![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 05:37:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote: I think (guess) that they were looking for somewhat better performance than a turbocharged piston Bonanza across the existiong flight envelope, but not to extend that envelope too far in either speed or altitude. If they put an engine into the airplane that would make 300hp at FL310, they would probably have to completely re-flight-test the airplane. You seem to have hit the nail on the head, intentionally or accidentally. A turbo-normalized or turbo-supercharged engine in an A-36 should have no issues with delivering 75% of rated TO hp well into the teens. Again, it has admittedly been several years since I did the research for a prospective customer (for whom $$ was by no means an issue), but the power "curve" of the 250 was less than desirable when compared to a turbo piston-pounder. Specific fuel consumption was approximately 1/3 higher, with the additional fuel storage neccessary to retain "acceptable" range capabilities. There are many existing aircraft types that have been "re-engined" with powerplants drastically exceeding the original installations. In a lot of cases, no "flight-test"-ing is required, nor is it needed. Engine operating limitations are changed so as not to exceed the original levels. I would certainly agree that testing would need to be performed if increasing the usable hp-thrust rating. I am a little confused by your post as well. An engine can only make its thermodynamic horsepower at sea level and ISA, so you are below that at any flight altitude. I apologize if I wasn't clear, or it may be a case of miscommunication. It's likely when looking at "newer" t-prop aircraft you will notice that the gas generator is likely capable of exceeding airframe limitations at max thermo-hp. Hence, at altitude it has no problems producing a very high percentage of "max take-off" power. I'm sure you know this. They are few and far between, but there are A-36's flying around with 350 hp turbo-supercharged Lycoming engines. Aside from the differences in initial rate of climb, I would be willing to bet the the overall performance numbers would be more than comparable to the turbine conversion. The guy I spoke to that had one could only lament the fact that he had to burn 22-25 gph in cruise... Regards; TC snip |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Right prop, wrong prop? Wood prop, metal prop? | Gus Rasch | Aerobatics | 1 | February 14th 08 10:18 PM |
Ivo Prop on O-320 | Dave S | Home Built | 14 | October 15th 04 03:04 AM |
Turbo prop AT-6/SNJ? | frank may | Military Aviation | 11 | September 5th 04 02:51 PM |
IVO props... comments.. | Dave S | Home Built | 16 | December 6th 03 11:43 PM |
Early Bonanza or Apache? | Brinks | Owning | 11 | July 16th 03 06:01 PM |