![]() |
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 |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In rec.aviation.owning Mike Rapoport wrote:
wrote in message ... While not quite a .049, here's a 3.7" in diameter, 2.6 lb turbine that produces 16.5 lb of thrust. http://jetcatusa.sitewavesonline.net/p70.html Their biggest turbine is 5.12", 5 lb, and produces 45 lb of thrust. Here's another outfit that sells a 3.5" diameter, 7.25" long, 1.9 lb turbine with 11.4 lb of thrust. http://www.swbturbines.com/model_turbines.htm Now granted these are turbojets, not turboprops, but it appears to me that making small turbines is possible... -- Jim Pennino You are missing the point. Everyone agrees that small turbines can be built, the issue is fuel consumption. What is the specific fuel consumption per lb of thrust? Not quite "everyone" has signed on to that notion and you are one of few that has wanted to talk about numbers as opposed to making sweeping statements. For the 16.5 lb thrust engine it is 1.8 lb/hr-lb thrust, but I doubt fuel efficiency is a design criteria in a model airplane engine. The question remains, at what HP level, based on the physics of the engines, does the crossover from piston to turbine occur? As additional criteria, assume specific fuel consumption is the most important parameter and that the A/C spends the majority of its time in flight not doing touch and goes. -- Jim Pennino Remove -spam-sux to reply. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|