REFLECTOR: Advance Turbine Power ne Innodyn
Wayne Lanza
wlanza at bellsouth.net
Mon Oct 11 06:33:48 CDT 2004
Hi Chuck,
We have three of the Solar T62 engines and have purchased the manuals
from the
government (the only source for surplus equipment...). In the manuals
it gives fuel
consumption rates of about 1.0 at idle, 1.3 at 90HP and close to 1.8 at
150HP. The
liars at ATP/Inodyne (I am being kind here) are claiming to have
reduced the fuel
burn by pulsing the fuel. They have loosely compared this savings
method to a
pulsed fuel type home heating system. They have also claimed to have
improved
the engine's efficiency by tightening up the tolerances and clearances.
In a single
stage compressor turbine like the T62 the maximum compression ratio is
about 3.5,
think about the improvements needed to increase this ratio. Then
consider that the
compressed air temperature at the 3.5:1 ratio is about 750 degrees F.
When the
ratio is increased the temperature goes up, the metal expands more and
will start
to become plastic. All the while spinning at 62,000 RPM - or more if
you want more
power. So it is kinda obvious that it is not a trivial matter to
increase the amount of
air that is getting to the hot section. Which brings up the next point
- pulsing the fuel?
Let's see here, less fuel and supposedly more air, will give more
BTU's? Maybe on
the planet Regulus Prime or Zeta Reticuli but not on the earth.
We have run our T62's many times and they are great! They start easy,
are silky
smooth, sound really neat and burn ALL of the gallons per hour!
ATP/Inodyne is full of crap. I'd like for them to prove me wrong, I
love turbines, but
if they ever actually get even close to their numbers Williams research
will have a
lot of explaining to do after being shown up by a bunch of amateurs in
a garage!
Best Regards,
Wayne Lanza
_________________________________________________________________
On Oct 10, 2004, at 9:19 AM, Chuck Jensen wrote:
> Bruch, some kind of guru on the RV aircraft site seems to think the
> some
> laws of physics and thermodynamics need to be repealed/altered for
> Innodyn
> to make their numbers. Puts numbers to gut-feel.
>
> Chuck
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server at matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server at matronics.com]On Behalf Of Stein Bruch
> Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:22 AM
> To: rv-list at matronics.com
> Subject: RE: RV-List: turbine power
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: "Stein Bruch" <stein at steinair.com>
>
> Well, let's run the numbers (BSFC that is).
>
> If the Turbine is in fact burning:
>
> 16 @ 250hp, that = (16x6.8)/250 = BSFC of .432
> 13 @ 200hp, that = (13x6.8)/200 = BSFC of .442
>
> That is HIGHLY suspect, because the well known published BSFC numbers
> for
> the old Solar T-62 are between 1.0-1.2 which would equate to something
> more
> like (hp/6.8) with a BSFC of 1:
>
> 250hp, 37gph
> 200hp, 29gph
> 180hp, 26gph
> 150hp, 22gph
> 100hp, 14gph
>
>
> Now, taking the scenario below that Charlie used, that 100hp would
> equate to
> 14gph.....that's what my IO-360 burns ar full tilt at takeoff, near sea
> level and with a BSFC of .5, I'm probably developing around my rated
> 180hp,
> a typical published BSFC for most 4 stroke gas engines. Too keep
> everyone
> from getting bored with numbers, I did some basic & rudimetnary
> guestimation
> (based on my 180hpRV6 cruise #'s), and believe it only takes aroun
> 80-85hp
> to do 140. Using that number, the turbine is now burning 14gph at
> 85hp,
> brings us to a BSFC of 1.1, a much more realistic probability for that
> engine. If you follow that number up, you get a LOT of fuel burn at
> higher
> hp.
>
> The BSFC calculations have been around since before my time, and are
> fairly
> well known. Typcial BSFC's are:
>
> Small Turboshafts, 1.0-1.2 +/-
> Large Turboshafts, .65-.7 +/-
> 2 Stroke Pistons, .58-.64 +/-
> Wankels (Rotaries), .47-.50 +/-
> 4 Sroke GAS Piston, .4-.5 +/-
> 4 Stroke DIESEL, .3-.4 +/-
>
> That being said, there have been some very creative folks with engines
> on
> airplanes and have gotten BSFC's down in the low .3's.
