VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.

  #211  
Old 07-23-2021, 05:36 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,068
Default

Thanks for the update Dave, good to know how the project is progressing.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 449.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #212  
Old 07-23-2021, 06:27 AM
Turbine Aeronautics Turbine Aeronautics is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rv6ejguy View Post
Thanks for the update Dave, good to know how the project is progressing.
Thanks Ross.

We now have a good understanding about why it takes P&W or GE 7-10 years to develop such an engine. Ours is more complex due to the innovative technology we are incorporating and we donít have a team of 100 working on it, so while things have taken longer than we had hoped for, we have made very positive and pleasing progress. I am really liking how it is shaping up.

Still, itís not too long before we will be pushing the start button. That will be a real milestone on our program and hereís hoping that our first iteration is not too far off the mark of what we are aiming for.
Reply With Quote
  #213  
Old 07-23-2021, 07:40 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,068
Default

I imagine the heat exchanger design and construction was a big challenge along with many other aspects. Kudos for staying at it. Can't wait for the first vid of the startup.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 449.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #214  
Old 07-23-2021, 09:41 AM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 738
Default

Customer deliveries in 2023, hmm. That should coincide well with when I will be needing an engine.
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage at the "porcupine stage"
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2022
Reply With Quote
  #215  
Old 07-23-2021, 01:20 PM
skylor's Avatar
skylor skylor is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,000
Default Development Time

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine Aeronautics View Post
Thanks Ross.

We now have a good understanding about why it takes P&W or GE 7-10 years to develop such an engine. Ours is more complex due to the innovative technology we are incorporating and we don’t have a team of 100 working on it, so while things have taken longer than we had hoped for, we have made very positive and pleasing progress. I am really liking how it is shaping up.

Still, it’s not too long before we will be pushing the start button. That will be a real milestone on our program and here’s hoping that our first iteration is not too far off the mark of what we are aiming for.
I hope this doesn't sound too blunt, but why do you believe that you can develop an engine with fewer people and in far less time than a company like P&W that literally has all the experience and resources in the world available for turbine engine development?

Skylor
Reply With Quote
  #216  
Old 07-23-2021, 03:28 PM
airguy's Avatar
airguy airguy is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Garden City, Tx
Posts: 5,503
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylor View Post
I hope this doesn't sound too blunt, but why do you believe that you can develop an engine with fewer people and in far less time than a company like P&W that literally has all the experience and resources in the world available for turbine engine development?

Skylor
How can SpaceX possibly design and fly rockets faster than established companies like ULA and Boeing?

Just because you're big and established, doesn't mean you are the best. Lean companies that work fast and hard can come from behind, upsetting the top-heavy beauracracies that have entrenched themselves in "Thats the way we've always done it." We're flying RV's today because some guy in Oregon decided he didn't want to wait for Cessna or Piper to build a better airplane, so he did it himself. The world is full of similar examples.

Having said that though - it is pretty tough to pull off.
__________________
Greg Niehues - SEL, IFR, Repairman Cert.
Garden City, TX VAF 2021 dues paid
N16GN flying 850 hrs and counting; IO360, SDS, WWRV200, Dynon HDX, IFD440, G5
Built an off-plan RV9A with too much fuel and too much HP. Should drop dead any minute now.

Last edited by airguy : 07-23-2021 at 03:33 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #217  
Old 07-23-2021, 03:39 PM
rocketman1988 rocketman1988 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Sunman, IN
Posts: 2,647
Default ...and

"...have entrenched themselves in "Thats the way we've always done it."..."

Sounds like a clip from about a dozen other threads on this very forum!
__________________
Bob
Aerospace Engineer '88

RV-10
N464RL

Dues+ Paid 2020,...Thanks DR+
Reply With Quote
  #218  
Old 07-23-2021, 03:50 PM
PhatRV PhatRV is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Buena Park, California
Posts: 550
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by airguy View Post
How can SpaceX possibly design and fly rockets faster than established companies like ULA and Boeing?

