I don't necessarily agree with Dave.

Your AT-180 isn't anymore thirsty than any other 80N class engine. BUT... they are CRAZY heavy. The engine is heavy, the ECU is big, and the fuel pump looks like it came out of a Mack Truck. (lol) If weight is an issue, then an engine like a Wren SS will be better. (you will save over a pound, and have the same power)

As far as your comment, about "So I know turbines have a lot of eflux but electrics are supposed to be lighter" That's not true either. Batteries are still on the heavy side, when you need the "Power" of a turbine.

Dave has a valid point with the weight of fuel, and need to beef up the mounts for a heavy take-off. BUT... most likely, you will be lighter than an EDF on landing, after you burn that fuel.


Just an FYI... I have a little T-45, that was meant for a 90mm EDF. The guys who built them say they were 8~9 Lbs. My turbine conversion is under 8 Lbs with fuel in the UAT. So my landing weight is lighter than any of the EDF versions.


And finally... if you know you are building for a turbine... try to keep it as light as possible. Be aware of the parts you are using. BUT, then again... you don't always have to worry, since you will have WAY more thrust with a turbine over an EDF system... that weight may not be a big deal. (My Falcon 120 was only supposed to weigh 8 Lbs with a prop, but it's 22 Lbs wet, and flies great)

Post a couple pics of the project.


Just my 2 cents... take it for what it's worth.



****EDIT******


Because a turbine has such a high e-flux... you don't need the same power. Honestly, if you have 17 Lbs of EDF thrust to fly it... most likely, you can fly on a 60N class engine, and save even more weight, since you can carry less fuel.