VAF Forums

VAF Forums (https://vansairforce.net/community/index.php)
-   Alternative Engines (https://vansairforce.net/community/forumdisplay.php?f=22)
-   -   Turbine Aeronautics (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=148635)

DanH 04-17-2017 10:19 AM

Dave, have you put any thought into if or how you'll monitor installations?

Right now most of the new tech market entries (Continental diesel, or the GE turbine, for example) come with strict overview by the manufacturer, contractual obligations, veto power, etc. They want to ensure reliability as much as possible, minimize any poor experience, and not take a black eye if some knothead blows a smoking hole in a cornfield.

flyvulcan 04-17-2017 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DanH (Post 1166158)
Dave, have you put any thought into if or how you'll monitor installations?

Right now most of the new tech market entries (Continental diesel, or the GE turbine, for example) come with strict overview by the manufacturer, contractual obligations, veto power, etc. They want to ensure reliability as much as possible, minimize any poor experience, and not take a black eye if some knothead blows a smoking hole in a cornfield.

Hi Dan,

We are dealing with the Experimental fraternity where there will always be someone that wants to innovate. We aim to have a single set of components that we will authorize to use with the engine i.e. Propellor system, ECU etc. The use of any other components will be on the builder. We will have contractual obligations in this respect, but at the end of the day, the innovator will innovate.

We will not monitor installations. That will not be practical. We will provide recommended practices regarding installations. We will provide limits that must not be exceeded. The engines will come with a Data Aquisition System for engine health monitoring. We shall be encouraging our customers to participate in our engine health monitoring program where the customer will undertake periodic downloading of data from the engines DAU (Data Aquisition Unit) and upload it to our engine health monitoring website where our system will analyze the data in order to identify any potential health issues. This way, we may be able to anticipate any problems with engines and rectify them before they become catastrophic.

Dave

Mel 04-17-2017 04:49 PM

One other thing to remember is that an amateur-built aircraft powered by a turbine engine must have an FAA-approved inspection program.
This program is normally supplied by either the engine manufacturer or the certified aircraft manufacturer that the engine came from.
This inspection program must be approved by the local FSDO.
Ref; FAA Order 8130.2H, Appendix C, No.14.

Snowflake 04-17-2017 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flyvulcan (Post 1165991)
We have already had a few prominent airframe manufacturers express the desire to develop custom airframes to accommodate our engines. There is certainly one manufacturer who has the vision and drive to be involved with us during our developmental program to ensure that they have a new design customized airframe that can fully take advantage of the features of our engines, i.e. light weight and low frontal area etc. ready to launch soon after the engine deliveries start.

Awesome news! I look forward to seeing what they come up with.

BobTurner 04-17-2017 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 1166274)
One other thing to remember is that an amateur-built aircraft powered by a turbine engine must have an FAA-approved inspection program.
This program is normally supplied by either the engine manufacturer or the certified aircraft manufacturer that the engine came from.
This inspection program must be approved by the local FSDO.
Ref; FAA Order 8130.2H, Appendix C, No.14.

Mel,
What is the FAR basis for this order?

Mel 04-17-2017 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTurner (Post 1166293)
Mel,
What is the FAR basis for this order?

FAA Order 8130.2 is the basis for aircraft certification.

"National Policy for Airworthiness of Products and Articles"

It is our Bible!

rmartingt 04-18-2017 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 1166274)
One other thing to remember is that an amateur-built aircraft powered by a turbine engine must have an FAA-approved inspection program.
This program is normally supplied by either the engine manufacturer or the certified aircraft manufacturer that the engine came from.
This inspection program must be approved by the local FSDO.
Ref; FAA Order 8130.2H, Appendix C, No.14.

I really want to know... is there still a good continuing basis for this rule, or is it a holdover from the days where all turbines were new and scary and complicated and only found in very large, very high performance aircraft? A lot of the FAA's "jets are special" and "turbines are special" language stems from decades ago when it was assumed that even the smallest jets would be several thousand pounds, carry several people (or be surplus military aircraft performing in front of crowds), and operate in the flight levels at high speeds. And in those days, when turbines were temperamental and easy to overtemp, when the smallest jets were things like Citations, and only the very rich owned turbine-powered aircraft, things like requiring a type rating (or LOA equivalent) to fly a turbojet maybe made sense.

