Van's Air Force
Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.
Innodyn Turbine Engines
- Thread starter RV_7A
- Start date
cjensen
Well Known Member
It states on their website that there is no need to run at reduced power settings because it is most efficient at 100%.
From their website-
"Cruise
The Innodyn Turbine will cruise comfortably at 100% of power, and so it is not necessary to decrease either propeller RPM or pitch. Our Turbines actually operate most efficiently at full power, so there isn?t a compelling economic reason to decrease the power either."
I'm a Pepsi man too! THAT was well placed, John! HA!
From their website-
"Cruise
The Innodyn Turbine will cruise comfortably at 100% of power, and so it is not necessary to decrease either propeller RPM or pitch. Our Turbines actually operate most efficiently at full power, so there isn?t a compelling economic reason to decrease the power either."
I'm a Pepsi man too! THAT was well placed, John! HA!
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
C-130 Herc
HOWEVER (you knew it was coming) the Innodyn is trying to do this on the cheap, with a manual (pilot) controlled electric prop and what I guess is a very rudimentary fuel controller. I think this thing could be a hand full in the hands of a novice, or anyone for that matter. This is what little I know about the engine. However the fuel burn should be related to torque and taxi fuel burn should will be less than takeoff and flight. However the 7 gal per 100 HP they claim has long since been criticised as bogus. Which is my SWAG opinion. We shall see.
As far as flying high and gaining efficency, I don't think it has the "thermal capacity" to fly to FL250, since it's maxed out at sea level. The TIT's (turbine inlet temps) are limiting and they go up with altitude. Other turboprops achieve their high altitude rated HP by flat rating or de-rating at sea level, so as you climb you have some more TIT to maintain HP. I don't think these engines have a reserve to give. Again who knows, we shall see.
If I was going turbine, I would have to win the lottery first; second I would buy a real turbine like a P&W PT6, Garrett TPE331, Allison 250 or Walter in the 400-750HP range; and last I'd put it into a plane that can really use a turbine, not a RV. The RV is not really well suited for more than say 250 HP and flying in the flight levels.
All viable small commercial turboprops widely seen in service, start in the 350-400HP range, where the nominal SHP is more in the 500-900HP range. It is just the economy of scale. Its not that they can't make a low HP turbo prop, they can, but when you make a "real one", with real fuel controller, real prop controller and torque gauge, it's going to cost $250,000 used. You can get a used Walter, a 750 HP Cech PT6 clone for 1/8th of a mil.
Why make a 100-300 HP turbo prop engine when there're lots of piston engines that fill this HP range up nicely? Most turbo props and jets earn their keep by economy of scale, high reliability and low routine maintenance. Besides how much dispatch reliability and reduced down time for overhauls, on a 2000 hour TBO, do you need when you fly 100-150 hours a year for pleasure?
If you want a turbine there are used King Air C90 or 100's, Merlin's and single engine turbo props: TBM, Pilatus, Piper Malibu conversion, or Cessna Caravan. They are all ready to go and pretty awesome. Starting price? $300K to $3 mil. Probably cheaper then if you built your own Turbine Lancair IV, which I hear typically takes 1/2 mil to build. Cheap and turbine don't go together.
I don't wish ill on Innodyn and hope they prove me 1000% wrong, but I don't see anything in the last (what?) 5 years that would indicate their claims or entry into the real world and market is imminent.
There is not only RPM but don't forget torque. The concept of constant RPM turboprop is not new and works great on the Herc, C130. I think it's a Allison T56, +4000 shp times 4. As you advance from min power to max the blade pitch increases and the fuel controller pours the fuel in to maintain RPM, torque and thrust go up of course. They have great response and ideal for a STOL cargo plane since there's little or no delay to spool up, since they are there. It is like revving you car and dropping the clutch.cjensen said:It's a direct spooled turbine that is spinning at 60,000rpm or whatever ALL THE TIME. Idling on the "T", taxiing, takeoff, cruise, landing...The only thing that changes is the prop pitch. 255 horsepower equals about 18gph all the time.
HOWEVER (you knew it was coming) the Innodyn is trying to do this on the cheap, with a manual (pilot) controlled electric prop and what I guess is a very rudimentary fuel controller. I think this thing could be a hand full in the hands of a novice, or anyone for that matter. This is what little I know about the engine. However the fuel burn should be related to torque and taxi fuel burn should will be less than takeoff and flight. However the 7 gal per 100 HP they claim has long since been criticised as bogus. Which is my SWAG opinion. We shall see.
As far as flying high and gaining efficency, I don't think it has the "thermal capacity" to fly to FL250, since it's maxed out at sea level. The TIT's (turbine inlet temps) are limiting and they go up with altitude. Other turboprops achieve their high altitude rated HP by flat rating or de-rating at sea level, so as you climb you have some more TIT to maintain HP. I don't think these engines have a reserve to give. Again who knows, we shall see.
If I was going turbine, I would have to win the lottery first; second I would buy a real turbine like a P&W PT6, Garrett TPE331, Allison 250 or Walter in the 400-750HP range; and last I'd put it into a plane that can really use a turbine, not a RV. The RV is not really well suited for more than say 250 HP and flying in the flight levels.
All viable small commercial turboprops widely seen in service, start in the 350-400HP range, where the nominal SHP is more in the 500-900HP range. It is just the economy of scale. Its not that they can't make a low HP turbo prop, they can, but when you make a "real one", with real fuel controller, real prop controller and torque gauge, it's going to cost $250,000 used. You can get a used Walter, a 750 HP Cech PT6 clone for 1/8th of a mil.
Why make a 100-300 HP turbo prop engine when there're lots of piston engines that fill this HP range up nicely? Most turbo props and jets earn their keep by economy of scale, high reliability and low routine maintenance. Besides how much dispatch reliability and reduced down time for overhauls, on a 2000 hour TBO, do you need when you fly 100-150 hours a year for pleasure?
If you want a turbine there are used King Air C90 or 100's, Merlin's and single engine turbo props: TBM, Pilatus, Piper Malibu conversion, or Cessna Caravan. They are all ready to go and pretty awesome. Starting price? $300K to $3 mil. Probably cheaper then if you built your own Turbine Lancair IV, which I hear typically takes 1/2 mil to build. Cheap and turbine don't go together.
I don't wish ill on Innodyn and hope they prove me 1000% wrong, but I don't see anything in the last (what?) 5 years that would indicate their claims or entry into the real world and market is imminent.
