turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft?

"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.

http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/

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.

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.

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: 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.

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

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

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

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.

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.