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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
Comparisons aside, my point is simply this, never put yourself in a position where your safety or life is dependent on the operation of one of these small turbines. Several other previous posters agree with me on this.
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
Well, the same applies to ANY type of glider engine.
When Lord Derby was once asked why he always flew in four-engined aircraft he replied that it was because there were no six-engined aircraft. At 13:13 04 June 2015, wrote: Comparisons aside, my point is simply this, never put yourself in a position where your safety or life is dependent on the operation of one of these small turbines. Several other previous posters agree with me on this. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 10:00:04 AM UTC-4, Simon Waddell wrote:
When Lord Derby was once asked why he always flew in four-engined aircraft he replied that it was because there were no six-engined aircraft. And to seque back to glider mounted jet engines... What happens if you mount two of these engines on a glider? Enough thrust for self-launching? Redundancy for sustaining (or to circle back on aborted takeoff)? Twice as many things to break? 2X the cost? |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
Sure. But it's all about fuel. These thing gulp it down. Fueling system in the case of an SL can't be an afterthought. It must be designed into the ship, and would likely mean multiple tanks etc. Probably fuselage and wing tanks. A poorly designed fueling system can lead to all sorts of issues with turbines.
And to seque back to glider mounted jet engines... What happens if you mount two of these engines on a glider? Enough thrust for self-launching? Redundancy for sustaining (or to circle back on aborted takeoff)? Twice as many things to break? 2X the cost? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
I agree with Simon - it is crazy to bet your life or glider on the reliability of any type of engine. Personally I am far more concerned about windmill starting draggy 2 stroke turbos than a turbine which why my glider is at the workshop to get its turbine installed today.
It is clear from several posts that some contributors have absolutely no idea of the depth and intensity of the EASA certification process that the three new turbines have had to go through. A post mentioned broken blades so as an example of one test - the M+D jet is planned to have a 500 start and run cycles TBO but, as it was explained to those of us waiting, they had to demonstrate 3 times that number of starts and power runs with cracked blades with no failure - which tests alone took several months to run. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
A post mentioned broken blades so as an example of one test - the M+D jet is planned to have a 500 start and run cycles TBO but, as it was explained to those of us waiting, they had to demonstrate 3 times that number of starts and power runs with cracked blades with no failure - which tests alone took several months to run.
That is why I mentioned later, I expect the QA of these turbines to be much better than that of the typical model turbine. Good for them. I do hope they model FOD accurately though. Nice clean lab is one thing... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
Multiple engines (especially for self-launch) make a lot of sense since price scales neatly with thrust.
2X 230N thrust for a light single-seater, or 2X 800N for an open-class ship would allow a self-launcher with acceptable cruise fuel consumption and self-launch capability. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
On Thursday, June 4, 2015 at 12:17:49 PM UTC-7, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
Multiple engines (especially for self-launch) make a lot of sense since price scales neatly with thrust. 2X 230N thrust for a light single-seater, or 2X 800N for an open-class ship would allow a self-launcher with acceptable cruise fuel consumption and self-launch capability. That's close to what I came up with when investigating for a single seater. You would probably want to carry at least 15 gallons of fuel for the single. Interestingly, when you throw in oil and anti-static, the runtime cost are quite high. You end up finding how economical the old fashioned internal combustion self launch really is. It accomplishes quite a lot with 4 or 5 gallons. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Jet turbine reliability
That's close to what I came up with when investigating for a single seater. You would probably want to carry at least 15 gallons of fuel for the single. Interestingly, when you throw in oil and anti-static, the runtime cost are quite high. You end up finding how economical the old fashioned internal combustion self launch really is. It accomplishes quite a lot with 4 or 5 gallons. So in the case of the M&D/JS-1, is it correct to assume the preferred fuel is Jet A? To Jet A, what specific oil and anti-static are added and what is the added ratio? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
MINI 500, Rinke, Turbine, Helicopter for sale, Helicopter, Revolution, Turbine Power | TurbineMini Richard | Rotorcraft | 2 | January 28th 09 08:50 PM |
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron? | Montblack | Piloting | 1 | December 13th 05 05:54 PM |
Turbine Duke or turbine Baron? | [email protected] | Piloting | 26 | December 13th 05 08:50 AM |
Engines and Reliability | Dylan Smith | Piloting | 13 | June 30th 04 03:27 PM |
Reliability of O-300 | Captain Wubba | Owning | 13 | March 9th 04 01:17 AM |