RCU Forums - View Single Post - Pst J600
Thread: Pst J600
View Single Post
Old 02-01-2003 | 03:53 AM
  #52  
David Gladwin's Avatar
David Gladwin
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 3,961
Received 154 Likes on 100 Posts
From: CookhamBerkshire, UNITED KINGDOM
Default Pst J600

U2 fast and others,

I very much welcome another engine on the market but equally I would like to see fair and impartial treatement extended to ALL engine manufacturers, regardless of origin, no more no less.

The FTE site says the T500 has an improved (therefore changed) shaft and turbine wheel as well as electronics. Common sense suggests to me that the engine should have had a full assesment. That, however is AMA's decision.

However, the internals of the T500 must be much improved i. e. changed, over the RAM 500, basically a MW54, as it is VASTLY more fuel efficient than other model jet engine, further suggesting that this engine would require a full assesment. Perhaps someone more numerate than I can check these calculations.

FTE states that on his web site that the T500 burns 160 cc( ML) per minute at 12 pounds of thrust.

160 cc is, at a fuel (Jet A1) S. G. of .8, (airlines generally consider the SG of fuel at .793) 128 grammes per minute 2.133 gms per second.

At 12 pounds of thrust the engine is therefore producing 5.45 Kg of thrust = say, 54.5 Newtons. Therefore the SFC expressed in Gms/sec./Newton is .03913. The best SFC, expressed in identical values, produced at the last GTBA efficiency contest (see RCJI P 52) was .0530 so the T500 is 35% better, a remarkable achievement, and one which would require significant internal redesign.

In terms of the TEMs unit allowing all engine parameters to be adjusted that is not true.

The TEMs supplied with commercial engines such as the TJT and PST allow only limited adjustment as stated earlier, certainly mine does, although some TEMS units supplied for homebuilders allows the operator to change a number of parameters to suit the engine dynamics. No doubt use of an unapproved TEMS variant would disqualify the engines approval.

Gentlemen, I have no hidden agenda, and I am a rep. for NOBODY , except an impartial writer for RCJI but when I see the PST certification being delayed and another similar engine, being produced and marketed by someone well connected with the AMA, getting fast track treatment my curiosity gets the better of me.

Perhaps the AMA could make some comment and assure us that the PST WILL be cleared for operations at FJ as I know many such engines will be flown there if the clearance arrives in time.

BRG,
David Gladwin