Peter:
"Peter Holm" wrote in message
om...
Itīs been a while and I have been rather busy, but I nevertheless
didnīt want to let pass the deadline for responding.
(John Clear) wrote in message
...
(cut)
Do a search on 'Turbo Raven'. Wayne Handley's site doesn't appear
to have video, but there is probably some out there. Unfortunately,
the Turbo Raven was only flown for one season.
http://www.waynehandley.com/archive.html
John
Besides you, there has been one other person answering to my mailbox.
And that answer referred itself to the Turbo Raven as well. But I
havenīt yet found any video of that aircraft. In fact, it seems to me
as if that aircraft has been the only dedicated turboprop aerobatic
aircraft that was ever flown. And that there is nothing today. Am I
wrong on that?
The first that I saw was a turbo Great Lakes, sponsored by Mennen (the
aftershave company.) It used smoke that smelled like the aftershave, and
did a vertical S ontakeoff. That was in the eaarly 1970's as best as I
remember.
The Turbo Raven flew for a short time before the crash.
There is a turbo Sukohi that Ihave seen photos of, but I haven's seen it
live.
Just in case that I am right:
I know that a turboprop airplane can easily cost twice as much as a
piston plane of the same size. But this fact could only explain a
relative rareness of turboprop airplanes among aerobatic planes. What
it cannot explain is their (next to?) absence, since experience shows
that if there is a will there is a way, and some or another team of
people should always be able to adquire one of these planes.
Just a SWAG, but I would think that the Turbo Raven cost about 6 times what
a good Edge 540 would cost. Sponsorship before construction would be
important.
If I extrapolate by scale from what I have frequently seen with model
aircraft (which tend to have a much higher power to weight ratio than
full scale aircraft), an aerobatic turboprop plane should be able to
execute a sustained torque roll at 10 or 15 feet above ground. And
that ought to be an absolutely awsome sight! Has anybody ever done
that?
Doins so would be betting one's life and airplane on no wind gusts,
absolutely no pilot miscalculation, and no aircraft / engine problem.
I have seen the Turbo Raven hover, descend vertically, then ascend
vertically. Scary to watch.
But now I think that - sadly - I will never get to see that, and I am
starting to wonder why.
Rich and foolish is not a combination that survives long.
I know that piston engines can have certain advantages under certain
conditions: For example, when it comes to propulsion on a solid
surface (greater range of rpmīs), or when it comes to the
transportation of large amounts of goods at a minimal price on a
liquid medium (fuel eficiency). But when it comes to airplanes, I can
see that turbo engines are employed either next to exclusively
(commercial/military airplanes) or at least frequently
(private/business airplanes), exept in the case of crop dusters - and
aerobatic airplanes. Now I can understand that turbo crop dusters make
little sense, but how about in the case aerobatic airplanes?
Turb crop dusters make lots of sense for large scale application, are
numerous, ane are profittable.
Therefore, my question is (always assuming that my basic assumption
above is correct):
Is there a rational reason for the next to absence of turboprop planes
among aerobatic aircraft, or is this absence perhaps due to some sort
of stubborn romanticism?
Cost is a rational reason. Turbine engines are not allowed in international
aerobatic competition.
Peter
BJC