![]() |
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
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Duniho" wrote in message ... "Mike Rapoport" wrote in message nk.net... I don's see that I've overlooked something relative to the Caravan. The Caravan has a 940hp engine. There is currently no suitable piston engine to power such a large, single engine airplane. It couldn't be anything other than a turbine. As you yourself pointed out, that 940hp engine is derated to 675hp. You don't need a 940hp piston engine to provide the equivalent power, and a 675hp piston engine is not out of the question (for example, the Orenda V8 turbine replacement engines are in that ballpark, if I recall correctly). Large snip. I agree that it is difficult to compare different types of engines apples to apples since the power and specific fuel consumption curves are so different.. I have two airplanes, one turbine and one piston. Both engines are well suited for their applications. In the Helio, power is often set to 15"MP to keep the speed down in turbulent, low altitude mountain flying. A turbine would be horribly inefficient operated like this. In the MU-2, power is set close to the torque or temp limits from takeoff until reaching about 16,000' on the descent. A piston engine operated flat out like this wouldn't last long, particularly at high altitude. Both powerplanes have their place although I think that diesels will eventually replace gasoline piston engines because of their efficiency, long life and simplicity. Mike MU-2 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|