toolmaker7341

I have both and JetCat's fuel economy is much better. Kingtach rates average fuel consumpsion and JC at full power. My Kingtech burns about 12-13oz a minute the JC about 9. JC costs $2195 kero start complete and Kingtech $2140 with a n ECU battery. JC is a little larger and heavier but they run and start flawlessly. JC service since John Redman took over is great. I don't care for the rough sandblasted finish on Kingtech and is Kingtech going to be here 10-15 years down the road? I personally bought a used JC rather than a new Kingtech for my latest project as I'm afraid of the fuel consumption of a Kingtech and no one seems to know or post what there real accurate fuel use at full power.

Pepperpete

10-15 years down the road? JC burnt many bridges with TERRIBLE customer service and engine avaliablity in the last few years. If I was a betting man I would say it will be KT still around in that timeframe and JC who's dust on the wind. I liked my P80se until the three months for servicing, unanswered emails and nobody picking up the phone absolutely ruined it. So there is a new owner at JC...great...means nothing to me now that KT has treated me like royalty every single time Ive dealt with them. Why would I go back??

Vettster

+1

I have both the K100G and the P-80se. The K100g is lighter, smaller, less money and the service is second to non! There's nothing wrong with my p-80...but I havnt sent it in for service yet, and when I eventually have to... it scares the crap out of me.

Kingtech all the way.

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

King Tech all the way. What you have here is an excellent combination.
I'm gonna state an observation. Jet Cat claims thrust and it's all BS. I had a new P-200SX and it only made 45 lbs thrust on my test stand. It's no where NEAR the 50+ all the jet cat fans claim. My test stand is proven as we've had every KT produced on it and they always perform as rated. I contacted Jet cat several times and no one there could explain it after I told them it was running on a Sea Level day at rated RPM. What a waste of money and time. They are pretty purple engines though.

Secondly call jet cat support doesn't answer their phones on weekends or after hours. KT provides service and support anytime they are within reach of the phone. I've called them at night, on Sunday, you name it. Barry and Dirk are KingTech!

There are other brands out there but you did not inquire about them so I will stay on topic.

Third, our club REGULARLY operates 200mph scale jets from our 400'x40' runway at 700' elevation.

No BS
http://youtu.be/AvMCr4UKnIo

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

The jet cats consume less because they make less thrust!

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

757 what other brans in the same thrust and price are there?

husafreak

My Feedback: (3)

There's tons of turbines but service will be necessary especially if you fly a lot. Buy one you can get service for. JC turbines are top of the line but service can go easy or hard. I have never heard anything bad about KT service. I have two Cheetahs, great turbines and I have had excellent service. The less power the less choices you will have in airframes. Many simply dial the thrust down when putting large turbines in smaller airframes. But it doesn't sound like you want a "big block", that restricts you to bigger airframes. Many folks find that they end up burning similar amounts of fuel independent of turbine size due to using more throttle with smaller turbines and less throttle with bigger ones. JC VS KT is choosing between two good brands. If money is the limiting factor I would go with the more powerful motor. Between 80-140 turbines, they can be pretty close in size and weight, pick a winner and go fly!

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

The latest version of the Jet Central Rabbit. I will have this engine on my test stand in the next week.
It does cost more and service is in Mexico.

toolmaker7341

I'm afraid of the fuel consumption of a Kingtech and no one seems to know or post what there real accurate fuel use at full power. ??????

smchale

My Feedback: (67)

Mike 9 oz/min seems pretty low for your JC P-80 at full throttle. RCJI testing yielded 364 cc/min (12.3 oz/min) at full throttle for the P-80.
I like to use their test data as a pretty good apples to apples bench mark. Naturally, running the turbine in your model will yield different results based on numerous installation factors.
Incidently RCJI haven't tested the K100 yet, but for the older K80E the fuel consumption at full throttle was 347 cc/min (11.7 oz/min).
If you wish to see all this test data the latest issue of RCJI has it published, along with the K210G testing. In fact every issue where a turbine is reviewed has this chart.

toolmaker7341

Actually mine (p-80se) is 9.8oz/min and my K-80G is 12.7oz/min

Jgwright

Mike

I fear there must be either a measurement error or a conversion error here. Your Jetcat p80SE connot be as low consumption as you state.

Easily the most fuel efficient engine in this class is the Hawk 100R turbine you claim your JC to be more efficient than this engine. The Kingtech is broadly as economical as most in its class. I have tested many engines over the years and it is suprising that there is very little variation between the same type of engines from the same manufacturer. The only real variable is weather, temp and pressure. The RCJI tests are adjusted to standard ISA conditions.

John

marquisvns

Hi Mike:

Although happened in the beginning of the year, I am glad you got the polarity reversal issue sorted and was strictly an user error had nothing to do the engine or components contained. However, I am concerned if it had caused damages to the RPM sensor board or other peripherals to result in the fuel consumption.

