What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Turbine Aeronautics

KRviator

Well Known Member
Apparently they have a 120HP turboprop available "soon" to the point they have started taking orders from Sun'n'Fun last week.

100HP fuel burn is a claimed 8USGPH, so it isn't exactly economical, but if you enjoy pushing the boundaries and want to upset Van by putting one in an RV-12, they have just released their website and have a youtube video of the prototype.

Target market initially appears to be the Tucano crowd, but if it proves successful, it probably won't be long until someone puts a pair of them in an RV-10 to build that ever-elusive "twin-turbine time". :p

And the all important question...$$$$ According to their website:
Turbine Aeronautics said:
Pricing
Final prices for our engines will be determined and advised to delivery slot holders and general customers, once the engines are actually in production. However, we provide the following price guides for our launch engines:
​TA120TP - A similar price to a fully equipped Rotax 914
​TA200TP - A similar price to a new IO360

If the final price or specifications, as advised to holders of reserved delivery slots when their engine is ready for delivery is not acceptable to the slot holder, they may cancel their reservation and receive the appropriate refund of their deposit.

EDIT: Just realised their corporate offices are in Sydney too - but I have no involvement in any way with them, just became aware of the engine on the RecFlying boards.
 
Last edited:
Just a side note........

Apparently they have a 120HP turboprop available "soon" to the point they have started taking orders from Sun'n'Fun last week.
100HP fuel burn is a claimed 8USGPH, so it isn't exactly economical, but if you enjoy pushing the boundaries and want to upset Van by putting one in an RV-12,

A turbine engine in an RV-12 does not meet LSA parameters in the U.S.
This aircraft would be an amateur-built and could not be flown by a sport pilot.
 
Thoughts

Very interesting indeed....I wonder what the weight is? Also, not as economical but jet fuel is cheaper and going to be around for awhile longer (we hope).

Perhaps Van's new RV-20? An experimental jet?
 
Ironically - too light.

Much as other turbine conversions. Look at Pilatus Porter, Soloy 207 etc.

The 200hp version is half the weight of a piston, yes the fuel burn is higher but it looks like a real possibility for the tandem airplanes that don't like a lot of weight up front.
 
Looking at the website . . .

With the 200hp unit operating at 180 hp and 14.6 gph, a 7 would need 68 gal of fuel for the same time burn as 42 gal standard. Add that to the spec weight and it is not bad, still less than the Lyc + fuel weight. Getting W&B and sorting out the flight profile for X-CTY still TBD, but it appears competitive, initial investment aside. Maybe a new "Rocket" purpose modified for the engine capability?

Oh- I did not see the altitude rating - is it flat rated to 18K?

It looks like a bad investment, but more power to the guys for their initiative.
 
Last edited:
Turbines in GA a/c

The biggest issue with GA turbines has always been the light engine weight (which then c,reates an ugly long pinocchio nose) and the really high fuel burn! For a jet engine to be really efficient they need to operate at "flight levels" which then requires pressurization and special systems (O2 regulators, etc.), and some training. Hi cool factor; but never seemed too practical for RVs.

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B FWF
 
Maybe not well-suited to RV's, but this does look like it would be a great fit for little baby helicopters.
 
https://www.turb.aero/

There is the website for those that haven't seen it yet. Turbine Aeronautics is my company BTW.

We already have a customer interested in putting the 200hp engine in his F1 Rocket. He is assessing its feasibility at the moment.

Also, we plan to attempt to address the issue of Turbine engines in LSAs through submitting a petition for regulatory exemption/amendment (this initiative is detailed on our website under the Light Sport Aircraft tab). We may get the 120hp engine into an RV12 LSA yet.... Time will tell...

We have also been approached by a group of RV pilots who wish to develop a FWF package for some of the RV aircraft range. As we get further down track with our program we will likely work with that group to see what can be done to get our engines into the most popular aircraft in the world.

Dave
 
TA200TP / O360 comparison

With the 200hp unit operating at 180 hp and 14.6 gah, a 7 would need 68 gal of fuel for the same time burn as 42 gal standard. Add that to the spec weight and it is not bad, still less than the Lyc + fuel weight. Getting W&B and sorting out the flight profile for X-CTY still TBD, but it appears competitive, initial investment aside. Maybe a new "Rocket" purpose modified for the engine capability?

