|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

03-18-2008, 05:40 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Hixson, TN ( Chattanooga)
Posts: 72
|
|
Which again makes the Subaru very interesting!
__________________
RV 10, still building.
Chattanooga, TN.
N724AR reserved
EAA # 706863. Chapter 150.
Exempt, but donated Jan 2018
|

02-05-2009, 01:17 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Georgetown, Texas
Posts: 48
|
|
Recent update
Flying turbines at work everyday the youtube video on this caught my eye and did a quick search. Janes had a small write-up.
Terry
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-...ed-States.html
|

02-05-2009, 07:08 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Mendon South Carolina
Posts: 1,391
|
|
Well according to their website they still expect to fly in 2007 which is also their last update.
http://innodyn.com/
Maybe my great great grandson will eventually get to put one on an airplane.
__________________
Milt Concannon
|

02-06-2009, 08:28 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 50
|
|
well i guess the honeymoon is over.
looks like Innodyn is out of business. i tried calling them and their numbers are disconnected.
looks like vaporware is just that..........VAPORware...
Jeff
__________________
Jeff Ray
N298AM
Cirrus SR-20
|

02-15-2009, 09:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: seattle wa
Posts: 14
|
|
So does anyone know the typical fuel burn of something like a 737?
And a BSFC not a TSFC?
I have read a difference of 30 to 40% between a Jet and turbo prop, is that about right?
I'd say with modern engineering a PRT diesel recip would beat the pants off any thing in the commercial sky right now especially since some years back the talk was moving away from Turbofans to strictly turbo props.
I think the biggest draw back to any turbine is the speed it runs at. And the massive centrifugal loads imposed by that. Then the vibrations and heat stresses, I'm suprized they do as good as they do. The gear sets that run accessories and prop reduction go through h..... with that speed.
|

02-16-2009, 06:09 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 837
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeff122670
well i guess the honeymoon is over.
Jeff
|
If you spent any money with them, then at least you got the part of the honeymoon that you probably look forward to the most.......... 
__________________
Ron Leach
RV-7 N713CM reserved VAF # 603
Cincinnati
__________________________________________
"Wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then".
.....Bob Seger
|

02-16-2009, 08:10 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 1,558
|
|
I think the original B-737 with the small by-pass P&W JT-8's burned around 3000 lbs/hr per engine at typical cruise speed and altitude (FL350). I'm pretty sure it had a version of the same JT-8 I flew in the DC-9, 727, and DC-8. The later high by-pass GE or CFM engines got about 30% better fuel efficiency. On our DC-8's cruise fuel consumption went from 12,000 lbs/hr (3,000 X 4) to around 9,000 lbs/hr with the CFM 'Dolly Parton' engines. On average jet A weighs 6.7 lbs/gal. I never saw it filled, but when filled the DC-8 carried 159,000 pounds of Jet A. As a comparison, our 767-ER's also carried 160,000 lbs. and burned slightly more fuel per hour (10,000 or so) on two engines rather than four.
The Innodyne is miniature but the sound of it sucking fuel can be heard - from quite a distance!!!
Scott
|

02-16-2009, 08:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,231
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dicer
So does anyone know the typical fuel burn of something like a 737?
|
At what point in the flight profile? Takeoff, or cruise?
I shoulda looked when my friend let me at the controls of the 737-200 simulator. Gross weight was about twice a fully loaded Phantom, so I'll guess that fuel burn at takeoff was also about twice for 24,000lbs / hr / engine, or about 7,300 gallons / hr / engine.
Someone here will know more precisely. At cruise at 36,000' the newer turbofans are about as efficient as a turboprop, and fuel burn would be around 15-20% of full-throttle takeoff (again a rough guess).
|

10-02-2010, 09:07 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Keller, TX
Posts: 1,553
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by captainron
If you spent any money with them, then at least you got the part of the honeymoon that you probably look forward to the most.......... 
|
Ron - that was beautifully stated!
Here's a link to an interesting and technical thread on using this turbine in a Cub. About 1/2 way down someone very involved in turbine design posted a ton of great information on the problems. It's interesting reading.
http://www.supercub.org/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?p=79429
__________________
RV-8 180 hp IO-360 N247TD with 10" SkyView!
VAF Donations Made 8/2019 and 12/2019
"Cum omni alio deficiente, ludere mortuis."
(When all else fails, play dead.)
|

10-02-2010, 12:41 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 531
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubblehead
Ron - that was beautifully stated!
|
1.5 years ago?
New thread here though: http://www.vansairforce.com/communit...ad.php?t=63228
__________________
-Rick Greer, VAF #2492
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:55 AM.
|