VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet

  #1  
Old 01-01-2008, 09:19 PM
keepup keepup is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 60
Default Innodyn turbine?

In looking through the history of this particular section, I was surprised not to see a rant on these guys (http://www.innodyn.com). Well, I first took a look at them a couple of years ago and they haven't made much progress since then. It's also not a good sign when their latest updates were from 8 months ago. If they ever get these turbines in production it could be a compelling alternative with as reliable as turbines are. 255 HP, 188 lbs, $35k, multiple fuel compatibilities, and minimal maintenance, hmmmmm??? I'm wondering the effect on an aft center of gravity and whether the wings would have to be moved rearward? Their videos are pretty cool. Any opinions out there?

John
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-01-2008, 10:41 PM
cjensen's Avatar
cjensen cjensen is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI area
Posts: 2,990
Default

Hi John,

If you do a search on 'Innodyn' on the forum, it has been discussed at great length. Check the 'Alternative Engine' forum. LOTS of info on the board about Innodyn.

Regarding CG, the engine is placed WAY out front on an extended mount. Wings do not need to be moved with the weight so far out there.

There is a guy in your state that has/had one on his RV-8...first customer flown version...then it overheated and that was the last we all heard of it.
__________________
Chad Jensen
Astronics AES, Vertical Power & CorePower
RV-7, 5 yr build, flew it 68 hours, sold it, miss it.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-05-2008, 04:04 PM
Juicegoose Juicegoose is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 146
Default

Thats awsome. I wonder what the fuel burn on that sucker is. Comparable or what?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-05-2008, 04:26 PM
cjensen's Avatar
cjensen cjensen is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI area
Posts: 2,990
Default

They say 7gph/per 100hp. So, at 165hp, it burns 11.5gph, 185hp, it burns 13gph and so on...and that's ALL the time, from startup to shutdown.
__________________
Chad Jensen
Astronics AES, Vertical Power & CorePower
RV-7, 5 yr build, flew it 68 hours, sold it, miss it.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-05-2008, 04:56 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,448
Default

Not dead yet. A little bird told me new financing is on the way. I wish them well. It is the ultimate experimental development in engines.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 462.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-05-2008, 05:08 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 6,082
Default

That sure would be sweet - I'd put up with the fuel burn just for the cool factor of hearing the turbine spool up on the ramp and watching everyone's head swivel your direction!
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2023 dues paid
N16GN flying 1,200 hrs and counting on 91E10; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Repeat Offender - 10 empennage in process.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-05-2008, 05:15 PM
Kevin Horton's Avatar
Kevin Horton Kevin Horton is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Green Bay, WI, USA
Posts: 2,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cjensen View Post
They say 7gph/per 100hp. So, at 165hp, it burns 11.5gph, 185hp, it burns 13gph and so on...and that's ALL the time, from startup to shutdown.
7 gph/per 100 hp implies a specific fuel consumption of about 0.47 lb/hr/hp, which is simply not credible for a small engine from a tiny company. I might believe 0.6 lb/hr/hp - i.e. fuel consumption about 30% higher than they claim.
__________________
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Sold)
Green Bay, WI, USA
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-05-2008, 07:54 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 6,082
Default

That's their advertised fuel burn numbers, completely unsupported by outside 3rd party testing as of yet. Some comments have been publicly made (by people with unknown knowledge of the engine) that the fuel burn numbers are a bit optimistic. The company has said before that they will conduct open-to-the-public fuel burn testing with an independent lab at some point in the future after they finish tweaking the fuel controller, but it hasn't happened yet.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2023 dues paid
N16GN flying 1,200 hrs and counting on 91E10; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Repeat Offender - 10 empennage in process.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-05-2008, 08:21 PM
Kevin Horton's Avatar
Kevin Horton Kevin Horton is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Green Bay, WI, USA
Posts: 2,369
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post
Some comments have been publicly made (by people with unknown knowledge of the engine) that the fuel burn numbers are a bit optimistic.
They are working with the same laws of physics as everyone else, and much smaller budgets. That suggests that they will likely do a bit worse than the long established manufacturers.

Have a look at the SFC info on military turbo-prop and civil turbo-prop engines. Note that the typical SFC gets worse as the engine gets smaller. As the engine gets smaller, the area to volume ratio goes up, and this makes it harder to achieve good efficiency.

I'll bet you a case of beer that a credible, independent test will not substantiate their claim of 7 US Gallon fuel burn per 100 hp within the next ten years (I wanted to say never, but then I could never claim on the bet).

It is wonderful to be hopeful, but anyone who wants to send them some money should have realistic expectations.
__________________
Kevin Horton
RV-8 (Sold)
Green Bay, WI, USA
http://www.kilohotel.com/rv8/
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-06-2008, 12:35 AM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 6,082
Default

Actually, that SFC can be achieved quite easily - but not cheaply. The hotter you run the burner can and the first turbine stage, the more efficient the engine is. It's not an inherent physics limitation - it's a temperature and material limitation. Give me a machinable metal that's good for the tensile strength required at temperatures 200C higher than the current designs, and I'll take that bet.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2023 dues paid
N16GN flying 1,200 hrs and counting on 91E10; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.
Repeat Offender - 10 empennage in process.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.