Oh- I did not see the altitude rating - is it flat rated to 18K?

It looks like a bad investment, but more power to the guys for their initiative.

Hi Bill,

180hp O360 power settings and fuel flows

The document in the above link details the power settings and fuel flows for the 180hp O360. That document indicates the following:

100% power = 180hp
75% power = 135hp = 10gph
65% power = 117hp = 8.8gph
55% power = 99hp = 7.4gph

Our 200hp engine will be optimized for a 180hp cruise. At that power, the fuel flow is anticipated to be 14.6gph. When pulled back to 135hp, I would estimate (we don't have actual figures yet for the -200) that the fuel flow would be about 12-13gph. This is only 20-30% more than the O360 at the same power but the engine installation is 250-300lbs heavier for the O360.

Where range is not an issue, i.e. the $100 hamburger run, our engine will give you superior runway/climb performance, a faster cruise for the same power (lower aircraft weight by a decent % means a faster cruise), the ability to use potentially lower cost fuel, plus the maintenance reserve allowance to cover routine maintenance and TBO should be lower for our engine with an anticipated TBO of 3000+ hours and negligible routine maintenance.

Also, if you were so inclined, you could set 180hp Optimum Cruise Power on our engine and get to your destination a whole lot faster than with the O360.

For the same purchase price as a new O360, and given the considerations I have listed above, I suspect that there will be a few RV builders that will give serious consideration to our engine, if it can be adapted to suit the RV aircraft.

At the end of the day, everyone will go through the cost benefit analysis for their aircraft and type of operation and will determine the facts and make their choice. At Turbine Aeronautics, we aim to make that choice as easy as possible for the potential buyer by giving them clear value added features to support them in their decision making process. We still have a way to go to develop all that is needed to support RV installations, but rest assured that we will be making a huge effort to integrate our engines into RV aircraft, simply because of the popularity of the RV aircraft.

Dave
 
The small engine would be a good fit by HP for the RV-9.

The challenge will be is the -9 is fuel limited. 36 gallons will be just about enough to taxi out, make two circuits, and land again.

While lighter than a reciprocating engine, most of the weight loss is made up for in the extra fuel you have lift.

As for why someone might want a turbine; they can burn just about anything you can dump in the tanks. If you fly someplace with questionable fuel supply, you don't have a lot of worries. That and they tend to be significantly more reliable than a recip.

I wish you luck and much success Dave!
 
The small engine would be a good fit by HP for the RV-9.

The challenge will be is the -9 is fuel limited. 36 gallons will be just about enough to taxi out, make two circuits, and land again.

While lighter than a reciprocating engine, most of the weight loss is made up for in the extra fuel you have lift.

As for why someone might want a turbine; they can burn just about anything you can dump in the tanks. If you fly someplace with questionable fuel supply, you don't have a lot of worries. That and they tend to be significantly more reliable than a recip.

I wish you luck and much success Dave!

Thanks for the support Bill.

Actually, the group of RV owners that are interested in developing the FWF package have RV9s and were interested in our -120 engine. I guess that our -120 at OCP (100hp) is the same power as the O360 at 55% power with our -120 burning 8.4gph and the O360 burning 7.7gph so very similar fuel burns at that power setting. 36 gallons still gives just under 4 hours endurance plus VFR reserves. The 36g of JetA will weigh a tad more than the same volume of Avgas, but the installation is 300 lbs lighter, maybe 250lbs with a modified nose but still appreciably lighter. That will help offset the reduced power available for take-off and climb.

You are right about the fuels. Diesel, Jet A, kero are planned to be options and in many remote places in the world, these are sometimes all that is available. Our South African customers find this appealing.

The trade-offs to use our engines should appeal to some (hopefully many!).

Dave
 
David,

Can you list a chart comparing the power delivered, in both %, HP, and fuel burn at different altitudes? That might help state your cause a little better.
 
Interesting - just keeps looking better . .

Hi Bill,
<snip>
For the same purchase price as a new O360, and given the considerations I have listed above, I suspect that there will be a few RV builders that will give serious consideration to our engine, if it can be adapted to suit the RV aircraft.
<snip>
Dave

With a competitive purchase price, it looks a LOT better than I thought, even for US fuel environment. For the rest of the world, it just would have an added advantage, esp at 3000 hr TBO.

Internal efficiencies, tip clearances, temps are all quite a challenge for small turbines. Good going guys - look to hear more.
 
