Bill Freeman wrote:

Paul,

My guess on Jeff's comment is that he hasn't seen the
Luscombe with the Solar turbine in it.  OTOH, automatically
assigning some above average technical credentials to
someone because they installed an old APU turbine and
wasn't killed on the first flight is a bit too credulous.
IMHO, it is likely that the Ross choice came down to make
it yourself from scratch, or buy one from Ross.  Not a lot of
competition in this field, esp with the wide reduction ratio.

Be skeptical where your very own irreplacable personal
butt is on the chopping block.  Real paper credentials don't
guarentee competence, and many self-taught engineers are
very good. And some backyard experimenters are dangerous,
some are geniuses.  Even  incredibly dangerous engine installations
might make it for a few dozen or hundred hours.  Be skeptical.

Personally, I think  the T Luscombe is a bit of a silly stunt, not
necessarily bad, but certainly pretty impractical due to fuel burn.

 But, who knows, even I might have done it just for the heck of it,
which is often a fine reason -- as long as you don't run around
claiming practical reasons.

"Because I thought it would be neat" is a perfectly good
answer for a lot of projects.  BUT, doesn't make you an engineer
to have cobbled together a working airplane.

Final comment on these little turbines.   To date, small
turbines (<400hp) have had fundamental problems trying to get
within a factor of 2 of the fuel specifics of a recip.  So, these sort
of things will have a very short range.  The high reliability assumed for
factory fully integrated turboprops may not exist for the whole
APU turbine + aftermarket auto tranny gearbox assembly + who
knows what kind of fuel controller + backyard prop governor
drive system +. . . .  +. . . . . . .   Could be great, could be bad,
too soon to tell.

Take care.

Bill

The Aircraft Rotary Engine Newsletter.              Powered by Linux.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org