What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Turbine-powered -10.

Turbine 10

Pierre,

There was a mock up at Sun-n-Fun on a 10 firewall. It looked interesting but I am not sure the fuel burn would be worth it given the limitations that the airframe will have on speed.

Pat
 
advantage

Just curious from all you techies out there, what are the advantages of a turbine? Lower fuel burn, lower installed price, better reliability? What?
 
Turbines will burn whatever you put in them. Doesn't mean it's good for them though.
Some PT6s are allowed to burn gasoline for short periods of time.
 
Burnin Kerosene...

Johnny, in a word, yes. Turbines have an advantage in reliability, length of time between overhauls and inherent design simplicity. Disadvantages are high costs, higher fuel consumption and high repair costs. That said, Missionary Flight organizations have been leaning away from piston/100LL burners in lieu of Turbines recently. The reason? Fuel availability and field reliability. The Quest Kodiak is a PT6 powered replacement for the venerable Cessna 206 and has proven itself stellar in the far reaches of the world where 100LL is cost prohibitive or unavailable. It's high fuel burn is offset by carrying twice the load on half the trips, reliably, quickly and burning easily accessible fuels.

In our sport plane, limited budget world, turbines are impractical mainly due to cost. Until someone designs a FWF for RVs at a reasonable price and gets them into the field, we forge ahead with current technology.
My opinion is turbines are the future, where the Missionary and AG operators like Pierre have gone, can we be far behind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRLFXirq4o&feature=youtube_gdata_player



Smokey
www.fly-4-life.com
 
Last edited:
Like Smokey..

I echo his sentiments on reliability. I have over 9,000 hours on my PT-6 in the Air Tractor without an overhaul:eek:. I burn 47 GPH compared to the old 1340 cu. in./600 H.P. Pratt radial burning 40 GPH of Avgas. Back in the '80's, avgas was twice the price of Jet-A or #1 kerosene, which is a kissin' cousing to Jet-A, so our turbines operated much cheaper.

I've run diesel, avgas, kerosene and mostly Jet-A in my airplane and they're cleared by P @ W for those fuels. In the bush or faraway places, avgas can be next to impossible to find but diesel is plentiful.

Costs? A new engine for my airplane is north of $350,000, while a radial may go for $50-60,000, but the radial will hardly go over 1,000 hours without a $25,000 overhaul.

The useful load goes waaaay up as well. My PT-6 weighs 330 lbs, the radial 1,000+ lbs. and puts out 680 SHP and 1633 lbs. ft. of torque! That's why the nose is so long...CG issues.

Best,
 
Last edited:
johnny stick said:
Just curious from all you techies out there, what are the advantages of a turbine? Lower fuel burn, lower installed price, better reliability? What?
Click to expand...
Higher fuel burn, higher install price, better reliability, lower fuel cost, The smell of burned jet fuel, better sound, higher coolness factor :D
 
This is a pic of RV-10 turbine project at OSH '11. These guys said their main motivation is the realibility and fuel avilability. Not practical for most of us but pretty cool looking.


RV-10T.jpg
 
Last edited:
I used to ovhl and hot section p&w pt6, allison 250(now Rolls Royce).

I would not have a turbine in my 10. Like the above poster mentioned it would be speed limited. To fly into the FL's safely you would have to have eng inlet/prop/wing deicing and 100-120 gal fuel. You may not have to overhaul the complete engine often, but try $25,000-100,000 for hot section repair. You want to work on it yourself, get some big money ready for all of those special tools. Fuel burn during climb 30-35 gph and cruise 20-25 gph depending on alt/temp. You might save on engine weight but your fuel/deicing equip/engine mount weights will more than make up for it. Unless you run it at higher rpms, airspeeds and FL altitudes your going to pay even more in fuel burn. If I had the money for a turbine I would first pick a faster, properly equipped airframe to stick it in or better yet just buy a proven certified. You think our fatality rate is high now, start putting turbines in RV's. The statistics won't sound so cool.
 
Mmmm! I'm thinking Walter 601 & french fry squeezins'. Except you'd wanna land for a burger every hour....wait a minute, that's all the range you'd have anyway.
 
A good friend of mine used to have an A36 with the Allison turbine conversion. Really a nice traveling machine except for two problems.

