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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one flying. See http://info.thielert.com/centurion/m...php?newsid=340 (From the link) "The Centurion 4.0 of the GmbH Thielert Aircraft Engines is a V8-engine with state-of-the-art technology, and in the twin it replaces the initially built-in Lycoming IO-541-E1C4 which is not produced anymore. Furthermore the manufacturer discontinued the product support for the IO-541-E1C4. In comparison the diesel conversion weighs 20 kilograms (50 lbs) less. The entire consumption was 22 gallons of kerosene per hour, which sums up to 8 gallons less fuel consumption. For this reason the range of the Duke increases from 1100 Nautical Miles to 2000 Nautical Miles." Huh? So the Duke was getting 15 per side (30) and now gets 11 per side (22)? 30 gal x 6 lbs = 180 lbs fuel/hr ...Avgas 22 gal x 7 lbs = 154 lbs fuel/hr ...Diesel (Saving 26 lbs/hr fuel weight) I don't see how that almost doubles the Nautical Miles? Six hours of diesel flight gets you a free hour. (6 hrs x 26 lbs/hr (saved) = 156 lbs) Add in the diesel conversion saving of 50 lbs? I still don't get it. If there was an increase in speed, I would think Thielert would want that little extra bonus fact front and center. Montblack |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
A lot of small businesses bought Dukes and hired the
cheapest high time pilot they could find, usually it seems that was a retired B47/B52 Colonel who didn't know better than to slam the throttles open - closed just like he did in those other airplanes. The Dukes that I saw, that were flown by civilian trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble free to TBO. The ones that were flown by retired jet jocks needed turbo replacement at 600-800 hours and new cylinders at 1,000. They saved a buck on the salary and spent a ton on maintenance. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P wrote in message oups.com... | There's also a guy in Germany working on a conversion of the Duke to | twin Thielert diesels - the big ones doing 350 HP. He's got one | flying. | | I read the article - wow that's a huuuuge bump in range over the | gassers eh? Didn't know Lyc wasn't supporting the TIO-541 anymore (I | think the P-Navajo has the same engine?) but doesn't surprise me as | I've heard they're quite finicky and must be babied more than most high | HP turbo'd piston engines. | |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
My favorite turboprop is the 300 King Air because all of the
little hold over plumbing problems were fixed. It was stable, the flight controls were smooth and well harmonized. The CG range and gross weight were nearly impossible to exceed unless you were flying lead or gold. It had the ability to fill all the seats with grown men, top all the tanks and fly 2,000 miles and be in the VG at take-off and landing, don't try that in a Cheyenne 400. The early A90 King Air used combustion heater just like a Queen Air, and the operation of the fuel system involved the pilot properly setting the system before take-off and monitoring the operation. A Transport Canada King Air was lost because the pilot was not setting the fuel boost pumps to auto before take-off. When the fuel level in the nacelle tank drops through the set level, the boost pump comes on to refill the nacelle. On the early airplanes if you didn't arm the system before the signal, it would not turn the pump on automatically. Later airplanes fixed that silly design flaw, the pump will come on anytime the level is low and the pump is in auto. The trick the CDOT pilot didn't know or forgot was to "test" the boost pumps when he decided to manually refill his nacelle tanks. Of course he was violating the operating procedures and AFM, but what the Hell, all pilots are perfect. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message k.net... | Everything I have heard about the Duke is consistant with your statements | and certainly a turbine Duke is better than a piston Duke. Piston twins | have some of the high reliability systems of the turboprops, but the factory | turboprops have *all* of them. I would even go so far as to say that the | factory turboprops that started as pistons (King Air 90, Conquest, Cheyenne | and Meridian) are inferior in a number of ways to the airplanes that were | designed for turbine power from the beginning. Ultimately airplanes are | flying sets of compromises between cost, weight, robustness and utility and | designers choose different compromises when the airplanes are powered by | turbines instead of pistons. | | | Mike | MU-2 | | | "Jim Macklin" wrote in message | newszfnf.28446$QW2.15610@dukeread08... | The Duke does have a dual bus system, a real hot windshield | and plenty of room in the panel. The control systems were | designed for operation at altitude and there is a lot more | cabin room. The Duke's biggest failing is that it is heavy | and the big Lycoming engines are easy to abuse. But doing a | conversion when there are a number of "better" turboprops on | the market seems a waste of money. Seems more sensible to | buy a decent airplane, such as a King Air and refurb it with | interior, avionics and new paint. The Duke is old, will be | as expensive to operate as a King Air and is one of the best | looking Beech aircraft built. | | | "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message | nk.net... | | | | wrote in message | | | oups.com... | | For the same money, you could buy a Mitsubishi | Solitaire and go faster | | with | | a larger cabin and (probably) more reliable systems | | | | How much faster are we