New Aussie Turboprop engine (200 HP) introduced at Sun 'n Fun

[Bruce Tuncks]

I wonder if Facthunter ever flew the super-constellation. Apparently they often finished a flight on 3 engines...  dunno if I could cope with that.

[Garfly]

An update by Bertorelli:

 

 

 

[facthunter]

No I haven't flown the 'Connie" but have done 6 landings with an engine feathered in anger on a Four engined Plane and it's no big deal at all..   Nev

[Student Pilot]

Aircraft Nev, Aircraft!!!!

[facthunter]

Yeah,They are all just planes really and obey the same laws.   Nev

[Student Pilot]

Planes shave wood....

[spacesailor]

It Is something to do with ' the inclined angle of the wing '

 Plane = Angle of attack of wing ! .

spacesailor

[onetrack]

I reckon more than a few planes have shaved a fair amount of wood in their forced landings!

[Garfly]

It's also something to do with Kenneth More as Douglas Bader in Reach for the Sky

making it quite clear to his chaps that it's not the done thing; referring to their aircraft as 'kites'.

 

Also, well done, little Aussie battler, TurbAero.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 7, 2023 by Garfly

[facthunter]

You can have "close shaves" in  Planes. Flying a Kite may be a stunt. Blue sky can be nothing.  Nev

[Area-51]

Nobody here has mentioned solid fuel booster rockets for emergency thrust during an engine failure... they are light and powerful and easy to mount; and when your rotax 912 gets stolen by the CIA they can make good use of the rockets too!

 

Pressing a "Boost" button is far far better than waiting for a turbine to spool up.
 

And rockets must be better because Scott Tracey always used them in every episode of the Thunderbirds.. and nobody ever died... and there are no moving parts to fail or service.

[onetrack]

Unfortunately, "accurate and adjustable thrust control", and "booster rockets", don't seem to rate as compatible systems.

[facthunter]

The" slow to spool up" thing was from an Idle condition and didn't apply to a lot of turbine engines in any case.. Even pistons shouldn't have the throttle snapped open. In severe turbulence on final Thrust is a very active control but like all controls must be well coordinated. Turbulence and larger control movements increase DRAG..  Nev

[onetrack]

I wish TurbAero the best of luck, but the track record of major new developments in aviation is littered with the expenditure of billions, for no real gain, and with many promising ideas never actually reaching "commercial viability". Then there's the major drawback of needing about 3 to 5 years of actual use under all operating conditions, to ensure that reliability meets expectations.

 

In this case, reaching certification is going to present as the biggest stumbling block, and tens of millions more is probably going to be needed, to reach certification.

[facthunter]

A lot of turbine engines started life as APU's. Turbochargers can be converted to a Jet engine but fuel consumption and reduction gear have to be addressed as well as a (Usually) complex propeller OR a free spool engine with axial or centrifugal compressor, the centrifugal being the most stable flow.  Nev

[Area-51]

Solid booster rockets are still much cheaper... And if you are single or in dire need of affecting a divorce, you can make them at home in the kitchen!!

[facthunter]

TAA tried out some TIMEX rockets on Bristol freighters in PNG. Nev

[Old Koreelah]

The fuel in my BRS rocket is a series of what look and feel like rubber washers. The whole thing weighs about a kg and it’s designed to lift about 5kg of harness and canopy.

It takes a couple of seconds to burn the lot. Not what I’d call economical flying. 

[onetrack]

Rocket boosters are a pretty hefty addition, and not as simple in design as is often thought. Plus, they burn through the propellant at a staggering rate.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol_Siddeley_605

[facthunter]

Think they are usually Jettisoned when used. Not a technique that is likely to be acceptable in normal 0ps.  Nev

[BrendAn]

7 hours ago, onetrack said:

I wish TurbAero the best of luck, but the track record of major new developments in aviation is littered with the expenditure of billions, for no real gain, and with many promising ideas never actually reaching "commercial viability". Then there's the major drawback of needing about 3 to 5 years of actual use under all operating conditions, to ensure that reliability meets expectations.