Last edited:
My thoughts on Innodyne
I to was interested in a turbine but after visiting there booth at Oshkosh and listening the sales pitch everything sounded great except I begane to realize that this whole fuel managment system is based on the exaust temp thermocouple IMHO this is a very weak link and once it fails the whole system is in manual and the safety features are gone.
Next the cost of thousands of $ for a software change to make more HP was kind of outrageous.
I also couldnt get a straight answer on fuel burn #s even after takking to the RV-4 pilot on the flight line.
I plan to run a Lyclone IO-360 with Hertzel C/S and Van's firewall foward kit about $35.000
I to was interested in a turbine but after visiting there booth at Oshkosh and listening the sales pitch everything sounded great except I begane to realize that this whole fuel managment system is based on the exaust temp thermocouple IMHO this is a very weak link and once it fails the whole system is in manual and the safety features are gone.
Next the cost of thousands of $ for a software change to make more HP was kind of outrageous.
I also couldnt get a straight answer on fuel burn #s even after takking to the RV-4 pilot on the flight line.
I plan to run a Lyclone IO-360 with Hertzel C/S and Van's firewall foward kit about $35.000
gmcjetpilot said:
One of the big manufactures did look at and did a feasability study and even has produced a protype. However, It was shelved because....
1. Because the engine would beyond the means of most experimental builders. $120,000.00
2. The quality of some of the experimental airframes that were looked at had poor workmanship and or bad airframe design and could be a future liability even though a crash would probably not be the result of the engine manufacturer.
3. The quality of the pilots that would be flying the aircraft.. The company wanted airline type traning. Crash = Liabilty.
I was bummed out also but that is what I was told.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
It plan just does not make sense
First I GOT TO SAY WHAT POOR WORKMANSHIP ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I am sorry, I don't believe that's the reason engine manufactures choose not to make more small turboprop engines. It is not practical from and engineering or economic standpoint. Why not a turbine lawn mower engine? There is a cut off where a Turbine pays for it self. The key factors are utilization and HP. When I say utilization I mean commercial level use, not 100-150 hours a year, but 70-80 hours in a week. Also reliability is key. If your engine is a no go on Sunday for your breakfast fly in, so what. Ground a plane with 220 folks or overnight cargo, that's a big deal.
The issue is a 200 HP turbine is in competition with a piston engine. There is no comparison in costs. Above 350-400 HP turbines becomes cost effective. I do not think the Innodyn economics will ever work out. Sorry.
You can get +600 SHP Walter turbo prop (PT6 clone) used for $40k TODAY! Have it overhauled for $20K-$40K and there you go. Here is a short list of small turbines used in fix wing aircraft at one time or another I would consider:
I think the Allison 250 (now RR) is used in the Beech Bonanza turboprop conversion. The Garrett was all over the place in regional turboprops before the Regional jets. I flew the Metroliner IV with the TPE331. The PT6 is the most famous and best known in the King Air. The Walter is a cheap PT6 clone from Eastern Europe.
All these engines can be found for less than $120,000 used. No RV I know of can use a 600 HP engine. The dream of a cheap 200 HP turbine is just that, a dream. Once you get into burner cans, turbine wheels, bearings, gear box, prop control, fuel controller and all the other things to make it work, it will cost as you say $120K, wheather it's 200HP or 600HP. What Innodyn has is a very stripped down engine with very simplified fuel control and electric MT prop? No torque read out? I mean it's too simple.
The smallest turbine with a gear box and prop controller I think is the Allison 250, the lowest HP version is 350HP, but typical is 420-450 HP and it goes up from there. Yes it sucks fuel like a college coed sucks up alcohol on spring break.
YOU NEED AN AIRFRAME TO USE 600 HP. Two kit planes doing that today is the Lancair PropJet and the utilitarian Comp Air. These planes are available today, but you are well into the 0.3 to 0.5 $mil range, typically to finish a turbine Lancair or Comp Air project (see this months "Kit Plane").
Turbine development is in industrial, military, new commercial airliner engines, such as the Boeing Dream Liner and little turbofan engines for entry level business jets. P&W of Canada took over where Williams Jet failed to meet goals on the new Cessna Mustang B-jet with their new PW615F. I think Williams also dropped off the Eclipse, which also went P&W. Williams Jets where going to revolutionize the cheap turbofan with innovative manufacturing? I would love to have one of those little 1000 lb thrust jets on a little sport plane. Hummm Javelin?
Turboprop days are numbered or already gone. Yes turboprops are practical and work for special applications, but most want Fan jets. NEW engine technology (FJ33) is towards turbofans, not turbo props. Don't get me wrong the C-130 and King Air are great planes, but how many commuter airlines are using Turboprops? Not many. Most have long gone to Regional Jets. Passenger just like them better, but for short haul the turboprops are still fine.
The Innodyn is not in the same class as existing turboprop engines. I consider the Innodyn a toy, not a serious engine, so lets not have Turbine envy. Lets say it together, I LOVE MY PISTON ENGINE. PISTON ENGINES RULE. EMBRACE YOUR PISTON ENGINE. I would rather have and engine that Sucks, Squeezes, Bangs and Blows than just Suck, Squeeze and Blows.
Not sure what engine maker you are talking about? There is already a bunch of turboprop engines out there being made in the $120,000 price range, at least used.RV505 said:One of the big manufactures did look at and did a feasibility study and even has produced a prototype. However, It was shelved because....
1. Because the engine would beyond the means of most experimental builders. $120,000.00
2. The quality of some of the experimental airframes that were looked at had poor workmanship and or bad airframe design and could be a future liability even though a crash would probably not be the result of the engine manufacturer.
3. The quality of the pilots that would be flying the aircraft.. The company wanted airline type training. Crash = Liabilty.
I was bummed out also but that is what I was told.
First I GOT TO SAY WHAT POOR WORKMANSHIP ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I am sorry, I don't believe that's the reason engine manufactures choose not to make more small turboprop engines. It is not practical from and engineering or economic standpoint. Why not a turbine lawn mower engine? There is a cut off where a Turbine pays for it self. The key factors are utilization and HP. When I say utilization I mean commercial level use, not 100-150 hours a year, but 70-80 hours in a week. Also reliability is key. If your engine is a no go on Sunday for your breakfast fly in, so what. Ground a plane with 220 folks or overnight cargo, that's a big deal.
The issue is a 200 HP turbine is in competition with a piston engine. There is no comparison in costs. Above 350-400 HP turbines becomes cost effective. I do not think the Innodyn economics will ever work out. Sorry.
