|
-
POSTING RULES

-
Donate yearly (please).
-
Advertise in here!
-
Today's Posts
|
Insert Pics
|

04-16-2017, 09:05 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 14
|
|
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
|

04-16-2017, 09:42 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 14
|
|
TA200TP / O360 comparison
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL
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
|

04-16-2017, 09:45 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
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!
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

04-16-2017, 10:34 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 14
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR
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
|

04-16-2017, 10:47 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
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.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

04-16-2017, 10:55 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 5,516
|
|
Interesting - just keeps looking better . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyvulcan
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.
__________________
Bill
RV-7
Lord Kelvin:
“I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about,
and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you
cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.”
|

04-16-2017, 11:02 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SC
Posts: 12,887
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillL
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.
__________________
Bill R.
RV-9 (Yes, it's a dragon tail)
O-360 w/ dual P-mags
Build the plane you want, not the plane others want you to build!
SC86 - Easley, SC
www.repucci.com/bill/baf.html
|

04-16-2017, 11:19 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Alpharetta, Ga
Posts: 212
|
|
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 by Mudfly : 02-21-2019 at 07:09 PM.
|

04-16-2017, 11:44 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyvulcan
...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.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

04-16-2017, 03:51 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 14
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by N941WR
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
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 AM.
|