 

In this case, reaching certification is going to present as the biggest stumbling block, and tens of millions more is probably going to be needed, to reach certification.

If certification cost tens of millions jabiru wouldn't be in business.

[onetrack]

Turb Aero are talking about engine replacement for O-320's and O-360's - so they're talking GA, not RA. Engine designs have to be continually refined and often redesigned, when serious reliability flaws show up after several hundred hours of extensive testing. So it's not just the actual certification cost, it's the continued engineering expenditure and testing costs that keep eating into the available funds.

 

There are dozens and dozens of "new design aircraft engine" companies who have spent years, and sometimes decades, trying to commercialise their "new design engine", and very few have made it to market - but the vast majority of them have run out of development money - or struck insurmountable engineering/efficiency hurdles.

 

Even Clessie Cummins took 18 years to gain a market, and to start making a profit from his diesel engines - and he was backed all the way by a banker (William G. Irwin), who poured $2.5M into Cummins over nearly a couple of decades - between 1918 and 1937 - the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars today.

 

The NZ Duke axial engine has been in development since 1993, and in 2023, Duke Engines are still seeking "international partners" to continue the development of their engine to the stage of a viable and alternative aircraft engine.

 

https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, onetrack said:

Turb Aero are talking about engine replacement for O-320's and O-360's - so they're talking GA, not RA. Engine designs have to be continually refined and often redesigned, when serious reliability flaws show up after several hundred hours of extensive testing. So it's not just the actual certification cost, it's the continued engineering expenditure and testing costs that keep eating into the available funds.

 

There are dozens and dozens of "new design aircraft engine" companies who have spent years, and sometimes decades, trying to commercialise their "new design engine", and very few have made it to market - but the vast majority of them have run out of development money - or struck insurmountable engineering/efficiency hurdles.

 

Even Clessie Cummins took 18 years to gain a market, and to start making a profit from his diesel engines - and he was backed all the way by a banker (William G. Irwin), who poured $2.5M into Cummins over nearly a couple of decades - between 1918 and 1937 - the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars today.

 

The NZ Duke axial engine has been in development since 1993, and in 2023, Duke Engines are still seeking "international partners" to continue the development of their engine to the stage of a viable and alternative aircraft engine.

 

https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/

Sorry. I was only thinking of certification. Not all the other costs. Aren't jabiru certified for ga too.

[Carbon Canary]

33 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Turb Aero are talking about engine replacement for O-320's and O-360's - so they're talking GA, not RA. Engine designs have to be continually refined and often redesigned, when serious reliability flaws show up after several hundred hours of extensive testing. So it's not just the actual certification cost, it's the continued engineering expenditure and testing costs that keep eating into the available funds.

 

There are dozens and dozens of "new design aircraft engine" companies who have spent years, and sometimes decades, trying to commercialise their "new design engine", and very few have made it to market - but the vast majority of them have run out of development money - or struck insurmountable engineering/efficiency hurdles.

 

Even Clessie Cummins took 18 years to gain a market, and to start making a profit from his diesel engines - and he was backed all the way by a banker (William G. Irwin), who poured $2.5M into Cummins over nearly a couple of decades - between 1918 and 1937 - the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars today.

 

The NZ Duke axial engine has been in development since 1993, and in 2023, Duke Engines are still seeking "international partners" to continue the development of their engine to the stage of a viable and alternative aircraft engine.

 

https://generalaviationnews.com/2012/09/09/the-cost-of-certification/

Don’t hear much about the Sarich orbital engine these days, although the ASX listed company still exists albeit pursuing different technologies now.

[Garfly]

Although, I see the Mazda/Wankel is back, but now as a range extending genset for its new EV.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3gzQVGEqF4

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2023 by Garfly