What GA needs

"Andrew Sarangan" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 10, 6:28 pm, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk at wow way
d0t com wrote:
...
"Small Turbine" and "Gas mileage" - you only get one - the thermodynamics
just don't support both without real exotic materials.

Other than that, though...

--

I have heard that argument many times, but I have never seen that
thermodynamic argument presented. I just borrowed the book on Aircraft
Gas Turbine Engines from the library and plan to read it to find out
what the real story is. My suspicion is that the limitation is in the
materials, not thermodynamics. It may take a significant investment,

That's why I said "without real exotic materials"

The materials limit the maximum termperatures. The maximum temperatures
limit the maximum efficiency. Also "small" (and I assume "reasonable cost")
rule out regenerators to capture some of the waste heat (common on
stationary applications)

but if the military is also interested in similar things it won't be
that hard to find the R&D suppport. I've heard that small turbines are
of interest to the Air Force for potential use in UAVs. A UAV and a
small GA airplane are not that far apart. In fact, the predator is

True, but the military tends to care less about fuel cost and more about
being able to use the same fuel in everything so if you have fuel, you have
fuel.

There were a number of programs in the 60's for turbines and direct
injection piston engines that would run on "any fuel' that was available...

...
Having said that, I know of at least two companies working on small
turbines. One is Innodyn, and the other one is M-dot. The latter one I
believe has some DoD contracts to be build turbines for UAVs. I doubt
these companies would even exist if the basic physics is flawed.


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.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

On Sep 10, 7:43 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current generation
than we realize.

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

-- dave j

As I look at a high-school parking lot, there's so many cars I and
friends in "my day" would not be seen dead in. If this translates to
airplanes, yoots today may not be interested in this kind of
machinery. It's even true for older people, where so many SUVs have
zero styling, and few convertibles or sport models available and sold
in high numbers.

F--

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:42:16 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in
:

While I agree that we need a modern aircraft at a "reasonable price" let's
keep in mind that the vast majority of youngsters that you think are
choosing not to fly because of the technology have never been close enough
to the current airplanes to even see the technology.


So the next time the local municipal airport holds an open house for
the public, they should be sure ample leaflets are available at the
local K-12 student campuses. Even better would be a brief
presentation personally inviting everyone to take a reasonably priced
introductory flight.

And there need to be large 'Public Welcome' banners flying around the
airport to attract motorists. Too often these sorts of inexpensive,
but effective marketing are overlooked.

From what I've seen, usually the attendance at these events is largely
made up of aviators and others associated with the airport, not new
blood.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:29:13 GMT, "Ken Finney"
wrote in :

Aviation isn't exotic anymore,

Perhaps not, but seed sown the magical moment when a kid experiences
leaving the pavement during his first introductory flight in a Cessna
152 will blossom in the future when his situation is ready for it.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:42:21 -0000, Dave J
wrote in
. com:

I will
tell you one thing that is not a solution: Cirrus aircraft and their
like. GA is in a CLASSIC death-spiral: companies are moving to their
high-end customers to maintain adequate margins. Cirrus's and others'
$450k+ aircraft are not doing a damned bit to save GA.

That sort of depends on how you define the future of GA. The FAA sees
GA as a source of air-taxi passenger movers, so that airlines can
utilize more airports. That is Cirrus' future market: air-taxi
operators.

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:06:34 -0700, Andrew Sarangan
wrote in
.com:

A small turbine may sound far fetched now, but ...

There seem to be lots of small turbine engines available now, and
they're getting bigger:


http://www.gasturbine.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/page2.htm

Cobra Facts and Figures
Thrust............................................ ....... ...163N
Weight............................................ .........3.1 Kg
Pressure ratio at max rpm.........................3.0
Max rpm..............................................1 05,000 rpm
Idle speed............................................3 0,000 rpm
Max exhaust gas temp..............................640 degrees C
Mass flow.............................................. ..0.31 kg/s
Specific Fuel Consumption (Propane).......0.8 Kg/N/Hr
Lubrication.......Total loss system, Aeroshell 390 pressurised
from compressor bleed.
length including jet pipe............................444 mm
Maximum width.......................................197 mm

