Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Innodyne Turbine

  1. #1

    Innodyne Turbine

    read up on their web site. This is a very interesting
    product but it's the chicken and egg syndrome. Build
    it right and customers will come is most likely what
    is needed. Look at the Cirrus etc etc.
    I must say that, with the problems I have had recently
    in trying to figure out what was wrong with my
    Lycoming engine and the horrendous costs of spare
    parts, should I have to replace my engine I would ,
    out of spite alone, move to a different engine if I
    could. Experimental or not. 1800 bucks for a new
    cylinder - IO 360 -( Sierra) is just one of these
    painful reminders.
    I fully understand the difficulty these folks are
    going to have to convince owners like us to jump into
    a situation without support of tens of thousands of
    well trained technical folks that , when everything is
    said and done, can keep the old monster running .
    But I do like the sound of that turbine !!

    HarryR

    B24R Sierra
    --- Martin Vanover <b024700@yahoo.com> wrote:

    > The installation of a turbine in a Mouse would be
    > great. However, like mentioned, Innodyne has as yet
    > developed any certified applications. The
    > suitability of this turbine to most of the Baby
    > Beech's looks pretty good too. From what I hear
    > from this forum is, the airplanes have a forward CG
    > issue that the light weight turbine installation
    > would alleviate. Also, the large fuel capacity
    > would help with the turbine's thirst for fuel. The
    > extra weight of Jet A (6.7 lbs/gal) would be more
    > than compensated by the weight savings of the
    > installation. I agree, a nice dream, but you're
    > probably gonna have to start with a certified motor.
    > The Walter or PT6s would be too much power for most
    > of the airplanes. I believe the smallest PT6 I've
    > seen was a 400 hp unit on the T-34C. Now that would
    > make the Sierra an exciting ride, but probably not
    > doeable on the rest of the fleet.
    >
    > I think the new certified diesel's that are coming
    > on the market would be a better alternative to
    > turbine power. They are in the about the same power
    > output range as the existing engines, not overly
    > expensive and should have some impressive TBOs after
    > they have been in-service for a while. They will
    > burn about anything from aftershave to kerosene, but
    > I think the FAA is limiting them to Jet A only.
    > Although the price of Jet A isn't all that less than
    > Avgas in most areas, I think there would be a cost
    > of operation reduction due to the better BSFC of the
    > diesel engines.
    >
    > What would I do? Well, not much. The only STC
    > really needed is for the 165 hp Mouse. Probably a
    > 160 Lyc would be the closest in power and maybe the
    > easiest to certify, although the 180 Lyc would be
    > tempting too. The IO-346 engine was a major factor
    > in the consideration of a Musketeer that got my
    > interest some time ago (other factors overrided any
    > airplane decision). The rest of the Mousketeer fleet
    > seems to be doing just fine with their current Lycs.
    >
    > Martin Vanover
    > Phoenix, Az.
    >
    > Paul Werbin <paulwerbin@yahoo.com> wrote:
    > I also was impressed by these folks at SnF last
    > spring and I have been following their progress for
    > a few years. I am aware that they are not yet
    > working on any certified applications for the
    > engine. BUT...IF.. there is enough interest be
    > enough of us to try to get someone working on an
    > application for this engine in a Sierra, certified
    > or experimental, I would be really interested in
    > starting a group willing to put up with some expense
    > and a few years to see if it could be done. Hey, I'm
    > a dreamer. Any others out there?
    > Paul
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million
    > songs. Try it free.
    >
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
    > removed]
    >
    >
    >
    > Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club
    > for the Musketeer series!
    >
    > www.beechaeroclub.org
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > SPONSORED LINKS
    > Aviation school Aviation training Aviation training
    > school Aviation training schools Aviation training
    > academy
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
    >
    >
    > Visit your group "musketeermail" on the web.
    >
    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
    > to:
    > musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    >
    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
    > Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > ---------------------------------
    > Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million
    > songs. Try it free.
    >
    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
    > removed]
    >
    >





    __________________________________
    Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005
    http://mail.yahoo.com


    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
    Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/SyTolB/TM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

  2. #2

    Innodyne Turbine

    While the 160 HP Lycoming could be considered, it would make more
    sense to use a Lycoming or Continental IO-360. The ONLY thing
    holding me back is the scarcity of A23-24 engine mounts. I will need
    one to determine the relationship between the airframe mounting holes
    and the nose gear housing. I do not want to remove my engine and
    mount to get these dimensions. I will have to "reverse engineer"
    the mount so I'm looking for one that hasn't been left in the rain
    for years.

    As for these Innodyne engines, I'll wait a bit to see what the
    acceptance will be. I'm already facing an orphaned engine with the
    Continental IO-346 and I have no desire to be "orphaned" again. That
    said the real draw for the Innodyn is the performance at altitude.
    Up at the low teens these turbines would give better power than the
    pistons we now fly. We could see 130 Kts Indicated Airspeed at 15000
    ft. That makes our planes a significant travelling machine.


    --- In musketeermail@yahoogroups.com, Martin Vanover <b024700@y...>
    wrote:
    >
    > The installation of a turbine in a Mouse would be great. However,
    like mentioned, Innodyne has as yet developed any certified
    applications. The suitability of this turbine to most of the Baby
    Beech's looks pretty good too. From what I hear from this forum is,
    the airplanes have a forward CG issue that the light weight turbine
    installation would alleviate. Also, the large fuel capacity would
    help with the turbine's thirst for fuel. The extra weight of Jet A
    (6.7 lbs/gal) would be more than compensated by the weight savings of
    the installation. I agree, a nice dream, but you're probably gonna
    have to start with a certified motor. The Walter or PT6s would be
    too much power for most of the airplanes. I believe the smallest PT6
    I've seen was a 400 hp unit on the T-34C. Now that would make the
    Sierra an exciting ride, but probably not doeable on the rest of the
    fleet.
    >
    > I think the new certified diesel's that are coming on the market
    would be a better alternative to turbine power. They are in the
    about the same power output range as the existing engines, not overly
    expensive and should have some impressive TBOs after they have been
    in-service for a while. They will burn about anything from aftershave
    to kerosene, but I think the FAA is limiting them to Jet A only.
    Although the price of Jet A isn't all that less than Avgas in most
    areas, I think there would be a cost of operation reduction due to
    the better BSFC of the diesel engines.
    >
    > What would I do? Well, not much. The only STC really needed is
    for the 165 hp Mouse. Probably a 160 Lyc would be the closest in
    power and maybe the easiest to certify, although the 180 Lyc would be
    tempting too. The IO-346 engine was a major factor in the
    consideration of a Musketeer that got my interest some time ago
    (other factors overrided any airplane decision). The rest of the
    Mousketeer fleet seems to be doing just fine with their current Lycs.
    >
    > Martin Vanover
    > Phoenix, Az.
    >






    ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
    Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page
    http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUI...LSAA/SyTolB/TM
    --------------------------------------------------------------------~->

    Join BAC today and be a part of the ONLY Type Club for the Musketeer series!

    www.beechaeroclub.org


    Yahoo! Groups Links

    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/musketeermail/

    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    musketeermail-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Similar Threads

  1. [musketeermail] Innodyne Turbine
    By Rellihan in forum BAC Mail Archive - DO NOT POST HERE
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-11-2005, 06:50 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO