Turboprop 10?

[airguy]

http://www.aopa.org/News-and-Video/A...prop-RV10.aspx

Anybody else have any info on this? The idea is very appealing, I notice the article clearly states early on that Van's is not participating on the project (not surprising). Flight testing is apparently about to start, which puts it in "real project" category versus vapor-ware like the Innodyne (and others). Fuel burn will be high but for a large part of the world fuel cost/availability would make that a net plus.

[rocketman1988]

That is really cool. Saw another company doing the same at OSH last year. Unfortunately, the engine/prop combo cost exceeded the cost of the airframe...by a LOT...

[billgill]

DeLand Florida.

Was planning to try to talk with them, but lost track of time.

[JDRhodes]

I've never understood the appeal of a turbine engine on an unpressurized sport plane, other than a wow factor / novelty.

The airframe is still Vne limited and the fuel flow on turbines at the low altitudes that RV-type airplanes can fly is outrageous compared to a piston engine.

I understand the turbine on something like a twin otter or an ag plane, where there aren't any pistons in the needed HP range, but there's no way that there is any real advantage of a turboprop in a RV vs a Lycoming.

Disclaimer - I know nothing specific about the TP installation referenced in the article.

[FlyArmy]

Originally Posted by JDRhodes

I've never understood the appeal of a turbine engine on an unpressurized sport plane, other than a wow factor / novelty.

The airframe is still Vne limited and the fuel flow on turbines at the low altitudes that RV-type airplanes can fly is outrageous compared to a piston engine.

I understand the turbine on something like a twin otter or an ag plane, where there aren't any pistons in the needed HP range, but there's no way that there is any real advantage of a turboprop in a RV vs a Lycoming.

Disclaimer - I know nothing specific about the TP installation referenced in the article.

Guessing if you lived in a place where you couldn't get avgas, or it was prohibitively expensive, and the diesel technology wasn't an option, the appeal might seem more apparent. I don't think this turbine is necessarily targeted at the US market where avgas is abundant and (somewhat) affordable.

[Low Pass]

Originally Posted by JDRhodes

I understand the turbine on something like a twin otter or an ag plane, where there aren't any pistons in the needed HP range, but there's no way that there is any real advantage of a turboprop in a RV vs a Lycoming.....

Ability to run almost any hydrocarbon as fuel would be very appealing to me. Then there's the powerplant reliability. And it would be very cool!

[bill@fusion4.net]

At 155 lbs installed, and it does not look like they extended the cowl, or not by a whole lot like the one that has been at OSH for years not flying, I wonder what they are doing to put some more weight in the nose. Guess dual batteries in the cowl would help. Also Projected to have 120 gal of fuel.... that is an expensive fill up.

With it only being a 240hp turbine, it is not so overpowered as others as well.

[sailvi767]

How much fun would a RV8 be with that engine!

George

[majuro15]

I'm interested in this as a second option to the IO-540. At the rate that 540s are getting hard to find used and the higher and higher cost of new ones, this could be a doable project if reliability and compatability proves they are on par. Not to mention the fuel issue and price of 100LL (and/or replacement later on). This is what experimental aviation is all about! I'll put oxygen in my plane anyway, be happy to get up to 18K and do 200knts IAS but 300knts GS!!!

[N427EF]

be happy to get up to 18K and do 200knts IAS

Let's see:

200kts IAS at 18000 feet with an altimeter setting of 29.92 and a balmy 20F

True airspeed 272 kts = 313 MPH or roughly 80MPH over Vans published Nne.
Something to think about!

It is experimental and looks and sounds like fun. I too have always been intrigued by a turbine version RV.