You can get +600 SHP Walter turbo prop (PT6 clone) used for $40k TODAY! Have it overhauled for $20K-$40K and there you go. Here is a short list of small turbines used in fix wing aircraft at one time or another I would consider:
P&W PT6 King Air
Allison 250 (now RR) Beech Bonanza conversion
Walter M601D (Picture) Eastern European commuter plane
Garrett TPE 331 (MU2, Metroliner, Jetsteam, Rockwell commander)
Allison 250 (now RR) Beech Bonanza conversion
Walter M601D (Picture) Eastern European commuter plane
Garrett TPE 331 (MU2, Metroliner, Jetsteam, Rockwell commander)
I think the Allison 250 (now RR) is used in the Beech Bonanza turboprop conversion. The Garrett was all over the place in regional turboprops before the Regional jets. I flew the Metroliner IV with the TPE331. The PT6 is the most famous and best known in the King Air. The Walter is a cheap PT6 clone from Eastern Europe.
All these engines can be found for less than $120,000 used. No RV I know of can use a 600 HP engine. The dream of a cheap 200 HP turbine is just that, a dream. Once you get into burner cans, turbine wheels, bearings, gear box, prop control, fuel controller and all the other things to make it work, it will cost as you say $120K, wheather it's 200HP or 600HP. What Innodyn has is a very stripped down engine with very simplified fuel control and electric MT prop? No torque read out? I mean it's too simple.
The smallest turbine with a gear box and prop controller I think is the Allison 250, the lowest HP version is 350HP, but typical is 420-450 HP and it goes up from there. Yes it sucks fuel like a college coed sucks up alcohol on spring break.
YOU NEED AN AIRFRAME TO USE 600 HP. Two kit planes doing that today is the Lancair PropJet and the utilitarian Comp Air. These planes are available today, but you are well into the 0.3 to 0.5 $mil range, typically to finish a turbine Lancair or Comp Air project (see this months "Kit Plane").
Turbine development is in industrial, military, new commercial airliner engines, such as the Boeing Dream Liner and little turbofan engines for entry level business jets. P&W of Canada took over where Williams Jet failed to meet goals on the new Cessna Mustang B-jet with their new PW615F. I think Williams also dropped off the Eclipse, which also went P&W. Williams Jets where going to revolutionize the cheap turbofan with innovative manufacturing? I would love to have one of those little 1000 lb thrust jets on a little sport plane. Hummm Javelin?
Turboprop days are numbered or already gone. Yes turboprops are practical and work for special applications, but most want Fan jets. NEW engine technology (FJ33) is towards turbofans, not turbo props. Don't get me wrong the C-130 and King Air are great planes, but how many commuter airlines are using Turboprops? Not many. Most have long gone to Regional Jets. Passenger just like them better, but for short haul the turboprops are still fine.
The Innodyn is not in the same class as existing turboprop engines. I consider the Innodyn a toy, not a serious engine, so lets not have Turbine envy. Lets say it together, I LOVE MY PISTON ENGINE. PISTON ENGINES RULE. EMBRACE YOUR PISTON ENGINE. I would rather have and engine that Sucks, Squeezes, Bangs and Blows than just Suck, Squeeze and Blows.
Last edited:
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Noted
RV505 said:
Innodyn not a "toy", it's trying to meet a specific need
I don't think it's a toy. I'm not an engineer, but Innodyn is clearly trying to meet a specific need - and a price point. They are not trying to create a toy, but trying to create a turbine that can be sold for $35k. Not easy to engineer and build I'm sure. There are a lot of compromises that need to be made in order to meet this contraint.
As to the claims that there are no reasons to consider a small turbine when there are many pistons engines available - that's just not true. The small turbine is:
much lighter than a piston engine (188lb vs 500lb)
much smoother than a piston engine
has a much higher TBO (5k hours) than a piston engine
uses JetA, which is, for now, cheaper and more plentiful with long-term outlook being good
A much simpler engine with only 1 moving part
And at around 18GPH, i that's true, the fuel burn f this "toy" may not be the deciding factor.
Don't misunderstand or flame me - I'm not saying Innodyn has figured it out - they are still trying to do that - but they do have a serious mission and it isn't to create a toy. Since none of us really KNOW what is happening at Innodyn it's all speculation anyway.
They're goal is to ceate an engine that has the benefits listed above with the contraint of cost and simplicity. It's silly to say the design stinks compared to a Walters of an Allison - they are 8X the cost and complexity. It's not a fair comparison.
Will this "toy" pull and RV at 200MPH at 18GPH letting you have an additionl 300lb useful load? Just maybe.
I don't think it's a toy. I'm not an engineer, but Innodyn is clearly trying to meet a specific need - and a price point. They are not trying to create a toy, but trying to create a turbine that can be sold for $35k. Not easy to engineer and build I'm sure. There are a lot of compromises that need to be made in order to meet this contraint.
As to the claims that there are no reasons to consider a small turbine when there are many pistons engines available - that's just not true. The small turbine is:
much lighter than a piston engine (188lb vs 500lb)
much smoother than a piston engine
has a much higher TBO (5k hours) than a piston engine
uses JetA, which is, for now, cheaper and more plentiful with long-term outlook being good
A much simpler engine with only 1 moving part
And at around 18GPH, i that's true, the fuel burn f this "toy" may not be the deciding factor.
Don't misunderstand or flame me - I'm not saying Innodyn has figured it out - they are still trying to do that - but they do have a serious mission and it isn't to create a toy. Since none of us really KNOW what is happening at Innodyn it's all speculation anyway.
They're goal is to ceate an engine that has the benefits listed above with the contraint of cost and simplicity. It's silly to say the design stinks compared to a Walters of an Allison - they are 8X the cost and complexity. It's not a fair comparison.
Will this "toy" pull and RV at 200MPH at 18GPH letting you have an additionl 300lb useful load? Just maybe.
4kilo
Well Known Member
jrdalton said:
If some of you guys actually think that a gas turbine actually has only one moving part, perhaps that explains much of the confusion about why Innodyn has been having such problems getting this system to work. The fact that most of the parts turn rather than reciprocate does simplify some problems, but the parts count of all the moving machinery is one of the cost multipliers for a turbine. Reduction gearing is a major problem, let alone fuel metering, gas pressure bypasses, and accessory items.
What "we guys" actually think" isn't relevant
As I said, I'm no engineer and I don't know how many moving parts there are, although there aren't many compared to a piston engine. Although I suspect you know this already.
I picked up on your sarcasm and I don't think that will help move the conversation from "Innodyn is ****" because it's not an Allison to it's a low-end product that is having touble meeting it's self-imposed constraints - which was the premise of my post.
