Re: Status of Maine 1649 Connies?

From:         falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist )
Date:         29 Jul 96 13:24:42 
References:   1
Followups:    1 2 3
Next article
View raw article
  or MIME structure

> falke@pweh.com ( 0 Falke_Charlie phone dist ) wrote:

> I agree that SFC of turbo-compounds was astounding... but was that really the
> motivation?? After all, the TC's had to burn >>100 octane aviation gasoline,
> while a turboprop could burn bargain-basement kerosene. On top of that, this
> was the '50s and '60s, when fuel costs were less of a factor (although still
> admittedly a large factor) in expense management. Add in the cost of
> maintaining a turbo compound, and then it seems to me that even a pig of an
> inefficient turboprop looks pretty good.

The early gas turbines didn't have very high TBO's either.

> Now, to hop to your side of the argument... I suppose its true that the
> airlines would opt for the low SFC of the TC engines initially, then back down
> *later* when maintenance problems actually begin to hit home. By then, jets
> were taking over, and the turboprop finally made inroads in the US (principally
> on the Electra).

Exactly.

> And since you mentioned it... why aren't we overrun with diesel engined
> aircraft? Poor power-to-weight ratio?

Yup.  There were some German Diesel engined patrol seaplanes during
WWII.  There are some intrigueing turbodiesels running in R&D
environments here and there.  I think if product liability gets
cleaned up the rest of the way, you might see a lot more work along
those lines.

--
Charlie Falke
System Test Team Leader         Pratt & Whitney Aircraft