Innodyn Turbine Engines

RV_7A · #1 04-24-2005, 07:38 AM

nope not for me

f1rocket · #2 04-24-2005, 08:29 AM

Check out the fuel burn. Get ready for some heart burn.

szicree · #3 04-24-2005, 11:09 AM

That thing makes some pretty awesome sound! It's got an awful lot of benefits, but I think the fuel burn rate makes it rather impractical for my fuel tank size. You'd definitely need added fuel tanks someplace.

Steve Zicree
RV4 Finishing

f1rocket · #4 04-24-2005, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RV_7A

Like I said above

"Obviously if fuel burn rate or range is a issue for you then this setup isn't for you."

If you can't afford the fuel then you may have "heartburn".

If I am reading correctly the IO-540 fitted F1 Rocket burns the same rate @ 14-15gph at 75% cruise.

If you can then you will be a happy camper.

Nope, their fuel burn is more like 23-24 GPH as compared to my IO-540 for the same HP. At cruise, I burn more like 10.5 GPH at 10K for 180 KTAS. No way the turbine will match that.

It does sound cool though.

Baja_Traveler · #5 04-24-2005, 07:00 PM

[quote=RV_7A]I am seriously considering this option for various reasons that are important to me. I thought other folks might want to check it out. Any thoughts to this subject? Obviously if fuel burn rate or range is a issue for you then this setup isn't for you. (Edited for length)

I monitored the Yahoo Innodyne group for about a year. Long story short, they have not been able to substantiate any of their claims, and progress on the engine has been slow. For months they announced upcoming DARPA testing, but it turned out to only be of the fuel management system on a turbine totally different fron the one they are trying to bring to market. Lots of customers placed deposits, and were promised engines to be delivered last Dec/Jan. But that never happened. Now this isnt to say that they may have a really cool package on the market eventually, but until I see several dozen planes in the air flying turbines I think I'll hold onto my money.

Tom Maxwell · #6 04-24-2005, 08:22 PM

Jeff, I admire your positive outlook on this possible solution. Where would experimental aviation be if everyone took the position that "it" won't work?

There are a lot of people looking at this and other alternative solutions and I for one hope the solutions pan out as advertised. From what I read about the auto conversions, diesels, and the turbine, I have come to the conclusion that people with more engineering background than I are the most negative about the trubine solution. Even if the reported fuel consumptions are archieved, they still don't match up to the economy of a piston engine. Another thing to consider is that the turbine fuel consumption will be almost the same while sitting on the ground at idle as in cruise flight. Best case, 14 to 15 gallons per hour while sitting on the ground, taxiing, and in flight represents a pretty signifacant cost deficit over piston engines.

The engine is cool, sounds great, and does have many advantages. The cost of operation is still the big question mark and as others have said, the Innodyne web site has been short on hard data and hasn't changed much in the past year.

It will be cool if Innodyne can deliver a cost effective and reliable solution.

Keep your fingers crossed!

LifeofReiley · #7 04-24-2005, 09:04 PM

I feel the fuel burn is equal to and/or could be less than the 540 fuel burn. After all we will not need the FADEC or other aftermarket computers to manage the fuel burn and at 75% will be SMOKING at 20K feet.

LifeofReiley · #8 04-24-2005, 09:13 PM

The truth is the Rocket drivers will not disclose their true fuel burn! I have been around 540's, I know what they burn at full throttle plus they can't do what this turbine can do performance wise! (less travel time less fuel)

gmcjetpilot · #9 04-24-2005, 09:33 PM

Engine: base price for the engine $28,000 (185hp) $29,500 (205hp)
Installation kit: mount, fuel cont'l, ign, exhaust, cowl> $8,000-$12,000 (est*)
Prop: electric c/s required> $9,000-$10,000

Total: approx $50,000

*(Subtract may be $2 grand from the $5 grand Van's finish kit)

Initial Cost: No doubt cool, but not ready for prime time until an installation kit is developed for the RV. I called Innodyn and had a nice long talk with a Gentleman in sales at Innodyn and was told there are two separate companies, independent from Innodyn, developing RV kits for their engines. The previous company that was developing a RV kit dropped out.

I call the company that dropped out of making a RV kit and was told the cost to develop and manufacture a production kit kept rising. The figure I recall was they were up to $12,000 and claimed they still could not even make money at that kit price, so they dropped out. Innodyn claims the new players will have much lower kit price, around $8,000? I believe electrical power is needed to drive the redundant fuel controllers. I do not believe they have mechanical fuel controllers. The igniter is ship powered to start. I would assume it does not req continuous ignition. From the pictures it looks like electrical power is from a little Denso alternator. So dual batteries and other systems may cut into the low basic engine weight.

I was told that it is about 7 gal/hr for every 100 hp (company claim no data). So a 185 hp wide open would be 7 x 185/100 = 13 gal/hr. That is the same as a 180HP Lycoming? (Sounds low for a turbine) However, in theory where it really should shine is flying at Flight Levels (FL). However at FL250 OAT is -30C (-54F), and you will be sucking O2 to stay coherent (alive). You would need to contend with cabin temp, frosted canopy, IFR clearance above FL180 and DME above FL240. Not my idea for fun. You are still limited by Vne.

I am guessing the Turbine may not be flat rated (derated) at take off and will be altitude limited. They don't give much real data on HP vs Altitude and what temp limits it has and typically operates at.

Also how would the turbine & electric prop combo work for formation flying with other RV's (piston power) and aerobatics? Don?t know how that would go over (pun intended).

Cheers George

GRANT ED · #10 04-25-2005, 03:12 AM

I would be suspicious of the fuel burn figures. When I did my engineering course I remember some figures being talked about. They were that a Piston engine is approx 95% mechanically efficient I.E it takes about 5% of the power it produces to keep itself running. A turbine is about 33% efficient so it takes 66% of the power it produces to keep itself running. This basically means it will have a higher fuel burn for the same power output compared to a piston engine. The advantage is that a turbine can make heaps and heaps of power out of a small engine.