I noticed you didn't offer anything except to imply that I don't know much about turbines - which I can assure you I don't. I'm a computer engineer, not a mechanic.
As I said, I'm no engineer and I don't know how many moving parts there are, although there aren't many compared to a piston engine. Although I suspect you know this already.
I picked up on your sarcasm and I don't think that will help move the conversation from "Innodyn is ****" because it's not an Allison to it's a low-end product that is having touble meeting it's self-imposed constraints - which was the premise of my post.
I noticed you didn't offer anything except to imply that I don't know much about turbines - which I can assure you I don't. I'm a computer engineer, not a mechanic.
The Innodyn Centrifugal Compressor Design is no more than an enlarged truck turbocharger. Here's the clue "Innodyn Turbines have one rotating part, and are built upon well-proven technologies" With this, no fuel control is going to make this engine eficient! A engine like a Aliison 250 has a series of stators and vanes to compress the airflow, which in turn provides better fuel atomization and a series of stators and turbine vanes to extract that energy to drive the compressor... I feel the Innyodyn turbine engine is no more that a geared loudmouth jet engine kit you would purchase off of Ebay.
jrdalton said:
If you want to make an AC that is ballpark 'equivalent' then you need twice the fuel capacity (18gph vs 9gph). An extra 40 gallons weighs (for Jet-A @6.84lb/gal) nearly 275lbs.
You'll get some of that back if you can fly higher and get some extra speed but then your RV's mission profile seems to only be usefull for longer cross country flights...
If the goal is to have a really cool turbine RV that turns heads, go for it. It's doubtfull that it will have more utility than a regular old recip RV...
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
RV505 said:
O.K., take a good look at what they claim. one ROTATING part, in the turbine.
Yep, a shaft with one or more rotors---could be only one stage, or a dozen---still meets the quote.
Dosent use the word "moving" -----and they dont refer to their engine, but to the "turbine". Some might say the "Hot section"
Anyone wanna bet that this was the work of a lawyer----if not the original version, at least the final draft???
This as advertising folks--------ment to sound impressive, an attention getter. Not a tech report.
Wait for the flight data.
Mike
Last edited:
pierre smith
Well Known Member
One part longevity
Mornin' guys. The "one rotating part" is not far off the mark. My PT6 in the Air Tractor only has one rotating part in the compressor/hot section that makes power. It consists of 4 compressor discs and one CT wheel, all rotating together on one shaft. However, in the accessory case are gears which run the starter-generator, fuel pump, scavenge pump and a pad for hydraulic pump (King Airs), etc. A bunch of other moving parts but the one that makes the power is indeed one rotating assembly. Torque is then transferred via a vane ring to the PT wheel through a double planetary reduction gearbox which reduces the engines RPM of 37,500 to the prop for a redline of 2200 RPM on the 110" Hartzell reversible/full feathering.
Incidentally, it runs non-stop all day long at 95 % which equates to 35,625 RPMs and has done so for 7718 total since new hours! It has only had the Compressor turbine wheel (CT) replaced once ($15,000!!) so the longevity is real. The commuter guys have to have them overhauled at 3500 hours but in Ag work we just do IRANs (Inspect and repair as necessary). Some of these PT6 series engines in the oil fields have run continuously for 20,000 hours and are shut down for the 1000 hour oil changes. My airplane MIGHT use a quart of $8.50 synthetic Exxon in 30 hours and it's changed annually, around 300-400 hours and is still crystal clear even then.
Yes, turbines have it all over recips BUT this engine is now around $300,000! (It's made of UNOBTAINIUM) and burns 47 GPH kerosene or Jet A (almost identical fuel) per hour making 680 Horsepower and 1600 Ft Lbs torque on takeoff and only weighs 324 lbs!!
Cheers......I enjoy my 9 GPH Lyc immensely!!
Mornin' guys. The "one rotating part" is not far off the mark. My PT6 in the Air Tractor only has one rotating part in the compressor/hot section that makes power. It consists of 4 compressor discs and one CT wheel, all rotating together on one shaft. However, in the accessory case are gears which run the starter-generator, fuel pump, scavenge pump and a pad for hydraulic pump (King Airs), etc. A bunch of other moving parts but the one that makes the power is indeed one rotating assembly. Torque is then transferred via a vane ring to the PT wheel through a double planetary reduction gearbox which reduces the engines RPM of 37,500 to the prop for a redline of 2200 RPM on the 110" Hartzell reversible/full feathering.
Incidentally, it runs non-stop all day long at 95 % which equates to 35,625 RPMs and has done so for 7718 total since new hours! It has only had the Compressor turbine wheel (CT) replaced once ($15,000!!) so the longevity is real. The commuter guys have to have them overhauled at 3500 hours but in Ag work we just do IRANs (Inspect and repair as necessary). Some of these PT6 series engines in the oil fields have run continuously for 20,000 hours and are shut down for the 1000 hour oil changes. My airplane MIGHT use a quart of $8.50 synthetic Exxon in 30 hours and it's changed annually, around 300-400 hours and is still crystal clear even then.
Yes, turbines have it all over recips BUT this engine is now around $300,000! (It's made of UNOBTAINIUM) and burns 47 GPH kerosene or Jet A (almost identical fuel) per hour making 680 Horsepower and 1600 Ft Lbs torque on takeoff and only weighs 324 lbs!!
Cheers......I enjoy my 9 GPH Lyc immensely!!
captainron
Well Known Member
If I remember corectly, the APUs that were in the Hawkers I used to fly would burn about 40 gallons per hour (270 lbs.). It would be dependent on the air conditioner load (bleed air) and the electrical load, but thirsty, still.
pierre smith said:
Just to expand on that description of the PT-6 and in case people still think it truly has only 1 moving part, the PT-6 is actuall a split spool (or "Free Spool") engine. The Hot section/Turbine section is in no way connected to the compressor section (no gear, spline or anything connecting the hot section to the compressor section....just an air space). They each run at their own speed.....independent of the other (but in direct proportion to the other). It's one of the miracles that makes that engine so robust & reliable, and also why you can put a prop brake on it (or leave it feathered) at idle all day long without killing the engine (or how PT6's can be started with the prop held in place).
Anyway, no big deal, but to get a lot of efficiency out of Turboprops or Turbofans, etc.. you'll notice the more efficient engines are double or even triple spool engines with 2 or 3 shafts all running at independing speeds and a LOT more than just a single compressor and single turbine......incidentally both of which are centrifugal (not axial) which also is just naturally less efficient....