talking here? Never flown in an | MU-2, but I've | | heard they can be a handful and there are plenty of NTSB | reports on | | Mitsu accidents. I read recently about the FAA looking | into the recent | | accidents with these planes. May very well be related to | training | | issues but the plane seems to have a rep, kinda like the | Aerostar did | | years back IIRC. I think I'd feel more comfortable with | a conventional | | aileron/flap than the spoiler. As far as systems | reliability, not sure | | why you think there'd be an appreciable difference(?) | | | | Wooly | | | | | | The Solitair will go 315kts and has a Vmo of 250KTIAS. | What is the | | accident record on turbine Baron's and Dukes? They are | going to have the | | same problems as other high-performance-owner-flown | aircraft. The problem | | is pilots that fly ~100hrs/yr when fatigued and in bad | weather and often | | don't get enough training. I think the TBM 700 actually | has the worst | | accident record of any turboprop. How many pilots who | just paid over $2 | | million for their TBM get failed in initial training | (zero). They get | | signed off and then go crash. If the same pilots could | try flying Learjets | | single pilot, they would crash even more. Give them F104s | and they would | | all be dead. I suspect that when the big training centers | lose a few more | | lawsuits this may change (hopefully). | | | | There is no difference in handling between ailerons and | spoilers except that | | spoilers are more effective at low speeds. Two pilot | crews of Beachjets | | aren't crashing or complaining about the spoilers on their | airplanes. The | | MU-2 does have a bad rep even though its accident record | is middle of the | | turboprop pack.. The current investigation is political | (the FAA | | acknowledges this) and includes several CFIT, gear up | landings and even a | | crash into a ground vehicle on the runway. The whole | notion that an 18 | | month spike in accidents with no common cause could be | attributed to the | | design of an airplane that has been flying over 35yrs is | crazy since the | | design of the airplane didn't change! The conclusion will | be (again) that | | the pilots who do not undergo frequent recurent simulator | training have | | accident rates 10x the pilots who do. I wish that my | government wouldn't | | waste my money tilting at windmills. Almost all the | accidents whether | | Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. | The more capable | | airplanes get flown into more weather over longer | distances and are often | | flown for business where there is pressure to get there | and back on time. | | The high-performance-owner-flown aircraft gets all these | increased risks but | | no two-pilot professional crew. The lower performance | aircraft don't get | | flown halfway across the country in large thunderstorm | complexes by tired | | business people at the end of a long day. My own | situation is that every | | flight in the MU-2 is over mountains, at night in the PNW | where the weather | | is often bad. In contrast, I have never flown the Helio | at night and only | | once in IMC because there are no Helio flight where I | *have* to get there. | | | | Generally, you will find that aircraft originally designed | for turbines will | | have better *everything* from structure to avionics to | systems like heated | | glass windshields (instead of narrow "hot plates), full | dual-bus systems, | | remote electric gyros, bearings instead of bushings ect.. | It isn't just the | | engine that make a TBM cost more than a Malibu, it is a | whole host of | | improvements.. They can incorporated these things because | the airplane has | | so much more power that some weight can be traded for | better, higher | | reliability, systems. When you do a conversion you get a | piston airplane | | with turbine engines. I am certainly not against | conversions, I am | | contemplating a turbine in my Helio but the reason I am | thinking about it is | | that there is no aircraft with comparable performance. If | there where, I | | would prefer to buy the proven, tested, solution. | | | | BTW The most effective turbine conversions tend to be | radial engined | | airplanes like Otters, Beavers, the various Grumman flying | boats and DC3s. | | The greatly improved aerodynamics from getting rid of the | draggy radial | | overcome the thirsty turbine engines. Of course they | don't sound as | | good.... | | | | | | Mike | | MU-2 | | | | | | | | |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
("Montblack" wrote)
In comparison the diesel conversion weighs 20 kilograms (50 lbs) less. The entire consumption was 22 gallons of kerosene per hour, which sums up to 8 gallons less fuel consumption. For this reason the range of the Duke increases from 1100 Nautical Miles to 2000 Nautical Miles." Huh? So the Duke was getting 15 per side (30) and now gets 11 per side (22)? 30 gal x 6 lbs = 180 lbs fuel/hr ...Avgas 22 gal x 7 lbs = 154 lbs fuel/hr ...Diesel (Saving 26 lbs/hr fuel weight) I don't see how that almost doubles the Nautical Miles? Six hours of diesel flight gets you a free hour. (6 hrs x 26 lbs/hr (saved) = 156 lbs) Is it 30 gals ...per side? Turbo'd! So now it's every "three" hours you get a bonus hour of fuel. Will that get you an extra 900 Nautical Miles? Does "entire consumption" mean per engine or ...entire, as in both, combined? Now I don't know what "sum" means either. Oh well. Montblack |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
The Dukes that I saw, that were flown by civilian trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble free to TBO.
