A game-changer turbine for GA?

Warmi said:
We do have safe and affordable nuclear power.
Click to expand...
No, we don't. Nuclear power is currently the most expensive power available. The most affordable are wind, solar and geothermal.

The only reason nuclear power is safe is because of the cost. The first promise of nuclear power "too cheap to meter" was 1954[1]. We still haven't gotten there. My prediction is that we never will.

1740765556469.png

[1] Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Wouldn't it be more efficient to heat first and then compress? I would think that due to the higher temp delta you would get more heat transfer if the cool air was going through the heat exchanger and then you would get even more heat when you compressed it. Or is the thicker fluid able to absorb more heat in spite of the lower temp delta?
Click to expand...
It's been a while, but I recall it has to do with reduced compressor efficiency and performance, which would then require a larger/heavier compressor.
Normally the compressor requires about half the thermal output of the engine to operate (in other words, for a 1000 SHP turboprop, the turbine section puts out a combined 2000 HP), so any additional losses there add up quickly. Also, by the time the air is compressed, it's around 500-600F, and you add a few hundred more degrees to it with the recuperator. That can get a bit too close to what the compressor blades can handle, and you don't want to start building them using turbine blade materials and techniques. On the topic of turbine blades, they get cooled with compressor bleed air, you get that air too hot and you can't cool the turbine blades properly.
And yes, it's a smaller heat exchanger if you pipe hot compressed air through it vs the full volume of uncompressed air. Smaller pumping losses, too.
 
GA turbines, much like diesel and “alternate fuel”, sexy, but not practical or logical
 
Roller said:
GA turbines, much like diesel and “alternate fuel”, sexy, but not practical or logical
Click to expand...
Not sure why you thing diesel isn't practical. It's proven practical in GA, it's just that there's only a few designs that have moved through their teething/initial design problems.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Not sure why you thing diesel isn't practical. It's proven practical in GA, it's just that there's only a few designs that have moved through their teething/initial design problems.
Click to expand...
Weight to power ratio

Overhaul cost

I could go on, but that alone puts it to bed
 
Roller said:
Weight to power ratio

Overhaul cost

I could go on, but that alone puts it to bed
Click to expand...
Weight to power is often offset by needing less fuel (due to lower fuel consumption) and power is maintained to much higher altitudes due to turbos. Overhaul cost is often fairly equivalent due to longer TBO over the 100LL counterparts. The gear reduction stuff is really the only major headache. Diamond seems to be running them just fine.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Weight to power is often offset by needing less fuel (due to lower fuel consumption) and power is maintained to much higher altitudes due to turbos. Overhaul cost is often fairly equivalent due to longer TBO over the 100LL counterparts. The gear reduction stuff is really the only major headache. Diamond seems to be running them just fine.
Click to expand...

Have you worked many pistons in a 91 or 135 setting?
 
We should have a special category for posting about game changers, be it engines or new airplanes. What was that wonder plane that was going to cost $100k, cruise at 200kts, burn 9 gallons an hour, etc.? Crashed into corn field I think.
 
WDD said:
We should have a special category for posting about game changers, be it engines or new airplanes. What was that wonder plane that was going to cost $100k, cruise at 200kts, burn 9 gallons an hour, etc.? Crashed into corn field I think.
Click to expand...

The biplane?
 
rwellner98 said:
No, we don't. Nuclear power is currently the most expensive power available. The most affordable are wind, solar and geothermal.

The only reason nuclear power is safe is because of the cost. The first promise of nuclear power "too cheap to meter" was 1954[1]. We still haven't gotten there. My prediction is that we never will.

View attachment 138583

[1] Lewis Strauss, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission
Click to expand...
Your chart contradicts your claims - nuclear was one of the cheapest sources mere 15 years ago so what happened ?
 
Also - if solar and wind are so cheap, why do they need federal subsidies?
 
rwellner98 said:
To further encourage a transition away from more polluting power sources. This is also why nuclear power is subsidized.
Click to expand...
Yeah………. Allow me to be skepical of the data presented. It just doesn’t add up quite right. If power could be made cheaper by wind and solar, no incentives are needed.

And if incentives are needed, it’s not cheaper.
 
WDD said:
Yeah………. Allow me to be skepical of the data presented. It just doesn’t add up quite right. If power could be made cheaper by wind and solar, no incentives are needed.

And if incentives are needed, it’s not cheaper.
Click to expand...

I suppose a consideration is the expense of moving/switching from the evil fossil fuels to something more environmentally friendly (for values of environmentally friendly). That is, long term costs vs short term costs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top