Just making sure people didn't think the good ole' PT6 was anything close to the Innodyn/ATP/Solar T-62 Turbine....it's quite a bit better (IMHO)! No flames intended. I truly would like to see that engine succeed, so I'm keeping an open mind - but being realistic at the same time.
Cheers,
Stein.
P.S., you have one NICE office to be flying around in all day!
Andrew Griffin
Member
ITS ALL ABOUT FLUTTER...
I have followed the development of innodyn engines with a very keen eye ever since I saw that beautiful RV4 on the front of the April 2003 EAA Sport Aviation magazine. The idea of a turbine has always been appealing to me. Despite all of the problems with Innodyns turbine that have been mentioned on this thread, no one will deny that if they could pull it off in acordance with their promises it would be very very cool.
I have however decided against the idea of a turbine in an RV not because of the limitations of the turbine design but because of the limitations of the RV.
Anyone thinking of buying a turbine, turbocharger, supercharger or any other device that will maintain your engine power at altitude should spend $3 and order the sixth issue 2004 back issue of RVATOR. In it there is an excellent article by Ken Krueger.
The article details that if you hold Indicated airspeed constant, with altitude true airspeed will increase dramatically. The Vne in RV's are based on flutter margains and Vne is a True Airspeed limitation not an indicated airspeed limitation (despite what that solid red line on your ASI says!!!)by maintaining constant IAS with alt you can exceed your flutter margain (Vne). This is not a problem with naturally aspirated engines as the engine losses power at alt and therefore doesn't have enough power to exceed the TAS Vne (we are speaking about alts +12,000. It should be considered however if you plan on doing a high speed dive at altitude!!!!
The article also contains excellent tabulated comparssions of flutter margain Vs. TAS Vs. IAS Vs. Density Alt.
An example of a Vne reduction chart with altitude is also provided.
It is for this reason that the benefits of having a Turbine in an RV are lost as you cannot fly at the higher TAS at alt and therefore cannot reap the benefits of the higher speed for fuel burn scenario.
Unfortunately these are the findings produced by Vans Aircraft. I would have loved to put a turbine in my plane but once you read the article you will see its just not practicle unless you want an aircraft that makes an expensive really really cool noise at low alt (thats if you can hear the tubine over the gulping). Besides that I am not qualified to disagree with the aircraft designer.
If anyone knows anything about flutter and how to overcome this problem I would be very interested to hear about it.
I have followed the development of innodyn engines with a very keen eye ever since I saw that beautiful RV4 on the front of the April 2003 EAA Sport Aviation magazine. The idea of a turbine has always been appealing to me. Despite all of the problems with Innodyns turbine that have been mentioned on this thread, no one will deny that if they could pull it off in acordance with their promises it would be very very cool.
I have however decided against the idea of a turbine in an RV not because of the limitations of the turbine design but because of the limitations of the RV.
Anyone thinking of buying a turbine, turbocharger, supercharger or any other device that will maintain your engine power at altitude should spend $3 and order the sixth issue 2004 back issue of RVATOR. In it there is an excellent article by Ken Krueger.
The article details that if you hold Indicated airspeed constant, with altitude true airspeed will increase dramatically. The Vne in RV's are based on flutter margains and Vne is a True Airspeed limitation not an indicated airspeed limitation (despite what that solid red line on your ASI says!!!)by maintaining constant IAS with alt you can exceed your flutter margain (Vne). This is not a problem with naturally aspirated engines as the engine losses power at alt and therefore doesn't have enough power to exceed the TAS Vne (we are speaking about alts +12,000. It should be considered however if you plan on doing a high speed dive at altitude!!!!
The article also contains excellent tabulated comparssions of flutter margain Vs. TAS Vs. IAS Vs. Density Alt.
An example of a Vne reduction chart with altitude is also provided.
It is for this reason that the benefits of having a Turbine in an RV are lost as you cannot fly at the higher TAS at alt and therefore cannot reap the benefits of the higher speed for fuel burn scenario.
Unfortunately these are the findings produced by Vans Aircraft. I would have loved to put a turbine in my plane but once you read the article you will see its just not practicle unless you want an aircraft that makes an expensive really really cool noise at low alt (thats if you can hear the tubine over the gulping). Besides that I am not qualified to disagree with the aircraft designer.
If anyone knows anything about flutter and how to overcome this problem I would be very interested to hear about it.
The turbine will lose power with altitude so unless you start out with over 200hp at SL, you are not likely to exceed the TAS limits at altitude unless it is flat rated to a somewhat higher altitude. It is likely that a 200hp turbine powered RV would be slightly faster than a piston powered one due to some jet thrust and lower "cooling" drag. I guess we'll have to wait on the flight report of the Innodyne -8.
With turbos, we simply pull back the rpm to reduce power and pick up some more fuel economy.
I agree that people should be heeding Ken's comments.
With turbos, we simply pull back the rpm to reduce power and pick up some more fuel economy.
I agree that people should be heeding Ken's comments.
Cam Hartman
Member
now in the "too hard" basket
"If anyone knows anything about flutter and how to overcome this problem I would be very interested to hear about it"
Andy, the answer to your question is a simple one; swept wings and metal - lots of it!
I've been following the Innodyn turbine as well and have decided against it for numerous reasons.
Best Wishes,
"If anyone knows anything about flutter and how to overcome this problem I would be very interested to hear about it"
Andy, the answer to your question is a simple one; swept wings and metal - lots of it!
I've been following the Innodyn turbine as well and have decided against it for numerous reasons.
Best Wishes,
pierre smith
Well Known Member
Me too
I, like Cam, am curious as to why the redlines are where they are. My 6A is redlined at 210 MPH and the 7's are 230 MPH. Some Lancairs run over 350 MPH! Why can they go this fast and I can't in my 6A?(besides not enough HP) What determines redline?
I, like Cam, am curious as to why the redlines are where they are. My 6A is redlined at 210 MPH and the 7's are 230 MPH. Some Lancairs run over 350 MPH! Why can they go this fast and I can't in my 6A?(besides not enough HP) What determines redline?
Andrew Griffin
Member
pierre smith said:
Pierre,
As I stated a few posts prior to this one, Redline (Vne) is predicated in this case by the flutter margain of the wing & its attachments. If you want to go faster (HP aside) you have to redesign the wing & important attachments (or somehow increase the flutter margain of these attachments through other means... mass balances, etc...).
The best place to find flutter info and how it was calculated for your particular model (including how much fat there is in the calculation of your models Vne) would be to give the Vans guys a call. Note: Vne as depicted on the ASI decreases with altitude. It is a product in this case of TAS.
