I heard that the dirference is the ecu runing the 750 & 1000 at
difference rpm but its the same bearing,compressor& turbine wheel
??????????

Yup - one of my buddies took a tour of the RAM factory when it was still around, and form what he was told, supposedly all engines were built identically. Those that came out better balanced and smoother running were allowed to have their RPM increased to become a 1000 rather than being a 750.

So the story goes, anyway.

Gordon

My 1000 has a larger fuel manifold, intake is 4mm larger, but other than that, it is in the balancing . The 500 is a whole nother engine, more closely resembling the specs on the KJ66



Terry

The way that I understood it is that Gordon is correct: the 1000 and the 750P were identical except for balancing and the max RPM that the ECU would allow. The original 750 and 750F were different. They had the smaller compressor wheel and some other differences.

Didn't the exhaust nozzle differ between the 750 and 1000 too?

I do not believe so (well, it depends on what 750 you are talking about when you say "750"). The original 750 and some 750Fs had the short nozzle. Later the 750Fs had the longer nozzle and I think all 750Ps & 1000s had the long nozzle.

OK, I can hear the minds at work... I'll state my opinion in the interest of safety.

Regarding the older (reliable) Case Pressure sensing versions, some people think they can just mix & match ECU's & turbines - i.e. run an old 750 on a 1000 ECU to get the 28.8lbs thrust.

Thru the years there were some differences in case pressure settings (I believe due to compressor/stator vane changes) and exhaust nozzle size/shape.

The earlier 750's & 1000's had different CP setting than the later ones.

I can just see some idiot trying to run a 2200 Mbar ECU on a 750Plus designed for a Max of 1600 - its an accident waiting to happen & one many of us would not want to be around.

If you have a 750 that you want to make a 1000, I'd say contact Carlos at RTI. I believe he'd have the answers.

I had serial number 3 RAM 750 and I could swore it had the long nozzle.

Matt, I think they were playing around with the long nozzle early, so if you remember it that way, no doubt you are right. I think they went to the long nozzle on them all because BV wanted it that way (maybe cause it took the hot gasses further down the Bandit bypass?).

K1, you gotta remember that when you speak of a "750", that covers a lot of different engines. The early 750s & 750Fs were totally different engines than the 750Ps (750 Plus). The Ps were detuned 1000s that had different compressor wheels, diffusers, shafts, mods to the bearing lube system (to try and stop the rear bearings from saying "see ya"), etc. from the old 750 & 750F.

Centuries from now when archaelogists are digging through the ruins, they'll be trying to create a history of all the different variants RAM produced. They'll never succeed. I don't think even RAM kept track of all the differences. My two 1000's had two different make of compressors, but at least both were turned to the same incorrect diameter so they didn't match the diffuser! What make turbine wheels, nozzles, diffusers, ECU's, pumps, batteries, starters, connectors, etc., who knows?

I'll tell you this, I sincerely doubt there were any intended differences other then the ECU limits between a 750P and a 1000. It's somewhat laughable to think one would be "better balanced". And one more thing, I wouldn't run any 1000 over 120k. The overall design makes the back of the engine run too hot. They won't stay together for any reasonable amount of time.

Hello,

I have a chance to buy a couple of RAMs pretty cheap. Is there anyway to visually look at these motors to know which one has the good parts? So many people had problems but many state they love RAM? Can I figure out which are good or bad? I already have a Jetcat P-80 but I can get these pretty cheap.

I know Mr. Tiana(?) is selling some motors with better shafts or other parts, can I figure out what parts he is changing in order to figure out which RAMs are good?

Thanks and sorry to read about your planes

Mark

OH boy here goes........


If you can get a 750 or 100 pretty cheap don't you figure there is a reason why? Read Tony's post again. There were SO many different versions of the 750 plus/1000 it is insane. At one event I had three different versions of the ECU software installed. At Superman 2001 we had a Bobcat that had three different engines installed on it because 2 of them blew up fresh back from the factory. The list goes on......

If you are happy with your JetCat spend a little extra money and buy another one of those if you need another engine. I'll take 1 JetCat over three RAM's any day.


David Reid

750 uses the 6 burner manifold with separate oil reservoir. The newer 750 and the 1000 has the 12 burner manifold with oil mixed fuel, the new starting motor and a auto-start ECU. Before RAM closed, they were experimenting with a bigger compressor to provide more thrust. That's why some of 750s and 1000s have different compressor wheels, but the same turbine wheel.

FYI- JetCat, AMT, RAM and Simjet all use the same parts from the same people. The only difference is the outer shell.

Hi Unknown

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from, but there is very little in common between a SimJet and a Ram, or a Jet Cat, or an AMT. The only possible common parts are the bearings and possibly the turbine or compressor wheels. All the other components on a SimJet are produced specifically for SimJet.

Although the above mentioned engines share a common ancestry, they have all branched out in their own direction. They have modified the original KJ design in their own way to create the engines they have today.

Sincerely,
Ed

Yes, RAM sure had their problems. As I well know, being the owner of three of the little jewels. My experience has been that the 750F is a good engine, never any problems with it.

The 500s are a bit of a different story. They can be miserable to start, but once they are going, they are fine - at least mine are. On the other hand, I would not buy a 1000 if the price were over $5. They are just not durable or reliable - my opinion. And yes, my latest engine is a JetCat.

