What GA needs

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:


Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
however, isn't one of them.


Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine powered
Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
dramatically shorter.

While you can burn almost anything in them, you should plan on burning a
lot of it. That was also one of the downfalls of the early turbine powered
cars (besides the initial expense).

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via AviationKB.com
http://www.aviationkb.com/Uwe/Forums...ation/200709/1

"JGalban via AviationKB.com" u32749@uwe wrote in message
news:7814f2bf2e916@uwe...
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:


Nothing wrong with the physics. Small turbines work. And for some
applications they have big adavantages. Fuel quantity per horsepower-hour,
however, isn't one of them.


Agreed. Turbines are most efficient well above normal GA altitudes. At
common GA altitudes they suck large quantities of fuel. A turbine
powered
Luscombe project used to be based at my field. The speed and climb were
slightly better than a piston powered Luscombe, but the range was
dramatically shorter.

A Luscombe needs a turbine engine like a carp needs an outboard motor.