A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Home Built
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 21st 04, 07:55 AM
Capt.Doug
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
he does the Silent Wings air show act with the two AMT engines
on the Silent motorglider. _Very_ cool stuff. He's got two 45 lbf

AMT-USA's
and he's burning 20 gals/hr total (both engines) at 100% N1.


Does he have a website with the plane on it?

D.


  #12  
Old December 21st 04, 02:57 PM
Shin Gou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

http://www.silentwingsairshows.com/

  #13  
Old December 21st 04, 10:07 PM
Juan Jimenez
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, www.silentwingsairshows.com

"Capt.Doug" wrote in message
...
"Juan Jimenez" wrote in message
he does the Silent Wings air show act with the two AMT engines
on the Silent motorglider. _Very_ cool stuff. He's got two 45 lbf

AMT-USA's
and he's burning 20 gals/hr total (both engines) at 100% N1.


Does he have a website with the plane on it?

D.





  #14  
Old December 23rd 04, 06:53 AM
Slip'er
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine cars
in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least better than my
1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any time soon but, it would
be neat.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml


Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Small
turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve

greatly if
you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes, turbines

have
size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness. Cars

are a
whole 'nuther matter.



  #15  
Old December 24th 04, 03:49 AM
Rob McDonald
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

From the web page you quoted:

"An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded gasoline."

Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)

Rob


"Slip'er" wrote in
news:NXtyd.4791$Cl3.2961@fed1read03:

Subject: turbine in microturbine generator for aircraft?
From: "Slip'er"
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.homebuilt

Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine
cars in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least
better than my 1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any
time soon but, it would be neat.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml


Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my
lifetime.

Small
turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve

greatly if
you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes,
turbines

have
size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness.
Cars

are a
whole 'nuther matter.

  #16  
Old December 24th 04, 01:15 PM
UltraJohn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Rob McDonald wrote:

From the web page you quoted:

"An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded
gasoline."

Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)

Rob


You must be one of those young whipper snappers g
I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg. Back then the best economy cars were
luck to get 20!
John

  #17  
Old December 24th 04, 04:18 PM
Matt Whiting
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

UltraJohn wrote:

Rob McDonald wrote:


From the web page you quoted:

"An average fuel consumption of 13-14 mpg using regular unleaded
gasoline."

Your definition of "decent" mileage must be pretty generous :-)

Rob



You must be one of those young whipper snappers g
I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg. Back then the best economy cars were
luck to get 20!
John


They must have had engines that were sorely out of tune. I put 4.56
gears in my 94 Chevy K1500 to help it plow snow better. I get 16 MPG
with it on the highway and get 10 plowing snow! I can't believe a car
would get down to only 6 MPG unless it was running at the drag strip all
day. :-)

Matt

  #18  
Old December 24th 04, 10:07 PM
UltraJohn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Matt Whiting wrote:


They must have had engines that were sorely out of tune. I put 4.56
gears in my 94 Chevy K1500 to help it plow snow better. I get 16 MPG
with it on the highway and get 10 plowing snow! I can't believe a car
would get down to only 6 MPG unless it was running at the drag strip all
day. :-)

Matt



yeah they did quite a bit of 1/8 mile dragging. That being said there is a
bit of technology improvement between 1960 and 1994! Around town in cars
with low gears and big carbs and cams didn't do much for economy! That
being said (part 2) 20 was still very good economy even for a stock non v8
car. VW bugs got about the best back then around 22 to 23 on a good day! Of
course gas only cost 26 cents a gallon for Sunoco 260 ( about 94 octane).
John

  #19  
Old December 25th 04, 04:25 AM
Slip'er
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


You must be one of those young whipper snappers g
I very well remember back in the late 50's early 60's 13 to 14 was not bad
some of the guys in HS were driving chevy's with 4.56:1 and 6.17:1 rear
ends that were lucky to get 6 mpg.


Agreed! Even my 1977 Trans Am only got 8 - 12 mpg when I was driving it.
Of couse at 16, the throttle was either ON or OFF.

Back then the best economy cars were
luck to get 20!
John


That's what I remember too for most of the economy cars.


  #20  
Old December 26th 04, 02:19 PM
Nimoy Pugh
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A small turbine would work nicely in an all electric set up where the
turbine would just keep a small battery bank topped up. Then the turbine
could run at a nice study rpm where it's most efficient. I think the biggest
problem is noise and waste heat.

"Slip'er" wrote in message
news:NXtyd.4791$Cl3.2961@fed1read03...
Don't tell this to Chrysler. They started experimenting with turbine cars
in the 1950s and were getting descent gas mileage. (At least better than

my
1977 Trans Am.) Anyway, we won't be seeing them any time soon but, it

would
be neat.

http://www.aardvark.co.nz/pjet/chrysler.shtml


Never say never, but... I don't expect to see it in my lifetime.

Small
turbines have bad fuel specifics. In stationary use, things improve

greatly if
you can find a use for the waste heat. In the case of airplanes,

turbines
have
size and weight advantages that help to offset their thirstiness. Cars

are a
whole 'nuther matter.






 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Alternate turbine fuel Robert Bates Home Built 24 June 7th 04 07:16 AM
turbine propeller sebastian Home Built 19 March 21st 04 12:47 AM
Pulsar with a turbine? Badwater Bill Home Built 33 August 28th 03 04:02 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.