With a competitive purchase price, it ...

That is my biggest issue with any new engine manufactures.

With no service history and a costly custom installation, they all seem to want to charge more for their engine than a comparable Lyclone.

It is as if the new engine manufactures do not understand the risk a builder is taking by installing their engine. That risk is both financial and physical.

If a new engine manufacture really wanted their engine out there, building time and reputation, they would offer the engine at the same price or less, and provide all the FWF parts at no charge.

Better yet, rather than sell to a new builder, they would contact a builder with a flying plane, document all the performance parameters, remove the old engine, install the new one, and run the same performance tests with the new engine.

Only then will you have a real apples to apples comparison of what the new engine does or does not provide in terms of performance and weight savings.

I realize that means the engine manufacture is taking a big risk but not nearly as much a risk as the builder.
 
Interesting

One of the concerns I had when I started my project a couple of years ago was regarding the engine or, more specifically, the fuel for the engine. Believe me, I am no expert when it comes to piston airplane engines and their operational benefits and limitations. I was military, so 99% of my experience is turbine.
I believe Lycoming and other manufacturers are great companies and produce outstanding and very well proven engines. However, what concerns me is the future of Avgas. I have mentioned this in a few conversations with airplane owners and builders and the usual response is, "they will come up with something". It's the "they" part that worries me a little bit. Last I heard, there are two companies in final testing phase of this new alternative fuel for replacing 100LL. From my limited research, it sounds like both these alternative fuels contain about 50% additive. Like I said I'm no expert but, does this sound like a long term solution or short term fix? I can't imagine the market for such a fuel, or additive, would be a worthy undertaking to produce for such a small (general aviation) market. Would this increase the cost to the consumer to allow the company to make money on this specially made fuel?
Thread drift complete.
Regarding original post: I know these turbine engine discussions come up occasionally, and usually die down after a bit. I have read the thoughts on the pros and cons of the turbines and I understand there are numerous obstacles to overcome; wt&bal., fuel burn, reliability testing, etc.
However, I do feel that eventually some company will break the code. I believe military drones will also play a large part in the development of these small turbine engines. Drones seem like a perfect way to get a new engine tested before being introduced into the small plane GA market. I was never on a Navy ship that kept a supply of 100LL onboard.
Good luck to this company and others working on these new engine alternatives.
I will need an engine for my -14 in the next couple years and hopefully there will be a few more engine options with less moving parts.
 
Last edited:
...but the installation is 300 lbs lighter, maybe 250lbs with a modified nose but still appreciably lighter. That will help offset the reduced power available for take-off and climb.
My concern with this would be the effect on CG. 250-300 lb off the nose of an RV means you have to move that lighter powerplant a looooong way out to balance everything again.

As a powerplant, it shows great promise for someone looking to design an airplane around it. 120-200hp are great ranges to carry two people aloft, for casual cruising around (120hp) or stellar performance (200hp) but to optimize it you'll have to start over and configure the airframe with the lighter powerplant in mind. An RV with the wing moved back, or the seating moved forward, could do it, but you're still looking at significant engineering.
 
David,

Can you list a chart comparing the power delivered, in both %, HP, and fuel burn at different altitudes? That might help state your cause a little better.

Hi Bill,

Unfortunately not. The launch engine (120hp TA120TP) is currently undergoing a redesign to incorporate a number of technical features that will enhance fuel efficiency and reliability to meet our target numbers. Until such time as that design work is completed, I will not be able to provide the data that you have requested. The design for the growth version 200hp TA200TP will be about 6 months behind the -120 so data for that engine is also a ways off.

Once we have confirmed data from testing, I will publish those figures. I do not want to pluck any numbers now that might be misleading to anyone.

While we are accepting fully refundable, escrow protected deposits for delivery slot reservations, I need to be clear that deliveries for the -120 are still 2 years away and the -200 6 months after that. These engines are not available now.

Dave
 
Internal efficiencies, tip clearances, temps are all quite a challenge for small turbines. Good going guys - look to hear more.

Hi Bill.

Thanks for the support. You are correct, those factors are a challenge but we have to work with them. However, technology/materials/manufacturing techniques are all much better than they were 10 years ago to the point where we stand a good chance of achieving our aims for the engines.

Dave
 
That is my biggest issue with any new engine manufactures.

