Innodyn Turbine Engines

[f1rocket]

Originally Posted by LifeofReiley

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)

I don't really appreciate being called a liar on this forum. All of the Rocket guys will be glad to share their fuel burn data with you. I'll even send you the fuel burn table out of the Lycoming manual if you'd like.

I've been told, but I'm not an engine expert, that the fuel burn for the turbine is more like 10 gals per hour per 100 HP, and as someone else pointed out, that's on the ground as well as in the air. We don't run at full throttle very often in these airplanes. Yea, it will gulp 17 to 19 GPH at full throttle down low, but your eyes will be pulled to the back of your head. There's no need to go full throttle with this engine in this airframe. We operate very happily in the 60% to 70% power range with fabulous economy.

You may know 540's but I suspect not when it's in a Rocket airframe. However, with all that being said, I still think the turbine is a cool engine and IF they can get the fuel economy that they claim, I think they are a real viable engine. Heads turn when that turbine spools up.

[Highflight]

Originally Posted by RV_7A

OK now that everyone has made it clear they understand that TURBINES USE MORE FUEL.... lets talk about benefits and or work arounds. Here are some of the reasons I'm leaning that way.

Not trying to be smart here, just being a Devil's Advocate:

1. Possibly more reliable than a Lycoming. (less moving parts)
Lycoming and Lyclone engines are pretty darn reliable now. Are you willing to bet on an untested new engine (turbine or otherwise) and "assume" it will be more reliable than a longtime proven design?

2. Much higher TBO.
Maybe, but what "TBO" brings to mind is not the idea of taking an engine out of an aircraft and making it new again. What "TBO" conjures up is lot's of $$$ to do it. With the significantly higher fuel burn of the turbine, it's likely that a Lycoming type engine will, in the end, be less expensive to operate even WITH it's TBO costs.

3. Lighter overall Aircraft.
If your RV is going to be configured where it will cover as much ground on full fuel as it will with a Lycoming with standard tanks, have you factored in the ADDITIONAL weight of fuel the turbine will need to do the same mission?
If not, then you need to list a big DISadvantage of short legs on your cross country flights.

4. Higher climb rate.
Anyone here disappointed with 2500fpm climb rate of the -7 that it will already do with the Lycoming?

5. Less engine monitoring instruments. More panel space.
For what? Even if you want to use a six pack and individual engine instruments with a Lycoming, there's still plenty of room for a medium size EFIS and then some.
I'm going with a dual GRT EFIS and a full stack, and I'm still wondering what to put in all that empty metal over to the right. A DVD screen for in-flight movies for my wife?

6. Less vibration. Airframe should last longer.
Got me there. Less vibration is always nice and makes the trip more comfortable. But as far as airframe lasting longer, I've not yet heard of any of the RV series being shaken to pieces with a properly balanced Lycoming and a dynamically balanced prop.

7. Less cabin noise.
All that will happen is that the headset companies will have to change the frequencies that their headsets filter out best. Props make a lot of noise on their own (you'll still have that), and turbines aren't exactly quiet. They just make noise at difference frequencies.

8. Quicker warm-up.
In reality, you should be going through the checklists while the engine is warming up anyway so I don't think there's any real time savings.

9. Less maintenance.
I intend to use the excuse of "maintenance" to go out to the hangar on some mornings just to avoid cutting the grass. I like maintenance.

10. Built in electronic ignition, inverted oil system and turbo.
It's different engine technology and those things are part of it. Any of those things (and more... FADEC) can be installed on Lycoming or Lyclone engines if you think you need them.

11. No baffling
Ok, you got me there. Of course, you only have to do "baffling" once and then you're done, so that's probably not a huge selling point. ("Yes sir!.. you need to buy our turbine because you will NOT have to install baffling!!")

12. Nothing beats the sound.
Oh heck yea. I was the first kid on the block to put playing cards in the spokes of my bicycle so I guarantee you I'm with you on that one!

There are quite a few more you get the idea. I have ordered the manual for this engine and hopefully can get more information on the whole scope of this option.

I think the problem for most people is that it's going to take a LOT of other advantages to get over that "fuel thing".
Lest you think I'm some kind of Lycoming "groupie", I will tell you that I tried really, really hard to talk myself into one of the other engine alternatives before realizing that the Lycoming is the only engine that makes sense if you want to actually FLY the aircraft sometime in the next decade.

[Rick of Austin]

As a data point last week I flew 1.5 hours in a Bellanca at 2400rpm and 24 inches and the fuel burn was 15.5-16 gph according to the fuel flow meter. This was at 3500 feet leaned 50 degrees rich of peak.
Lets see at San Antonio international prices that is $70.00 per hour in fuel!!!

[LifeofReiley]

Must have pushed a button for F1Rocket...

I apologize if anyone was affended.

I stand corrected...

Most large engine... high performance RV and Rocket owners, to include most high performance general aviation aircraft owners do not like talking about their fuel burn. It can give them heartburn or maybe indigestion.

[flyerfly]

I wanted a turbine too but I think that getting alot more speed at higher altitudes may not work as well as some might think. I would be worried that I could go alot faster and that flutter might become an issue. The indicated speed might not be that much but keep in mind what alt. you are at. If I recall smokeyray experienced some flutter in his -4 at around 10k in a shallow dive...