1. Because it was converted to turbine power there was no yellow arc. Top of the green became VNE. As many know, the A36 cruises well into the yellow arc very easily like RVs. To overcome this you have to go higher to get the high true airspeed while keeping the indicated below VNE which means spending a lot of time on O2. Since the RV is experimental I couldn't say if the same limitation regarding the yellow arc would exist. Perhaps one of the resident DARs could chime in and enlighten us all. If the limitation would exist then you have to go high everywhere to get any speed out of it. High = on O2 all the time.

2. If you don't want to use O2 and go high then your fuel burn goes through the roof comparatively speaking. Turbines process a staggering amount of air. If you graph fuel burn v. altitude you would find the relationship between them is more dramatic for turbine than piston.
 
Vne is true airspeed not indicated

Ok a word of caution, did you say you have to be higher to keep the indicated airspeed below Vne? This is not right. Vne is based on true airspeed, not indicated. By flying higher and so the airspeed reads lower than Vne means you are exceeding Vne, since Vne is based on true airspeed. You have become a test pilot. For all other airspeeds like stall, maneuvering, flaps, the indicated airspeed self compensates for the effects of altitude, so one just uses the markings on the airspeed indicator. This is what I learned from my instructor.
 
Good instructor!

Your instructor taught you well.
Too many modifications needed to make an RV-10 practical for a turbine
at least the kind of turbines currently available.
 
johnny stick said:
Vne is based on true airspeed, not indicated. By flying higher and so the airspeed reads lower than Vne means you are exceeding Vne, since Vne is based on true airspeed.
Click to expand...

This is not universally true. Many airplanes have a Vne based on indicated plus a TAS redline. This is typically expressed as "Reduce Vne 3 kts/1000 ft above 10,000 ft"

I think the Cessna 210 is a fixed Vne to 10,000 ft then it drops off at a specified Kts/thousand above that...

Most turbines have a TAS based on indicated up to a Mach number, then the Mach is limiting. In most jets this happens in the high 20's altitude wise. This is accomplished automatically in the Airspeed indicator with a barber pole that moves on the airspeed indicator with information from the Air Data Computer.

I don't remember all the numbers exactly but years ago I flew pilot service in the right seat of a Jet Commander. The Vne was 362 KIAS and the Vmo was .765 Mach. At FL430 we would be indicating around 230 kts and the mach was .74. Even though we were 130 kts below Redline airspeed, we were only 10 kts below the barber pole....

RV's and Rockets have very high Vne speeds and therefore Vne drops off as a function of TAS from sea level.

Tailwinds,
Doug Rozendaal
F-1 EVO
 
Not really.

N427EF said:
Your instructor taught you well.
Too many modifications needed to make an RV-10 practical for a turbine
at least the kind of turbines currently available.
Click to expand...

There is already at least one -10 with full length leading edge fuel tanks.

Turbine Solutions already, apparently, have a motor mount and cowl.

Plenty of room for O2.....aaaah, now I see the word 'practical':)

Best,
 
For the money you'd spend on a turbine setup, you could get into a turbine Lancair... and actually be able to utilize the advantages a turbine brings.
 
thanks for the lesson B25Flyer

Doug,
Thanks for your response. The depth of the knowledge on this site is amazing. I learn something new everyday. Maybe we can get "Wings" credit?
 
pierre smith said:
There is already at least one -10 with full length leading edge fuel tanks.

Turbine Solutions already, apparently, have a motor mount and cowl.

Plenty of room for O2.....aaaah, now I see the word 'practical':)

Best,
Click to expand...


The entire leading edge is fuel tank. This setup came from John Nys in Tulsa.
I sort of know a little about Turbine Solutions. He's actually designing this setup for the overseas market, where avgas is virtually nonexistant. He's not looking for more power or speed, just practibility for other parts of the world. He knows it won't really benefit us much (if at all).

Marshall Alexander
 
What a funny group!

There was a tread a week or two ago regarding increasing the horsepower in an RV-9 from 160 to 180 and it died in a hail of gun fire because the proposed engine was outside of Van?s specs.

Yet, here is a thread regarding increasing the HP on an RV-10 by probably double and not a single person jumped on it.

I say go for it. It sounds like an interesting project and spent some time looking at the FwF display at Osh this past summer.
 
To be fair, it's actually a little less horsepower, if I understand it correctly (I don't know from turbines). 180kW is a little over 240 HP. Again, I don't know how a turbine shaft rating compares with Lycoming's rating for their engines, so it may be apples and oranges.

That said, it has always been my understanding that turbines operate most efficiently at flight levels and aren't really practical on something like the RV-10. By the time you modify the structure for additional fuel, pressurize the cockpit, etc., well, I don't think I'll be standing in line for one. The cool factor will be great, though.
 
