pazmanyflyer
Well Known Member
RV7T build (RV7AT actually) should be interesting to watch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZwGshhB6sk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZwGshhB6sk
It seems more than a bit irresponsible for a vendor to put a turbine on the RV model which has most often come apart due to overspeed.
Dave and team strike me as a pretty learned bunch, unlikely to risk either themselves or their early engines by doing stupid pilot tricks.
The turbine won't put out much more power at altitude than an AV 360 unless it's flat rated.
Several turbocharged 7s have exceeded 210 KTAS in level flight, at least one at Reno, AVERAGED over 220 kts so it's going quite a bit faster than that down the straights.
Then why would anyone want it?
Seriously, from the vendor site..."an optimum cruise power at 10,000’ in the range 150-180hp with a targeted specific fuel consumption of around 0.56 lbs/hp/h..." and "Optimum cruise power 180 hp"
. . . they appear to be safe at the factory Vne of 210 KTAS, not promoting folks to try exceeding that figure.
When did Vans increase the Vne above 200KTAS?
I'll bet that no fast 7 at Reno is using the standard 9 rudder - people should know what structural mods have been made before even thinking about this with a 7. Peoples lives are at stake here, the details matter. The 7 is the only model with repeated inflight structural failures (7). It can not be only the 7 pilots fault and no one is admitting that the HS structural changes made were a positive benefit to this specific failure mode.
No running engine but have a Booth At Oshkosh??? Waste of time & money in my eyes . Seen this Movie before .
This proof of concept engine was running back in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEn1iCU6Hh0
Yes, lots to prove but that's why they're building the -7.
If nobody ever tries anything new, we'll still be using basically the same stuff as we were in 1950- 75 years on. That doesn't seem like progress to me.
I count 3 new small turbines close to entering the market now. That's cool in my book. I hope at least one succeeds, as lots of hard work, money and thought went into each of them. I say sit back and see how these perform in the coming months/ years.
I applaud the dreamers, engineers and risk takers (financially) here.
This proof of concept engine was running back in 2017: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEn1iCU6Hh0
Yes, lots to prove but that's why they're building the -7.
If nobody ever tries anything new, we'll still be using basically the same stuff as we were in 1950- 75 years on. That doesn't seem like progress to me.
I count 3 new small turbines close to entering the market now. That's cool in my book. I hope at least one succeeds, as lots of hard work, money and thought went into each of them. I say sit back and see how these perform in the coming months/ years.
I applaud the dreamers, engineers and risk takers (financially) here.
Hear hear, well said. All they are asking is to have a look at what they're doing/attempting. If they were saying to put a deposit down or similar then they might deserve the negativity they seem to be getting.
And they didn't start this last week and say we can get this running overnight. They know they have a slog ahead of them. Will they make it, no idea. But thanks for having a crack at it and at worst they may help the next group that tries.
I applaud the dreamers, engineers and risk takers (financially) here.
ATP was a lot further along in 2004 but disappeared.
https://www.flightglobal.com/atp-launches-turboprop-engine-to-power-kitplanes/54223.article
I saw their RV4 at Sun-n-Fun. I believe the design was based on a Solar T-62. I wanted one to prototype in my Rotorway.
Was that RV-4T?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRLFXirq4o
Was that RV-4T?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRLFXirq4o