Turboprop 10?

[rvbuilder2002]

Originally Posted by N427EF

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.

Yup!

For anyone that hasn't read it previously, the article FLYING HIGH AND FAST may be of interest in the context of this discussion.
You can access it HERE

[ajay]

Probably a better match, It would be a beast on the RV14.

[rv6ejguy]

Without a higher thermodynamic rating than 240 hp (most turbines today are flat rated so have SL power available to much higher altitudes) this option will be no faster than an atmo 260hp O-540. Turbines lose hp at about the same rate as atmo piston engines with altitude.

It might be cool but putting in 90-120 gallons instead of 60 won't be so cool...

Whatever it loses in empty weight, it makes up in fuel weight.

It also remains to be seen if this engine will go to 2000 hours like the 540.

It only makes sense if gasoline isn't readily available and you have a fat wallet.

[Greg Baron]

Turbine Solutions notes 36 GPH fuel burn. They do not breakdown by altitude. The economics do not pencil out except if 100LL disappears without an alternative.

[RV10inOz]

The economics do not pencil out except if 100LL disappears without an alternative.

Fear not! ......is all I have to say about that

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by Greg Baron

Turbine Solutions notes 36 GPH fuel burn. They do not breakdown by altitude. The economics do not pencil out except if 100LL disappears without an alternative.

Yikes, that's a BSFC of 1.2 roughly- about 3 times worse than a Lycoming running LOP. Turbines don't scale too well downwards and for low cost, this one is probably not very sophisticated and has a low pressure ratio. This figure is probably at full rated power. At 18,000 feet fuel flow is half but so is hp. There is a good reason why they have 120 gallons of fuel here...

[rocketman1988]

I still think a lot of people are missing the point. The RV-10 has a Vne based on TAS, ++++ NOT ++++ IAS.

Therefore it doesn't matter if you hang a 1000HP TPE331 (which would be really cool!) on the nose, you are still limited to 200 KTAS.

If you are unsure of the difference, please do some research, flutter is nothing to mess around with...

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by rocketman1988

I still think a lot of people are missing the point. The RV-10 has a Vne based on TAS, ++++ NOT ++++ IAS.

Therefore it doesn't matter if you hang a 1000HP TPE331 (which would be really cool!) on the nose, you are still limited to 200 KTAS.

If you are unsure of the difference, please do some research, flutter is nothing to mess around with...

No need to worry with this engine, it won't be any faster than a Lycoming.

[tspear]

Originally Posted by Greg Baron

Turbine Solutions notes 36 GPH fuel burn. They do not breakdown by altitude. The economics do not pencil out except if 100LL disappears without an alternative.

This is data from a few months ago:
36GPH is at takeoff.
130HP at 12K ISA Temp will burn about 52 Kilos per hour.
130HP at 12K ISA Temp will have a BSFC of 0.88 (assuming I calculated it correctly)

The TP-100 is based on the engine core from the TJ-100 which was designed for the UAV market and light airplane market. Specifically self launched gliders and the like. As such it meets the needs and is really light (the TJ-100 if I recall is 40lbs and the TP-100 is about 120lbs). So, as much as I like it, it is not a good fit for most powered aircraft. The exception seems to be the SubSonex

Run the numbers for a self launched glider, ten minutes of power is about 15 Gal which is 105lbs plus 120 for the engine is 225lbs. This is about 100lbs lighter then the installed weight of an IO-360.

Tim

[RV10inOz]

The laws of physics apply to all men and machines (and women) equally! Exception might be the F22.

Nothing beats the old Lycosaurus even today.