Sender: <marv@lancaironline.net>
To: lml
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2006 14:35:12 -0400
Message-ID: <redirect-1337525@logan.com>
Received-SPF: none
 receiver=logan.com; client-ip=66.197.155.165; envelope-from=rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com
Reply-To: <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>
From: "Rienk Ayers" <rienk.ayers@sreyaaviation.com>
Subject: IVP - turbine vs recip?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="windows-1250"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <list-1336357@logan.com>

Well said Craig.=20

I love turbines!
Having had several King Airs, and now with three single engine turbine
planes (two with Walters), I can't speak well enough of them (and as =
many
know, I am helping develop a turbine plane).

However, there is a point of diminishing returns. In my opinion, the =
Lancair
4P reached its zenith with the TIO-550; it has incredible performance
numbers and acceptable useful load. Though the reliability and "cool" =
factor
of the turbine cannot be questioned, putting a turbine on a 4P seems to =
be
defeating the purpose of the finely balanced flight mission the aircraft =
was
designed for. Burning twice the fuel with half the payload at virtually =
the
same speed does not seem like a great tradeoff. Practically speaking,
putting a turbine in a 4P gets you a fast Legacy with a large baggage =
space
(rear seat).

I have visited John Cook's 4P through almost all the phases of =
construction,
and his mission criteria are quite specific: he has/had a turbine engine
company and prefers to fly them, and really only needs two seats - the =
main
reason he sold his Turbine Legend to build the 4PT was simply because he =
and
his wife prefer side by side seating.

Is the 4PT a neat plane? Without a doubt.
Does it have as wide a mission profile as the standard 4P? Of course =
not.
If you must have four seats, go with the piston.=20
If you only need two and like the smell of kerosene, go with the =
Turbine.

My first plane (which I still have) is an old Comanche 180... Like many
designs, it succumbed to the power addiction, and went from 180 hp to =
250
hp, and then somehow up to 400 hp.=20
Can it fly with this much power? Yes.
Does it make sense? Not in my book.
If a larger/faster airplane is called for, it should be designed as such =
-
just like the move from the original Lancairs to the L4, and the =
development
of the Legacy.

Thus, the recip is probably the "wiser"  AND  "better" choice.

(but I still prefer Jet A).

RA


-----Original Message-----
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2006 7:37 PM
To: Lancair Mailing List
Subject: [LML] Re: IVP - turbine vs recip?


Posted for "cblitzer" <cblitzer@triad.rr.com>:

Not to  say anything bad about the turbine IV-P's but if you had read=20
Charlie K's home pages. you would have found out that a recip is the =
wiser
choice.
Not necessarily the better choice, just the wiser.
How's that for lawyering Joe !!
Craig B.

--=20
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.3/423 - Release Date: =
8/18/2006
=20