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

Unless these guys are using a new turbine and compressor, have added
variable inlet guide vanes to the turbine, and installed a regenerator,
there is no way that they are getting the numbers they claim using a solar
APU. The overhung shaft solars are great for simplicity, but they suffer
from the same problems all small turbines do. Namely, boundary layer effects
and increased losses from clearances compared to larger turbines. There are
only two ways to get the BSFC of a turbine down:

1.) increase pressure ratio (the approach taken by all the big guys)

2.) use a low pressure ratio with a regenerator (possibly the way to a more
efficient simple engine)

The regenerator recovers some of the waste exhaust heat and uses it to heat
the compressed air, before combustion, thereby reducing the amount of fuel
needed. If you used this method, and installed a lean burn combustor and
variable inlet vanes for the turbine, you could probably make some real
gains in efficiency, which is currently horrible. From the looks of their
hardware, this has not been done. Maybe they have found a way to defeat the
laws of thermodynamics, but I would not be first in line to buy this thing.

Monty

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