A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Owning
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A36 Bonanza turbo prop



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old January 2nd 04, 03:28 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:25:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?


Now you're confusing me. I don't expect any turboprop airplane to run
out of poop in the low teens. Max rated thermo hp isn't the issue,
it's running out of it before getting to an altitude where acceptable
gains in true airspeed are made.

The real question is how much power is available and the specific fuel
consumption in let's say between 9,000-15,000 msl.

Again, unless they've made some big changes in the powerplant, you
don't need to worry about getting too "high" unpressurised.

TC


You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC





  #42  
Old January 2nd 04, 06:17 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A few hundred pounds empty?

Mike
MU-2

"Ron Natalie" wrote in message
m...

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message

hlink.net...
I am at a loss as to why the weight of the subject airplane is so high.

The
turbine engine itself weighs less. Not having the article, I have to

assume
that the plane has a lot of avionics and a heavy interior. You start

adding
radar, SS, lots of radios, cabin entertainment and other gizmos and soon

the
plane has gained 300lbs. Range is usually the shortcoming of piston to
turbine conversions but the Allison engine in the 210 works out well

from a
range standpoint, so I don't see why the Bonanza wouldn't as well. Is

the
article availible online?

The tips add a few hundred bounds. The D'shannon tips are about 100lbs

and these
things look bigger.




  #43  
Old January 2nd 04, 06:37 AM
Mike Rapoport
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I didn't design the conversion or even talk to the guy who did but consider
that there are a number or constraints:

1) Vmo (which will be the same as Vno in the piston Bonanza)
2) Mmo, does anyone even know what the maximium permissable mach number is
for a Bonanza? Probably even Beech does not.
3) Weight and balance, you can't put a huge engine out in front.
4) Fuel burn at expected altitudes (high teens) a bigger compressor takes a
lot of power to turn at low altitudes. At sea level my TPE 331s each burn
36gph idling (the props are at flat pitch..

I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance than
a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but not
to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put an
engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would probably
have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.

I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at any
flight altitude.

Mike
MU-2


wrote in message
...
On Thu, 01 Jan 2004 16:25:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

If it had more compressor capacity then we would want a larger turbine

for
more power. The real question is how high do you want to go in an
unpreasurized airplane?


Now you're confusing me. I don't expect any turboprop airplane to run
out of poop in the low teens. Max rated thermo hp isn't the issue,
it's running out of it before getting to an altitude where acceptable
gains in true airspeed are made.

The real question is how much power is available and the specific fuel
consumption in let's say between 9,000-15,000 msl.

Again, unless they've made some big changes in the powerplant, you
don't need to worry about getting too "high" unpressurised.

TC


You're a turbine guy, you should be familiar with the effects/affects
of altitude with respect to turbine temp and available power produced
at altitude.

Unless things have changed one heckuva lot since I researched one for
a customer, the turbine A36 needs one heckuva lot more compressor.

TC







  #44  
Old January 2nd 04, 03:16 PM
Ron Natalie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message hlink.net...
A few hundred pounds empty?


The Osborn tanks I believe weight about an 100 for the pair I thought. I may be
wrong. Maybe it was 50 for the pair. I'll have to dig. I know that the gross weight
increase on the Navion for them is exactly the weight of the fuel in the tanks plus the
weight of the STC kit.

  #45  
Old January 2nd 04, 08:08 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:37:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance than
a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but not
to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put an
engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would probably
have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.


You seem to have hit the nail on the head, intentionally or
accidentally. A turbo-normalized or turbo-supercharged engine in an
A-36 should have no issues with delivering 75% of rated TO hp well
into the teens.

Again, it has admittedly been several years since I did the research
for a prospective customer (for whom $$ was by no means an issue), but
the power "curve" of the 250 was less than desirable when compared to
a turbo piston-pounder.

Specific fuel consumption was approximately 1/3 higher, with the
additional fuel storage neccessary to retain "acceptable" range
capabilities.

There are many existing aircraft types that have been "re-engined"
with powerplants drastically exceeding the original installations. In
a lot of cases, no "flight-test"-ing is required, nor is it needed.
Engine operating limitations are changed so as not to exceed the
original levels.

