Technology is Incredible...

Grumman-581 wrote

It drives the rear wheel instead of using thrush pushing
against air...

A jet engine's thrust doesn't push against air, it pushes
against the engine...Newton.... equal and opposite...

Bob Moore

Bob Moore wrote:
A jet engine's thrust doesn't push against air, it pushes
against the engine...Newton.... equal and opposite...

Yeah, well, you understood what I was trying to say anyway, right?

So, if a turbine powered prop plane is called a turbo-prop, would that
sort of motorcycle be called a turbo-wheel? grin

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.

I said essentially the same thing.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it for
you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

I don't think that's the main reason.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Damn it Grumman I wasn't asking you, I was asking Manic.

I said essentially the same thing.


Yeah but you said it a little less than two hours after Grumman did.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So you've answered your own question (though I thing Grumman answered it
for
you) as to why we don't all replace props with jet engines.

I don't think that's the main reason.



So what do you think the reason is then? Do you think there is a huge
conspiracy of prop manufactures keeping jets off of airplanes that would be
more efficient if they had them?

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

Yeah but you said it a little less than two hours after Grumman did.

But before I read his post.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So what do you think the reason is then?

Several. Jet engines are overpriced, for one.

Do you think there is a huge conspiracy of prop manufactures
keeping jets off of airplanes that would be more efficient if
they had them?

Huge? No. But they certainly have an interest in continuing to sell
their 1920s technology in piston engines.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Gig 601XL Builder writes:

So what do you think the reason is then?

Several. Jet engines are overpriced, for one.

No, they are more expensive than piston engines in many ways but I wouldn't
call them any more overpriced than anything else you might choose to hang on
an aircraft. Cost of owning and operating tends to have something to do with
effeciency which is what you said jet engines were more of than prop.



Do you think there is a huge conspiracy of prop manufactures
keeping jets off of airplanes that would be more efficient if
they had them?

Huge? No. But they certainly have an interest in continuing to sell
their 1920s technology in piston engines.


Props don't have to be on piston engines and those real loud ones that you
were talking about NASA tested weren't. I think GE, P&W and the other jet
engine makers could pretty much buy and sell the piston aircraft engine
makers with out so much as working up a sweat.