Another BS hangar myth destroyed. I've heard the same of the Cessna 421 from a few guys who've owned/flown them. Most of what I'd heard previously about that type was the turbo'd & geared Contis were a complete pain in the arse and would never make TBO without new jugs or worse. I guess ya gotta question just how qualified somebody is when they start talking trash about airplanes & engines, huh? Thanks, Wooly |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
There is some truth in many stories, but with any
turbocharged aircraft engine, allowing the temperatures and clearances to normalize is critical. A turbo may be at 70,000-100,000 RPM, at 1400 degrees on one end of the shaft and just a few hundred on the other. The cylinder heads may be at 375-425 degrees and when you cut the power to idle the heads shock cool, the turbo cools and that includes the housing which can shrink faster than the impeller. The next thing is that the housing and impeller make contact and grind away. The turbo may spin for some time after shutdown, without any engine oil pressure or flow. If the pilot lands on the far side of the airport or stops on the ramp/taxiway to allow the turbo to spin down and more importantly cool, the oil will flow and cool the turbo bearings and the oil won't fail (coke) extending the turbo life. From 40-to 30 inches you can move the throttle smoothly, but I would never go below 20 inches in-flight and then not until I'd flown a minute at 25 inches. I used the cowl flaps to keep the engine warm on approach and opened them for all ground and T..O/climb operations. I used full rich in the climb and I made sure to observe the TIT limits as well as oil and cylinder temps. I rarely flew any single airplane more than a dozen times, but I saw many airplanes that were flown thousands of hours by one pilot. One thing about the Duke, I always made a modified soft field take-off, using full back elevator until I got to about 50 kts, then I'd fly the nose down to prevent a premature take-off. The Duke sits with a negative angle of attack and the engines will drive the nose down unless the pilot lightens the load on the nose wheel. Take-off performance is much improved with this technique. -- James H. Macklin ATP,CFI,A&P -- The people think the Constitution protects their rights; But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome. some support http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm wrote in message ups.com... | The Dukes that I saw, that were flown by civilian trained pilots usually flew pretty trouble free to TBO. | | | Another BS hangar myth destroyed. I've heard the same of the Cessna 421 | from a few guys who've owned/flown them. Most of what I'd heard | previously about that type was the turbo'd & geared Contis were a | complete pain in the arse and would never make TBO without new jugs or | worse. I guess ya gotta question just how qualified somebody is when | they start talking trash about airplanes & engines, huh? | | Thanks, | Wooly | |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron?
On 2005-12-12, Mike Rapoport wrote:
Almost all the accidents whether Skyhawk, MU-2, Super Cub or anything else are pilot error. The more capable airplanes get flown into more weather over longer distances And with more people on board. When I bought my Comanche I read a lot of NTSB reports looking for patterns. What I saw was a higher percentage of weather accidents, and a MUCH higher typical number of people onboard in an accident. I used to think that insurance rates were disproportionately high for 6 place airplanes. The reality is that a Cessna 172 is a "one and a half" seater as far as insurance claims go, while a Lance or Bonanza is a "five and a half seater". -- Ben Jackson http://www.ben.com/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MINI 500, Rinke, Turbine, Helicopter for sale, Helicopter, Revolution, Turbine Power | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 2 | January 28th 09 07:50 PM |
Rick Stitt, Joe Rinke, Rinke Aerospace, BJ Schram, Mini 500, Turbine, Helicopter, Kit | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 2 | January 24th 04 01:15 AM |
Mini 500, Helicycle, Turbine, Joe Rinke, Rinke Aerospace, Rick Stitt, Conversion, Kit | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 0 | January 15th 04 11:48 PM |
TRUTH OF THE MINI-500 TURBINE CONVERSION | Dennis Chitwood | Rotorcraft | 10 | January 7th 04 05:33 PM |
Water Cooled Jet Engines: a possibillity then and now? | The Enlightenment | Military Aviation | 3 | December 18th 03 09:41 AM |