RCJI testing uses max RPM for the engine tested, what RPM settings did you have on both? What flow meter or metering devices did you use with your results? If anything the G model is superior in terms of fuel consumption compared to the earlier K-80E which showed in the RCJI result. So if your K-80G is using the amount of fuel you are claiming, then, please send it in, as I would like to take a closer look.

Regards,
Barry

Regards,
Barry

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

I have been wanting to set up a consumption tool. How are you getting such accurate data? I wish to add this to my test stand.

Jgwright

Consumption is simple to do. You only need a set of digital scales and a stop watch and take a reading of weight at the start of the timing sequence and at the end. The fuel used is the reduction in weight. A simple conversion from weight to litres gives you your answer. It is best to measure over say 2 minutes to avoid any error in taking the readings. We have found flow meters to not be as accurate. It takes some nerve and a tolerant neighbour to stand running for a couple of minutes at full power especially of large engines!

John

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but fuel weight (density) is variable based upon temperature. Additionally the percentage of oil mixed into the fuel will also change your figures. Additionally, density altitude will change fuel consumption drastically at full power.
An engine running less oil in the mix will be more efficient because of the increased BTU's per unit of fuel.

What fuel weight do you use for one Liter of fuel when making your calculations?

bigbri

My Feedback: (287)

K-100 all the way. I have had Kingtech return my calls on a Sunday afternoon. And the one time I returned my turbine for service it was handled quickly and professionally. My turbines used to be purple but slooooooooow turn around times unreturned calls and multiple returns for the same problems sent me happily in a new (Kingtech) direction.
My 2 cents
brian
JPO District one rep
Support JPO

airraptor

My Feedback: (66)

I am pretty set on the K-100 or the K140 engine. The 140 is only about 400 bucks more and i can turn it downI think, and will have it for a bigger plane later if needed.

toolmaker7341

I just hooked up a 10oz tank and had a taxi tank for startup and ramp to full power unhooked the taxi tank and timed till engine shut down. I don't believe there was any damage as only the starter was hooked up reversed.

JC 125,000

KT 145,000

757Driver

My Feedback: (90)

An older 140 made 32.6 @ 41 degrees and 750' elevation. The G model is probably slightly better.
http://youtu.be/bCdDoVm7ulY

If you can swing the extra cash go as big as you can because the engines are the same size all the way up to the 210!

Shaun Evans

Hi,

Ultimately, it's a GOOD thing that we have good engines to choose from. Since it's not a zero sum game, one engine need not be bad in order for the other to be good. Barry/Dirk have really changed the game with regard to customer service and what people can expect for their money. I would buy a KT engine on the strength of the service I've received from those guys alone. I can say that with total confidence and in the same breath say that my P-80SE's were SUPERB engines. They flew my F-15 with authority and for a 9-minute (on the timer) flight. In the F-18 twin, they gave 100% reliability on starts and behaved like a matched pair every single time. I'm not saying one is 'better' than the other since that's always just a matter of opinion. I'm saying I'm glad that guys like Barry and Redman are in the business and that we're lucky enough to have excellent choices and options.

GhostRider 1

Mike,

I don't know why you are so focus & concerned about fuel consumption and want to whip it into a dead horse. Obviously, the more power desired, the more fuel you are going to burn. As 757driver stated, his JC's do not produce the advertised thrust and I'm sure that is why they burn less fuel. His video shows the true facts of KingTech's power production and I personally want to buy a turbine that performs as the factory states it should. Almost every plane built has a fuel cell big enough to give you at least 5-7 minutes of flight time at full throttle. Most of us have some throttle management skills and can fly longer than the 5-7 minutes and it's also a good thing our radios have timers built in to remind us it's time to land. I'm sure it's my age, but I ready to land after a good 5-7 minutes of flying fast anyways. I do own KingTechs and based on my personal experience with them I would never consider any other turbine. They are pure work horses, super reliable and spooling is off the hook!!

just my .02,

Ghostrider 1 out!!

Meesh

My Feedback: (135)

I had a P80SE and it was a great engine. I sold it and bought a Kingtech K100 before it was due to be serviced. I didn't want to lose half of an already short flying season waiting for my JetCat to come back from service. I'll never look back.

My $.02

mr_matt

My Feedback: (10)

John, do you know if the Kingtechs use the same injector style as the (old) AMT. I say old because I am not familiar with AMT designs for a number of years.

This AMT style were great for easy of turbine assembly with good performance at the expense of higher fuel consumption (or so I understand).

Jgwright

Matt

no sorry I have not had the opportunity to take one apart. Actually I have not seen a failure yet. There were some photos of the K 80 insides when it was originally launched.

John