As far as I am aware, this is the only thing prohibiting you going faster.
If you have a close look at fast aircraft, they have very thin and/or swept wings. Unfortunately the kit aircraft that I like that go fast don't enjoy the other performance aspects of an RV like short T/O and landing roll for this very same reason.
I like to think of an RV as a good all rounder.
Mike S
Senior Curmudgeon
Balance, and center of gravity vs. center of pressure (of the control surfaces) are big factors as well as "slop" in control system.
All the stiffness in the world wont help a surface that is out of balance, with sloppy linkage.
Way too many othere factors to do justice here, this is a subject best left up to the engineers who design such things.
True flutter is very violent, and happens very rapidly. Basic survival technique usually includes a parachute.
Mike
All the stiffness in the world wont help a surface that is out of balance, with sloppy linkage.
Way too many othere factors to do justice here, this is a subject best left up to the engineers who design such things.
True flutter is very violent, and happens very rapidly. Basic survival technique usually includes a parachute.
Mike
n468ac
Well Known Member
http://www.engineering.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebsite/video08.htm
or
http://www.engineering.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebsite/movies/video08_new_alt.avi
It's a 5.14Mb file.
Here is why you don't want to mess with flutter.
or
http://www.engineering.wright.edu/~jslater/SDTCOutreachWebsite/movies/video08_new_alt.avi
It's a 5.14Mb file.
Here is why you don't want to mess with flutter.
Last edited:
chinahanji
I'm New Here
Chinahanji parts plant
rotor head & hydraulic head, nozzle,elements& plunger,delivery valve,vepump,feed pump
rotor head & hydraulic head, nozzle,elements& plunger,delivery valve,vepump,feed pump
Cam Hartman
Member
Ladies and Gentlemen,
The link below may provide some information about the issue of control flutter and it's causes.
www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/flutter
Best Wishes,
The link below may provide some information about the issue of control flutter and it's causes.
www.auf.asn.au/groundschool/flutter
Best Wishes,
Rockets are designed for short term high power applications, and its usually WOT (wide open throttle) the whole way. I can see it now "RV ready for takeoff"...."Clear!"...."woosh"
Refuling would be kinda tough too. "hey got some liquid O2 in that pump?" Instead of just Jet-A.
Refuling would be kinda tough too. "hey got some liquid O2 in that pump?" Instead of just Jet-A.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Oh
Nothing is wrong with people building "Rockets". They do have more performance than most RV's because they have a 260 HP Lyc 540, not a 180-200 HP Lyc 360. However you assume a turbine means more performance or RV's are poor performers. Have you flown a RV? It does not really need more power. Not sure where you are going?
If a RV had a little turbine, 180, 200 or 230 HP, it would have less performance than a 260 HP piston engined HR/F-1 Rocket. Also a 180 HP turbine RV would have less performance than a 200 HP Lyc powered RV. The prop does not care how the RPM's/Torque (aka horse power) gets to the blades.
By the way just for fun Burt Rutan came up with a throttle-able rocket engine and flew it on a VariEZ. This was testing leading up to Spaceship 1, which of course went on later to big success. However obviously a rocket motor is not practical, but the Germans did Rocket planes and pulse jet planes (ram rockets) in WWII. It has been done. NASA is looking at the SCRAM jets (rocket motor) for hypersonic aircraft and so on. Its not a totally ridiculous topic, but in context of a little GA plane to go fly around the patch its silly.
Also here is a little 130 HP turbine, with a PT6 like gas couple: http://www.microjeteng.com/prop.html (click the links)
They make little Jet engines for RC models and military (cruise missile, UAV's). He takes one of his "gas generators" and turns it around and runs a power turbine impeller in a "can" with dual exhaust stacks, aka PT6. Cool. I am sure the exhaust provides some jet thrust. He claims 130 HP.
It might be a novelty for a little RV-3. Gas burn, ha ha ha. Oh 39 gal an hour at full power (130HP). A Lycoming at 130 hp is 72% power on a O360, or about 8.5 gal/hr. That's a factor of 4.5 times the fuel burn. Look I am not suggesting anyone go out an buy one, it is just posted for fun and general interested. The Innodyne may claims 7 gal/hr per 100 HP, about 4 times better than than this little turboprop engine. We shall see. It may be better than 39 gal/hr, but I'd not be surprised if it was not much better.
Piston engines are well suited and very efficient for aircraft needing less than 300 to 350 HP engines.
Here is a cool pic of a P&W PT6 innards:
You can see the power section part attached to prop, is not mechanically connected to the gas and compressor section. This is what micro jet engines is trying to emulate.
Ha ha you mean a Harmon Rocket of Team Rocket F-1 (RV-4 variant with a 260 HP 6-cylinder engien), not rocket motor.scwheeler said:Sorry was a bit late when i posted
I mean what would be the advantages of a turbine powered Vans compared to a souped up Harmon Rocket/F-1 Rocket in terms of performance forgetting fuel costs? Cheers
Nothing is wrong with people building "Rockets". They do have more performance than most RV's because they have a 260 HP Lyc 540, not a 180-200 HP Lyc 360. However you assume a turbine means more performance or RV's are poor performers. Have you flown a RV? It does not really need more power. Not sure where you are going?
If a RV had a little turbine, 180, 200 or 230 HP, it would have less performance than a 260 HP piston engined HR/F-1 Rocket. Also a 180 HP turbine RV would have less performance than a 200 HP Lyc powered RV. The prop does not care how the RPM's/Torque (aka horse power) gets to the blades.
By the way just for fun Burt Rutan came up with a throttle-able rocket engine and flew it on a VariEZ. This was testing leading up to Spaceship 1, which of course went on later to big success. However obviously a rocket motor is not practical, but the Germans did Rocket planes and pulse jet planes (ram rockets) in WWII. It has been done. NASA is looking at the SCRAM jets (rocket motor) for hypersonic aircraft and so on. Its not a totally ridiculous topic, but in context of a little GA plane to go fly around the patch its silly.
Also here is a little 130 HP turbine, with a PT6 like gas couple: http://www.microjeteng.com/prop.html (click the links)
They make little Jet engines for RC models and military (cruise missile, UAV's). He takes one of his "gas generators" and turns it around and runs a power turbine impeller in a "can" with dual exhaust stacks, aka PT6. Cool. I am sure the exhaust provides some jet thrust. He claims 130 HP.
