Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
And then the costs involved to purchase and then the low TBO etc etc.
TBO of 2000 hours, same as an equivalent piston engine.And then the costs involved to purchase and then the low TBO etc etc.
Allison pretty much sewed up the market for small turbines in the US and much of the world for decades. Great for Allison, not so great for making any large advances.
The 250C-47 version is now at 700s hp, a far cry from the 250 shp of the early engines like the T63-A5. I would consider that quite a large advance, not as much as the PT-6 (450 to 1,940 shp) admittedly, but certainly not insignificant. I cannot think of any aircraft piston engine that almost tripled its power like the Allison, let alone more than quadrupled it like the PT-6
Yawn !!! Scaling up you keep the basic cylinder dimensions the same, you just add more, for your motorcycle engine experiment. That is how multicylinder engines came about,
Over hauls on turbines far exceed recips. Turbines are far more susceptible to FOD, dirt, sand, small rocks etc. The mentioned initial cost of $263,000 to $323,000 makes a recip look real good even after a few overhuals.
Rolls-Royce M250 Turboshaft Engine | PowerWeb
Cool site, a nice PW jet engine a cool 30 some million, and then you gota pay for the fuel too boot.
I bet you would be surprised, I don't think military engines have a very high TBO, and especially the afterburner parts. Yeah and suck 1000 gallons in less than 5 minutes at full rating.Yes, that $30 million engine probably has ten times the TBOH (except modern aircraft engines are maintained on-condition, not overhauled) and produces power equivalent to a few dozen R-3350s.
I bet you would be surprised, I don't think military engines have a very high TBO, and especially the afterburner parts. Yeah and suck 1000 gallons in less than 5 minutes at full rating.
The military is using lots of recips and I think even talk of Wankel like engines for drones, especially if they want something that has a very long extended flight time. They are looking for economy with some of them, and turbines do not offer economy of fuel use.
If you want itsy bitsy, then I guess a 787 will have to have a few hundred on each wing.
The military is using lots of recips and I think even talk of Wankel like engines for drones, especially if they want something that has a very long extended flight time. They are looking for economy with some of them, and turbines do not offer economy of fuel use.
Quieter military drones that fly farther? The Pentagon thinks this engine could be the answer
Revolutionary Coaxial Drone with Diesel Piston Engine - Optionally Piloted Helicopter - UAS VISION
A diesel piston engine consumes about 60% less fuel than a turbine. Here ya go. That alone makes it worth trying.
Just flush your toilet and you will see the fuel consumption of a turbine, Oh and just check out the youtube videos of agent jz flowing the jet fuel nozzle to see the fuel consumption.