|
-
POSTING RULES

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

04-17-2017, 10:19 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 08A
Posts: 9,500
|
|
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.
__________________
Dan Horton
RV-8 SS
Barrett IO-390
|

04-17-2017, 03:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Adelaide, Australia
Posts: 14
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanH
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
|

04-17-2017, 04:49 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,769
|
|
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 Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

04-17-2017, 05:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Posts: 3,932
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyvulcan
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.
__________________
Rob Prior
1996 RV-6 "Tweety" C-FRBP (formerly N196RV)
|

04-17-2017, 05:45 PM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Livermore, CA
Posts: 6,797
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
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?
|

04-17-2017, 06:37 PM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,769
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobTurner
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!
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|

04-18-2017, 05:01 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 1,029
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel
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 
__________________
RV-7ER - finishing kit and systems installation
There are two kinds of fool in the world. The first says "this is old, and therefore good"; the second says "this is new, and therefore better".
|

04-18-2017, 06:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 298
|
|
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.
__________________
Pete
RV-9 "Cloud tinnie"
Registered VH-EAB
Flying Phase 2
|

04-18-2017, 06:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Clearwater, FL KCLW
Posts: 1,281
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt
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 
|
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
__________________
Chris Johnson
RV-9A - Done(ish) 4/5/16! Flying 4/7/16
|

04-18-2017, 06:07 AM
|
 |
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 10,769
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmartingt
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!"
__________________
Mel Asberry, DAR since the last century.
EAA Flight Advisor/Tech Counselor, Friend of the RV-1
Recipient of Tony Bingelis Award and Wright Brothers Master Pilot Award
USAF Vet, High School E-LSA Project Mentor.
RV-6 Flying since 1993 (sold)
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
|
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.
|