NewbRVator
Well Known Member
RV-16
300hp turbine
5 seats or 4 plus lots of baggage
higher vne
300hp turbine
5 seats or 4 plus lots of baggage
higher vne
What do you imagine the aerobatics capability of the engine being? My dream to be putting it into an RV-8 and doing "gentleman's aerobatics". Inverted flight, loops, rolls, etc. What is likely to be the G limit, and other applicable limitations?
Would love to see a 250hp version of this engine.
Are there other viable RV-10 turboprops? What happened to the TP-100?
RV-20?
Is that getting outside of what could realistically be done as a kit homebuilt?
Supposedly they are delivering them. I believe they advertise 230hp. However, they lack the regenerator feature of the TA solution and so burn twice the fuel of a normal Lycosaurus. I do not know their lapse rate. If not flat rated like the TA solution, then they likely only produce about half that at 16,500?.
That seems like it would be up to Vans and the community. Velocity already sells a twin version.
I'm curious; are there any sub-500HP turbines currently on the market with SFC anywhere near .5?
The only one that I am aware of actually available in the market is the GE 75-100 which at 450hp offers a bsfc of 0.585 lbs/hp/hr but I dread to think what the sticker price is.
About $400K from what I've read...but if you buy one right now they'll throw in a $50 Amazon gift card...
RV-16
300hp turbine
5 seats or 4 plus lots of baggage
higher vne
Or 5 shares of GE common stock...
Lots of things COULD be designed but Van's is a business; there has to be a substantial ROI for any new aircraft design...
Realistically, what is the market size for a turbine powered super STOL, ala Drago?
Pretty small, I would wager...
You're most likely correct if it was very much like Draco. The market may be fairly healthy for something along the lines of a Skywagon. A slightly larger, high wing, STOL capable RV10, if you will.
Is the engine capable of utilising a reversing propeller?
I understand it adds an extra level of complexity that's not really required. I'm mostly curious if the bearings and gear box are designed to handle beta range and/or reverse.
Depends on idle prop RPM, beta might even be important.
These aircraft already exist and the market isn't there for them. People want a certified aircraft once you get into this category. Very few people need something this big and expensive for personal use. That's why the ones that are out there aren't selling like hotcakes.
Reading through the past few pages of comments guys are throwing out good ideas like how do we heat the cabin and can we get bleed air or beta? All good questions, and some can be considered during the engine design, but if we keep piling more and more **** on how is he supposed to get an initial design out? This is exactly how we see cars being designed today. By the time the engine is done it has 80 pounds of emissions **** that weighs down the engine and necessitates a need for even more power from that engine to keep up with the new emissions stuff.
Luckily, it sounds like he Turbine Aeronautics is taking it in for future wish list items, but is pushing on with the design. Let them get a running engine on the market then we as the consumer can play the what if game all we want.
My concern with this would be the effect on CG. 250-300 lb off the nose of an RV means you have to move that lighter powerplant a looooong way out to balance everything again.
As a powerplant, it shows great promise for someone looking to design an airplane around it. 120-200hp are great ranges to carry two people aloft, for casual cruising around (120hp) or stellar performance (200hp) but to optimize it you'll have to start over and configure the airframe with the lighter powerplant in mind. An RV with the wing moved back, or the seating moved forward, could do it, but you're still looking at significant engineering.
In between the firewall and turboprop, you have options. BRS, Header tank, or batteries for the turbine. Or a combination of any two. So the engine doesn't have to be pushed to far out in the front. IMHO.
In between the firewall and turboprop, you have options. BRS, Header tank, or batteries for the turbine. Or a combination of any two. So the engine doesn't have to be pushed to far out in the front. IMHO.
Running out of fuel AND creating an aft CG would make for a bad day..................
Running out of fuel AND creating an aft CG would make for a bad day..................
Im not very familiar with the RV3. I have a 6, but the 3 i was looking at had a Header Tank. Maybe he knows something you don't?
Im not very familiar with the RV3. I have a 6, but the 3 i was looking at had a Header Tank. Maybe he knows something you don't?
Possible, but it was probably the primary (and only) fuel tank.
Early RV-3's had just a single tank mounted fwd of the instrument panel (similar to a J3 Cub). There was no other fuel tank(s).
A header tank by definition is a smaller tank that is fed by the other aircraft tanks, that is positioned at a higher level than those tanks so that some head pressure is provided for in the feed to the engine.
Am I the only one who thinks that having a fuel tank forward of the firewall is a bad idea?
Am I the only one who thinks that having a fuel tank forward of the firewall is a bad idea?
Or an oxygen tank, and for the same reason.
While O2 tanks do lose some weight slowly as they discharge, the difference in weight change over a flight is far less than for fuel. Locating them where a header tank would have been would result in far less CG change than a comparable fuel tank.
You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.
You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.
Throw a rod on the engine, ventilate the block and fill the FWF with an oil fire - now lets think for about half a second about what happens when the oxygen tank ruptures/leaks and turns your airplane into a blowtorch, with you on the downwind side.
Adding a second firewall further forward and then putting those things in the new firewall-aft space has some merit - but some things should NOT be FWF.
I don't think it would be the issue you make it out to be. Yes, there would be a momentary increase in combustion temperature - but only momentary.
Edit: Reading back through this, somebody misunderstood me. I did not advocate for O2 forward of the firewall, but in lieu of the header tank.
Fair enough on your position choice - but as for the momentary increase in combustion temperature, I'm going to disagree.
I have a fair bit of experience in "assisting" things normally not considered to be fuels to burn in the presence of various oxidizers. I know what can happen, I've seen it and done it, and I prefer not to let it happen in an aircraft.
I don't think anyone is advocating having header tanks/oxy tanks etc. forward of the firewall. If anyone did do that, they should probably be reported to the TSA as a suspicious person.
However, if the firewall could be moved forward 6-12", there would be scope to add weight aft of the new firewall location, but well forward for cg purposes.
Dave
That's a very interesting idea, on the small Lancairs that would create a small space to install permanent O2 which in turn would help with the W&B change using the lighter engine.
Been two months since we've heard from you - any development updates for your fans? Is there somewhere (Facebook, etc.) where you post progress?
Dave,
What kind of CS speed prop will be required on the turbine? Will a standard cs prop used on a recip work, or does it take something special? I realize they would normally have beta thrust, but other than that? Just wondering about the added cost of the prop.
Jim
Dave,
What kind of CS speed prop will be required on the turbine? Will a standard cs prop used on a recip work, or does it take something special? I realize they would normally have beta thrust, but other than that? Just wondering about the added cost of the prop.
Jim
We are currently assessing propellor options. It is likely that not any cs prop system will work. Our engine may need a system that can alter the blade angle at a fairly high rate. Traditionally, turbines are slow to wind up from idle then when a certain % rpm is achieved they literally take off. We need to ensure that we use a prop system that is matched to our engines.
For safety reasons, we will only recommend some specific systems that we have tested on our engines. We hope that folks will heed our recommendations.
Dave
Hey Dave, <SNIP> any news to report for the past 4 months?
Exciting stuff Dave. Thanks for the update. Hope the testing go smoothly with no big surprises- except good ones!