hofer

Hi guys,
As I am completing yet another jet ( JMP Hustler this time ) from Tom Cook, I just cannot make up my mind when it comes to fire this one up !
I have, in fact, only to possibilities :

1. AMT Pegasus HPES ( 3000 dollars for me ) : brand new, old school, heavy, powerful, reliable and a perfect match to the Oly that I have in Firebird !

2. Jets Munt 200XBL ( again 3000 dollars price tag ) : very up to date, fully integrated, small, light and obviously as powerful as the Peggi ( what is still hard to believe for me ! )

I am really torn between these motors and just would highly appreciate some opinions from you concerning the way to go - backwards or future !
Thank you anyhow

Hans

LGM Graphix

My Feedback: (22)

Hans, honestly, you know the answer. You will never get better than AMT. The jet was designed around it because they were and IMO still are the best turbines in the world.

Jgwright

Difficult to believe that anyone would seriously recommend an engine that installed weighs 1.435 Kg more and has only 167N thrust compared to 200N. That is a huge amount of weight to lug around in a plane and without any benefit.

John

LGM Graphix

My Feedback: (22)

Not that difficult to believe. Yes, it's bigger and heavier and has less thrust, but he's asking about a turbine in a Hustler. The jet was designed around the Pegasus, doesn't mean you can't change it, true, but 200N is not necessary.
As for the weight, well, I have been flying turbines for 15 years. Jets continue to get lighter and lighter. The weight isn't really a concern, we've just started to become more and more used to light floaty birds. My old AMT powered CAI raptor and my JMP Firebird have very high wing loading compared to my old Kingcat, or Flash, and both of the heavier jets are far easier to land, and are much crisper flying in the air.
In 15 years of flying I have tried a lot of different brands of turbines including the Merlin. The ONLY engines I have never suffered a flame out with (unless I ran out of fuel) are the AMT's. AMT Netherlands has a 100hour service interval and with components that are overbuilt, the engines last that long and longer without any issue.

I have gotten rid of all my other turbines outside of one P70 on a bobcat and still use AMT in everything else. Should I come across a good deal on an AMT Mercury at some point I will likely get rid of my P70 as well to keep all my turbines the same.
Hans asked, and I answered, whether you agree or not, it shouldn't be difficult to believe that somebody would still recommend the longest standing turbine manufacture on the market.

DiscoWings

My Feedback: (76)

You think a firebird is easier to land than a kingcat?

I'll find it myself in about a month, but I highly doubt thats the case.

LGM Graphix

My Feedback: (22)

Not that the kingcat is difficult to land, but it floats forever, the firebird and raptor are heavier, they just lock in and you fly it to the ground. I never had an issue with my kingcat, maybe easier isn't the right word, but more solid. When I'm coming in to land with the firebird or raptor I don't have to worry anywhere near as much about the ground effect of heat rising off the asphalt making the airplane float like the kingcat.
I find heavier jets fly better, been flying turbines 15 years now and flown a lot of different airplanes. Today's jets are so lightweight I don't enjoy them anywhere near as much.

Delta Mike

My Feedback: (18)

I still have my AMT PEGASUS HP Airstart.. $1500

Dennis

Erik R

My Feedback: (32)

I have to respectfully disagree with Jeremy, on some of the points, also having owned and flown both jets. There is no doubt that AMT Netherlands turbines have a legendary reliability track record, but there are many other reliable, lighter, more efficient engines available. I have had excellent luck with Kingtech, Jet Central, and Jetcat engines. The newer engines have more thrust out of lighter, smaller cans, and are more fuel efficient. The Hustler certainly doesn't need 200N of blow, but if it"s the same size and lighter than the Peggy, it's the better choice IMHO. You have the extra thrust for takeoffs, vertical performance, and go-arounds.

As far as heavier flying better, that is definitely a double-edged sword. Yes, there is a better penetration, and more solid feel on final, and in gusty winds, but that comes at the price of a higher required airspeed, and a closer margin to tip stall/snapout when pulling g, especially at low airspeed. I pulled a little too hard in the initial turn after takeoff, heavy, and full of fuel with my Mammoth powered Firebird once, and it snapped out so violently, it did a roll and a half, after I released the back pressure. Pucker factor was high 9's. Tom's stuff is well built, and will never be lightweight like a comp-arf plane, or a Kingcat. Keeping it lighter will make it more friendly at the slower airspeeds, and it will still retain most of the stability characteristics Jeremy is talking about. Regardless of your choice of powerplant, you will enjoy the Hustler immensely. JMP makes jewelry precision quality airplanes.

Good luck,
Erik

hofer

Hi guys,
Thank you very much for all your comments here !
Well, it is a tough decision here, no doubt about that - I do agree on all the arguments stated in your posts !
My Hustler will not be lightweight in any case since I will install Tom`s large combined fuel/smoke centertank, his PCU together with the newly designed boards
to carry all these accessoires
All these parts are a piece of art and and made to last forever !
As Jeremy mentions, everything is a perfect match for the Pegasus !
Probably my choice will be driven by the big appreciation to Tom`s engineering and work !
One more question here - do you really think that these modern, highly tuned turbines like a 200 XBL outperform the AMT`s !
Just had a talk with Urs Maylander ( swiss scalejets member and highly ranked jet world masters antendee ) about his Behotec 220 ( tincan with 113mm dia as the XBL 200 ) - well, he is not NOT really positive about this one
and has replaced it with a Jetcat 180 in his big Hawker Hunter - bettter performance now and, very important, much better thrust control and stabilty at higher elevations.

Somehow this very small dia compared to the AMT`s, HAWK`s and Jetcats (180/200) makes me thinking

see you
Hans

PDR200

Hi Dennis,
Keen to purchase your Pegasus engine. Please email me [email protected]
Cheers,
Paul.

Jgwright

Hans

Yes the new small can size high power engines do outperform the older AMT engines. I myself have a Kingtech 180 (180N) which has been faultless and I have seen the Kingtech K210 in both F14 and A10. All engines are tested by RCJI and comparison chart is published regularly in the magazine. The Behotec 220 tested produced 230.6 N which is more than the AMT Olympus tested. More and more engines are coming out now with higher power from the old 112mm Can size. This is due to larger diameter rotary components CNC compressors and better diffuser design. More power still is possible. The new Italia jet for example has a case size 115mm and produces 250N. http://www.jet-italia.it/Atom25.html
Some of the newer engines come from Germany where it is not so easy to test them at high temperatures and low pressures (high altitude). However I know that both Kingtech and Jets Munt are located where temperatures are often near 40c.

I would add that all engines have problems from time to time regardless of manufacturer. I have seen a Pegasus self destruct, they do not as stated last indefinitely.

John