It might be a novelty for a little RV-3. Gas burn, ha ha ha. Oh 39 gal an hour at full power (130HP). A Lycoming at 130 hp is 72% power on a O360, or about 8.5 gal/hr. That's a factor of 4.5 times the fuel burn. Look I am not suggesting anyone go out an buy one, it is just posted for fun and general interested. The Innodyne may claims 7 gal/hr per 100 HP, about 4 times better than than this little turboprop engine. We shall see. It may be better than 39 gal/hr, but I'd not be surprised if it was not much better.
Piston engines are well suited and very efficient for aircraft needing less than 300 to 350 HP engines.
Here is a cool pic of a P&W PT6 innards:
You can see the power section part attached to prop, is not mechanically connected to the gas and compressor section. This is what micro jet engines is trying to emulate.
Last edited:
The X-15 also used a throttleable rocket motor.
Also, I don't believe the SCRAM Jet can be considered a rocket engine, nor can a pulse jet. As far as I know, the main factor in a rocket being a rocket is that it carries its oxygen on board, where as a jet uses O2 in the air around it to burn.
A pulse jet does not carry any kind of oxygen on board (BTW - there seems to be gentleman doing some neat things to bring pulse-jets into the 21st century and claims possibilities for GA aircraft with more/smoother power and reduced noise levels.
A SCRAM Jet is nothing more than a ram jet that is configured for hypersonic (Mach 5+) operation, and thus still uses oxygen from the air passing through it.
xl1200r said:
Driftly dangerously offtopic here - but wow is that ever an understatement! A lot of very interesting things happen to your flame front in the combustor can when you have transonic to supersonic airflow. The biggest impact is the requirement for a fuel that has a very fast (hypersonic) flame front - usually hydrogen. The scramjet could be said to detonate continuously in a controlled manner, rather than burn like a conventional jet.
I recently discovered Innodyn turbines and they really got my attention. What they promise sounds really attractive.
After reading this thread I became a bit skeptical. Is this for real?
Well, I just what to share with you what the people Innodyn have told me (via email):
- They plan to come out with a twin turbine in 2007 with a single hydraulic propeller, 330 up to 500 HP, two computers. It will run on one or both turbines since they will be connected through a sprag clutch.
- Also coming up soon an air conditioner at an anticipated cost of under $500
- They told me that bleed air is available for pressurization and that electric power comes from a 55 amp alternator welded into the gear box. Same goes for the starter.
- Regarding their turbines operation and maintenance they state:
I also contacted MT propellers, one of the two manufactures cited on Innodyn's website. The other one, NSI, seem to have a bad reputation due to a departing blade incident.
MT's answer left me wondering:
After reading this thread I became a bit skeptical. Is this for real?
Well, I just what to share with you what the people Innodyn have told me (via email):
- They plan to come out with a twin turbine in 2007 with a single hydraulic propeller, 330 up to 500 HP, two computers. It will run on one or both turbines since they will be connected through a sprag clutch.
- Also coming up soon an air conditioner at an anticipated cost of under $500
- They told me that bleed air is available for pressurization and that electric power comes from a 55 amp alternator welded into the gear box. Same goes for the starter.
- Regarding their turbines operation and maintenance they state:
I also contacted MT propellers, one of the two manufactures cited on Innodyn's website. The other one, NSI, seem to have a bad reputation due to a departing blade incident.
MT's answer left me wondering:
Kyle Boatright
Well Known Member
Don't hold your breath on Innodyne. They have been making incredible promises about their products for years, but other than their demo aircraft how many units do they have installed and flying? Also, they have never published any third party data to support their claims on fuel efficiency.
One day they may turn out to have a world beating product, but I would never send them any of my money unless they showed a lot more tangible results. Marketing and sales hype is great, but you've gotta back it up with a product.
One day they may turn out to have a world beating product, but I would never send them any of my money unless they showed a lot more tangible results. Marketing and sales hype is great, but you've gotta back it up with a product.
gmcjetpilot
Well Known Member
Good info
Hummm, fco, interesting what MT said. YES, that's a problem many people have identified, including my self. Good on you for contacting MT and asking. Jet engines are in principle very simple but very complex to achieve and control. It's like a nuclear reactor, very simple concept easily explained with physics, but the operation and control takes serious engineering. There are no good short cuts.
There is a Gent with a RV-8 who posted on the list, apparently the first to install in a customer RV-8 and ready to fly. Have heard nothing about it of late, and that was a few months ago, something about the test pilot getting sick, hope he is ok.
As was suggested, don't give them money. Also the idea of a "twin-pak", two turbines driving a gear box and one prop is not new. Of course twin engined helicopters have this arrangement. However Innodyn does not really have one successful version flying. You just can't do turbine on the cheap. With the internet and aviation comunity, especially home builders, spacifically RV'ers, its hard to pull much over on the market. You might get by with it for a while, sooner than later the news gets out. It's like the Moller Flying Car, bogus.
Hummm, fco, interesting what MT said. YES, that's a problem many people have identified, including my self. Good on you for contacting MT and asking. Jet engines are in principle very simple but very complex to achieve and control. It's like a nuclear reactor, very simple concept easily explained with physics, but the operation and control takes serious engineering. There are no good short cuts.
There is a Gent with a RV-8 who posted on the list, apparently the first to install in a customer RV-8 and ready to fly. Have heard nothing about it of late, and that was a few months ago, something about the test pilot getting sick, hope he is ok.
As was suggested, don't give them money. Also the idea of a "twin-pak", two turbines driving a gear box and one prop is not new. Of course twin engined helicopters have this arrangement. However Innodyn does not really have one successful version flying. You just can't do turbine on the cheap. With the internet and aviation comunity, especially home builders, spacifically RV'ers, its hard to pull much over on the market. You might get by with it for a while, sooner than later the news gets out. It's like the Moller Flying Car, bogus.
Last edited:
cawmd82
Well Known Member
$500 a-c and other Innodyne dreams
What could this even be? One of those ice chests with a battery operated fan? I guess if you are flying by yourself in an RV that might actually work---at least for a little while.
Innodyne could/should do themselves a big favor by cutting the wild claims. Maybe some day they will sort it out but I will not be holding my breath.
Dream machine: An RV ?20? A little bigger than an A36 with a twin pack Innodyne 450 hp on the nose---and a $500 ac option......probably not a good idea to hold the breath on any of this....
What could this even be? One of those ice chests with a battery operated fan? I guess if you are flying by yourself in an RV that might actually work---at least for a little while.
Innodyne could/should do themselves a big favor by cutting the wild claims. Maybe some day they will sort it out but I will not be holding my breath.