I would certainly agree that testing would need to be performed if
increasing the usable hp-thrust rating.

I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at any
flight altitude.


I apologize if I wasn't clear, or it may be a case of
miscommunication. It's likely when looking at "newer" t-prop aircraft
you will notice that the gas generator is likely capable of exceeding
airframe limitations at max thermo-hp.

Hence, at altitude it has no problems producing a very high percentage
of "max take-off" power. I'm sure you know this.

They are few and far between, but there are A-36's flying around with
350 hp turbo-supercharged Lycoming engines. Aside from the differences
in initial rate of climb, I would be willing to bet the the overall
performance numbers would be more than comparable to the turbine
conversion.

The guy I spoke to that had one could only lament the fact that he had
to burn 22-25 gph in cruise...

Regards;

TC

snip

  #46  
Old January 7th 04, 03:30 PM
Wyatt Emmerich
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I fly a Cessna P210 with a turbine conversion. Used to fly a turbo Arrow.
I'm based in the south and I have found engine heat at altitude to be the
limiting factor for both the turbine and piston. On cold days, you can go a
good 20-30 knots faster than hot days at altitude with the turbine. On hot
days with my Arrow at altitude, I always seemed to be worried about cylinder
head temps.

The Allison engine is much lighter than the piston, but you have to carry
more fuel, so it's a wash. Plus Jet-A is 10 percent heavier than Avgas.
However, the lighter turbine engine allows for tip and aft auxiliary tanks
which extend my range to 1200 nautical miles. Fuel burn is 25 gallons--quite
a bit more than the piston, offset slightly by the lower cost of Jet-A.

Nevertheless, I have found increased speed, although nice, not nearly as
important as the comfort of knowing a turbine has substantially higher
reliability than a piston. Next is the quiet and smoothness of the plane,
it's climb ability, huge feathered-prop glide ratio and, being pressurized,
the ability to get quickly on top of the bumpy cumulo level in the summer.




wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:37:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:


I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance

than
a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but

not
to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put

an
engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would

probably
have to completely re-flight-test the airplane.


You seem to have hit the nail on the head, intentionally or
accidentally. A turbo-normalized or turbo-supercharged engine in an
A-36 should have no issues with delivering 75% of rated TO hp well
into the teens.

Again, it has admittedly been several years since I did the research
for a prospective customer (for whom $$ was by no means an issue), but
the power "curve" of the 250 was less than desirable when compared to
a turbo piston-pounder.

Specific fuel consumption was approximately 1/3 higher, with the
additional fuel storage neccessary to retain "acceptable" range
capabilities.

There are many existing aircraft types that have been "re-engined"
with powerplants drastically exceeding the original installations. In
a lot of cases, no "flight-test"-ing is required, nor is it needed.
Engine operating limitations are changed so as not to exceed the
original levels.

I would certainly agree that testing would need to be performed if
increasing the usable hp-thrust rating.

I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its
thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at

any
flight altitude.


I apologize if I wasn't clear, or it may be a case of
miscommunication. It's likely when looking at "newer" t-prop aircraft
you will notice that the gas generator is likely capable of exceeding
airframe limitations at max thermo-hp.

Hence, at altitude it has no problems producing a very high percentage
of "max take-off" power. I'm sure you know this.

They are few and far between, but there are A-36's flying around with
350 hp turbo-supercharged Lycoming engines. Aside from the differences
in initial rate of climb, I would be willing to bet the the overall
performance numbers would be more than comparable to the turbine
conversion.

The guy I spoke to that had one could only lament the fact that he had
to burn 22-25 gph in cruise...

Regards;

TC

snip



  #47  
Old January 7th 04, 03:37 PM
Dan Luke
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Wyatt Emmerich" wrote:
I fly a Cessna P210 with a turbine conversion.


What are your max gross, useful load and usable fuel capacity?
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? Gus Rasch Aerobatics 1 February 14th 08 11:18 PM
Ivo Prop on O-320 Dave S Home Built 14 October 15th 04 03:04 AM
Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ? frank may Military Aviation 11 September 5th 04 02:51 PM
IVO props... comments.. Dave S Home Built 16 December 7th 03 12:43 AM
Early Bonanza or Apache? Brinks Owning 11 July 16th 03 06:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.