|
|
Brent Regan wrote:
I was able to spend some time at the Innodyne tent and examining the twin engine unit on display in the Lancair tent. There was also a high wing on the flight line with the engine installed and (apparently) flying. From what I could see from the outside, it seems like an attractive alternative, if you have money to burn.
I have a little experience with this company; it was originally called ATP (Advanced Turbine Power), based in Pennsylvania. Brent's comment on the similarity to the Solar turbine is not surprising. The original engines were APUs, converted and upgraded. They subsequently started to use all new components. Their key additions were their reduction gearbox, which seemed very well made, and the fuel management system. They were about to start flight testing on an RV3.
I went round their facility and saw all of the early design, which was very nicely packaged. The company was a standard machine shop, until the owners got the turbine bug. I even put a deposit down against an engine, with a number of performance-based conditions. However they were severely under-capitalized, and could not get into production for several years. They then brought in new management, and presumably more capital, so that they could start production under their new name.
The main snag seems to be their fuel consumption at low level. I do not believe that they achieved their early predictions, and I heard that the fuel burn at sea level is pretty high, even at idle power. Also you have to use an electric constant speed prop with the ability to go to zero pitch for starting. The engine won't start with the drag of a normal prop, or at least it wouldn't at the time that I visited.
Against that is the undoubted sex appeal of a turbo prop. And yes, I did finally get my deposit back from the new management, so they do seem to be operating responsibly.
Jerry Fisher
|
|