>
> I guess each person needs to make their own choice, but I'll stand by
> the
> historically published numbers until I see proof of something else.
> That
> means flying one of their turbine powered RV's next to a comparable
> powered
> Lyc, and measuring fuel burned. I hope they do well, and truly would
> like
> to see a bunch of Jet powered RV's out there, but I'm VERY skeptical.
> If in
> fact that engine is only burning 13gph @ 200hp, I'll be standing in
> line to
> buy one.
>
> Might be a SUPER engine, or might be a pig with lipstick.....only time
> will
> tell.
>
> Cheers,
> Stein Bruch
> RV6's, Minneapolis.
>
> P.S., Somebody, somewhere has GOT to know by now what those engines are
> drinking. The fact that it hasn't been actively and acurately
> published and
> verified by the mfgr is another sign.....
>
> Do not archive this mess I created!!!
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-rv-list-server at matronics.com
> [mailto:owner-rv-list-server at matronics.com]On Behalf Of Charlie England
> To: rv-list at matronics.com
> Subject: Re: RV-List: turbine power
>
>
> --> RV-List message posted by: Charlie England
> <ceengland at bellsouth.net>
>
> Wayne R. Couture wrote:
>
>> --> RV-List message posted by: "Wayne R. Couture"
> <commando at cox-internet.com>
>>
>> OK Folks,
>>
>> There's a new article in "Kitbuilt Airplanes" about "Affordable
>> Turbine
> power" and there Solar turbine engine. Again they boast that they are
> getting 16 gph at 250 hp and 13 gph at 200 hp using an automotive type
> fuel
> injection system. Now the last time we talked about this it was said
> that
> the best they could possibly get would be about 1.1 to 1.2 pounds of
> fuel
> per hp with a single stage compressor. That's over 20 gph! So what's
> going
> on? Could they possibly be getting that kind of fuel burn? It sure
> would
> be COOL to be running a turbine. Any comments from you engineers out
> there?
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>
> At SNF this spring I asked the ATP guy what speed & fuel burn they are
> now getting in their RV-4 now that they have fixed the exhaust angle.
> He
> said that they were burning 14gph at 140 mph. I believe that the hp
> required to fly a -4 at 140 mph is well under 100.
>
> It would be cool, but...
>
> Charlie
>
>
> _-
> =======================================================================
> =
> _-= - The RV-List Email Forum -
> _-= This forum is sponsored entirely through the Contributions
> _-= of List members. You'll never see banner ads or any other
> _-= form of direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
> _-
> =======================================================================
> =
> _-= !! NEW !!
> _-= ALL NEW LIST CHAT!! http://www.matronics.com/chat
> _-
> =======================================================================
> =
> _-= List Related Information
> _-= Post Message: rv-list at matronics.com
> _-= UN/SUBSCRIBE: http://www.matronics.com/subscription
> _-= List FAQ: http://www.matronics.com/FAQ/RV-List.htm
> _-= Search Engine: http://www.matronics.com/search
> _-= 7-Day Browse: http://www.matronics.com/browse/rv-list
> _-= Browse Digests: http://www.matronics.com/digest/rv-list
> _-= Live List Chat: http://www.matronics.com/chat
> _-= Archives: http://www.matronics.com/archives
> _-= Photo Share: http://www.matronics.com/photoshare
> _-= List Specific: http://www.matronics.com/rv-list
> _-= Other Lists: http://www.matronics.com/emaillists
> _-= Trouble Report http://www.matronics.com/trouble-report
> _-= Contributions: http://www.matronics.com/contribution
> _-
> =======================================================================
> =
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> To change your email address, visit
> http://www.tvbf.org/mailman/listinfo/reflector
>
> Visit the gallery! www.tvbf.org/gallery
> user:pw = tvbf:jamaicangoose
> Check new archives: www.tvbf.org/pipermail
> Check old archives: http://www.tvbf.org/archives/velocity/maillist.html
>
More information about the Reflector
mailing list