Date:         Wed, 17 Mar 2004 22:13:13 -0600
Reply-To:     tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         tom ring <taring@TARING.ORG>
Organization: Tippen Ringware
Subject:      Re: User friendly fuels (was you fixed it..)
Comments: To: David Brodbeck <gull@gull.us>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.BSF.4.58.0403172256110.5148@gull.us>
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Yes, turbines have 3 of the most important of the requirements locked.
power/weight, cooling not needed (though high temp alloys are), low maintenance
when compared to reciprocating engines.

And
On 17 Mar 2004 at 22:57, David Brodbeck wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Mar 2004, tom ring wrote:
>
> > Possibly true, but they don't scale to small size very well.  Turning the fuel
> > directly to hot gas to spin the turbine is probably more efficient, and even
> > more important, has a better power to weight ratio.  For instance, I haven't
> > seen a lot of steam turbine prop aircraft.
>
> You don't see a lot of water-cooled prop aircraft either. ;)  Aircraft
> powerplants need high power to weight ratio.  This is more important than
> any other factor, including fuel efficiency.  The thing about steam power
> is it's HEAVY.  Not only do you have to carry around a boiler, you have to
> carry around quite a bit of water and possibly a condenser as well.
>
>
> David Brodbeck, N8SRE
> '82 Volkswagen Diesel Westfalia
> '86 Volvo 240DL wagon
>


------
Tom Ring K0TAR, ex-WA2PHW  EN34hx
85 Westphalia GL Albert
96 Jetta GL The Intimidator
taring@taring.org

"It is better to go into a turn slow, and come out fast, than to go into a turn fast
and come out dead." Stirling Moss