| Turbine Aeronautics |
03-10-2019 05:01 PM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by breister
(Post 1330638)
A fair answer. You are busy, I'll promise to stop bugging you about it! :D
|
Thanks breister.
We figured that probably 99% of our 200hp/120hp market would simply be looking for a turbine alternative to their LyConti or Rotax. We did not envisage that their mission would change significantly simply by having a turbine installed. That is, probably most missions would still be below 10,000? with the occasional foray above that altitude.
We are designing our launch engine to operate comfortably at all altitudes up to 20,000 which will cater for those who occasionally exceed 10,000? or wish to cruise above 10,000?.
I suspect that there are minimal aircraft that our 200hp engine would go into that are pressurised, so heating is really the only issue to resolve and as I have indicated, there are very simple, low cost ways to address the heating issue that will not impact the engines simplicity, performance or our ability to make it as affordable as possible.
Our 300hp engine however, is likely to go into aircraft that may be pressurised. Also, those aircraft tend to be at the top end of the cost spectrum where the builder may be better able to afford an engine that is $10k more expensive but will have the bells and whistles.
For us, it has been a decision making process to determine what are essential, desirable and non-essential features for our engines, and then designing accordingly. If we have left off a feature that some consider essential, we will look at the trade off between satisfying the few (or many if that is the case) and the economics involved to do so. For now, based on feedback from customers and airframe manufacturers, bleed air on our 200hp/120hp engines is not an essential feature but is one that would adversely affect the purchase price (not a desirable feature for probably 99% of our potential customers).
Dave
|