Just something to think about...I would love the sound and smell of the thing though!

[mlw450802]

I'm with you on the smell and the sounnnnnnnnnnnd! I'm not brave enough (read flush enough) to try the innodyn for reasons of anticipated operating costs but then operating costs (anticipated) are one of the main criteria for my building in the first place.

However, I am not going to try to talk anyone out of trying this engine. I would welcome the experimentation from anyone who is going into it with eyes wide open. The data gathered would be invaluable and would help to cement the decisions for all the rest of us. As long as Innodyn is forthright with their claims (a huge "Caveat Emptor") then go for it.

Good luck to anyone who chooses to go this route and be sure to wave to us as you whistle past.

-Mike
Oh Yeah. I found a solution to achieve the Jet-A smell: Just stand near your grill when you have lit off the charcoal lighter fluid!

[rvpilot]

I would welcome the experimentation from anyone who is going into it with eyes wide open. The data gathered would be invaluable and would help to cement the decisions for all the rest of us. As long as Innodyn is forthright with their claims (a huge "Caveat Emptor") then go for it.

You've hit on an interesting point here. It seems if the opportunity presented itself, Innodyn would welcome the chance to gather valuable flight data from an RV flying with one of thier turbines. After all, this information could be used to settle a lot of the debate that has been plaguing them of late.
Well, when presented with this opportunity, why did the powers to be at Innodyn turn down the offer?!!? After all, the plane was already fitted with the computer, flow system, mount, cowl, everything needed to almost immediately start testing! Seems kinda strange to me!
While this may prove to be a very successful venture in the distant future, I think everyone needs to proceed very cautiously for the moment!
Bill Waters

[RV_7A]

Thanks everyone. It's nice to see a few optimistic folks out there in the "experimental" world. Any many thanks to Burt Rutan and his venture into unchartered territory. If it wasn't for people like him and Mr. Van himself, we would still be gluing sticks together and laying cloth. (no offense to anyone building a bird nest please) I hope that anyone that has positive news pertaining to these Turbines will post it here. I'll do the same as I learn. Keep in mind I haven?t lost hope of having a Superior XP 360 plus I my plane but I've always admired new technology and encourage anyone involved in projects like these. It what makes this hobby so interesting.

[atreff]

I spent some time in the Innodyne booth at SnF and was disturbed by the lack of information, and the confusion among the team in the booth. The white haired gent could not adequately tell me how the turbine was operated by the pilot, nor the theory of operation, and he was the director of business development. I talked to the test pilot, who complained that he seemed to be the only staff member who knows how to operate the engine. I asked both gents about who engineered the metallurgy of the turbine and burner cans. Who engineered the bearing seals, what kind of seals, and were they cooled or pressurized by bleed air. How was the shaft balanced? What was it made of? Neither the business guy nor the test pilot guy could answer that either. Broad platitudes were thrown around like,
"We hired the best in the business," 'It's the best thing out there.'

I also asked what the difference was between the 160 HP and the 200HP model. Same everything was the answer-turbine, bearings, cans, shaft. So, I asked how are they getting to the higher HP number, running hotter? No was the answer. Running faster? No, same speed was the answer. TBO the same? Yes. Hmmm...160 same temp and speed, just using less fuel than the 200HP with the same TBO and temps. I probably don't know much about turbines, but this seemed funny to me. Ya can't get something for nothing.

The also said that the prop and governor controlled the speed. When I asked about what happens if the governor failed, no one really had an answer as to how the pilot would control the turbine. I must have gotten them on a bad day or something, because the procedure was not clear between Innodyne's business dept and their flight testing dept. I'm sure they must have this worked out.

They may have the best product out there, but since I am a sales professional in real life, I walked from their tent wondering how they're ever going to get to market if they cannot express themselves to their customers.

I asked why the RV-4 test bed was absent, and the reply was nebulous as well. Innodyne has been at this show for (I think) 3 years now and they still seem to be where they were when I first laid eyes on them. I wish them well, but I've got to see some accelerated life tests, more than one or two flying, it's a great deal of money and time to invest in something so unknown.

[Tandem46]

I too visited the Innodyne tent at S&F and came away very unimpressed. Something about their display/presentation just looked amature (I got the impression that they grabbed a couple of their turbines, two card tables, and some folding chairs and just showed up). I'm very happy with my Aerosport IO-360, but for JetA burning powerplants I think Deltahawk would be the "safer" bet. They seem to be making some real progress, albeit slow. And the Honda engine is still out there some where. I talked to the guy at the TCM tent at S&F and he said Honda is still working on that engine. Their test bed in Mobile AL is a Cessna 337 and he said the last time he saw it, it still had the Honda engine up front. Plus Japan recently opened up a new piston engine development center over there.

On another note.......
It's too bad that a multi-million dollar company like Williams can't take the engine that was originally designed for the Eclipse 500 and develop it into a turboprop for the light single engine market. It's also too bad that the Government can't or won't sue TCM and Williams and get the millions of dollars of taxpayers money back that they paid them for the GAP(general aviation propulsion) program of 1998, of which neither delivered.

Tobin