With no service history and a costly custom installation, they all seem to want to charge more for their engine than a comparable Lyclone.

It is as if the new engine manufactures do not understand the risk a builder is taking by installing their engine. That risk is both financial and physical.

If a new engine manufacture really wanted their engine out there, building time and reputation, they would offer the engine at the same price or less, and provide all the FWF parts at no charge.

Better yet, rather than sell to a new builder, they would contact a builder with a flying plane, document all the performance parameters, remove the old engine, install the new one, and run the same performance tests with the new engine.

Only then will you have a real apples to apples comparison of what the new engine does or does not provide in terms of performance and weight savings.

I realize that means the engine manufacture is taking a big risk but not nearly as much a risk as the builder.

Believe me, as a builder myself, I hear you. No-one wants to take a risk, especially with a $45k investment.

We are in the fortunate position that a number of manufacturers have offered their support for our program in the form of offering aircraft to test/demonstrate/build hours on the engine. We have also had no shortage of builders who have offered the same with their own aircraft.

It is clear that there is intense interest in our engines and there are certainly some folks out there that see the benefits of our engines and are very excited about them. The onus is now on us to deliver the product, build a solid reputation for the engine and product support, and give the people what they want.

There will be apple to apple comparisons done when our engines are first delivered and installed. That will be the time that many builders become fully converted (or alternatively turned off if we have got it wrong!).

Dave
 
My concern with this would be the effect on CG. 250-300 lb off the nose of an RV means you have to move that lighter powerplant a looooong way out to balance everything again.

As a powerplant, it shows great promise for someone looking to design an airplane around it. 120-200hp are great ranges to carry two people aloft, for casual cruising around (120hp) or stellar performance (200hp) but to optimize it you'll have to start over and configure the airframe with the lighter powerplant in mind. An RV with the wing moved back, or the seating moved forward, could do it, but you're still looking at significant engineering.

Hi Snowflake,

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.

Dave
 
That is my biggest issue with any new engine manufactures.

With no service history and a costly custom installation, they all seem to want to charge more for their engine than a comparable Lyclone.

It is as if the new engine manufactures do not understand the risk a builder is taking by installing their engine. That risk is both financial and physical
.

If a new engine manufacture really wanted their engine out there, building time and reputation, they would offer the engine at the same price or less, and provide all the FWF parts at no charge.

Better yet, rather than sell to a new builder, they would contact a builder with a flying plane, document all the performance parameters, remove the old engine, install the new one, and run the same performance tests with the new engine.

Only then will you have a real apples to apples comparison of what the new engine does or does not provide in terms of performance and weight savings.

I realize that means the engine manufacture is taking a big risk but not nearly as much a risk as the builder.

I'm sure the new engine manufacturers are fully aware and cognizant of the risks the early adopters are taking on.

The problem is that these alternative engines are typically being developed by smaller companies with limited budgets. It takes a lot of capital to develop and test a new engine or even completely adapt an existing one to a new purpose, and then set up a production line for the necessary special parts.

I'm sure if they had the money to do so (or a sugar daddy like Elon Musk) they would be quite happy to develop full all-in-one-box FWF packages and sell them at their desired final prices well under Lycoming rates. But I'd guess that most of these companies start selling engines when they do, and at the relatively "on your own" state of installation package, because they've been bleeding hundreds of thousands of dollars (if not millions) and they are probably desperate for some kind of cash flow just to keep the lights on a little longer.

That's why they follow the early adopter model that everyone else uses--they sell the first generation of the product (which isn't ready for the mainstream) to the tech-savvy users who are willing to pay a premium to have it first. Those sales fund refinement of the product and help bring the cost down for the rest of us.
 
Hi Snowflake,

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.

Dave

Hey Dave, Sounds like you guys have some interesting things going on.
Since you're already thinking outside the box, let me take it a bit (maybe more than a bit) further.
Since one of the issues is the light weight of these turbines. How about putting two engines under the cowl. They would both "feed" into a reduction gear box to turn the prop. Dual engine helicopters do it somehow.

Another issue with the turbines is high fuel burn, so you for sure wouldn't want two up there burning the whole flight. Just use both for takeoff. Then in cruise one would be shut down. Of course, in case of engine failure during cruise, the other could be restarted.
Engine use would be balanced so both would get equal use. This would extend TBOs for both engines, unlike a normal twin where both engines run simultaneously.