240hp and turbine theory

As far as I know, your math is correct, 241hp I believe.

It could turn into a good engine if they set it up correctly. From what I understand, it's a free turbine, so they would have to have the compressor set up to run effeciently at lower altitudes or it will burn huge amounts of fuel.

I'm a little fuzzy on turbine knowledge, perhaps Pierre can help me here.
On free turbines (like the PT-6) the compressor can be set up for specific altitudes.
A low altitude compressor will overspeed if taken to a high altitude. You have to reduce power to prevent the compressor from overspeeding. You can't climb because there isn't enough power, you can't increase power because you will overspeed the compressor. Catch 22.
A high altitude compressor will burn lots of fuel if flown at a low altitude. To fly it high and get lower fuel burn, you are dealing with Vne TAS, O2.

Then there's always the issue of temping out for turbines operated in hot climates and/or high altitudes
 
Bolt-on Turbine..

Bolting a Turbine on an already proven design is nothing new as pointed out above. I agree that RV's are an impractical candidate for all of the listed reasons. (I too used to work on PT-6's) Being a legacy RVer I think people already spend entirely too much on their airplanes. I'm sure Van would stress that his design parameters were based on certain HP vs weight/speed computations. That said, the current crop of available turbine engines is economically and ergonomically impractical.
However comma, my friends at MFI (Missionary Flights International) operate a Turbine DC-3 and two Piston DC3's in weekly flights from FL to the D.R. and Haiti. The Turbine produces less overall HP than the radials but yield better reliability and increased cruise speed and reduced overall fuel burn. They don't ascend to the FL's, need de-ice or O2 yet still extoll the virtues of the modern design. As Pierre pointed out, the Turbine Thrush and Air Tractor both benefit from the conversion. In certain applications the bolt-on is a win-win.

Smokey
http://www.missionaryflights.org/


The Maiden Voyage of N500MF

On Tuesday September 13, 2011 the newest MFI turbine DC-3 completed its maiden voyage to Haiti. The airplane flew flawlessly thanks to all of the professional efforts of everyone involved in the updating and overhauling of nearly every system on the airplane. This airplane carries more weight than any of our other aircraft and it does it in style. Going to Haiti, we cruised at 17,000 feet at an average of 240 mph. On the flight home to Fort Pierce, we averaged 235 mph. Today, with fuel cost so high, efficiency is very important for MFI. We moved nearly 7,000 pounds of mission cargo to Haiti yesterday and brought 7 passengers home including a badly injured motorcycle accident victim. A special thanks to everyone who has prayed and given to this aircraft project. As MFI reaches our corner of the world with the gospel of Jesus Christ N500MF will be a blessing to many hurting people in Haiti and other countries throughout the Caribbean.
 
Last edited:
History

This reminds me of the Innodyn turbines a few years ago. I hope this project goes better.
As technology advances, the right turbine will come along to replace 4 cylinder piston engines. Turbines slowly replaced the various radials from the Constellation and DC-4 airliners to the R1340 in Air Tractors and deHavilland Otters to the R985 in Beavers. Now it's competing with turbocharged 6 cylinder engines in Piper Meridian/Mirage/Matrix and the Navajo/Cheyenne. Soloy is putting a turbine in the Cessna 206/207s.
General Aviation turbines are coming, just a matter of time.
 
David Z said:
As far as I know, your math is correct, 241hp I believe.

It could turn into a good engine if they set it up correctly. From what I understand, it's a free turbine, so they would have to have the compressor set up to run effeciently at lower altitudes or it will burn huge amounts of fuel.

I'm a little fuzzy on turbine knowledge, perhaps Pierre can help me here.
On free turbines (like the PT-6) the compressor can be set up for specific altitudes.
A low altitude compressor will overspeed if taken to a high altitude. You have to reduce power to prevent the compressor from overspeeding. You can't climb because there isn't enough power, you can't increase power because you will overspeed the compressor. Catch 22.
A high altitude compressor will burn lots of fuel if flown at a low altitude. To fly it high and get lower fuel burn, you are dealing with Vne TAS, O2.

Then there's always the issue of temping out for turbines operated in hot climates and/or high altitudes
Click to expand...

You have some concepts confused.