Today, these blanket assumptions no longer hold. FADECs and single lever power controls make these engines easier to operate than even a traditional carbureted piston engine with a fixed-pitch prop, let alone a turbocharged constant-speed fuel-injected engine with cowl flaps. There are single-seat jets smaller than a C150 on the kit market. There are true jet-powered remote control models, and I've seen Part 103-eligible ultralights with jet engines. Heck, I've seen a bicycle with a pair of little jets on the back. There's a turboprop in development suitable for light-sport aircraft, and at least one guy with a wearable four-engine jet.

This sticks in my craw because I dream of one day building a little self-launching sailplane that uses a pair of those R/C jets for launch, as it would be lighter and simpler than a traditional folding engine/prop assembly. Such an aircraft would be light-sport eligible except for the powerplant, and my RV-7 would be heavier, faster, carry more gas and more people, and be more complex... but by the FAA's rules, the glider would be a super-complex high-performance ship that warranted the equivalent of a type rating. Go figure :rolleyes:

Hornet2008 04-18-2017 06:00 AM

Hi rmartingt

This has been done in Australia on an ASH 25. The jet engines(2) are propane fuelled. Really noisy but not too loud inside the glider.

YellowJacket RV9 04-18-2017 06:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmartingt (Post 1166410)
I really want to know... is there still a good continuing basis for this rule, or is it a holdover from the days where all turbines were new and scary and complicated and only found in very large, very high performance aircraft? A lot of the FAA's "jets are special" and "turbines are special" language stems from decades ago when it was assumed that even the smallest jets would be several thousand pounds, carry several people (or be surplus military aircraft performing in front of crowds), and operate in the flight levels at high speeds. And in those days, when turbines were temperamental and easy to overtemp, when the smallest jets were things like Citations, and only the very rich owned turbine-powered aircraft, things like requiring a type rating (or LOA equivalent) to fly a turbojet maybe made sense.

Today, these blanket assumptions no longer hold. FADECs and single lever power controls make these engines easier to operate than even a traditional carbureted piston engine with a fixed-pitch prop, let alone a turbocharged constant-speed fuel-injected engine with cowl flaps. There are single-seat jets smaller than a C150 on the kit market. There are true jet-powered remote control models, and I've seen Part 103-eligible ultralights with jet engines. Heck, I've seen a bicycle with a pair of little jets on the back. There's a turboprop in development suitable for light-sport aircraft, and at least one guy with a wearable four-engine jet.

This sticks in my craw because I dream of one day building a little self-launching sailplane that uses a pair of those R/C jets for launch, as it would be lighter and simpler than a traditional folding engine/prop assembly. Such an aircraft would be light-sport eligible except for the powerplant, and my RV-7 would be heavier, faster, carry more gas and more people, and be more complex... but by the FAA's rules, the glider would be a super-complex high-performance ship that warranted the equivalent of a type rating. Go figure :rolleyes:

Agreed. IMO the 'bible' and the mountain of other regulations are largely responsible for the dwindling, ancient, decrepit, less reliable GA fleet that is flying around today. The 'biblical' red tape meant to protect us has mainly served to keep newer, safer, more reliable technology out of the sky, thus negatively impacting GA safety. I truly believe we would be safer without the vast majority of those biblical verses.

Turbine power is orders of magnitude more reliable than piston, and while there may be plenty of hurdles in applying it to light aircraft, I think it would be a shame if we scare the innovators away with red tape before they even have a chance to prove themselves. The FSDO's are happy to approve alternate engine installations in RVs so long as they are installed properly. Turbines should be no different. It's time the 'bible' caught up to the 21st century.

Chris

Mel 04-18-2017 06:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rmartingt (Post 1166410)
I really want to know... is there still a good continuing basis for this rule, or is it a holdover from the days where all turbines were new and scary and complicated and only found in very large, very high performance aircraft?

You'll have to ask the FAA about that. It's their rule. I just have to follow it. When we attend a DAR seminar, one of the first things said is, "We don't answer 'why' questions!"


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:37 AM.