Jet-A Powerplant

[Rob_The_Builder]

My end goal is to not use AvGas. But equally important is to also reduce pilot work load and get a better performing engine.

Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability

[Foghorn]

There is an RV10 with a TP100 on YouTube. So it can be done.

[Rob_The_Builder]

Originally Posted by TS Flightlines

Rob-----if I may throw out alittle advise. Having been involved in several of these non-normal conversions, I can state that you'll be on your own with ALOT of custom fabrication, and probably without alot or any support from the engine manufacturer. Custom engine mount, fuel system, extended tanks, etc are just a few of the issues. Cooling may be a huge headache.

There are aircraft diesels flying, along with small turbines, but again support will be scarce.

Great concept though---

Tom

Tom-
I assumed as much going into this. My next question was going to be seeking advice for services that would help with the engine mount and some other things, if I was to provide the engine.

I figured I would start the engine testing now, so I could get the bugs worked out by the time the plane was ready for it. I've been working through fuel systems and cooling options and even thought about extended tanks.

Just like being the "manufacture" of the airframe, I'd also be the powerplant mechanic for the engine. If I can build it, then I can service it.

In the end if it doesn't work out, I can always go with a turbo charged avgas engine.

[rocketman1988]

I went down this same road.

I am pretty sure Continental won't sell you their engine, there is one guy with a -10 that was testing it out, you may want to talk to him.

The Higgs engine looks promising but as of now, it is made of Unobtanium.

The TP-100 is definitely cool but not $160k cool...and the performance really isn't any better.

I also looked at the LS conversions with a PSRU. That showed promise, however, after talking to a guy with a -10 in georgia that has this conversion, I decided against it.

I ended up with the lycoming, not by preference but by practicality. None of the other options offered truly great performance gains and they all had serious execution issues. As has been stated, you will be on your own for design and engineering of mounts, exhaust, cooling system, accessories, fuel system, etc.

The other downside is time. I have better than 3000 hours in building my -10...and that is with the lycoming. Any time estimation for modifications you make will need to multiplied by at least 5...

Also note that the -10 tends to be nose heavy, so there's that to contend with.

...and in the end, you will likely see little, if any, performance gain...

It comes down to what you really want; are you willing to sacrifice significant time, effort, and cash to say that you can burn Jet-A or do you want a nice performing gas burner that you can actually finish and fly in a reasonable fashion...

I wish you luck...

[Rallylancer122]

Every once in awhile a RR250 series turboshaft shows up on ebay. Usually out of a helicopter but you might find one with the prop gearbox. They are actually relatively straightforward to work on once you get over the eye watering price of parts.

We run these in our helicopters and they are pretty much idiot proof to operate.

[Vansconvert]

Auto and truck engines can run on propane. Has anybody done this with an aircraft engine?

[rmartingt]

Full disclosure: this is the way I went, though I'm still building.

I too wanted most of your desires -- freedom from 100LL, no carb to ice up, no need to fiddle with mixture. I ended up choosing a parallel-valve Lycoming with SDS EFI. This combination should be mogas-compatible without need to adjust mixture once it's dialed in.

A Jet-A or conversion engine sounds like fun, but I don't have the time, money, or skills to do it. If someone else was paying my bills...

[John Tierney]

The DeltaHawk diesel/Jet A engine has been in development for a couple decades, and they have had a booth at Oshkosh for many years. I don't know if they are still in business. They have been discussed many times before on VAF, so do a search on their name.

My EAA chapter in IL visited their factory in the early 2000's, and it is a pretty neat concept. The problem that I saw was their V-shape piston alignment, with the pistons on top of the crank. Their testbed was a Velocity, so the cowl bumps weren't a problem. They needed to get an inverted V piston arrangement to work in a tractor-engine setup, so you can see over the engine.

https://deltahawk.com/

[Terry Lutz]

Congrats on starting an RV-10 build! The discussion about diesel engines makes good sense, because we don't truly know what the future of 100LL will be. One engine that wasn't mentioned in the post is the SMA diesel, which is operating in a few C-182 aircraft here and in Europe, as an STC conversion. You can read a little about the engine and a record that was set several years ago here: https://generalaviationnews.com/2016...ciency-flight/ The program has changed since then. After reading your post, I contacted a friend of mine who happens to be the US program manager for SAFRAN regarding the SMA diesel. He told me that SMA Aero Engines in Germany is now the owner of the assets of the SAFRAN piston engines program. They are exploring the installation of the engine in an RV-10, and if you did it on your RV-10 it would require guidance from SMA. Whether or not a kit is available in the future is unknown, but at least you would not be going it alone on the installation, and the engine is certified for use on the C-182.

[David Paule]

Originally Posted by Rob_The_Builder

....
Electronic ignition = no mixture adjustment
Turbocharged = less performance loss at altitude
No carburetor = no carb-icing
Jet-A = lower fuel cost and more availability

Mixture adjustment is a minor inconvenience.

With altitude performance, be aware that Vne is for true airspeed, not indicated. As you gain altitude, it's awful easy to push Vne, especially when you descend.

Carb icing is a non-issue with available technology. I have this for my non-RV and it's been reliable. And fuel injected engines don't have carbs, so this is a non-issue.

Jet-A fuel availability is interesting - it tends to be better at the larger, busier airports. Many of the more rural airports just don't have it, so this will limit your choice of destination. Might not be a big deal to you but something definitely to consider.

My own take on your idea is that while it's an interesting development project, it's probably not a great idea if you want a reliable airplane that gives you some utility.

Dave