X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com
Return-Path: <marv@lancaironline.net>
Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml@lancaironline.net
Date: Fri, 09 Sep 2005 20:41:33 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-717300@logan.com>
X-Original-Return-Path: <210flyer@earthlink.net>
Received: from smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net ([209.86.89.65] verified)
  by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.0c2)
  with ESMTP id 717116 for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:04:37 -0400
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=209.86.89.65; envelope-from=210flyer@earthlink.net
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=tWEeZF/1wRIgj3AULaWLzFQpx3unlz/a+ppk/E0DhKqfRj/P6dljHJgiToPl6uag;
  h=Received:From:To:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:X-Mailer:thread-index:X-MimeOLE:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [68.166.211.175] (helo=dune)
	by smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net with asmtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1EDq2K-00078L-KP
	for lml@lancaironline.net; Fri, 09 Sep 2005 17:03:53 -0400
From: "Mike Hutchins" <210flyer@earthlink.net>
X-Original-To: "Lancair Mailing List" <lml@lancaironline.net>
Subject: RE: Another way to look at the Innodyne
X-Original-Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 15:03:45 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C5B54F.AD42D7D0"
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.6353
thread-index: AcW1JenTLq9uUgxCTKGt0FiKa5Y+mgAVrfow
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
In-Reply-To: <web-715257@logan.com>
X-Original-Message-ID: <E1EDq2K-00078L-KP@smtpauth05.mail.atl.earthlink.net>
X-ELNK-Trace: 96606e18df264d301aa676d7e74259b7b3291a7d08dfec796b2868f020665cd88333662d091e81b0350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 68.166.211.175

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C5B54F.AD42D7D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Dan,

 

I think your fuel flow assumptions are overly optimistic. In addition, the
power output of the turbine will degrade with altitude just like a normally
aspirated piston engine. The exception is if the turbine has a power limit
at lower altitudes, often due to inter-turbine temperatures, then it will
behave more like a turbonormalized engine where it will produce rated power
up to some critical altitude and then degrade with additional altitude.

 

As Gary points out, your fuel flow estimate requires a BSFC of 0.38 (using a
Jet A density of ~ 6.9Lbs/Gal) which is very unlikely. In comparison, the
Walter only achieves a BSFC around 0.67 Lbs/Hp/Hr. Using this figure, your
Innodyne 255TE will be sucking down 24 gal/Hr. On their website, Innodyne
reports a flight average fuel consumption of 7 Gal/100 Hp/Hr which equates
to an average BSFC of 0.48 Lbs/HP/Hr. This would amount to 17.7 GPH at
takeoff and would decrease to 12.4 GPH at 12,000' which would be equivalent
to 70% power, assuming the engine is not derated. I think the new Williams
engines, such as the FJ33 and FJ44 are achieving BSFCs around 0.55 (though I
can't confirm the BSFC figure), which is almost 15% higher than the Innodyne
BSFC yet 18% lower than the Walter BSFC. Using the 0.55 value, your fuel
flows would be ~ 20 GPH at full power and ~ 14 GPH at 12,000' and maximum
power of 70% (or ~180HP). Like Gary, I think these numbers will hit closer
to the mark when Innodyne publishes the BSFC for its production turbines.

 

Also, don't forget that Jet-A weighs about a pound more per gallon than
100LL, so your useful load with full fuel will be less, offsetting some of
the weight saved from the lighter engine.

 

We're getting closer to a practical turbine engine for GA aircraft, and
certainly Innodyne may be the closest when it comes to the smaller SHP
engines. Unfortunately, I think it may be many years before we see a turbine
that rivals the efficiency of our "modern" piston aircraft engines.

 

Best Regards,

Mike


------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C5B54F.AD42D7D0
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<meta http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"City"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
 name=3D"place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:12.0pt;
	font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
	{color:blue;
	text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
	{color:purple;
	text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
	{margin:0in;
	margin-bottom:.0001pt;
	font-size:10.0pt;
	font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
	{size:8.5in 11.0in;
	margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
	{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>

</head>

<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>

<div class=3DSection1>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Hi Dan,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I think your fuel flow assumptions are overly optimistic. In =
addition,
the power output of the turbine will degrade with altitude just like a =
normally
aspirated piston engine. The exception is if the turbine has a power =
limit at
lower altitudes, often due to inter-turbine temperatures, then it will =
behave
more like a turbonormalized engine where it will produce rated power up =
to some
critical altitude and then degrade with additional =
altitude.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>As <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Gary</st1:place></st1:City>
points out, your fuel flow estimate requires a BSFC of 0.38 (using a Jet =
A
density of ~ 6.9Lbs/Gal) which is very unlikely. In comparison, the =
Walter only
achieves a BSFC around 0.67 Lbs/Hp/Hr. Using this figure, your Innodyne =
255TE
will be sucking down 24 gal/Hr. On their website, Innodyne reports a =
<i><span
style=3D'font-style:italic'>flight average</span></i> fuel consumption =
of 7
Gal/100 Hp/Hr which equates to an <i><span =
style=3D'font-style:italic'>average</span></i>
BSFC of 0.48 Lbs/HP/Hr. This would amount to 17.7 GPH at takeoff and =
would
decrease to 12.4 GPH at 12,000&#8217; which would be equivalent to 70% =
power,
assuming the engine is not derated. I think the new Williams engines, =
such as
the FJ33 and FJ44 are achieving BSFCs around 0.55 (though I can&#8217;t =
confirm
the BSFC figure), which is almost 15% higher than the Innodyne BSFC yet =
18%
lower than the Walter BSFC. Using the 0.55 value, your fuel flows would =
be ~ 20
GPH at full power and ~ 14 GPH at 12,000&#8217; and maximum power of 70% =
(or ~180HP).
Like <st1:City w:st=3D"on"><st1:place =
w:st=3D"on">Gary</st1:place></st1:City>, I
think these numbers will hit closer to the mark when Innodyne publishes =
the
BSFC for its production turbines.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Also, don&#8217;t forget that Jet-A weighs about a pound more =
per
gallon than 100LL, so your useful load with full fuel will be less, =
offsetting some
of the weight saved from the lighter =
engine.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>We&#8217;re getting closer to a practical turbine engine for GA
aircraft, and certainly Innodyne may be the closest when it comes to the
smaller SHP engines. Unfortunately, I think it may be many years before =
we see
a turbine that rivals the efficiency of our &#8220;modern&#8221; piston
aircraft engines.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Best Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Mike<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>

</div>

</body>

</html>

------=_NextPart_000_00CB_01C5B54F.AD42D7D0--