Free-air turbine vs direct drive. The PT-6 is a free-air, which is really just a jet engine, turned around 180 degrees, that in effect blows hot exhaust gasses over a turbine that is attached to the prop. In simplist terms, it's like a pin wheel. There is no mechanical linkage which is why if you go up to a PT-6 and turn the prop, it spins effortlessly. Incontrast go up to something like an Mu-2 or Merlin that has direct drive, the prop is mechanically linked to the engine through a reduction unit. Try and turn one of these and you'll notice it's pretty hard. Direct drive also shut down in a flat pitch, free-air in a feathered pitch. More on that in another discussion.

Turbine engines aren't really "setup" for an altitude range. Yes you can "tune" them for certain operating envelopes, but the fact remains that a turbine engine runs a X fuel/air ratio. It never changes. Withought getting into the weeds, it's why turbine engines run more efficiently up high. You can't lean one out like a piston engine. You lean it by climbing, lean being the wrong term as the fuel:air never changes.

Operating temps generally aren't a problem down low. We were usually limited by torque below about 15K feet, and as engine power output declined as the air thinned, EGT would climb, to a point where you become EGT limited.
 
What Sig said.

The proper turbine IS available and used on the Maule STOL airplanes from Georgia.

It's a 400 HP Allison, if I'm not mistaken and a customer/friend of mine had both, the turbine-powered airplane secondly.

Both airplanes were on floats and he took the turbine to Alaska from here but soon found out that it had two drawbacks that he really didn't like.

1. Jet-A weighs over 7 lbs/gal, so his fuel load was significantly higher than 6 lb/gal avgas.

2. After pushing off from the dock, it took much longer to spool up the turbine before banging into dock or weeds, compared to the instantaneous throttle response of the piston engine.

Incidentally, his name is Jeb and he owns a factory near here, named Jebco that produced all those red and blue mailboxes you saw on street corners:)

They also manufacture the Holland gas grills you see everywhere.:)

His go-to-faraway places is a Cirrus 22.

Best,
 
I'll throw a little fuel on this fire (g)...

I would think a very small turbine driving a generator for an electric motor would make more sense for an RV-10. Fire away....

John
 
johngoodman said:
I'll throw a little fuel on this fire (g)...

I would think a very small turbine driving a generator for an electric motor would make more sense for an RV-10. Fire away....

John
Click to expand...

You've still got to generate the power (HP or kW). You would need batteries to provide the high power needed for takeoff and climb. This would mean you would rely on the turbine to recharge the batteries while you're running at reduced power (in cruise, or if you had a fancy/complex enough system, you could regenerate power in descent). Let's assume you want the ability to cruise at 75%, that means you're going to need a turbine that can provide a bit more than that amount of power to provide power for level flight AND recharge the battery simultaneously. So now you're carrying a battery array and fuel for the turbine and increasing the complexity by an appreciable amount for what is likely a negligibly smaller turbine/fuel burn.

A few months before the Chevy Volt came out, people thought that it was essentially going to use a similar system of a gas engine powering a generator that drives electric motors. It was to be the first hybrid where the gas engine was not directly coupled to the drive wheels. This sounded great, but it amounted to another great internet rumor. I'm sure the Chevrolet (and Toyota, and Ford, and ...) engineers are very smart and had a look at this type of system and found the design compromises weren't particularly favorable.

There are a few instances of systems like this. Off hand, the two I can think of are diesel electric locomotives and the new Navy destroyers/frigates that use turbines. That shows that there's efficiency in such a system, but in both applications, I think gross weight is less of a concern than in our RVs.
 
ksauce said:
You've still got to generate the power (HP or kW). You would need batteries to provide the high power needed for takeoff and climb. This would mean you would rely on the turbine to recharge the batteries while you're running at reduced power (in cruise, or if you had a fancy/complex enough system, you could regenerate power in descent). Let's assume you want the ability to cruise at 75%, that means you're going to need a turbine that can provide a bit more than that amount of power to provide power for level flight AND recharge the battery simultaneously. So now you're carrying a battery array and fuel for the turbine and increasing the complexity by an appreciable amount for what is likely a negligibly smaller turbine/fuel burn.

A few months before the Chevy Volt came out, people thought that it was essentially going to use a similar system of a gas engine powering a generator that drives electric motors. It was to be the first hybrid where the gas engine was not directly coupled to the drive wheels. This sounded great, but it amounted to another great internet rumor. I'm sure the Chevrolet (and Toyota, and Ford, and ...) engineers are very smart and had a look at this type of system and found the design compromises weren't particularly favorable.

