J

jarhead

Well Known Member
...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?!).
 
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)
 
Last edited:
JHines said:
There are (or were) a couple of RVs flying with turbines from Innodyn
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hey Joebird...

....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:eek:

Regards,
 
Rolls-Royce RR300

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! :eek:

DJ
 
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..
 
osxuser said:
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..
Click to expand...

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

DJ
 
pierre smith said:
....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:eek:

Regards,
Click to expand...

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?
 
RR300 Day Dreams

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?:eek:
 
PT-6 is $857.14 per/lb....

pierre smith said:
....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:eek:

Regards,
Click to expand...

Pierre,
So that means the PT-6 costs around $857.14 per pound ;)
($300K / 350lbs)
I shudder to imagine how many acres of crop dusting it would take to rebuild one.. :eek:
Happy skies...
/Ande
 
Rebuilds ......

....are around $50,000 or so. Spinning parts are cycle-limited. The compressor turbine, which is bathed in flame and operates all day long in a 630 C environment, has a cycle life of 15,000. One cycle being a start, flight and shutdown. Other parts like the three air compressors, have around 18,000 cycle life. A start, flight and landing without a shutdown is around half a cycle since there's no shock cooling, a quick reload with chemicals and fuel...around 3 minutes, and another takeoff.

My engine has 8200 TTSNEW and has never been rebuilt, but has had hot section inspections (Engine split) and burner can and clearances, etc, checked at 1000 hour intervals, around once every three years. Internals turn 37,500 RPM on takeoff, prop does 2200 and then operates around 93-95% of that all day long. Made of Unobtainium:D

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.