>
>To an Aeronautical Engineer, the business end of a modern turboprop is a
>thing of beauty. Maybe not the same for everyone. Here is the
>propulsion system of a Beech King Air 350.
>
>http://www.gallery.leica-users.org/v/OldNick/Propulsion.JPG.html
>
You don't have to be an aeronautical engineer to appreciate a turboprop.
That one looks downright sexy. The intake is far better sculpted than I
usually see for a PT-6 style engine (intake in the rear, exhaust in the front).
Do you have a photo of the entire aircraft?
It's tough to beat the short-field performance of a turboprop. On the
C-130E/H, you get 60% of your maximum forward thrust when in reverse.
BTW: I was watching the old Jimmy Stewart movie "Strategic Air Command"
yesterday. Wonderful footage of the B-36, B-47, KC-97, and an air-to-air
refueling scene of a B-47 and KC-97. Despite the number of time I've watched
this movie, I did spot one flaw this time around. There's a scene where you're
looking at a B-36 cruising, and it has all four jets operating. My
understanding was that those were for takeoff only. They burned the same
180-octane avgas as for the other six engines.
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/
|
