VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Alternative Engines (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Turbine Aeronautics (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=148635)

DaleB 04-18-2017 06:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 1166428)
When we attend a DAR seminar, one of the first things said is, "We don't answer 'why' questions!"

That's a perfectly understandable position to take, since anything they said would probably be pure speculation. The people who wrote the rules are likely all retired and/or long dead. Problem is, not only does no one at the FAA answer the "why" questions, it seems like no one is willing to ask them either. These things tend to be written in stone. Getting a new rule IN may be a tedious process, but it pales in comparison to getting one OUT.

rmartingt 04-18-2017 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 1166428)
You'll have to ask the FAA about that. It's their rule. I just have to follow it. When we attend a DAR seminar, one of the first things said is, "We don't answer 'why' questions!"

Oh, I didn't expect you to know why the FAA does what it does, Mel ;) That was a rhetorical question. I don't think anyone, FAA included, knows the answer.

I actually did ask the FAA (or one of its representatives) this question a few years ago when I was part of the ASTM committee coming up with industry standards for meeting the proposed Part 23 rewrite. The "reason" was exactly what I posited above--"we assumed all jets would be high performance complex heavy machines that required special training", and then when someone crashed an F-86 into an ice cream shop it further cemented that idea. They outright stated that something like a SubSonex or the jet Cri-Cri never crossed their minds.

However, pointing out that the original assumptions are no longer valid apparently holds no weight with the FAA. I asked why we carried over the language that position light lenses needed to be "flame resistant" but landing and taxi lights need only "not cause a fire hazard in any configuration". The response was "we agree that doesn't make sense and we don't know why it's written like that, but we aren't going to change it".

I've received similar responses to other inquiries--among others, I asked why the aircraft and airman databases were publicly searchable while motor vehicle registration and driver's licenses were considered sensitive "need-to-know" information. The response, egregious misspelling included, was simply "Are databases are public for safety" :rolleyes:

Ironflight 04-18-2017 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmartingt (Post 1166433)
Oh, I didn't expect you to know why the FAA does what it does, Mel ;) That was a rhetorical question. I don't think anyone, FAA included, knows the answer.

I actually did ask the FAA (or one of its representatives) this question a few years ago when I was part of the ASTM committee coming up with industry standards for meeting the proposed Part 23 rewrite. The "reason" was exactly what I posited above--"we assumed all jets would be high performance complex heavy machines that required special training", and then when someone crashed an F-86 into an ice cream shop it further cemented that idea. They outright stated that something like a SubSonex or the jet Cri-Cri never crossed their minds.

However, pointing out that the original assumptions are no longer valid apparently holds no weight with the FAA. I asked why we carried over the language that position light lenses needed to be "flame resistant" but landing and taxi lights need only "not cause a fire hazard in any configuration". The response was "we agree that doesn't make sense and we don't know why it's written like that, but we aren't going to change it".

I've received similar responses to other inquiries--among others, I asked why the aircraft and airman databases were publicly searchable while motor vehicle registration and driver's licenses were considered sensitive "need-to-know" information. The response, egregious misspelling included, was simply "Are databases are public for safety" :rolleyes:

As one of the few folks who holds a rating for the Subsonex and the Bonusjet jet-powered sailplane, I can tell you that there are some forces within the FAA that are adamantly opposed to changing any of the rules you're talking about, and that there is an active fight in the very tiny user community trying to get this changed. Why are the FAA folks fighting? Go back to Mel's statement about "not answering why questions...." Personalities are probably the real reason, and since the number of people affected is so small, it is very hard to get the attention of upper management types that might solve it.

But I know the guy leading the effort to make this more liberal is tenacious - so we'll see where it goes.

flyvulcan 04-18-2017 09:36 AM

First deposit from an RV builder
 
I am pleased to announce that we have received our first deposit from a dedicated RV builder.

I would like to thank him for his support for our engine and express my own admiration for the initiatives he is proposing to integrate the engine into his aircraft. His set-up will certainly gather attention in a very positive way and he should end up with a very high performance and safe aircraft.

Dave

rmartingt 04-18-2017 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ironflight (Post 1166484)
As one of the few folks who holds a rating for the Subsonex and the Bonusjet jet-powered sailplane, I can tell you that there are some forces within the FAA that are adamantly opposed to changing any of the rules you're talking about, and that there is an active fight in the very tiny user community trying to get this changed. Why are the FAA folks fighting? Go back to Mel's statement about "not answering why questions...." Personalities are probably the real reason, and since the number of people affected is so small, it is very hard to get the attention of upper management types that might solve it.

But I know the guy leading the effort to make this more liberal is tenacious - so we'll see where it goes.

It's probably less personality, and more that no bureaucrat was ever fired for sticking to the existing rules.

I gotta say, dealing with those FAA guys on the ASTM committee was like repeatedly smashing my head into a heavy-duty welding table (or was that what I wanted to do to them?). There was one guy who didn't understand that a pressurized twin was not representative of the average "light personal aircraft".

I think a great example of the mindset prevailing there is "Rumor has it that 12,500 lbs was on the 3rd tablet that Moses dropped and broke on the way down from the mountain."

flyvulcan 04-19-2017 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyvulcan (Post 1166496)
I am pleased to announce that we have received our first deposit from a dedicated RV builder.

I would like to thank him for his support for our engine and express my own admiration for the initiatives he is proposing to integrate the engine into his aircraft. His set-up will certainly gather attention in a very positive way and he should end up with a very high performance and safe aircraft.

Dave

And another 3 deposits from RV builders last night. Thanks for the interest everyone. It is clear from the many enquiries that we have had over the last few days that an affordable turboprop engine option creates excitement.

Dave

brian 05-06-2017 12:56 PM

very interesting
 
I remember being quite enthused back in 2002 about the Affordable Turbine Power (ATP) turbine. Later known as Innodyne, it struggled awhile, had ups and downs, and was dead by about 2005 or 2006.

Then there was someone at AirVenture (perhaps SNF) about 5 or so years ago for a couple years, doing development on a turbine powerplant. I believe their test bed was an RV-10, but I'm not sure on that, as I didn't document it much. I don't remember the name. I know I took pictures of it, but I can't seem to find them. I saw them a couple different years, then they faded away. I think the second time I saw them, I didn't see much difference from the first time I saw them.

I wish you well on your venture, and hope you have more success than your predecessors.

TS Flightlines 05-07-2017 07:29 AM

Dave--interesting concept! I know the other turbine company that did an install in an RV is having some supply issues for that engine. We did some hoses for it.
Sounds like a fun out of the box project to work on, like we did for the Continental Diesel project. We'd be glad to help out.

Tom

dlomheim 05-07-2017 01:55 PM

Turbine powered RV-10
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by brian (Post 1171182)
Then there was someone at AirVenture (perhaps SNF) about 5 or so years ago for a couple years, doing development on a turbine powerplant. I believe their test bed was an RV-10...


There is an RV-10 w/ Turbine that is now flying. They bought a buddies RV-10 and showed it off at SNF a few years ago w/only his fuselage; but have subsequently finished it up and I know are flying it now since they gave him a ride in it last month when he was in Florida.

See Turbine Solutions Group: http://www.turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_RV10_kit.htm

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF

rv6ejguy 05-07-2017 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlomheim (Post 1171392)
There is an RV-10 w/ Turbine that is now flying. They bought a buddies RV-10 and showed it off at SNF a few years ago w/only his fuselage; but have subsequently finished it up and I know are flying it now since they gave him a ride in it last month when he was in Florida.

See Turbine Solutions Group: http://www.turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_RV10_kit.htm

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF

Would be good if these folks would have an update after 2014.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 AM.