.capstoneturbine.com/
> So how do you think about the idea?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Shin
>

--
John Kimmel


GET YER STINKING PAWS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY APE!

[John]

Stealth Pilot wrote:

> On 19 Dec 2004 11:15:02 -0800, "Shin Gou" > wrote:
>
>>Thanks for the input. I see. So seems the microturbine used in
>>generators have inherent problems to be converted to use on aircraft.
>>Thank you.
>
> the thing that kills these as an idea is the fuel consumption.
> a continental O-200 burns about 20 litres per hour.
> a jabiru 2200 burns about 13 litres per hour.
>
> the small fadec turbine that aeromodellers use burns about 60 litres
> per hour for just 15lbs thrust.
>
> afaik the KR2 powered by a turbine was built wet everywhere (fuel
> tanks placed everywhere) and had an endurance of just 18 minutes.
>
> not a practical idea without some serious reengineering.
> Stealth (pistons!) Pilot


I guess my math is wrong they spec 350ml per minute for the 30lb thrust unit
which works out to 21 litres and hour. Sounds a bit fishy but who knows.
5.5 gal/hour for 30lbs thrust, maybe!
John

[Vaughn]

"John Kimmel" > wrote in message
...
> There may yet be a future for
> affordable gas turbine powerplants for aircraft--how long before someone
> comes up with a gas turbine electric hybrid car?

Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my lifetime. Small
turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve greatly if
you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes, turbines have
size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness. Cars are a
whole 'nuther matter.

Vaughn

[Don Hammer]

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 09:10:05 GMT, John Kimmel >
wrotD:

>Those "air bearings" probably work well on a stationary generator, but
>I'll bet they bottom out with any bumps or gyro forces.

Don't know if this engine would work or not, but air bearings are very
common in the turbines of air cycle machines used on many aircraft and
are much more reliable than the old traditional have-to-lube-it
bearings they used to use. An ACM generates loads of water that was
always getting into the oil. These turbines typically rotate at a much
higher speed than any engine.

[Stealth Pilot]

On 19 Dec 2004 11:15:02 -0800, "Shin Gou" > wrote:

>Thanks for the input. I see. So seems the microturbine used in
>generators have inherent problems to be converted to use on aircraft.
>Thank you.

the thing that kills these as an idea is the fuel consumption.
a continental O-200 burns about 20 litres per hour.
a jabiru 2200 burns about 13 litres per hour.

the small fadec turbine that aeromodellers use burns about 60 litres
per hour for just 15lbs thrust.

afaik the KR2 powered by a turbine was built wet everywhere (fuel
tanks placed everywhere) and had an endurance of just 18 minutes.

not a practical idea without some serious reengineering.
Stealth (pistons!) Pilot

[Juan Jimenez]

"John" > wrote in message
...
> Stealth Pilot wrote:
>
>> On 19 Dec 2004 11:15:02 -0800, "Shin Gou" > wrote:
>>
>>>Thanks for the input. I see. So seems the microturbine used in
>>>generators have inherent problems to be converted to use on aircraft.
>>>Thank you.
>>
>> the thing that kills these as an idea is the fuel consumption.
>> a continental O-200 burns about 20 litres per hour.
>> a jabiru 2200 burns about 13 litres per hour.
>>
>> the small fadec turbine that aeromodellers use burns about 60 litres
>> per hour for just 15lbs thrust.
>>
>> afaik the KR2 powered by a turbine was built wet everywhere (fuel
>> tanks placed everywhere) and had an endurance of just 18 minutes.
>>
>> not a practical idea without some serious reengineering.
>> Stealth (pistons!) Pilot
>
>
> I guess my math is wrong they spec 350ml per minute for the 30lb thrust
> unit
> which works out to 21 litres and hour. Sounds a bit fishy but who knows.
> 5.5 gal/hour for 30lbs thrust, maybe!
> John

If that works out to 1.1 lb/lbf/hr sfc that does sound a bit fishy. Kinda
low for one of these little screamers, IMO. I talked to Bob Carlton a couple
of weeks ago, he does the Silent Wings air show act with the two AMT engines
on the Silent motorglider. _Very_ cool stuff. He's got two 45 lbf AMT-USA's
and he's burning 20 gals/hr total (both engines) at 100% N1.