Unfortunately, a major obstacle for most of us average home builders would be cost. This "Dual Engine" package would probably not be cheap. However, this idea might be interesting to a manufacturer who wants to "rattle the cage" of the light twin market, which, eventually, may bring the cost down for the rest of us.
Let me know if you need my address to send the first prototype:)
 
A turbine engine in an RV-12 does not meet LSA parameters in the U.S.
This aircraft would be an amateur-built and could not be flown by a sport pilot.
I'm not saying you're wrong... but where do you get that? I see a limit of a single engine... but haven't found a requirement that it be a piston engine. School me, please...

Not that I would do it, but it's interesting.
 
I'm not saying you're wrong... but where do you get that? I see a limit of a single engine... but haven't found a requirement that it be a piston engine. School me, please...

Not that I would do it, but it's interesting.

Interestingly, here it says that in the US the engine type is not defined, just one engine, and either a FP or ground adjustable prop.

In Australia it says that it cannot be a turbine, but has no limitations on the type of prop....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft
 
Interestingly, here it says that in the US the engine type is not defined, just one engine, and either a FP or ground adjustable prop.

In Australia it says that it cannot be a turbine, but has no limitations on the type of prop....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-sport_aircraft

It's going to be difficult to run a turbine without an in-flight controllable prop. The turbine torque curve usually needs a pretty constant RPM, which does not match up well to a FP prop power demand.
 
I'm not saying you're wrong... but where do you get that? I see a limit of a single engine... but haven't found a requirement that it be a piston engine. School me, please...
Not that I would do it, but it's interesting.

FAR part 1: "Light-Sport Aircraft (6) A single reciprocating engine, if powered."
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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!"
 
When we attend a DAR seminar, one of the first things said is, "We don't answer 'why' questions!"
That's a perfectly understandable position to take, since anything they said would probably be pure speculation. The people who wrote the rules are likely all retired and/or long dead. Problem is, not only does no one at the FAA answer the "why" questions, it seems like no one is willing to ask them either. These things tend to be written in stone. Getting a new rule IN may be a tedious process, but it pales in comparison to getting one OUT.
 
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!"

Oh, I didn't expect you to know why the FAA does what it does, Mel ;) That was a rhetorical question. I don't think anyone, FAA included, knows the answer.

I actually did ask the FAA (or one of its representatives) this question a few years ago when I was part of the ASTM committee coming up with industry standards for meeting the proposed Part 23 rewrite. The "reason" was exactly what I posited above--"we assumed all jets would be high performance complex heavy machines that required special training", and then when someone crashed an F-86 into an ice cream shop it further cemented that idea. They outright stated that something like a SubSonex or the jet Cri-Cri never crossed their minds.

However, pointing out that the original assumptions are no longer valid apparently holds no weight with the FAA. I asked why we carried over the language that position light lenses needed to be "flame resistant" but landing and taxi lights need only "not cause a fire hazard in any configuration". The response was "we agree that doesn't make sense and we don't know why it's written like that, but we aren't going to change it".

I've received similar responses to other inquiries--among others, I asked why the aircraft and airman databases were publicly searchable while motor vehicle registration and driver's licenses were considered sensitive "need-to-know" information. The response, egregious misspelling included, was simply "Are databases are public for safety" :rolleyes:
 
Oh, I didn't expect you to know why the FAA does what it does, Mel ;) That was a rhetorical question. I don't think anyone, FAA included, knows the answer.

I actually did ask the FAA (or one of its representatives) this question a few years ago when I was part of the ASTM committee coming up with industry standards for meeting the proposed Part 23 rewrite. The "reason" was exactly what I posited above--"we assumed all jets would be high performance complex heavy machines that required special training", and then when someone crashed an F-86 into an ice cream shop it further cemented that idea. They outright stated that something like a SubSonex or the jet Cri-Cri never crossed their minds.

However, pointing out that the original assumptions are no longer valid apparently holds no weight with the FAA. I asked why we carried over the language that position light lenses needed to be "flame resistant" but landing and taxi lights need only "not cause a fire hazard in any configuration". The response was "we agree that doesn't make sense and we don't know why it's written like that, but we aren't going to change it".

