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.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet

  #1  
Old 01-07-2012, 10:52 AM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,944
Default Turbine-powered -10.

I was speaking with a gentleman from Oklahoma a while ago and he'd sold his partially-built -10.

There is a company in the process of developing a turbine engine kit for that airplane and they hope to have it at Osh this summer:

http://www.diemechturbines.com/RV10kit.htm

Best,
__________________
Rv10 Sold
46 years ag pilot/CFI
Air Tractor 502/PT-6
Building RV-12, Wings, fuse, emp complete. FWF in progress.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-07-2012, 10:59 AM
Pat Stewart Pat Stewart is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Granbury Texas
Posts: 1,136
Default Turbine 10

Pierre,

There was a mock up at Sun-n-Fun on a 10 firewall. It looked interesting but I am not sure the fuel burn would be worth it given the limitations that the airframe will have on speed.

Pat
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-07-2012, 11:04 AM
Ron Lee's Avatar
Ron Lee Ron Lee is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,272
Default

Maybe it is all about the turbine sound and smell. Don't they burn Jet-A?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-07-2012, 11:09 AM
johnny stick johnny stick is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 301
Default advantage

Just curious from all you techies out there, what are the advantages of a turbine? Lower fuel burn, lower installed price, better reliability? What?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-07-2012, 11:13 AM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 973
Default

Turbines will burn whatever you put in them. Doesn't mean it's good for them though.
Some PT6s are allowed to burn gasoline for short periods of time.
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage assembly, it's a riveting job!
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2023
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-07-2012, 11:23 AM
smokyray's Avatar
smokyray smokyray is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: T38
Posts: 2,018
Default Burnin Kerosene...

Johnny, in a word, yes. Turbines have an advantage in reliability, length of time between overhauls and inherent design simplicity. Disadvantages are high costs, higher fuel consumption and high repair costs. That said, Missionary Flight organizations have been leaning away from piston/100LL burners in lieu of Turbines recently. The reason? Fuel availability and field reliability. The Quest Kodiak is a PT6 powered replacement for the venerable Cessna 206 and has proven itself stellar in the far reaches of the world where 100LL is cost prohibitive or unavailable. It's high fuel burn is offset by carrying twice the load on half the trips, reliably, quickly and burning easily accessible fuels.

In our sport plane, limited budget world, turbines are impractical mainly due to cost. Until someone designs a FWF for RVs at a reasonable price and gets them into the field, we forge ahead with current technology.
My opinion is turbines are the future, where the Missionary and AG operators like Pierre have gone, can we be far behind?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsRLF...e_gdata_player



Smokey
www.fly-4-life.com

Last edited by smokyray : 01-07-2012 at 12:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:08 PM
pierre smith's Avatar
pierre smith pierre smith is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Louisville, Ga
Posts: 7,944
Default Like Smokey..

I echo his sentiments on reliability. I have over 9,000 hours on my PT-6 in the Air Tractor without an overhaul. I burn 47 GPH compared to the old 1340 cu. in./600 H.P. Pratt radial burning 40 GPH of Avgas. Back in the '80's, avgas was twice the price of Jet-A or #1 kerosene, which is a kissin' cousing to Jet-A, so our turbines operated much cheaper.

I've run diesel, avgas, kerosene and mostly Jet-A in my airplane and they're cleared by P @ W for those fuels. In the bush or faraway places, avgas can be next to impossible to find but diesel is plentiful.

Costs? A new engine for my airplane is north of $350,000, while a radial may go for $50-60,000, but the radial will hardly go over 1,000 hours without a $25,000 overhaul.

The useful load goes waaaay up as well. My PT-6 weighs 330 lbs, the radial 1,000+ lbs. and puts out 680 SHP and 1633 lbs. ft. of torque! That's why the nose is so long...CG issues.

Best,
__________________
Rv10 Sold
46 years ag pilot/CFI
Air Tractor 502/PT-6
Building RV-12, Wings, fuse, emp complete. FWF in progress.

Last edited by pierre smith : 01-07-2012 at 12:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:20 PM
MauiLvrs's Avatar
MauiLvrs MauiLvrs is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: KTCY
Posts: 643
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnny stick View Post
Just curious from all you techies out there, what are the advantages of a turbine? Lower fuel burn, lower installed price, better reliability? What?
Higher fuel burn, higher install price, better reliability, lower fuel cost, The smell of burned jet fuel, better sound, higher coolness factor
__________________
Dave & Trina
RV-9A Flying - 330 Hrs. Painted Finishing the interior.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-07-2012, 12:56 PM
Seansull's Avatar
Seansull Seansull is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 68
Default

This is a pic of RV-10 turbine project at OSH '11. These guys said their main motivation is the realibility and fuel avilability. Not practical for most of us but pretty cool looking.


__________________
Sean Sullivan
N116EX (reserved)
RV10 - SB Wings, Emp Complete
Builder #40919
Fort Worth, TX
www.iRV10.com
EAA Chapter 34
http://www.eaa34.org/index.htm

Last edited by Seansull : 01-08-2012 at 03:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-07-2012, 01:36 PM
Wayne Gillispie Wayne Gillispie is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: USA
Posts: 1,499
Default

I used to ovhl and hot section p&w pt6, allison 250(now Rolls Royce).

I would not have a turbine in my 10. Like the above poster mentioned it would be speed limited. To fly into the FL's safely you would have to have eng inlet/prop/wing deicing and 100-120 gal fuel. You may not have to overhaul the complete engine often, but try $25,000-100,000 for hot section repair. You want to work on it yourself, get some big money ready for all of those special tools. Fuel burn during climb 30-35 gph and cruise 20-25 gph depending on alt/temp. You might save on engine weight but your fuel/deicing equip/engine mount weights will more than make up for it. Unless you run it at higher rpms, airspeeds and FL altitudes your going to pay even more in fuel burn. If I had the money for a turbine I would first pick a faster, properly equipped airframe to stick it in or better yet just buy a proven certified. You think our fatality rate is high now, start putting turbines in RV's. The statistics won't sound so cool.
__________________
Good judgment comes from experience, and a lot of that comes from bad judgment.
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 10:31 PM.


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.