Clouds on the Innodyn Horizon

[jcoloccia]

Here's another one of my stupid questions...

Why would anyone even want to put a turbine in an RV? They burn more fuel and are way more expensive. As far as power is concerned, a 200hp Lyc will get me as close to Vne as I care to be. Unless you're cruising at 35,000 feet, what's the attraction?

If the turbine had been invented first, and the piston afterwards, the piston engine would be hailed as a technological marvel in terms of effeciency.

I'm not trying to start a flame war here. This is an honest question directed at those who would install a turbine in an aircraft that appears to be unsuitable to operate where the turbine really shines. I'm curious what I'm missing.

[ww2planes]

#1, Because I can. #2 Because I want to. #3 So I can smoke past you on my way to the nearest gas station. #4 So I can out climb you. #5 So I can look way more cool.

Seriously.

They may not burn 7 gal per 100 hp but maybe I do not care. The two Lyc's that I fly regularly don't burn that little either. In fact I think that they are closer to 13 GPH when cranked up.

My non-flying airport neighbors would sure appreciate the quiet. If proven safe, my wife would also appreciate the quiet while watching a movie. I like the alleged simplicity and the TBO times for turbines. The lack of parts, let alone moving parts, is also appealing.

I do not know anything about the money but I do know that if people were ripped of, they have recourse, especially as a group. I don't see them piping in on this site to sing their woes. Guess they have a volunteer choir.

I sure am glad that Eclipse did not have everyone pull their money when they announced that ther product was delayed and that it was going to be more than a mil to buy.

Still dreamin.

[SteinAir]

Originally Posted by ww2planes

My non-flying airport neighbors would sure appreciate the quiet. If proven safe, my wife would also appreciate the quiet while watching a movie. I like the alleged simplicity and the TBO times for turbines. The lack of parts, let alone moving parts, is also appealing.

Ummmm...yeah....have you ever been anywhere close to one of these single (solid) spool, single stage, centrifugal compressor, constant speed turbine engines when they are running with a prop on the front?!?! Whereas you can actually hear yourself think when a lyco is at idle, you'll need earplugs if you're anywhere near these. The prop is nearly at full RPM even at idle (just flattened a little bit). They are FAR from quiet - stand next to the wing of a 727 or the rear end of a DC-9 with the APU running and it's about 50% of the noise these things make with a prop on them.

I'll leave the rest of the arguments for others to sort out. Not arguing the rest of your reasoning...just the noise part The engine isn't the noisiest part of our planes, the prop is. Also, you're right about less moving parts but the TBO thing is a whole 'nother' discussion - just remember cycles kill turbines, not hours.

That being said, I still have to admit it would be pretty cool to smell the Jet A instead of AvGas and hear the turbine "tick,tick,tick, whoomp, big puff of smoke, then the spool up" during start on my little RV6 - Plus, I've always like EPR, N1 & N2's (Oooops, not on the ATP/Inndodyn)..... What I'd really like to see is a miniature PT-6 with a split spool, but then again if that were possible/profitable P&W would already be doing it.

Just my 2 cents as usual and all in good fun!

Cheers,
Stein.

[aerial]

Unproven innovation leads to revolutionary technology. I think it's the "Yankee Spirit." Supposedly ordinary men can do great things if given the freedom to pursue happiness.

I have a friend who is developing a horizontally opposed engine with ceramic technology that will operate at detonation. It will burn virtually anything (bio-fuel, diesel, acetylene etc.) and be super efficient. Is he interested in Aviation? No. He wants to build a generator (this is not his day job . Do I doubt he can do it? I better not, he helped develop the technology that cut silicon into wafers in the machine you are typing on. I razz him and tell him it won't work (running an engine at detonation), but I probably shouldn't.

More power to em'.

I think the cure to the money woes would be to form a corporation and sell stock in the company. This will separate the believers from the non-beleivers and reward the prudent.

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by aerial

Unproven innovation leads to revolutionary technology. I think it's the "Yankee Spirit." Supposedly ordinary men can do great things if given the freedom to pursue happiness.

I have a friend who is developing a horizontally opposed engine with ceramic technology that will operate at detonation. It will burn virtually anything (bio-fuel, diesel, acetylene etc.) and be super efficient. Is he interested in Aviation? No. He wants to build a generator (this is not his day job . Do I doubt he can do it? I better not, he helped develop the technology that cut silicon into wafers in the machine you are typing on. I razz him and tell him it won't work (running an engine at detonation), but I probably shouldn't.

More power to em'.

I think the cure to the money woes would be to form a corporation and sell stock in the company. This will separate the believers from the non-beleivers and reward the prudent.

The real problem here is that Innodyne has already done this, as ATP. Affordable Turbine Power. It is unclear if the name change was done to update the "sound" of the name, or to dodge creditors. There are several early investors that claim to have lost everything they invested. If this isn't true it would be good to have Innodyne explain what happened, (as ATP), to allay everyones worries. I doubt they will hit anywhere near the claimed GPH, but if a reliable turbine was available in the 180-250HP range they would still sell as many as they could make.
The biggest problem with selling "vaporware" to use a silicon wafer term is there is no way to tell the difference between the honest developer and the snake-oil salesmen. Much better to have a product available when you start advertising! A "hard" launch is the only way to be sure of anything. The refusal to release dyno information causes much concern. I wish them well myself, but seriously doubt their ability to deliver based on the refusal to show the dyno figures. A bunch of engines in various stages of assembly wouldn't hurt either.
Bill Jepson

[osxuser]

FF for a lycoming is about 7 gallons per HP per Hour, the turbine would be about twice that. I don't think that a turbine would be a great option for the AVERAGE RV driver, but if you want a 300NM range and the same cruise speed as my with my IO-390, be my guest.

[pierre smith]

Remember Jim Bede?
Pierre

[Red Voodoo]

The above arguments, pro and con, all have their merits I guess. My objection is purely esthetic. The turbine installation takes the classic RV lines and produces something that looks like a chihuahua's dinner (sorry Doug ) from the firewall forward. Gag.

Ben R.
RV-9A #90217
Fuselage

[brianwallis]

Originally Posted by aadamson

So let me see if I have this right.... And *you* want to put the above on *your* airplane, with *your butt* in the seat and *your* wife/sig other in the other seat and blast off into the wild blue yonders..........

Uh, huh, I'll watch while you do it ok?

Uh... you are putting what on the front of a plastic airplane?
I'm impressed..... I think..... I think you have big kahunas....I'm not familiar with the breaking point of those airplanes but I think the tails are comming off of the Turboprop Lancs. Dont take this as ragging on you... I'm just concerned....

Still in research mode....
brian

[rv72004]

put another way,
where there is smoke, there is fire.

I have seen it often and it almost always proves true.

Yes I would also like to see Innodyne succeed , but realistically..................................... ........... ??????