The Worlds Smallest Jet Aircraft Powered by two Cobra Engines


--------------------------------------------------
http://www.gtba.co.uk/
THE GAS TURBINE BUILDERS ASSOCIATION

http://www.gtba.co.uk/engine_designs...8e9bec894a 04
Homebuilt engine designs


-------------------------------------
http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/
http://www.wrenturbines.co.uk/product.php?pid=6
XL200 - AutostartStatistics Thrust 15kg
(33lbs)
Size 274mm x 120mm
(11in x 4.8in)
Weight 1800g
(4lbs)
Fuel Consumption 494ml/min
Advanced Statistics Click Here
Buy This Package Now for £2300
------------------

http://www.swbturbines.com/
http://www.swbturbines.com/products/products.htm
SWB-100SWB Proudly Announces the birth of our newest turbine the
SWB-100. Actually producing 107 lb/ft thrust, this is one of the
largest and most powerful turbines produced by SWB. This turbine
is designed for professional large scale UAV applications. The
engine has been extensively tested in our test cell using industry
standard turbine testing procedures. The testing and qualification
stages of this turbine engine are done. The engine is available
for delivery, call today for more details.

-----------------------------------------

http://www.heward-microjets.co.uk/en...wasp1h20.shtml
WASP 1 H20 SPECIFICATIONS

When correctly constructed:
Max Thrust:
18-20 lb
8.1-9.07 kg

Engine weight:
2 lb
950 gr

Engine weight with starter:
2.4 lb
1090 gr

Max RPM:
148,000 RPM

Fuel consumption @ max RPM:
260 ml/min
200 gr/min

Diameter:
3.74 in
95 mm

Length:
6.69 in
175 mm

Length with starter:
9.64 in
245 mm


The Wasp 1 H20 is specially designed as a homebuild engine. The
complete kit comes with a comprehensive and detailed Drawings and
Instruction Manual which gives full instructions for the
construction of each and every part of the engine. The
construction manual can be purchased seperately and delivered by
post or emailed as a PDF.

If you do not wish to make the parts yourself, you may purchase
them either individually or as a set. All parts are fully machined
and ready for assembly. The price list of parts are as follows:
...

The complete kit package comprising all parts required to build a
Wasp 1 engine is priced at ONLY £899. This introductory offer is
for a limited time only. Place your orders early to avoid
disappointment.

------------------------------

http://www.amtjets.com/mk2hpes/mk2-hp.html

Specifications Olympus HP E-start:

Engine diameter:
Engine length:
Engine weight:
Electronic Control Unit:
Fuel pump:
Gas bottle:
Flight Battery:
2 solenoid valves:
System airborne weight:

130 mm / 5.1 inches
375 mm / 14.7 inches
2850 Gram / 100 oz
110 Gram / 3.9 oz
170 Gram / 6.0 oz
95 Gram / 3.3 oz
350 Gram / 12.4 oz
80 Gram / 2.8 oz
---------------------------------
3685 Gram / 128.4 oz
Thrust @ max. rpm@ STP (15 Deg.C/1013 Mbar):
Maximum RPM:
Idle RPM:
Mass flow @ max. rpm:
Normal EGT :
Maximum EGT:
Fuel consumption @ max. rpm:
Fuel type:
Throttle response from Idle RPM to Max RPM:
Throttle response from 30% throttle to Max RPM:
Throttle response from 50% throttle to Max RPM:

E-start time:
23,5 Kilogram force / 51.7 Lbf
108,500
36,000
450 gr/sec. / 0.99 Lb/sec.
700 °C / 1290 °F
775 °C / 1380 °F
640 gr/min. / 22.5 oz/min.
JP-4/paraffin/Jet A1, mixed with 4,5% Oil
3.5 Seconds.
1.5 Seconds.
0.5 Second.

10-15 seconds*

* Fuel system primed from last engine run.
Time measured from ignition to reaching idle RPM.
Fully charged Nicad battery.
Propane as starting gas.
€ 4.705,00

---------------------------------

"john smith" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
Andrew Sarangan wrote:

- a small turbine engine suitable for GA aircraft with fewer moving
parts and smoother operation

I had a very good discussion at AirVenture 2007 with one of the people
in the Williams tent. My question to him was what was Williams' side of
the story with regards to the decision by Eclipse to drop their engine.
The jist of his response was that Eclipse refused to accept that just
because a jet engine is small doesn't mean it cost less than one a
little bigger.