There are a few instances of systems like this. Off hand, the two I can think of are diesel electric locomotives and the new Navy destroyers/frigates that use turbines. That shows that there's efficiency in such a system, but in both applications, I think gross weight is less of a concern than in our RVs.
Click to expand...
Ok, I do not desire to sound argumentative so I apologize before hand if my post sounds as such. Really, I just wish to question something from this post.

Not being an engineer I am just thinking about this logically. For any engineer out there with knowledge and/or experience feel free to set me straight. So, I fail to see where your logic of needing additional batteries is necessary. The query about a turbine generating electricity to me would imply the turbine would have enough HP to generate all the electricity needed for the electric motor to power flight. If the turbine is a high HP one such as 500-600-700+ in output and the airframe can successfully climb and cruise at 200+ why would there need to be storage batteries? Given a powerful enough spec-ed turbine/electric motor combination why would you also need to carry around storage batteries?

I know diesel/electric locomotives have been successfully generating massive amounts of electricity to pull tons and tons of weight around for a century or so. I know those diesel/electric locomotives weigh tons too but I think the weight is an issue of the job the engines must perform. It is not inherent to the fact that the engine design requires it be heavy.

The truth is I cannot see any RV being a good platform for turbines but John's query about turbines driving electric motors is a legitimate idea that may have some merit.

My .02.
 
IO540 vs RR300

While working on an unrelated project for a client, I came across some interesting numbers for the turbine discussion. Robinson produces two very similar helicopters, the R44 and R66, the difference being mainly the powerplant. An IO540 Lycoming in the R44 and a Roll Royce RR300 turboshaft in the R66. The performance numbers are interesting. The gross weights are within 200 lbs, the R66 is 2700 and the R44 is 2500. The cruise speeds and range are similar with the turbine holding 74 gallons of fuel and the piston 49 gallons. Now for the costs, the estimated hourly cost, including overhaul allowance, is $300 for the turbine R66 and $183 for the piston R44. The purchase prices are $805,000 for the R66 and $348,000 for the R44.

I fully appreciate the reliability issue especially for a "working" aircraft but have a problem with a $457,000 difference in price for personal, noncommercial one.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
 
John Clark said:
While working on an unrelated project for a client, I came across some interesting numbers for the turbine discussion. Robinson produces two very similar helicopters, the R44 and R66, the difference being mainly the powerplant. An IO540 Lycoming in the R44 and a Roll Royce RR300 turboshaft in the R66. The performance numbers are interesting. The gross weights are within 200 lbs, the R66 is 2700 and the R44 is 2500. The cruise speeds and range are similar with the turbine holding 74 gallons of fuel and the piston 49 gallons. Now for the costs, the estimated hourly cost, including overhaul allowance, is $300 for the turbine R66 and $183 for the piston R44. The purchase prices are $805,000 for the R66 and $348,000 for the R44.

I fully appreciate the reliability issue especially for a "working" aircraft but have a problem with a $457,000 difference in price for personal, noncommercial one.

John Clark ATP, CFI
FAAST Team Representative
EAA Flight Advisor
RV8 N18U "Sunshine"
KSBA
Click to expand...

Yep. I recommend those unfamiliar with feeding and care of turbine engines to have a seat before checking out the pricing on them (and parts, labor, etc). It's a whole different world and far removed from the mission of most homebuilders out there.
 
No problem. I assumed "driving a very small turbine" from the post to indicate something quite a bit smaller than the comparable lycoming (260hp). Basically, I was saying that if you have a turbine that can generate 100hp and have an electric motor that can produce 260hp, you would still need to come up with the additional 160hp. Batteries are the most readily available form (super capacitors are also available, but they're used for short durations) of electrical energy storage.

If you use a turbine of comparable power to the Lyc, you are correct in that no batteries are necessary. In that case, the benefits really come down to how efficient it is to convert the turbine mechanical energy into electrical energy versus simply mechanically coupling the turbine (free air or direct) to the propeller. I have no data in this area, so I can't really offer an informed opinion, but I imagine that modern turboprops can be very efficient.

If we assume relatively comparable levels of conversion efficiency and a comparable power level, you still have the additional complexity of the conversion power stack, controller, and the electric motor itself. This is on top of the complexity of the turbine with its own (fadec?) controls.

