Hot Caravan Is it about time ?
 

From AvWeb

This should make the Northern operators a little more happy...even if they do go deaf.

What on Earth would one use that for?

Has the Max TO Weight and payload been increased?

T least the chances of an engine failure have dramatically reduced with the addition of the Garrett :)

I wonder if it will get CAWI too?

HA!

A van with CAWI, I think I'm in love :}

j3

Green Goblin wrote

Do you really think so ?

I would have thought that the PT was pretty hard to beat on that one...unless you run out of fuel, but I reckon the Garrett at 900SHP would be the same as the PT6 at 650.

Too bad there is no "How do the passengers deal with the extra noise"in the FAQ section.... looks like good fun that thing. Sitting up front pax seat of a metro isnt the best experience noise wise, this may be better though being behind the props.

linky here: TEXAS TURBINE CONVERSIONS, INC. - Caravan Conversion -

SO:ok:

No mention of any increase in max TO weight - but the empty weight increases by 100 pounds.

I wonder if the Garrett engine has demonstrated the 1 in 100,000 engine failure rate required for IFR? And I can't see Cessna supporting the aircraft for ASEPA approval........

'scuse my ignorance... but CAWI?

It's a helluva job keeping up with all these acronyms and abbreviations!!!

CAWI...Continuous Alcohol Water Injection
Water/methanol mainly used in hot/high conditions...Water increases density and the metho assists in the effeciency of the burn.
Basically gives you more bang for your buck (boost)...others will know more :ok: Pilotette

It's ok that you had NFI, aviation is filled with all those wonderful accronyms

Continuous Alcohol Water Injection

At least I think so...

j3

Cheers Pilotette and J3! Onto it now ;)

Last time I heard of water-meth, it was in the old RR Darts! Didn't know it was still in use in current engines... and continuous? Surely that would be a fearsome volume/weight to be carting around?

Still used on the mighty metro, enough for about two takeoffs ;) (or 3 if you worked at Macair)

Not to be too picky, but...

The water doesn't increase the density (of the air), it actually decreases it as it displaces air with water. However what it does do is cool the air, thus increasing density. The methanol doesn't increase combustion efficiency, it just burns (and very nicely too).

We used to use it for most takeoffs in the F27. Works well but you go through more water meth per takeoff than you do fuel.

Anyway,

Garrett van, haven't looked all that closely at the specs. Is the inertial separator still part of the system? Can't really see much of a use of the van in the backlots if you've got a straight garrett in the front without some form of FOD protection.

j3

A Garrett is a much stronger little turbine than a PT6, the only downfall is they are noisy and they loose performance (and cooling power from the bleeds) in warmer environments. I'd still rather have a Garrett strapped to my wing!

Er ... where did that little gem come from? :confused:

I don't recall seeing too many Garrett turbines installed in GA bush work horses such as the Twin Otter, Bandeirante, Beech King Air range of models, Rheims Cessna 406, Cessna Conquest I and the Cessna Caravan. Indeed, Pilatus removed the Garrett engine option from the Porter due to it's lack of reliability and non modular maintenance design. One of the principal failures of the Shorts Sky Van was it's Garrett engine, which resulted in Shorts using PT6's in the SD3-30 and SD3-60.

You may be biased to Garrett, as I am biased to PT6s, but let us stick to demonstrated and proven facts, eh?

Just wading in waist deep into this one but, I thought Centrifugal Compressors were quite a bit stronger than axials. Will happily stand corrected on that one though.

Furthermore the PT-6's on low wing a/c all have ice-vains/inertial separators. Garrett's answer to this is flipping the engine on it's back :hmm:

I fly Garretts, but I wish they were PT6's:{:{ I miss the PT-6

j3

Okay Air Ace,

You have your opinion, but you may find the Cessna Conquest are Garretts :)

If you are ever bored check out the performance figures of a metro vs a 1900 or a Conquest vs a King Air!!

You will be very surprised ;)

Wash your mouth out with soap!!

What?? Maybe I'm just in love with King-airs :ok:

I'm almost positive that the Conq 1's had PT6's in them GG, you might have been defeated on that one.

But I will give the Garrett something. Fuel burn. Absolutely amazing. 1000shp at 350lbs/hr @ A100 vs PT6-114A 675shp 300 lbs/hr @ A100.

And yeah, the water meth is pretty cool.

j3