![]() |
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Mxsmanic wrote: cjcampbell writes: A turborprop increases safety, but now you are talking real money, both in acquisition cost and in fuel and maintenance. Why are turboprops so much more expensive? I thought gas turbines were supposed to be simpler and more efficient. They are simple, but much less efficient than piston engines. Every teaspoon of fuel has a fixed number of calories. Efficiency is measured by what percentage of these calories is translated to thrust. The reason turbines generate so much power despite their inefficiency is that they can burn a lot more fuel even though they waste much of the energy in the fuel. The inefficiency translates into incompletely burned fuel, waste heat, exhaust, and pollution. Basically, this means that you have to burn more fuel to generate 100hp in a turbine engine than you do in a piston engine. A jet engine loses even more efficiency in the translation of hp to thrust. A turboprop is more efficient than a pure jet because of its propeller, but it still is not as efficient as a piston engine. Turbines will probably never be as efficient as piston engines. This is why gas turbine automobiles have never become popular. People don't want a car that gets less than 10mpg unless it is a Rolls Royce. Plus, acceleration is terrible. Chrysler built a batch of gas turbine concept cars back in the early '60s and lent them to ordinary consumers as a test. People hated them, not least because of the annoying, high-pitched whine. I remember seeing them at car shows back then. But, hey: it would burn anything -- gas, diesel, jet fuel, vegetable oil, even perfume (and how long will it be before the price of gas approaches that of perfume, either as fuel or otherwise -- and what is it with cars and perfume, anyway?). The reason we use jet engines is that they are inherently more powerful and they can operate at high altitudes where the efficiency penalty compared to piston engines is less. At high speeds, drag is a more important factor in fuel economy than engine efficiency, so jet airliners get their best fuel economy at high altitude. But for short hauls where it would just be a waste of fuel to climb to high altitude and descend again, a turboprop will deliver more power than a piston engine with greater fuel economy than a jet. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
UAV's and TFR's along the Mexico boarder | John Doe | Piloting | 145 | March 31st 06 06:58 PM |
Home Built Aircraft - Alternative Engines - Geo/Suzuki | OtisWinslow | Home Built | 1 | October 12th 05 02:55 PM |
Book Review: Converting Auto Engines for Experimental Aircraft , Finch | Paul | Home Built | 0 | October 18th 04 10:14 PM |
P-3C Ditches with Four Engines Out, All Survive! | Scet | Military Aviation | 6 | September 27th 04 01:09 AM |
U.S. Air Force Moves Ahead With Studies On Air-Breathing Engines | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | October 29th 03 03:31 AM |