That it could not develop the power/weight ration that the P&W did, in
accordance with Eclipse's first request. That the Williams effort ran into
numerous (?) problems pertaining to reliability, might have also been a
factor.

Sounds like Williams, great a company as they are, are making childish
excuses for NOT PERFORMING.

"Dave J" wrote in message
ps.com...

Maybe because they are overwhelmed with things to keep them entertained,
24x7, and we live in a socity in which challenging yourself is not
encouraged.

I think the armies of kids cramming for the SATs, busting their butts
to get precious scholarships to get them through college without a
debt, etc, are challenging themselves just fine.

Really? How many is that? How many cramming for a test that's been dumbed
down annually for thirty years?

I don't know how old
you are

52...been there.

, but I hazard to guess that kids today are growing up in a
more competitive environment than any time in modern history.

A couple generations ago, half of kids went to college. Now everyone has to
go, even though few are really qualfiied for a college curriculum. Note,
too, how many college seniors can't pass a test that junior high kids did
not too long ago.

As for "competitive", that's the last things are faced with - every one gets
a brass ring regardless of capability or effort.


It's not challenge. If anything, it's risk/reward.

And the challenge is applying and dealing with those risk factors.


Oh, and by the way, you can kill yourself in an airplane, which, to my
knowledge, has not happened with an iPod. Could be wrong on that.

Well, you can certainly cook your brain matter.


One key factor is the antiquated airplanes we fly.

That might be part of it, but I'd say it was pretty much insignificant.
The
newer 172s and 182s are a good foundation, and even their costs are minor
for a generation that thinks nothing of $150 sneakers, a $20000 Honda
Civic
with fart mufflers, $300 a wheel rims and other trim "features".

Wha? that $150 pair of sneakers is going to get you what, 3/4 of an
hour in a new 172?

Around here, a two year old 172 goes for $105, wet.

How many sneakers do you think kids today are
buying?

A lot more than they did when a pair of sneakers cost $15 and a 172 went
$19/hr.

My flying habit, at its max has been about 100 hours a year in
30-year-old 172's and Cherokees. That's been roughly $10,000/yr all
told. That's the same cost as the Honda, *gone* in two years. At least
with the Honda, you've got a car at the end of two years.

You know, I _think_ you just showed the attitude that may be behind the
dearth of new students.


Look, I *love* aviation. I suspect you do, too. But I don't think we
can build aviation's future on people who just love airplanes.

Practical allpication helps. I've average 350 hours/year the past nine
years. That's because I operate my business not as a local endeavor, but
across about half a million suare miles. Couldn't do that by car, by
airline, or even by the regionals. In sum, it's gives me a hell of an
advantage over my competitors (there's that competition thing again) who
want to still in their backwater towns and wait for business to knock on
their doors. Only way it could be done is by GA airplne, but that vehilcle
has to be very capable, reliable/dependable, and FAST.

You
need to get people who, well, just "kinda like" airplanes and might
even find them useful sometimes.

As above, the USEFUL is the key; there are , as I pointed out, so many other
"hobbies" to participate in that are cheaper and, to someone NOT an airplane
lover, jsut as rewarding.

Yet, how rewarding is playing X-BOX?


Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current
generation
than we realize.

He is somewhat, and I believe I am somewhat. I don't know mxmanic's
background. I suspect he works in the computer business. I am a
computer engineer (I don't program computers, I design their chips).
I've worked hard to be skilled at my craft. In fact, I like becoming
skilled at crafts. That's a lot of the fun for me -- hence aviation!

But I struggle to find time and cash to keep this hobby up.

You just hit on the major facet: COST. The other key word is: HOBBY.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

"Dave J" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 10, 7:43 pm, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:

Possibly our own Mxmaniac is more representative of the current
generation
than we realize.

By the way, cheap intergenerational shots don't help to bring in new
customers, either!

With MX, there is no such thing as a Cheap Shot, intergenerational or
otherwise. Even his peers in terms of age disdain and ridicule him.

I think many, if not most, here don't want such a mentally defective lout in
the REAL air with us.