What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

200 hp Turboprop: Who will be first?

First RV with this turboprop?

  • RV 3

    Votes: 2 3.3%
  • RV 4

    Votes: 4 6.7%
  • RV 6

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • RV 7

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • RV 8

    Votes: 24 40.0%
  • RV 10

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • RV 12????????

    Votes: 1 1.7%
  • RV 14

    Votes: 14 23.3%

  • Total voters
    60
  • Poll closed .
How long has this thing been in development? I remember thinking I was going to put a DeltaHawk on my RV6 sixteen years ago when they had a real engine at Oshkosh..... glad I didn't hold my breath.

The turbine concept is interesting, but I don't believe their fuel economy numbers at all... time will tell.
 
Forgot

You forgot to list the RV16. I dont think the engine will be ready for the RV15, so I am shooting for the RV16
 
I really hope somebody succeeds in the small turbine realm. They're expensive, but brain dead simple to operate. Put the wrong fuel in? Probably won't notice. Keep the gauges in the green and you're good. Yellow is okay for a little bit. Even red won't be too bad if its just a little bit for a short time. Not sure what the big deal is about "turbine time", and people being scared of them.
 
Why did you leave out the -9? It would be more practical than the -12.
 
How long has this thing been in development? I remember thinking I was going to put a DeltaHawk on my RV6 sixteen years ago when they had a real engine at Oshkosh..... glad I didn't hold my breath.

The turbine concept is interesting, but I don't believe their fuel economy numbers at all... time will tell.

Not for long I don’t imagine. The video was posted a day before this thread (other videos about it are also quite recent).
 
Hate to bust the thread, but my cousin (a 182 & 210 driver and a metallurgist) and I talked with them at length at OSH. They have a prototype airframe already lined up. It's... An RV-9A. Shocked me, being a fellow 9A driver.
 
Scott----I would have thought they might have had a 14, but probably one wasnt available. I do know of a few clients that were very interested in this engine.

Tom
 
I thought a 14 was more appropriate too, or at least a 7. Something that you'd think would conventionally handle the higher HP. But they said a 9A builder was going to be ready with building the airframe when they were ready with the engine in the next year. I'm guessing they're interested in how things pan out when coupled with the 9's higher-efficiency airfoil. *shrug* I'd be kinda interested if I were building another bird, or otherwise in a position to use that power.

(completely unrelated, I can't believe I missed the chance to stop by the booth and say hi at OSH. Had it in my mind to do so, but never managed to. :( )
 
I think they chose the 9 because the project is in Australia. Down here you take what’s available.
DaveH
 
Didn't miss much

(completely unrelated, I can't believe I missed the chance to stop by the booth and say hi at OSH. Had it in my mind to do so, but never managed to. :( )

i don't think you missed much. There wasn't more in the booth then what was in the video. JMHO

Now NEXT year should be exciting.
 
As someone that needs to hop over the Rockies and Sierras, and wants to go where you can't get 100LL this thing scratches the itch for me. If they can actually get it out in 2023 Ima be first in line with money in hand.

That being said I'm not popping down $80k without actual numbers, manuals, G3X integration, failure mode handling. Unless they have significantly more work done then they demoed at Osh I don't see how they deliver in 2023.

The odds are not in their favor and they are highly likely another DeltaHawk or Higgs Diesel... I will be very happy to be proven wrong.
 
I voted for the RV10 as a likely airframe in terms of overall success. I know the video says 200 hp, but it also says it’s derated. Every turbine engine I’ve dealt with had growth capabilities in terms of power that were relatively easy to accomplish. In my biased opinion, the engine would be best suited for high altitude cruising. The RV9, with its long wing works, but it’s much easier to justify an $80K+ engine on a $200K airframe than on a $100K airframe. I hope it works out they way they are “spinning” it.
 
Shucks that ain't nothin' - - I got a piston engine on the drawing board with half the weight, half the fuel burn, FADEC, and twice the TBO of an ancient Lycoming.

It will have OBD and constantly predict if something is going wrong and sends a note to a ground team for instant analysis and mitigation action in 10 minutes. The upgrade will do that inflight!

It is flat rated to 20,000 feet and can burn jet-a or 100LL or pain ole auto gasoline.

It will be shipped ready for fly-by-wire and Garmins completely autonomous operation when it is released.

Did I miss something? Ah - money - - I just need 10,000 pre-buys at $30k each to get this this launched. A real bargain. :eek:

But - -it is good to see a guy with dreams and spending his life energy on it. May we all choose wisely . . . Best of luck!
 