I've received similar responses to other inquiries--among others, I asked why the aircraft and airman databases were publicly searchable while motor vehicle registration and driver's licenses were considered sensitive "need-to-know" information. The response, egregious misspelling included, was simply "Are databases are public for safety" :rolleyes:

As one of the few folks who holds a rating for the Subsonex and the Bonusjet jet-powered sailplane, I can tell you that there are some forces within the FAA that are adamantly opposed to changing any of the rules you're talking about, and that there is an active fight in the very tiny user community trying to get this changed. Why are the FAA folks fighting? Go back to Mel's statement about "not answering why questions...." Personalities are probably the real reason, and since the number of people affected is so small, it is very hard to get the attention of upper management types that might solve it.

But I know the guy leading the effort to make this more liberal is tenacious - so we'll see where it goes.
 
First deposit from an RV builder

I am pleased to announce that we have received our first deposit from a dedicated RV builder.

I would like to thank him for his support for our engine and express my own admiration for the initiatives he is proposing to integrate the engine into his aircraft. His set-up will certainly gather attention in a very positive way and he should end up with a very high performance and safe aircraft.

Dave
 
As one of the few folks who holds a rating for the Subsonex and the Bonusjet jet-powered sailplane, I can tell you that there are some forces within the FAA that are adamantly opposed to changing any of the rules you're talking about, and that there is an active fight in the very tiny user community trying to get this changed. Why are the FAA folks fighting? Go back to Mel's statement about "not answering why questions...." Personalities are probably the real reason, and since the number of people affected is so small, it is very hard to get the attention of upper management types that might solve it.

But I know the guy leading the effort to make this more liberal is tenacious - so we'll see where it goes.

It's probably less personality, and more that no bureaucrat was ever fired for sticking to the existing rules.

I gotta say, dealing with those FAA guys on the ASTM committee was like repeatedly smashing my head into a heavy-duty welding table (or was that what I wanted to do to them?). There was one guy who didn't understand that a pressurized twin was not representative of the average "light personal aircraft".

I think a great example of the mindset prevailing there is "Rumor has it that 12,500 lbs was on the 3rd tablet that Moses dropped and broke on the way down from the mountain."
 
I am pleased to announce that we have received our first deposit from a dedicated RV builder.

I would like to thank him for his support for our engine and express my own admiration for the initiatives he is proposing to integrate the engine into his aircraft. His set-up will certainly gather attention in a very positive way and he should end up with a very high performance and safe aircraft.

Dave

And another 3 deposits from RV builders last night. Thanks for the interest everyone. It is clear from the many enquiries that we have had over the last few days that an affordable turboprop engine option creates excitement.

Dave
 
very interesting

I remember being quite enthused back in 2002 about the Affordable Turbine Power (ATP) turbine. Later known as Innodyne, it struggled awhile, had ups and downs, and was dead by about 2005 or 2006.

Then there was someone at AirVenture (perhaps SNF) about 5 or so years ago for a couple years, doing development on a turbine powerplant. I believe their test bed was an RV-10, but I'm not sure on that, as I didn't document it much. I don't remember the name. I know I took pictures of it, but I can't seem to find them. I saw them a couple different years, then they faded away. I think the second time I saw them, I didn't see much difference from the first time I saw them.

I wish you well on your venture, and hope you have more success than your predecessors.
 
Dave--interesting concept! I know the other turbine company that did an install in an RV is having some supply issues for that engine. We did some hoses for it.
Sounds like a fun out of the box project to work on, like we did for the Continental Diesel project. We'd be glad to help out.

Tom
 
Turbine powered RV-10

Then there was someone at AirVenture (perhaps SNF) about 5 or so years ago for a couple years, doing development on a turbine powerplant. I believe their test bed was an RV-10...


There is an RV-10 w/ Turbine that is now flying. They bought a buddies RV-10 and showed it off at SNF a few years ago w/only his fuselage; but have subsequently finished it up and I know are flying it now since they gave him a ride in it last month when he was in Florida.

See Turbine Solutions Group: http://www.turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_RV10_kit.htm

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF
 
There is an RV-10 w/ Turbine that is now flying. They bought a buddies RV-10 and showed it off at SNF a few years ago w/only his fuselage; but have subsequently finished it up and I know are flying it now since they gave him a ride in it last month when he was in Florida.

See Turbine Solutions Group: http://www.turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_RV10_kit.htm

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B/FWF

Would be good if these folks would have an update after 2014.
 
Back
Top