RCU Forums - View Single Post - which engine?
View Single Post
Old 09-19-2010 | 09:35 PM
  #25  
molo_30's Avatar
molo_30
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 292
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From: Ingham, , AUSTRALIA
Default RE: which engine?


ORIGINAL: bevar

Hi Molo,

Please don't start a flame war here, I was just pointing out some differences. Correct me if I am wrong, as somethings read online and in pubs are not factual like they infer. The Mamba is the old TJT engine, which was more or less the original Super Eagle. The Mamba uses Stainless Steel in the hot section instead of inconel as is done now and SS does not last like Inconel does. Also, the specific fuel consumption per pound of thrust higher that the newer brands available.

It's like going to your local motorbike dealer and seeing two brand new Gixxer 1000s for sale, one a 2008 and the other a 2011. Yes, they are both good machines, and the '08 is cheaper to buy, but the '11 is just more advanced, refined, technically up to date ETC. That is what I was pointing out. I had an old Super Eagle in my F-15 and it was a beast. When I sold it (10 hours) it was still running like a bull so I am a tremendous fan of the design (honestly, it was probably the best starting/running engine I have ever owned, and I have owned Jet Cat, PST and JC) but there is stuff out there now a days that might fit the bill better.

Cheers,

Beave


ORIGINAL: molo_30


Hi Beave, could you share with us how the mamba lags behind the newer engines?

Edit, just realised you are a Jet central supporter. Surely this is proof it doesn't 'lag'?

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/m_97...tm.htm#9712492

Interested where you got your info bevar, not to start a flame war just as I am curious as the info is wrong.

The 'newer brand 'Jetcat 120 uses 12oz/min, the mamba uses 11.6oz/min. Not much difference and nowhere near the Super eagles 9.1oz/min but still less than the Jetcat.

Just like to see the facts laid out before heresay.