Last edited:
The team developing this engine includes engineers who have developed other successful gas turbine designs before.

They are not taking any money until the engine is proven.

They have had a running engine for some time now which was a proof of concept to the one under development now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEn1iCU6Hh0

The success of the new design depends on their ability to construct a compact and efficient recuperator (heat exchanger). This is the only way a small turbine has a chance to have reasonable SFC figures.

The engine would fill more of a want than a need however that want market will diminish in size if the price cannot be kept in line. $85K is making this less attractive now in this hp class and there is still lots to prove.

Power to the team to continue development and see how it performs. :)
 
I don't really get the attraction. Burns quite a bit more fuel. Haven't run the numbers after factoring in lower cost of Jet A, but doubt it is a savings. Then you need to haul more gas for same range plus loss in gross due to heavier fuel, then add $30K+ in acquistion cost, not counting custom mounts and various other FF items. Then you have the risks associated with SIGNIFICANT engine control via ECU. IMHO, that is potentially a big risk. Temp sensor fails and engine shuts down because it can no longer gaurantee temp control and on and on. Video clearly states that if temps go high, the engine stops to avoid damage. Now you have a dead stick landing. Sounds like all of the derating is done by the computer. It's one thing to put on a relatively simple FADEC or EFII, but what these guys are talking about is a SIGNIFICANT level of computerized engine control. Listen to the pitch - One knob, no muss, no fuss, no monitoring. That means the computer is controlling everything and who knows what protocols are in place for shut down vs limp home mode. It would need a serious amount of S/W testing to create meangingfull limp home modes. Sure, GE and Boeing do it, but not sure you can expect the same level of attention to detail from a small start up. Admittedly I know almost nothing about turbine engines and suppose that computerized engine control is much simpler than I am imagining. I was a bit shocked when I heard high temps = engine shut down. It implies that not a lot of thought went into S/W design for a single engine aircraft. I expect an option for reduced power, as well as an option to accept the high temps and potential engine damage if the conditions warrant it. If I were crossing the rockies, I would happily accept the prospect of engine replacement vs a dead stick landing on the side of mountain. This the trade off with 100% computer control. If the S/W developer didn't imagine it, it won't be available.
 
Last edited:
A dual channel FADEC with redundant sensors would likely be required in several countries to be approved for Experimental use.
 
Last edited:
I don't really get the attraction. Burns quite a bit more fuel. Haven't run the numbers after factoring in lower cost of Jet A, but doubt it is a savings. Then you need to haul more gas for same range plus loss in gross due to heavier fuel, then add $30K+ in acquistion cost, not counting custom mounts and various other FF items.

Why do people put 600 hp in a car?

Novel, cool, exciting, different, satisfying, mid life crisis, accomplishment . . .
 
Larger tanks will be required for the same range and the useful load will be less.

I imagine the turbine will be significantly lighter than a reciprocating engine of similar power, which would give back some of the weight capacity. CG is gonna be a bit tricky, though.
 
Can't see this being a commercially viable concept for a long time!
Turbines are just different beasts in so many ways. Cost and operation being just two. Fuel availability (assuming it's designed for kero), gearbox and the associated costs, lots to consider at the private flying level.
I've got more hrs behind turbines than most have had hot meals, great power but I'd hate to own one!
 
Electronic Controls an asset not a liability.

I don't really get the attraction. Burns quite a bit more fuel. Haven't run the numbers after factoring in lower cost of Jet A, but doubt it is a savings. Then you need to haul more gas for same range plus loss in gross due to heavier fuel, then add $30K+ in acquistion cost, not counting custom mounts and various other FF items. Then you have the risks associated with SIGNIFICANT engine control via ECU. <snip> If the S/W developer didn't imagine it, it won't be available.

UAV's (or what ever the acronym is today) are all over the world and supporting gasoline is expensive. That would be a perfect application if it is reliable and durable in rugged out-of-the-way environment. Got to match the existing airframes though - GW, Fuel, etc. Has been the challenge for 40 yrs and gasoline is still out there, no assurance it will be that way forever. Although possible, it is unlikely the final cost will be in range for experimental, with a few exceptions.

I my previous technical world, electronics were vastly more reliable, durable and lower cost than the mechanical fuel controls. In aviation, also lighter. There are people who do this very well, but not on every street corner but getting closer.

