just wondering

[Splitpin]

Sorry about the rough edit....but do you (anybody) know if this was, or is a consideration for the trainer?

[creator2003]

Plat porter front end,lol i see

[Ian Warren]

Works for me .. I did see a proposal along these lines , guess the CT4E was the end product .

[Naki]

Nice edit ... it has been done in RL

[Ian Warren]

There go's the proposal Thanks Paul , i guess operation cost using the turbine or the expense , im not sure .

[Splitpin]

Naki....thanks for that, The real thing looks great. Was it just a one off ?
Creator, not a porter mate, its the very front end of one of those XL750 (is that right, cant remember at the moment) it was ZK-XLG
Cheers guys

[redkiwi]

I think it was called the CT-4C, never went into production. I think that with the 300hp engine it has now it has pretty good performance specs for an aircraft of it's size.

[Splitpin]

QUOTE (redkiwi @ Feb 27 2010, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think it was called the CT-4C, never went into production. I think that with the 300hp engine it has now it has pretty good performance specs for an aircraft of it's size.

Thanks RedKiwi, i guess they get to a point where they just cant use all the power they could hang on the front. Your right, 300hp and that nice airframe....good match.

[nzav8tor]

Although given the way the air force treat their engines they could probably benefit from a relatively hardy PT-6 to cope with the hamfisted power changes that piston cylinders love so much.

[Naki]

The actual turboprop Airtrainer had a LTP-101 in it of about 400shp ...I wonder if they would of had more success if they put in a PT-6 instead like splitpins example.

[deaneb]

OK just to set the record straight - The CT/4C was built as a proposal for a USAF contract for a trainer. It was powered by an Allison 250 engine (basically the same engine fitted to Jetrangers and H500's). I'm not sure how many HP, but certainly it was de-rated and I'm not sure it was as high as 400HP. The aircraft was actually NZ1940 borrowed from the RNZAF. After an unsuccessful bid - It was later retrofitted and handed back to the RNZAF as a CT/4B again in 1992. There was also a retractable gear version of the "C" model on the drawing board, but this never eventuated.

[Splitpin]

QUOTE (deaneb @ Feb 28 2010, 05:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK just to set the record straight - The CT/4C was built as a proposal for a USAF contract for a trainer. It was powered by an Allison 250 engine (basically the same engine fitted to Jetrangers and H500's). I'm not sure how many HP, but certainly it was de-rated and I'm not sure it was as high as 400HP. The aircraft was actually NZ1940 borrowed from the RNZAF. After an unsuccessful bid - It was later retrofitted and handed back to the RNZAF as a CT/4B again in 1992. There was also a retractable gear version of the "C" model on the drawing board, but this never eventuated.

Thank you master.

Grasshopper

[deaneb]

QUOTE (Splitpin @ Feb 28 2010, 05:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you master.

Grasshopper

No master here, just trying to cobble together what I could remember. I'm sure if you google it there will be more pics and details of the CT/4C. Further to that, I am picking the extra cost of a turbine over a piston engine is why the E model won out in the end. Additionally as a trainer, piston engines are far better suited to starting and stopping regularly, where as a turbines are better suited to running for longer periods. As for the RNZAF being hamfisted - be rest-assured you could "nuke" a PT-6 just as quick as a piston engine and the it will cost you a lot more $$$. I'm not sure at the time (or even now) that there are PT6's available at the lower HP levels the CT4 would need? I think the smallest is about 500 HP.

[Splitpin]

Thanks , for that.....i just wondered why the airforce never went the turbine way for ab intio training (when they had jets) Interesting that the turbine CT-4 was done for the USAF. When i started it was only Harvards, and from there to multi (Devons)but no streaming on to jets,unless that was what you opted for.....otherwise , transport ,maritime, or rotory.
Of course then , transport was Freighters, Daks, and C-130 , Andovers were still a rumour.
Interesting stuff indeed.
I have a couple of "stumpy" Fletchers for you , i might post later....seems im reduced to this at the moment (editing)

Again, thanks for the heads up on the Ct-4 history.


Cheers

[Naki]

Whoops got my turboprops wrong .........yes it was an Alison 250 not a LTP-101...there is a version of the Aermacchi SF-260 (which is about the same size as an Airtrainer) with an Alison (now Rolls Royce) turboprop.