Russell Kent wrote:

ATP ("Affordable Turbine Power") is the "homebuilt" turbine engine

that was

displayed at Oshkosh 2001. See:  http://www.atpcoinc.com/

Bill, where'd you get the photo?

Russell Kent

Quoting static thrust is meaningless when using a propellor.
Static thrust can be very high yet the prop can be useless for
use with an airplane. Static thrust is far more meaningful when
talking about a pure jet or turbo fan.
In fact optimizing static thrust with a prop can get you killed.

10.7 GPH at 120 HP is a BSFC of .535. Very very highly unlikely for a
simple turbine engine. I will believe it when somebody with no
interest in this engine tests it for fuel burn and HP. Billions of R&D

dollars

have been spent by turbo prop engine makers for the last 50 years and
nobody but nobody got the BSFC down to 0.535 with a simple low HP
centrifugal flow compressor and turbine combination. I would not be a bit
surprised if the fuel burn was twice 10.7 GPH or about 20 GPH.

There are some highly inexplicable and suspicious claims from this

company.

Paul Lamar

They are using the Solar APU turbines- and as one person said in the
house of commons "Me thinks the gentleman from ###### holds the
truth quite lightly'' Solar data quotes sfc 1.3 lb/hp - good engines
and cheap used - but economical NO - Vance

 
The AirCraft Rotary Engine NewsLetter.              Powered by Linux.
ACRE NL web site.
http://home.earthlink.net/~rotaryeng/            http://www.linux.org