Dream machine: An RV ?20? A little bigger than an A36 with a twin pack Innodyne 450 hp on the nose---and a $500 ac option......probably not a good idea to hold the breath on any of this....
cawmd82 said:
That's actually not too far off base - quite believable. You've already paid for the biggest chunk of expense in an AC system - the compressor - it's part of the turbine. All you need now is to pull off a little bleed air (already available on the Innodyne), run it through a simple heat exchanger and expander valve and you've got cold air. Burns a little more fuel, but if you're running a turbine you're not worried about fuel anyway.
I think I lost some IQ points reading this thread.
You guys have no right to be bashing Innodyn for their burn rate when you have absolutely nothing backing yourselves up.
I have seen comparisons to turbines built more than 50 years ago!!!
Here are is an example of a modern turboshaft engine.
I would not plan to put this engine in a RV-4.
The fact is the efficiency of modern turboshaft engines.
( 255 shp * .42 lb/shp/hr ) / 6.7 lb/gal = 15.99 gal/hr
There are also many modern turbines with efficiencies around .45 lb/shp/hr.
( 255 shp * .42 lb/shp/hr ) / 6.7 lb/gal = 17.13 gal/hr
Problem with most turbine manufactures is they are making high power engines for commercial and military applications, not small aircraft.
Give Innodyn some credit, thank you.
BTW you all should know testing and documentation for the FAA takes forever.
I am sure they are doing what they can to push this turbine through the FAA and get certification.
You guys have no right to be bashing Innodyn for their burn rate when you have absolutely nothing backing yourselves up.
I have seen comparisons to turbines built more than 50 years ago!!!
Here are is an example of a modern turboshaft engine.
I would not plan to put this engine in a RV-4.
The fact is the efficiency of modern turboshaft engines.
( 255 shp * .42 lb/shp/hr ) / 6.7 lb/gal = 15.99 gal/hr
There are also many modern turbines with efficiencies around .45 lb/shp/hr.
( 255 shp * .42 lb/shp/hr ) / 6.7 lb/gal = 17.13 gal/hr
Problem with most turbine manufactures is they are making high power engines for commercial and military applications, not small aircraft.
Give Innodyn some credit, thank you.
BTW you all should know testing and documentation for the FAA takes forever.
I am sure they are doing what they can to push this turbine through the FAA and get certification.
Last edited:
N395V
Well Known Member
Ploxhoi,
You are absolutely right. We have no data on the Innodyn. That is because they will not publish it and I doubt they ever will. As I doubt they will ever bring a useful turbine to the experimental aviation market. After all what has it been 10 years and this is at least the second iteration of the company.
As mentioned above they are not seeking certification for the planes we fly they are still trying to make the thing work.
As far as losing IQ points you should not worry as you are clearly a very brilliant person. Only someone with an intellect of Mensa Proportions would use their very 1st post to a new list to bash the list members.
By the way do you have a real name? It would be nice to put a name to the person telling us what we do not have a right to do.
I suggest you re read the thread and think it of a spirited discussion among friends with a common interest. I think most of us would love nothing more than to see an economical turbine in the horsepower range that RVs use.
Alas Innodyn has not created a great deal of confidence that they will be the ones to deliver it.
Oh by the way welcome to the forum.
cjensen
Well Known Member
Well put Milt.
NO FAA cert happening or even planned.
NO fuel burn data.
NO timeframe given.
NO ONE ANSWERS THE PHONE. (I've called about 10 times in the last two months)
NO ONE RESPONDS TO EMAIL. (I've sent five or six in the last two months)
I'm not calling out of interest to put one on my airplane (anymore! ), but I still would like some data...
Intersting first post Ploxhoi. Welcome to VAF...
NO FAA cert happening or even planned.
NO fuel burn data.
NO timeframe given.
NO ONE ANSWERS THE PHONE. (I've called about 10 times in the last two months)
NO ONE RESPONDS TO EMAIL. (I've sent five or six in the last two months)
I'm not calling out of interest to put one on my airplane (anymore!
), but I still would like some data...Intersting first post Ploxhoi. Welcome to VAF...
lots of bs in airplane biz
I don't think I know of an industry that produces more BS than the aviation industry.
I was going to purchase a Nemisis NXT, because the owner stated he used an out of the crate STOCK Lycoming engine which produced 350HP. After I spent much time thinking and figuring I would have installed a gear drive lycoming with apx 480 to 500HP (twin turbo hot rod). Now I am going to go faster correct? NO, this man did not tell the truth!!!!!!! This Stock engine from Lycoming was really putting out 375HP at 42" manifold pressure (they Claim), I am sure Lycoming would be interested in how this happened. Now comes the good part.....They Stated thay ran the engine at 52" do do not need a calculator to figure this would result in 50 to 100 HP more. Just goes to show what men will do to make a buck.
I am an Engine man and the first thing I would have done is put a pilot in any airplane with my new turbine and send him on his was around the world with a peice of paper and pencil (a little old fashion, but it works). When he returned (if he returned) I would publish the data and if it was as these folks say it is I would retire (sorry I already am).
I don't think I know of an industry that produces more BS than the aviation industry.
I was going to purchase a Nemisis NXT, because the owner stated he used an out of the crate STOCK Lycoming engine which produced 350HP. After I spent much time thinking and figuring I would have installed a gear drive lycoming with apx 480 to 500HP (twin turbo hot rod). Now I am going to go faster correct? NO, this man did not tell the truth!!!!!!! This Stock engine from Lycoming was really putting out 375HP at 42" manifold pressure (they Claim), I am sure Lycoming would be interested in how this happened. Now comes the good part.....They Stated thay ran the engine at 52" do do not need a calculator to figure this would result in 50 to 100 HP more. Just goes to show what men will do to make a buck.
I am an Engine man and the first thing I would have done is put a pilot in any airplane with my new turbine and send him on his was around the world with a peice of paper and pencil (a little old fashion, but it works). When he returned (if he returned) I would publish the data and if it was as these folks say it is I would retire (sorry I already am).
Last edited:
N395V
Well Known Member
Be glad they didn't.
I am embarrassed to admit this but.........
Several years ago when my exp aviation IQ was very very low I called them really excited at the thought of a turbine on an RV, F1, etc.
Talked to a guy for about an hour and was even more excited. So I parted with my $100 for their installation and information manual. What a book of horsepucky it was. All of my RV friends had a good laugh and now I have a $100 credit towards the purchase of an Innodyn turbine.
It's hard to beat a lycoming or continental and now I have regressed to driving a Radial.
Last edited:
