Hmmm... Okay. Let's take that a step further. Starting with a turbine
engine similar to a PT-6, where there is no direct connection between the
turboshaft and the propeller, you can eliminate the gearbox. And you can use a
similar fuel control system. Except for reducing that to a much smaller size,
the technology already exists.
But then, why bother with the extra weight, lower reliability, and lower
efficiency by using a generator/motor conversion system plus the added weight
of the battery? You could simply use the miniaturised PT-6 with variable pitch
propellers.
>
>That's old-school methodology. The new way of doing everything is to
>have the smoke generator (turbine engine or ICE) powering a generator.
>The props are driven by electric motors. By going with a hybrid
>approach you can use a smaller power source that is just large enough
>to maintain average load requirement and use a limited supply of
>battery storage to provide the boost for peak load requirement.
>
>> The speed reduction gearbox for a turboprop is a hefty piece of
>>machinery. The ones on the C-130 reduce the 13,000 RPM of the engine
>>to 1,360 RPM for the props. And then there's the matter of power
>>control. A fixed pitch prop is not workable as the throttle response
>>is horribly slow. It is far more practical to use a fixed speed
>>variable pitch prop. Throttle response is almost instataneous.
>
Chris
When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro
- Hunter S. Thompson
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|