If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Innodyn turbines
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot?
Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine, so the two factors kind of cancel out for me. Wouldn't it be really really loud also? "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
This isnt entirely a new engine. It is based heavily on the Solar T-62.
What IS new is the fuel control unit. This engine was featured in an article within the past 2 years in an RV4 as a test bed. Dave x wrote: What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot? Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine, so the two factors kind of cancel out for me. Wouldn't it be really really loud also? "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wouldn't it be really really loud also?
Lots of lurking round here taught me that turbines need frequent (every 500 hrs or so?) and expensive overhauls I'm not real knowledgeable on the topice but I had heard just the opposite that the overhaul period was quite long, that they do need a intermittent hot section inspections. I'd be curious to hear from someone that works on them as to their normal average overhaul/maintenance times and how the maintenance would cost compared to a recip. John KR-2 2% complete for the last 8 years ;-) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
x wrote:
What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot? Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine, so the two factors kind of cancel out for me. Well, reliability was certainly what I was thinking. Big appeal for me there. Perhaps you're right that the limited track record of this particular engine negates that advantage, but turbines are just so stinkin simple. Wouldn't it be really really loud also? Dunno. We do know that it would be smoooooth compared to our wonderful Lycs with their 35lb pistons slamming back and forth. Hopefully by the time I get around to building an airplane there'll be plenty of field experience with powerplants such as these. Oh yeah, though, I misspoke about the RV-10 - I think the power requirements are too high there. "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lots of lurking round here taught me
that turbines need frequent (every 500 hrs or so?) and expensive overhauls Where the heck did you get that? Turbines in general have far higher TBOs than IC engines - and this co. is estimating 5,000 hours for theirs, with a cost something like $10K. Also the US of A would not be the best place to exploit their advantages to the full Europe with its expensive avgas might be a better place Yet Europe produces several promising diesel aircraft engines (Thielert, Wilksh, Aerodiesel &C) but to my knowledge no small turboprops my 2 eurocents, KA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Oh yeah, though, I misspoke about the RV-10 - I think the power requirements are too high there. No, there's a 255HP listed on their website. I was wondering why you didn't choose that instead of the 205HP. http://innodyn.com by the way. It's interesting that you specify an operating RPM value when you buy your engine (2000, 2250, 2500, 2750, 3000, or 3600). They recommend 2750 for aircraft. Seems like you could choose different prop diameter and RPM combos, depending on your mission (big slow prop vs. little fast prop)? "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack of fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're trading something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical reliability... KB |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Not twice. They claim 13gph. That's not too shabby at all. And I'm
never gonna run out of fuel - that is NOT one of my concerns. I worry about the issues I have no direct control over. Kyle Boatright wrote: "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message news Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a 205hp turnbine for $30K? I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a KIS Cruiser. ~Paul Folbrecht ~PP-SEL ~C152 89795 ~MWC This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack of fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're trading something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical reliability... KB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
I pulled this comment (Dated June, 2004) from the RV-list archives:
Quote: At SNF this spring I asked the ATP guy what speed & fuel burn they are now getting in their RV-4 now that they have fixed the exhaust angle. He said that they were burning 14gph at 140 mph. I believe that the hp required to fly a -4 at 140 mph is well under 100. Endquote. Bottom line is that a converted military APU isn't going to have anywhere near the fuel consumption of a modern turbine like the Allison, and even the Allison still can't match the Lycoming... KB "Richard Riley" wrote in message news The operative word here is "claim." The best that Allison can do with the 250 is an SFC of .61-.67. That's with four to six-stage axial, one-stage centrifugal compressors, a two-stage low pressure turbine, and a two-stage high pressure turbine. If they really think they can get SFC comparable to piston engines, they're deluded or lying. On their old ATP webpage they're listing an SFC of down to .46. That's insane. In short, yes, it's too good to be true. On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:41:13 GMT, Paul Folbrecht wrote: :Not twice. They claim 13gph. That's not too shabby at all. And I'm :never gonna run out of fuel - that is NOT one of my concerns. I worry :about the issues I have no direct control over. : : :Kyle Boatright wrote: : : "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message : news : :Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a :205hp turnbine for $30K? : :I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a :KIS Cruiser. : :~Paul Folbrecht :~PP-SEL :~C152 89795 :~MWC : : : This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack of : fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're trading : something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical : reliability... : : KB : : |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Plasma Reduces Jet Noise (Turbines?) | sanman | Home Built | 1 | June 27th 04 12:45 AM |