SW engineers are way better than mechanical designers in building in flexibility, more about capability of the technology, not talent. Just look how many new features have been added to our existing GTN650 over the years. Those guys were think wayyy out.
 
Last edited:
Someone should sell a "turbine sound" package... a speaker, amp, and sampled audio.

Bolted onto an RV it'd give the primary benefit of a turbine with none of the drawbacks.
 
Maybe not for an RV, but the little helicopter I fly sure would be great with something like this...
 
Someone should sell a "turbine sound" package... a speaker, amp, and sampled audio.

Bolted onto an RV it'd give the primary benefit of a turbine with none of the drawbacks.


I'd rather have a V-12 Merlin soundtrack................
 
I think I would be more tempted by the UL Power 520T than I would be by the turbine. Roughly same weight, 20 more horsepower, a lot lower fuel burn, and $20k cheaper to install.

The turbine idea works only on European economics, with $8+ Avgas prices. I can buy a lot of avgas here in the states for the $20k installation delta.
 
Thanks for your interest, everyone. It's great to see the word spreading. Some interesting thoughts in this thread - we will endeavour to respond in a bit more detail sometime over the next few days. Until then, we welcome the discussion and you know where to find us if you wish to get in touch!
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQwGlr-Y3_I&t=320s





Assuming they actually put this engine into production, which RV do you think will be the first to fly with this engine installed? I would imagine an RV 8 will be the first.

I really hope they are able to do it, but I'm doubtful. Turbines are efficient up high where we don't fly. I admittingly don't understand the physics and science behind it, but my son who is an MIT ME grad and designs turbines for GE seemed pretty skeptical when I ran this by him. I wouldn't be surprised to see 2+ times the fuel burn to the comparably HP-rated Lycoming. It will sound and smell great, but the range may really be limited. I hope I'm wrong. I would place my money on electric being a more viable replacement to ICE for GA once there is a reasonable lightweight power source.
 
Nah, If you're going for sound, you need the "start-up' sound of a big honking radial!

Mel, you know it's not just the sound, it's the requisite puffs of oil and sometimes a belch of fire from the pipes. You'll need an ECU to control the puffing from a smoke oil setup along with the start up sound as you crank! :D
 
To be efficient, turbines need to be flown at higher altitudes. We have several drawbacks to higher altitude ops. We suffer from lack of de-icing and we are limited by flutter margins. It has been tried https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVpljYHot1o

It was also tried in an RV4 and PA18 15 years ago. I believe these were Affordable Turbine Power installs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRLFXirq4o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXKONqmNqN4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulU3VCgxC_g
 
I talked to these people and they are very nice, but they really don't have anything. The engine they ran in the past was a totally different prototype. The engine they show is a plastic model. They may never come to market, but wish them luck.

Sorry if somebody said this already, but one of the flying magazine (sport aviation, kit plane) showed an RV 10 with a turboprop 2015

https://www.kitplanes.com/turbine-powered-rv-10/

This the PBS TP100 Czech Republic engine maker. The article talks about $175,000 for a FWF package. I assume that is w/ prop? No word in 6 yrs.
https://www.pbs.cz/en/Aerospace/Aircraftgines/Turbopropgine-PBS-TP100

Boys and Girls, any turbine is going to burn more fuel and cost more to buy. Where the turbine comes into play is reliability, TBO and performance for aircraft needing or designed for more HP. This is important in commercial (that needs reliability and time on wing and haul paying ppl or cargo), Military for performance. For GA piston is still king in the sub 300-400 HP range.

The GO TO small turbo props is the Allison 250 (now Rolls Royce). It has 317HP (and more in later variants) and used in helicopters and planes like Helio Courier and the SIAI-Marchetti SM.1019 . Sadly a SIAI crashed July this year, Lewiston, ID, killing former Military Pilot Dale Snodgrass, a legend in the F-14. It had nothing to do with the engine. The 1019 is a high wing tandem reconnaissance type plane based on the O-1 Cessna Bird Dog with a turbine engine.

Other engines like the Garrett TPE331 (600-1000HP) and of course the famous PT-6 are great turbine engines. The Walter PT6 clones from Czech Republic could be had for $60K 20 years ago or so. Not any more GE bought them (buy the competition). The cost is now PT6 prices. However back in the hey day, many found their way into Experimental planes. To buy any certified turbine engine will be big bucks. The TBS TP100 is based on small drone or RC model type engines and low cost manufacturing technology. Does not mean they are bad, just not the same bona fides as a "real" turbine.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top