[Capt.Doug]

>"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message >
> he does the Silent Wings air show act with the two AMT engines
> on the Silent motorglider. _Very_ cool stuff. He's got two 45 lbf
AMT-USA's
> and he's burning 20 gals/hr total (both engines) at 100% N1.

Does he have a website with the plane on it?

D.

[Shin Gou]

http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/

[Juan Jimenez]

Yes, www.silentwingsairshows.com

"Capt.Doug" > wrote in message
...
> >"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message >
>> he does the Silent Wings air show act with the two AMT engines
>> on the Silent motorglider. _Very_ cool stuff. He's got two 45 lbf
> AMT-USA's
>> and he's burning 20 gals/hr total (both engines) at 100% N1.
>
> Does he have a website with the plane on it?
>
> D.
>
>

[Slip'er]

Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine cars
in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least better than my
1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any time soon but, it would
be neat.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml


> Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
Small
> turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve
greatly if
> you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes, turbines
have
> size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness. Cars
are a
> whole 'nuther matter.

[Rob McDonald]

From the web page you quoted:

"An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded gasoline."

Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)

Rob


"Slip'er" > wrote in
news:NXtyd.4791$Cl3.2961@fed1read03:

> Subject: Re: turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft?
> From: "Slip'er" >
> Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt
>
> Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine
> cars in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least
> better than my 1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any
> time soon but, it would be neat.
>
> http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml
>
>
>> Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my
>> lifetime.
> Small
>> turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve
> greatly if
>> you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes,
>> turbines
> have
>> size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness.
>> Cars
> are a
>> whole 'nuther matter.

[UltraJohn]

Rob McDonald wrote:

> From the web page you quoted:
>
> "An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded
> gasoline."
>
> Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)
>
> Rob
>

You must be one of those young whipper snappers <g>
I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg. Back then the best economy cars were
luck to get 20!
John

[Matt Whiting]

UltraJohn wrote:

> Rob McDonald wrote:
>
>
>>From the web page you quoted:
>>
>>"An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded
>>gasoline."
>>
>>Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)
>>
>>Rob
>>
>
>
> You must be one of those young whipper snappers <g>
> I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
> some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
> ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg. Back then the best economy cars were
> luck to get 20!
> John
>

They must have had engines that were sorely out of tune. I put 4.56
gears in my 94 Chevy K1500 to help it plow snow better. I get 16 MPG
with it on the highway and get 10 plowing snow! I can't believe a car
would get down to only 6 MPG unless it was running at the drag strip all
day. :-)

Matt

[UltraJohn]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>
> They must have had engines that were sorely out of tune. I put 4.56
> gears in my 94 Chevy K1500 to help it plow snow better. I get 16 MPG
> with it on the highway and get 10 plowing snow! I can't believe a car
> would get down to only 6 MPG unless it was running at the drag strip all
> day. :-)
>
> Matt


yeah they did quite a bit of 1/8 mile dragging. That being said there is a
bit of technology improvement between 1960 and 1994! Around town in cars
with low gears and big carbs and cams didn't do much for economy! That
being said (part 2) 20 was still very good economy even for a stock non v8
car. VW bugs got about the best back then around 22 to 23 on a good day! Of
course gas only cost 26 cents a gallon for Sunoco 260 ( about 94 octane).
John

[Slip'er]

> You must be one of those young whipper snappers <g>
> I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
> some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
> ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg.

Agreed! Even my 1977 Trans Am only got 8 - 12 mpg when I was driving it.
Of couse at 16, the throttle was either ON or OFF.

>Back then the best economy cars were
> luck to get 20!
> John

That's what I remember too for most of the economy cars.

[Nimoy Pugh]

A small turbine would work nicely in an all electric set up where the
turbine would just keep a small battery bank topped up. Then the turbine
could run at a nice study rpm where it's most efficient. I think the biggest
problem is noise and waste heat.

"Slip'er" > wrote in message
news:NXtyd.4791$Cl3.2961@fed1read03...
> Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine cars
> in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least better than
my
> 1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any time soon but, it
would
> be neat.
>
> http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml
>
>
> > Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.
> Small
> > turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve
> greatly if
> > you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes,
turbines
> have
> > size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness. Cars
> are a
> > whole 'nuther matter.
>
>
>