Old Koreelah Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 ...A truly impressive achievement, to have put men on the moon despite being handicapped by archaic measurements. 1 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oscar Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 ...A truly impressive achievement, to have put men on the moon despite being handicapped by archaic measurements. Be fair - it's a fine example of achievement by people with 12 fingers.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucano Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I am back - more lusting We need about 150 - 180 hp for Tucano as fuel burn is still the issue and would limit range though the factory will be looking at underwing tanks giving another 60 liters The but issue with be RAA - NO Turbine - My guess is maintenance issues but I would live with beign only able to do R/R maintenance and the heavy stuff to the factory or authorized repair. - this would have to be solved Great work 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rgmwa Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Id love an RV4 but can't find one I like! Perfect reason to build one! rgmwa 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucano Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 If you read the previous post from the manufacturer that will attempt to address that but in the end it will be training but that will be interesting - just try to get a retract rating in an RAA aircraft - that where the real issue will be. The aircraft types are exceeding the available pool training aircraft with the necessary features not to mention instructors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 True maint would be of concern but I believe the higher complexicity of operating a turbine would be more the issue. Turbine operated A/C are not the same as some lightweight recip powered plane, they behave somewhat different. I haven't read anywhere of these concerns with this product, the opposite in fact, it seems one of the aim is for "average joe blog" operational capabilities. What maintenance issues are you guys referring to? Seems a lot less than a piston engine to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Turbines tend to either work or not work. They may not meet a power output if they are sick and /or they can overtemp and melt the turbine or have a mechanical failure (bearings) but generally they will have a reliabiity multiples of any reciprocating engine. Life is likely to be much higher as well. Fuel useage and cost are the issue, and they are generally operated it higher altitudes for economy. Small ones will have a large reduction ratio engine- prop and unless they are very crude and simple will need a good variable pitch prop. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I think the turbine issue for RAA will be solved...in time but as Tucano says the retract is another matter and getting training aircraft is another thing although the path is there to be trained in your own aircraft of course if the instructor is ok with it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 Didn't mention weight where they are usually much lighter as well. The size makes them harder to get a specific fuel consumption figure you can live with. Reduction gears should be sun and planetary. Turbo could be running at 90,000 rpm's.( Faster with smaller). Engine handling with jets is a myth. You have to be much more sensitive and knowledgeable with a large Piston to avoid knocking it around. ( Lots of limitations). If you have a high cruising speed you need prop locks for safety. What's the big deal about retractable gear? You need to know what the emergency extension procedure entails and limiting speeds for extension and flying with it down. Often not the same. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted April 19, 2017 Share Posted April 19, 2017 I think the turbine issue for RAA will be solved...in time but as Tucano says the retract is another matter and getting training aircraft is another thing although the path is there to be trained in your own aircraft of course if the instructor is ok with it but the second owner can't do training in it, so its going to be an expensive exercise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 IF the first owner doesn't build it what's the difference with any subsequent owner? Is the 51%rule of any import in reality. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 True maint would be of concern but I believe the higher complexicity of operating a turbine would be more the issue. Turbine operated A/C are not the same as some lightweight recip powered plane, they behave somewhat different. Turbines are aimed at the more experienced driver, I recall I wasn't allowed anywhere near one till I had thousands of hrs under my belt. I'd like to see them allowed in all types but with far more in depth training with additional min experience. These days it's quite common to put 700hr drivers (first step up) on turbines, few companies even putting 'green' drivers on them doing scenic work. Don't exactly agree with it but they don't seem to be having any issues. Hardest thing I found with turbines is you have basically no understanding of them when you start with them, unlike pistons which most of the general public have an understanding of and very familiar with them from a young age. Personally I've stripped and rebuilt a few. There's nothing hard about turbines, just don't bugger it up as it's either very expensive or will fail spectacularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 MARAP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Yes I am aware of what happens these days. Operators will pay for that sometimes allowing juniors to operate turbines by way of them being mishandled & I imagine insurance Co's have relaxed their requirements also. Many years ago the Ins Co's wanted much higher experience pilots to drive insured planes with turbines, way of the future I guess! I never got my ass into an old beat up PA31 'till I had around 2000 hrs! God how things have changed! Certainly has, we have hired recently and taken drivers on the RPT minimums, guys are getting jet jobs on a monthly basis. 2000 hours and you would be over qualified at the moment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Jet engines are one of the best kept secrets in aviation. Basically fuel flow equals output. There are more exacting indications for setting takeoff power and cruise but for a quick check flow does it. there can be some overheating with problematic models on start o0r downwind taxying. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jetjr Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Maybe Im missing something regarding training concerns New users need instruction for sure but, There isnt engine type endorsements currently so any training would be non RAA required so all the rules on owners nd 51% wouldnt apply. Its not IFA prop but CS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tucano Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 If you were planning to use your turbine / retractable / constant speed aircraft to get your endorsements you have to have the endorsement to test fly the new aircraft in the first place - Catch 22 Finding a retractable RAA registered aircraft for endorsement is an interesting exercise, now imagine rocking up to a GA school with all that RAA logbook and asking: "Hey I need a endorsement in these areas" Please consider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Maybe Im missing something regarding training concernsNew users need instruction for sure but, There isnt engine type endorsements currently so any training would be non RAA required so all the rules on owners nd 51% wouldnt apply. Its not IFA prop but CS. Well there used to be two stroke and four stroke endorsement ... and who want to place bets the current RAAus would bend over backwards and offer up turbine endorsement IF they thought CASA would accept turbine into the groups of planes not currently open to turbines ... oh and the same goes for electric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted May 14, 2017 Share Posted May 14, 2017 Make it as a twin pack driving through a gearbox. Should make RV's etc go like rockets with a good part of twin reliability and no assymetric thrust problem. As for RAAus I can only say how pathetic it is that the human race keeps erecting totally artificial barriers against progress. About 10 years ago I pointed out to CASA that there would soon be small turbojets, turboprops and electric propulsion for small and ultralight aircraft and the rules should allow these. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Donald Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I added this post to another thread but it was suggested I start my own thread about my engine so here it is:Perhaps a realistic alternative to a Rotax will be the engine that I have been developing and am in the process of launching. It is still at least 2 years away for first deliveries but we are making steady headway to that target. Congrats awsome project 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted May 18, 2017 Author Share Posted May 18, 2017 Thanks Steve. It's certainly a very exciting one for me personally and also pretty well everyone I've discussed it with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffreywh Posted May 18, 2017 Share Posted May 18, 2017 Oh so impressive, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDavies Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 Is there any news or updates on these turbines? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAgNeToDrOp Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 re-read the thread, drool worthy engine, .... Now somebody go and build a scaled down Pilatus Porter PC-6 for this please... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted December 18, 2017 Share Posted December 18, 2017 re-read the thread, drool worthy engine, .... Now somebody go and build a scaled down Pilatus Porter PC-6 for this please... Oooh yeah! Scaled down to a single seat with an option for a second seat in tandem or set up for a single bed behind the main seat! Would that be the perfect single pilot camping setup? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now