Additionally, you have to provide equipment to account for regeneration of the motor. If a motor is turned by an outside force (by a windmilling prop for instance) it becomes a generator. This can generate a non-trivial amount of power that has to be dissipated in some way. Hybrid cars actually send this electrical energy back into the batteries. If you don't have batteries, you can use braking resistors that essentially act like big heaters and convert the electricity into heat.

I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying that I don't think with current technology it isn't practical. Perhaps in the future, technology will allow power densities and efficiency to go up while weight goes down. It may be that we're all flying behind fuel cells and filling our tanks with hydrogen pellets.

RVbySDI said:
Ok, I do not desire to sound argumentative so I apologize before hand if my post sounds as such. Really, I just wish to question something from this post...
Click to expand...
 
The efficiency question (and what happened to the product) is basically answered in the link posted by SmokyRay. The Rolls rep said in the video that the burn was "mid 6's". That means ~0.65 lbs of fuel per hp per hour. Most a/c engines will run (real world operation)
around 0.45-0.46 lbs/hp/hr, a slight bit better with fuel injection & high advance rate electronic ignition. Since that Rolls engine was probably about as good as it gets for a small turbine, that's about a 50% penalty in fuel burn to run a small turbine.

I'm no engineer, but I've been told (by engineers) that the problem with small turbines is that it's very difficult to get pressures up enough to make the engine efficient (basically like compression ratio in piston engines). Supposedly, the ratio of leakage area at the perimeter to the overall area of the small wheel is poor, and multiple compression stages are difficult from both weight & cost standpoints in small turbines.

Charlie
 
I couldn't agree more with Smokyray, Turbines are more reliable than pistons ( one hundred times to be exact ) is the main reason for the turbine consideration.
I am currently building a RV10 in which I intend to in stall a RR250 B15 in and the main reason is the reliability. As for the airframe speed limitation that's where the pilot has to do he's job. I fly Citation's and below FL 180 you have to watch your speed or you WILL bust VNE as well.
 
Alan W. said:
I couldn't agree more with Smokyray, Turbines are more reliable than pistons ( one hundred times to be exact ) is the main reason for the turbine consideration.
I am currently building a RV10 in which I intend to in stall a RR250 B15 in and the main reason is the reliability. As for the airframe speed limitation that's where the pilot has to do he's job. I fly Citation's and below FL 180 you have to watch your speed or you WILL bust VNE as well.
Click to expand...

Need pictures!!!!
 
Alan whats a 250-B15 cost? Just asking. When is your projected completion year? I think somebody put a turbine in a small RV. Don't remember but it was for a start up company. It was pretty cool. Been a few years back. Sounds like a fine machine you are building. Have fun with it. Thanks Ron
 
ron sterba said:
Alan whats a 250-B15 cost? Just asking. When is your projected completion year? I think somebody put a turbine in a small RV. Don't remember but it was for a start up company. It was pretty cool. Been a few years back. Sounds like a fine machine you are building. Have fun with it. Thanks Ron
Click to expand...

You're thinking of what was originally called ATP (Advanced Turbine Power), then was called Innodyn, then Rivers Aeronautical. It sounded good, but unfortunately didn't go anywhere.

At OSH-12, I saw a new turbine from Dimech Turbine Solution turbine from Deland, FL, also mentioned earlier in this thread (from OSH-11). The turbine company owner is building the RV-10. As usual, lots of "details" remain to be worked out. From looking at the picture from OSH-11, it doesn't look like much has changed in the last year on it.

I believe he said this engine is some 275 pounds lighter than an IO540. He moved the batteries up front, but he said the additional fuel a turbine requires is near the CG, so I never did get a good answer on how he plans to balance the rest of the much lighter front end weight. I hope he has better luck than the Innodyn.

A picture of it:
RV-10turbine.jpg
 
FWIW to everyone, and to possibly help to clear the air a little, if anyone is interested.
I'm the guy that actually sold my RV10 to Chris, and we still visit occasionally.

His goal is to cater to the European market, as avgas is nearly impossible to find. If it is available, it's too expensive for most folks to afford.

Now, the engine he's using is actually only rated at 240hp. He's NOT looking for more speed or power. The reason it looks as if not much has changed is that during the R&D, if you will, the mount was built and cowling made & fitted. Then they realized the engine turns the opposite direction than the other turbines he's worked with. So, now he had to start over with a new engine mount & cowl. The entire leading edge of the wing is fuel tank (120 gals), sans John Nys of Tulsa, OK.
As far as W&B, that's part of the R&D process, and I'm confident he'll get it right.

Again, not looking for more speed or power, just more market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top