Tweet
Some specialised metalurgy in this lot and a real effort to reduce weight.Note the internal designs to reduce vibration and noise - wonder how it will go after we bolt a 5 foot prop on it?http://www.greencarcongress.com/2013...ards.....Chook.
-
-
That looks great chook, would probably be a good alternative for a lightweight machine, maybe one that is running a 582 or 618? It certainly doesn"t look too heavy, with a redrive and 115hp it might be really good? Hopefully "you know who" wont get the monopoly on them too and make them $40k each... I would like to know the weight and charactoristics, like are they high rev or how smooth they run....very interesting chooky.... thanks for that
-
-
Dear Muz,Re the PBS turboprop that you linked to in your post immediately above: - This is a 2/10 "cos these units have a small diameter single stage broad-bladed axial compressor, and would be therefore likely to drink about 300 to 360 pounds of fuel per hour. That"s what totally kills all these small little gas turbines - abysmal fuel consumption. I know a little bit about primitive jet engines "cos the first generation Goblin engine in the RAAF"s heritage Vampire 636 would drink 2000 litres per hour, and the cutaway drawing of this engine looks like the compressor of this engine would be much less efficient than a Goblin"s because at least the Goblin compressor was about 32 inches in diameter and also had a centrifugal flange which this tawdry example of retrograde engineering doesn"t.In fact, I think I"ll give this a 1/10.You"ve gotta raise the standard of your homework young man!Mark R
Comment
-
BBbwwwwwaaaaaaa :"(Let a guy dream!
Comment
Comment