Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 15:20:46 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-716937@logan.com>
Received-SPF: pass
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=68.168.78.202; envelope-from=glcasey@adelphia.net
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v730)
In-Reply-To: <list-716497@logan.com>
References: <list-716497@logan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Gary Casey <glcasey@adelphia.net>
Subject: Re: Another way to look at the Innodyne


>
> Posted for daniel newland <compositeguy@sbcglobal.net>:
>
>  Hey, many of you guys have a lot more experience than I do on  
> turbines so
> feel free to object here (as if I could stop you!)  I first looked  
> at the
> Innodyn at the 2004 OSH show and it looked pretty neat!  They did  
> not have the
> twin pack, just the single version with one rated to 255 HP for a  
> weight of
> 180 lbs.  The claimed fuel burn was 14 GPH at that HP.

Only problem is, when I calculate the Brake Specific Fuel Consumption  
using those numbers I get a BSFC of about 0.38 lb/hp-hr.  I'm afraid  
there is no way a turbine engine of that size could have that kind of  
efficiency.  I would guess it would burn at least 50% more fuel than  
that, even at altitude.  I really like turbine engines, but it's hard  
to make the numbers work out in their favor at power levels below  
maybe 500 hp.  I'd like to see an Allison/Rolls Royce engine in an ES  
as that might be the optimum package giving about 450 hp at sea level  
and something like 300 hp at 12,000 ft.

Gary Casey