I know it's a dumb question...

jarhead · #1 08-01-2008, 08:12 PM

...but I gotta ask:

Is there an RV out there with a PT6 up front?

I work with a guy who insists there's a couple PT6-powered RV's flying. I've never heard of such a thing, and can't imagine that installation anyway (but could you imagine the climb rate?!).

JHines · #2 08-01-2008, 08:42 PM

There are (or were) a couple of RVs flying with turbines from Innodyn:

http://www.innodyn.com/

These are little 150-200 SHP single shaft jobs though, nothing like a PT6.

joeboisselle · #3 08-01-2008, 08:43 PM

I'm gonna say no. I talked to a guy at a small fly-in in Oregon a while back, who swore that rv's all had retractable gear. The fact that mine didn't blew his mind. Makes you wonder how stories get started.
(edit: I am aware of innodyne as posted above, but the weight and power of a pt6 would be too much for an rv)

jarhead · #4 08-01-2008, 11:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JHines

There are (or were) a couple of RVs flying with turbines from Innodyn

I'm familiar with the Innodyn... well, the core of it anyway. The Solar T62 was the APU on the CH-53E's that I crewed and maintained in the Corps.

pierre smith · #5 08-02-2008, 06:05 AM

....you'll probably be surprised to know that my 680 HP PT-6 only weighs around 350lbs. without the prop, a 110" Hartzell. I think the smallest -6 is 500 or so horsepower. The turbine powered Maules run an Allison with 400 HP. That would be the way to go but a friend had one on his float equipped Maule and didn't like it. The spool-up time let the airplane drift into the dock or too far away and the fuel weighs more than an extra pound per gallon over avgas. The biggest downer is the cost....around $300,000 for a new PT-6 680HP

Regards,

Phyrcooler · #6 08-02-2008, 09:11 AM

Rolls-Royce RR300 seems like a good up and coming turbine. While currently in turbo shaft configs for helicopters, they have hinted at future turbo-prop applications. 300 horse available for take-off... sounds like an RV-10 application. Of course I won't speak to the practicality or cost!

DJ

osxuser · #7 08-02-2008, 09:18 AM

Turns out Mooney is talking with RR about it. A Turbine mooney would be Awesome, turbine RV just stupid... At altitude the RV goes over redline, down low it'd just burn a ton of heavy expensive Jet-A.

RV-10 might be good, but someone has to do some flutter testing first..

Phyrcooler · #8 08-02-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by osxuser

Turns out Mooney is talking with RR about it. A Turbine mooney would be Awesome, turbine RV just stupid... At altitude the RV goes over redline, down low it'd just burn a ton of heavy expensive Jet-A.

RV-10 might be good, but someone has to do some flutter testing first..

I was reading about that last night. I believe they are actually talking about the RR500 which, while based on the RR300 core... is bigger and even higher HP!!

That'll be a hot-rod! Always liked those Mooney's.

DJ

joeboisselle · #9 08-02-2008, 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierre smith

....you'll probably be surprised to know that my 680 HP PT-6 only weighs around 350lbs. without the prop, a 110" Hartzell. I think the smallest -6 is 500 or so horsepower. The turbine powered Maules run an Allison with 400 HP. That would be the way to go but a friend had one on his float equipped Maule and didn't like it. The spool-up time let the airplane drift into the dock or too far away and the fuel weighs more than an extra pound per gallon over avgas. The biggest downer is the cost....around $300,000 for a new PT-6 680HP

Regards,

Pierre, I was trying to remember your name as I wrote that, knowing you'd probably have better input on it than me. I knew they were light, but stick that 350 lbs. way way up front and you might have a cg issue, not to mention the weight of your 110" Hartzell. Plus why throw 300k at an engine that big and throw it on a 20k rv?

Flyrod · #10 08-02-2008, 03:28 PM

Turbines for the little guy! Sounds good, but I wonder if they will ever get the purchase cost down to truly compete with pistons. I too read the RR300 and RR500 news clips with hopes that we may be seeing significant moves towards something piston peasants can afford. Since the price or fuel burn was never mentioned, I assume the new Rolls Royce?s are not the break through engines. 300 HP @ 176 lbs in a 41? by 25? package sounds good but I can only assume the cost is still prohibitive. Extra fuel burn would be expected. Might make a nice Super 8 or RV 10 with great climb, speed, smoothness, reliability and extreme cool factor. Just curious, has anyone found out the cost of a RR300?