Just because you're big and established, doesn't mean you are the best. Lean companies that work fast and hard can come from behind, upsetting the top-heavy beauracracies that have entrenched themselves in "Thats the way we've always done it." We're flying RV's today because some guy in Oregon decided he didn't want to wait for Cessna or Piper to build a better airplane, so he did it himself. The world is full of similar examples.

Having said that though - it is pretty tough to pull off.
I think one of the main reason for SpaceX success is Elon's tolerance for failures in order to get ahead. Large entrenched companies are risk adverse, filled with managers who are not willing to make mistakes. SpaceX was willing to try new idea and accept the inevitable initial failures. Managers of the Boeing or Lockheed would probably get fired for doing the same.
__________________
RV8 standard build: Empennage 99% completed
Wing -- Closed
Fuselage -- Canopy Done. Fiberglass 80%
Avionics Installation -- 90%
Firewall Forward -- Cowl completed. Baffle 90%
Electrical -- 90%

Donation paid through 2021
Reply With Quote
  #219  
Old 07-23-2021, 04:21 PM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,068
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylor View Post
I hope this doesn't sound too blunt, but why do you believe that you can develop an engine with fewer people and in far less time than a company like P&W that literally has all the experience and resources in the world available for turbine engine development?

Skylor
I don't know if it will be in far less time. The genesis of this project goes back a few years now, like 2008-2010 I think.

Sometimes large companies design by committee which is rarely efficient or quick.

I've seen numerous instances where a small group of talented people who think and work together well, turn out great products pretty quickly.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 449.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #220  
Old 07-23-2021, 05:34 PM
Turbine Aeronautics Turbine Aeronautics is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by skylor View Post
I hope this doesn't sound too blunt, but why do you believe that you can develop an engine with fewer people and in far less time than a company like P&W that literally has all the experience and resources in the world available for turbine engine development?

Skylor
Hi Skylor,

One of our consultant engineers has worked on a similar program with one of the big guys. He has indicated to us what a pleasure it is to work on our project for several reasons:

1. He is not constrained to thinking within the box and is loving his ability to propose innovative solutions to our challenges.
2. When he proposes a design feature or a design solution to an issue, he is given a decision about how to proceed generally within 24 hours. He indicated that the same decision when working with the major would take 4-6 weeks as it was staffed up the engineering chain for someone to make a decision, then was staffed back down the chain to convey the decision to him.

That same engineer has indicated that where we are after 3.5 years of design effort is well ahead of where the big guy would have been at that point.

If we had access to just a few extra resources, we would be 6-12 months ahead of where we are now. Covid didn't help.

We are actually very proud of what our small team has achieved in such a short timeframe.

As Airguy says, it is still a very tough gig, no doubt about it, but we have an amazing team.

As rv6ejguy points out, this project was planted in my mind in 2008 when I was searching for an engine for my Lightning Bug aircraft. I spare-timed the fabrication of a small, fuel-inefficient but cheap prototype for a circa-100hp turboprop which ran in 2015. At that time, I really recognised the potential for a high-quality fuel-efficient turboprop in the recreational aviation market and it was at that time that the decision was made to pursue a proper development program. Market and commercial research indicated that the 200hp market would be the best market to launch into. We established the corporate entity in 2016 but it took a full year+ to get the initial funding in place, and the even harder task of putting together the necessary design team with the relevant experience and expertise took another year+. I cannot stress the importance of having the right team highly enough.

So 3.5 years into the development program proper, we are where we are and it has been a fantastic effort from all within TurbAero to be where we are right now. We appreciate the support that we have received from many people.

We still have a demanding journey ahead but with the prototyping of components starting and the potential to have an engine that we are ready to push the start button on early next year, our motivation level is still incredibly high. Having the whole team being so motivated and driven to making this engine and the business a success is what is allowing us to make the progress that we are.

There is no doubt that we will run into further challenges along the way, but we will do what we have done in the past. Identify the root cause, assess the implications, develop a proposed solution, implement the solution and re-test.

As Mike Patey says, back to work!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:45 AM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.