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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Smutny wrote in message . ..
The Australian Roulettes fly the PT-6 as well as a few other countries I can't think of at the moment. Brazil perhaps? But one has to remember, what aerobatic teams do, and what happens in an aerobatic competition aren't identical. So it appears. Thanks for the tip about the Roulettes, but all the images I could find of them in the web were just about formation flight. No torque rolls etc. I do envy John Clear a lot for having seen (live, on top!) an aerobatic turboprop plane strut its stuff. I might never get to see this in my life perhaps not even on a video. And this to me is rather disapointing, whether you understand that or not. The competition box is one size for all competitions, 1000 square meters. Changing it would require sancitioning from the FAI. But creating different sized boxes for different aircraft neutralizes the spirit behind the competition. Airshows on the other hand, boxes are determined mainly by the venue. The idea that the competition aerobatic box might be too small for turboprop planes came up in this thread, presumably based on the hypothesis that the throttle lag of an aerobatic turboprop plane would hamper its agility of flight in comparison to a piston plane. But as nametab has pointed out on 9-17 in this thread, and I think he is right, is that throttle lag is not likely to be a problem for single spool turbine motors. Small turboprops are double spool, though not coaxial but in series (one turbine shaft and one independent power shaft). Therefore, the idea that the competition box might be too small for a turboprop plane is, like next to everything else on this thread, based on nothing but speculation. So I repeat: What would be needed here is the testimony of a pilot who has actually flown aerobatics with a turboprop plane. One of the reasons you don't see many more turbine GA aircraft is partly due to the lack of certified small turbines. There is a growing number of turbine homebuilts. Comp Air and Lancair being two that offer kits designed for them. I've also seen an article on a turbine RV-4 in Sport Aviation not too long ago. As time goes on, cheaper and smaller turbines will probably have a greater presence in the GA market. I donīt think that the general aviation market has a lot of relevance for aerobatic planes. The abundance of turbine planes (not only turboprop) in general aviation is far higher than in aerobatics. Don't know what the economics are though, how much does a hot section cost compared to overhauling a piston engine? And what does that translate to per hour costs? No need to get hostile over all this, Holm. Turbines are not the end-all, be-all of aviation. Of course not. There are ramjets, and perhaps some day there will be scramjets. But when it comes to aviation, I cannot think of any advantage of piston engines over turbine engines besides their price and their fuel efficiency (I know of people who actually think that the maintaineance for turbine engines costs even less than for piston engines). Jets, turboprops and pistons all have thier strengths and weaknesses. And their appropriate application. Aviation pistons right now are just at the top of thier game when it comes to hardcore aerobatic aircraft. (cut) But this is exactly what I donīt understand. I am perfectly aware of the fact that under certain circumstances a more primitive technology can have advantages over a more advanced technology dedicated to the same task. An example in case would for instance be police officers patroling park and beach areas on bicycles instead of in police cars. But whenever this happens, there exists a cogent explanation for that circumstance. And a cogent explanation - preferrably from someone who talks from experience - is what is missing in this thread so far. So why should, of all cases, aerobatics be one of those examples where a comparatively primitive (engine) technology would have the edge over a more sofisticated one? Why should the aim in aerobatics be to only make the aircraft lighter, but not to make the motor stronger and lighter at the same time? Why should an aircraft which cannot fly a sustained torque roll be better for aerobatics than an aircraft which can? After all, the relative lack of power of piston planes is responsible for the fact that a torque roll is often confused with a tail slide. This remains an obvious paradox at least on this thread - which requires something more than speculations for a convincing explanation. And I canīt help feeling that you guys are trying to sell me apples for oranges on this issue. Peter |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
RIAT and Video | Patrouilles du Monde | Aerobatics | 0 | July 10th 04 06:18 PM |