Pardon my curiosity, but what might that have been? I am not old enough to remember.
G-TTAC
I tried to get G-EEAC (even faster to read out) but it was taken. Most “fun looking” callsigns are a pig to pronounce and I think people get a bit fed up with them after a while.
The funny thing is that if I went back to G, I could have G-TTAC back. But I would have to be an idiot to go back to G, or maybe would have to find myself in some extremely unfortunate situation.
G-ICBM had its permit issued by the CAA without LAA involvement IIRC.
That doesn’t surprise me 
That means paying the hourly rate for one of their airworthiness surveyors!
I guess this guy had lots of money to spend.
Above 10,000’ you need to use TAS for calculating Vne for flutter considerations
AFAIK flutter is based on TAS at all altitudes, which is one reason why the FAA forces Vne to the bottom of the yellow arc (IIRC) on turboprop conversions like the Jetprop.
G-ICBM had its permit issued by the CAA without LAA involvement IIRC. That means paying the hourly rate for one of their airworthiness surveyors!
Van Grunsven was quite against even turbo charging any of his designs as it would potentially put the high altitude cruise speeds beyond Vne. Above 10,000’ you need to use TAS for calculating Vne for flutter considerations. So to get the full advantage at high altitude would likely mean thicker skins and 100% balance on all control surfaces.
I like the idea though, and there’s a lot of the world where kerosene is available and Avgas is scarce. It would be interesting to know what engineering went into it beyond bolting on a new engine.
My plane had a custom G-reg when I originally got it; I picked it for rapid pronounciation (fewest syllables).
Pardon my curiosity, but what might that have been? I am not old enough to remember.
Will the lower engine weight not compensate for range anxiety as you can uplift more fuel?
The problem with twice the fuel burn is that the range will be poor.
Bizjets have this problem too. The bottom end ones have a poor range – no better than a decent piston tourer. To get say a 2000nm range you have to go quite upmarket.
It seems that the “low turbine efficiency” issue is addressable only by scaling up the whole plane to a point where it can carry big fuel tanks.
The reg G-ICBM was obviously intentional My plane had a custom G-reg when I originally got it; I picked it for rapid pronounciation (fewest syllables).
I guess it would be a bit faster as well. If you look at the cowling on Austro Engines, they create a lot of drag.
Good that nobody has mentioned the fuel consumptions and efficiency of this turbine yet…
It’s less than a factor of two worse (0.82 lb/hp/h vs. 0.45 lb/hp/h) compared to a piston engine, and given that Jet-A is roughly half the cost of AVGAS (if it is even stocked), that could still work out. And you could probably reduce the disadvantage a bit compared to a NA piston by being able to fly higher.
Peter, look up G-ICBM
I am going to eat my oil filter now
That suggests that a G-reg Lancair Evolution TP is possible, too?
Good that nobody has mentioned the fuel consumptions and efficiency of this turbine yet…
