RV7T build by Turbaero

[BillL]

Let's see if they install the -8 rudder like General Lee.

Bubba.

[David Z]

Originally Posted by DanH

Then why would anyone want it?

Seriously, from the vendor site..."an optimum cruise power at 10,000’ in the range 150-180hp with a targeted specific fuel consumption of around 0.56 lbs/hp/h..." and "Optimum cruise power 180 hp"

I'd love to have a turbine. Operation is dead simple, always starts (unless the battery is dead), fuel availability, mis-fuelling tolerant. Sure it might not be any more powerful, but I would shoe-horn a 6-cyl into the plane or buy a Rocket if I wanted more power. Not super interested in aggressively flat rated either with the Van's TAS limits and that we are building unpressurized airplanes that rarely go into the flight levels.

[rv6ejguy]

I agree with Doug, it's a fascinating project. Bleeding edge tech at this level. It may or may not succeed.

Turbotech in France has a 130 SHP turbine flying now with a titanium recuperator. The claim (unverified) is similar fuel flows with a piston engine so this concept has promise in aircraft. Already long proven in stationary gas turbine applications. Dave isn't making such claims on his engine with regards to SFCs.

It's nice to see companies working on small turbines. If they can make them work, their next chore is to get the prices down. That may come with time and quantity- or not.

Does an $85K engine make sense for the masses building RVs? Doubtful, but there are many well heeled builders who'd love to have a turbine up front. I have a friend who almost exclusively does turbine installs in his shop into various airframes. He's booked years into the future so there is a demand there.

As far as testing goes, every pilot knows that exceeding Vne has risks and that it's a bad idea. Dave has spent many years on this project and a lot of money. I don't see him as the type so say to the test pilot- "take her up today and see how fast she'll go". This isn't a backyard project. The team has some experienced engineers from the industry working on this. Not sure "Bubba" applies here. My point about 7s and high speed is that they appear to be safe at the factory Vne of 200 KTAS, not promoting folks to try exceeding that figure.

I say we encourage and wait and see how this engine turns out. Experimental aviation is about trying new things. Plugging a Lyc into an RV can't be considered very experimental a this stage any more. I applaud guys like Dave doing something outside of the traditional box.

[BillL]

Originally Posted by rv6ejguy

. . . they appear to be safe at the factory Vne of 210 KTAS, not promoting folks to try exceeding that figure.

When did Vans increase the Vne above 200KTAS?

I'll bet that no fast 7 at Reno is using the standard 9 rudder - people should know what structural mods have been made before even thinking about this with a 7. Peoples lives are at stake here, the details matter. The 7 is the only model with repeated inflight structural failures (7). It can not be only the 7 pilots fault and no one is admitting that the HS structural changes made were a positive benefit to this specific failure mode.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by BillL

When did Vans increase the Vne above 200KTAS?

I'll bet that no fast 7 at Reno is using the standard 9 rudder - people should know what structural mods have been made before even thinking about this with a 7. Peoples lives are at stake here, the details matter. The 7 is the only model with repeated inflight structural failures (7). It can not be only the 7 pilots fault and no one is admitting that the HS structural changes made were a positive benefit to this specific failure mode.

My mistake, it's 200 knots.

What makes you think that the Turbaero folks will be pushing past 200 KTAS during flight testing?

I'd think the main goal here is to flight test and prove the engine, not seeing how fast it will go. Dave's White Lightning will be a better platform for that down the road but doesn't represent a popular airframe to connect with most folks. The RV-7 is one of the most popular sport kit planes ever built. This one was readily available to them. Makes sense to me.

[g zero]

There’s a company in Deland Fla that does Turbine RV10 Fire Wall Forward. Seems like a Turbine vs O-540 makes a little sense ( Maybe) . But it doesn’t seem like builders are rushing to get in line for them . And they have a real engine! Not Foam & Plastic glued together with Snake Oil .

[Turbine Aeronautics]

Hi everyone. I’m a little bit late to the party with this thread. I’ve been flat out preparing for Oshkosh and making the long trip from Australia to the home of experimental aviation.

The aim of undertaking the RV7T project is certainly not to have the fastest RV out there. As a company, we wanted to engage with the largest and most active segment of the experimental industry, being the RV community. The RV7 airframe is an honest airframe that should admirably serve as the test bed for our Talon engine. We are an extremely responsible company and our test pilots and ultimately our company demonstration pilots will not be stretching the envelope for the RV7 in any way, shape or form. Limitations are there for a reason and those limitations will be respected. The RV7 will be used to functionally test the engine in the airborne environment.

As Ross says, we have other airframes where we will be aiming for speed, or STOL or whatever else takes one’s fancy, albeit always respecting the limitations of the airframe.

With our RV7 project, we are thinking ahead to the installation of our Talon into airframes. Yes, we still have to complete the engine development and actually get an engine running, but with prototyping of engine components currently underway, the time will be on us quickly where an airframe is needed. We both want and need to customise whatever airframe the engine will go into. This RV7 project will be a good way for us as a company to develop the necessary installation requirements, but also for interested RV owners/builders to see what’s involved to install a turbine, just in case they are considering Talon power for their aircraft.

Developing such an engine is an extremely complex undertaking. It’s taking way longer than we would like but typically, it would take one of the big boys 7-10 years to develop such a power plant. Turbotech, the French company that is now offering a 130hp recuperated turboprop spent 7+ years developing theirs. With 4 years of design now behind us and prototyping underway, we feel that we are doing pretty well. Yes, we’d like to get it done faster, but we want to do it right so that we have an engine that we are proud to stand beside.

The RV7T that we will display at Oshkosh will provide an example of the concept for the firewall forward installation, using a model of the engine in its current design form. However, it will not represent the final iteration of the FWF concept as we anticipate changes to the final design of the engine between the prototype and the commercial production version. The conceptual installation shown at Oshkosh has already taught us a lot about what is going to be involved for the “actual” installation.

As we are clear to point out, we are not yet selling engines. We are raising awareness about our program so those that are interested can follow our progress. For some, it will be as painful as watching grass grow, but for others who understand that this undertaking is huge and where patience is required, it could be a fascinating journey. For those with the patience, we appreciate your support. With parts already being made, the grass will grow a little faster!

For those going to Oshkosh, please come and take a look at our project. We are in booth 638 in the homebuilt aircraft display area. What we have will give a snapshot of our vision for the future. I hope you like it and find it interesting.

Finally, I’d like to give a shout out to Doug Reeves, owner of this amazing forum for his support to allow us to document the build of our aircraft on this site. I will be starting that build thread as soon as I get time to generate the first post!

Dave

[g zero]

No running engine but have a Booth At Oshkosh??? Waste of time & money in my eyes . Seen this Movie before .

[tom paul]

Originally Posted by g zero

No running engine but have a Booth At Oshkosh??? Waste of time & money in my eyes . Seen this Movie before .

I love that they are bringing us into the development process, and I think a small turbine for GA would be a great option, once the bugs are sorted, and the price hopefully comes down. "Why would anyone want it?" well...My main thought about it is simplicity and reliability. Every time I take off from my home base of KLDJ in my IO360 powered RV7A, I am praying that the vast collection of parts that make up this engine get me at least a few miles to the first golf course, just in case. There is no place to set down right around the field. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but I am constantly worried about engine failure when there is no place to land.
I think I would feel more comfortable with a turbine up there. I'll be watching.

[g zero]

Stopped by the Booth At Oshkosh.