question about engines

Jim Macklin wrote:
look for Thunder engine

The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang? Sheesh, I know the plane
has eaten some folks' lunches . . . but what a beauty

John

John wrote:

Jim Macklin wrote:

look for Thunder engine


The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?


Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King Air and puts
in pistons.

Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| John wrote:
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| look for Thunder engine
|
|
| The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
|
|
| Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King
Air and puts
| in pistons.

Jim Macklin wrote:
Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
"Newps" wrote in message
. ..
|
|
| John wrote:
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| look for Thunder engine
|
|
| The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
|
|
| Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a King
Air and puts
| in pistons.

Jim -

I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just a
conversation. There may have been a business case . . . but I sure
never saw it

If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
| "Newps" wrote in message
| . ..
| |
| |
| | John wrote:
| |
| | Jim Macklin wrote:
| |
| | look for Thunder engine
| |
| |
| | The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
| |
| |
| | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a
King
| Air and puts
| | in pistons.
|
| Jim -
|
| I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just
a
| conversation. There may have been a business case . . .
but I sure
| never saw it
|

It may be proven, but they still quit.

I've had two quit on me in a King Air. Nobody counts the failures.

Karl
"Curator" N185KG


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
...
If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.



"John" wrote in message
ups.com...
|
| Jim Macklin wrote:
| Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
| "Newps" wrote in message
| . ..
| |
| |
| | John wrote:
| |
| | Jim Macklin wrote:
| |
| | look for Thunder engine
| |
| |
| | The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
| |
| |
| | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out of a
King
| Air and puts
| | in pistons.
|
| Jim -
|
| I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was just
a
| conversation. There may have been a business case . . .
but I sure
| never saw it
|

I've had them quit too, and shut down a couple more because
of a desire to protect the engine.




"karl gruber" wrote in message
...
| It may be proven, but they still quit.
|
| I've had two quit on me in a King Air. Nobody counts the
failures.
|
| Karl
| "Curator" N185KG
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| ...
| If I was building a high performance single, maybe for
| racing, a Walter engine would be fine... probably last a
| long time and be cheap. But the P&W is proven.
|
|
|
| "John" wrote in message
|
ups.com...
| |
| | Jim Macklin wrote:
| | Or switches from a P&W PT6 to a Walter
| | "Newps" wrote in message
| | . ..
| | |
| | |
| | | John wrote:
| | |
| | | Jim Macklin wrote:
| | |
| | | look for Thunder engine
| | |
| | |
| | | The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang?
| | |
| | |
| | | Nobody with a brain cell left takes turbines out
of a
| King
| | Air and puts
| | | in pistons.
| |
| | Jim -
| |
| | I agree with you on all kinds of levels . . . it was
just
| a
| | conversation. There may have been a business case . .
..
| but I sure
| | never saw it
| |
|
|
|
|

Hi John

I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.

To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
crash of the prototype.
Have there been any more accidents?

I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.

Brian

John wrote:
Jim Macklin wrote:
look for Thunder engine

The same engine as in the Thunder Mustang? Sheesh, I know the plane
has eaten some folks' lunches . . . but what a beauty

John

"Brian" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi John

I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.

To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
crash of the prototype.
Have there been any more accidents?

I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.

Brian


Is the above statement really something you want archived on the internet
for eternity? Well I guess it's to late now.

I think it was a pretty safe statement. Remember we were planning on
building 300 of them and it is smaller than a Cessna 150. Weighs twice
as much and has 600+ horse power.

I think this could be said of any airplane that meets those
specification.

It was pretty obvious to me that someone would eventually do something
stupid with one.

However flown properly and with the proper respect it is probably no
worse than anything else in this category

Brian






Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
"Brian" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi John

I was the primary draftsman for the Thunder Mustang. To date I only
personally know of about 4 of them that are flying. I suspect there
another 4 or 5 I don't know about. From the parts and engines we
manufactured there could be as many as 25 of them flying.

To date the only accident involving injuries that I am aware of was the
crash of the prototype.
Have there been any more accidents?

I have to admit the when we put it paper it was pretty obvious it was a
hot airplane and that people would kill themselves in it. I am bit
surprised it hasn't been worse. But maybe the fact that it is obviously
a hot airplane that deserves respect has contributed to this.

Brian


Is the above statement really something you want archived on the internet
for eternity? Well I guess it's to late now.