Hi rcav8tr
all these guys or using artesjet technology. If your engine turbine wheel say kj-66 it the same as all the rest. every parts in your
turbine are in tune to that wheel. Compressor, burner,(turbine wheel kj-66) also the exhaust cone. the shorter cone is tune for
18/19 pound of thrust. I am sure if you put a p160 cone on a
p80 with modified ecu you will get more out of it.

changing shaft don,t make the engine better, i never heard of
a turbine shaft broke whiled running. the larger compressor still
produce the same thrust, so whats the difference, cooler???

just like Gateway , Dell, HP.(intel inside) Ram,Jetcat,Simjet (kj66 inside)
(THESE VIEWS BY UNKNOWN ONLY)

OK lets say that these engine are different on the inside. which
engine is this, to make it easier is not a ram.

I guess what I am looking for is can I use any of the new parts out to fix the RAM problems, or are they design issues? I hope TonyF answers back.

I mean if all of the parts are the same why did the RAMS like the RAM 1000 have so many problems? Is it quality problems with Artes stuff or some design difference or something else?

I agree that buying cheap usually means something, and these things are really cheap!

If these rams were such garbage, then why did we allways here they were the best? Why did so many people try so hard to let everyone know Rams were GREAT. How many times on a public forum like this did we hear "Rams are the best" "I got humpting jillion flights on my Bandit with my Ram 1000" "Never misses a beat" "Flawless". Was this a big fat lie? So many people were on the Ram bandwagon that are coming out now with these stories. Peoples favorite line has always been" go to the shows, see what people are flying and what they are having success with" A year and a half ago and earlier, it was all Rams. Now you go to a show and its practically all JC. I cant really tell any difference. It seems to me all the same people that said rams were the best are now saying they are crap and now JC is the best. Did people advertise Rams knowing they had problems? How did people manage 200 plus flight on several airframe on such low quality turbines?
If people were silent about problems then, then how do we know if peolpe are just being silent know?
I for one had very few problems with my Rams. I'm starting to sound like the lone ranger these days when I say that. I own 2 rams, 2 JC and 1 Simjet. I even had a 500 that ran awesome. Maybe I'm just lucky. I can say one thing. I never had a flameout on any of my RAMS. I have replaced some questionable parts on my RAMS, but not because they failed. Just preventative.
Scott Marr

Sorry, Unknown, but completely untrue.

I can certainly tell you that AMT's (both the Netherlands and USA varieties) are NOT, and were NEVER based on the KJ-66 design. Actaully they came before any other 'production' turbines based on that design also.....

However, as far as I know many of the others are/were based either on the Schreckling/Artes KJ66 or the Thomas Kamps designs.

To the best of my knowledge there are/have been only 5 basic designs used by the 'major' turbine manufacturers over the past, say, 7 or 8 years. These are: JPX, Schreckling/Artes, Turbomin, AMT and Wren.

And to say that the major parts in these are the same is also totally incorrect.
Most have different shafts, many use different compressors and several have completely different bearing types. Won't comment on whether Simjet is based on Artes/Kamps design !

Don't have more time to waste explaining more, especially when you don't even use a 'real' name on RCU

Wishing everyone on RCU many happy landings in the New Year,

Mike C
(AMT Netherlands/Holland)

Scott,

You took the words right out of my mouth!!

I can't believe how quickly the world has turned around on the supposedly BEST since the business shut down. I still see hundreds of the RAMs in operation out there without the problems described above. I'm not saying that the RAM was a flawless engine or design but like Scott said..

I currently own 1-1000, 1-750, 1-500, 3-JC P80's and a couple of GWM FD-3/67 and they all to the job perfectly!

Adil

You're not alone Scott

I've had RAMs since i've been in the turbines and will stay with RAMs till I'm done so if you guys want to follow the crowd go right ahead,
just look at one thing like Scott Moentioned Look at the ones that are in the sky burning Jet-A and look at the hangar queens what they have.
I personally have 4 RAMS 1000 X and in the process of buying another one, almost went with a diff Turbine ( NOT Jet Cat ) but why mess with something thats working perfectly fine.

FYI my oldest RAM 1000 has over 316 flights and still kicking guys. So If you're happy with your Jet Cats please quit Bashing the RAM's cause dont forget those of you that are constantly *****ing about RAM were die hards of them.
Please Stop the Bashing Guys with RAM cause everyone has problems one day or another this thread was intended to those that have a bit of knowledge about this particular turbine not for you bashing girls to keep trashing other peoples products.


Regards........... Johnny Hernandez

Johnny is SOoo right!!! It seems like opinions and attitudes can be bought cheapy these days. A small discount and a few freebies from the manufacturer's and suddenly they are the best and everthing else is garbage.

It seems like the same people that were praising these products, getting all the freebies, just a short time ago are now bashing. Now ain't that just a reliable source of information, NOT.

GeorgeR>.

Well said Scott,

The "Made the switch" guys are starting to sound like born again christians. .

I concur with Scott, Johnny & George. My RAMs have never missed a beat. Matter of fact, some of the RAM bashers here were the very ones that talked me out of JetCat and on to RAM when I bought my first turbine 4 years ago. I recently bought a P-80 for my BVM F-86 because I like to install only new components when I build new aircraft.