What's new
Van's Air Force

The definitive Van's Aircraft support community! Buying, building or flying an RV? Join our exclusive family of mentors and enthusiasts!

Any thoughts on TURBOPROP TP-R90

Hangar 1271

Hangar 1271

Well Known Member
Sponsor
This is a ~$67,000, 140 hp, turbine engine. More than a piston but not as much more than it used to be with the price of engines these days. Jet-A would be a significant cost savings especially with the new fuels coming out.. Performance on Bristol airplanes is impressive as shown in today's AOPA video. Anyone here thought about it, know about it, tried it?
 
So far, it appears to have only been flown on one aircraft, and for less than a year. In 2023, it was supposed to hit the market, but at over 100K$ then. Until I see some real data, and it installed and flying in multiple aircraft and having some operational history, I would consider it more vaporware.
 
I've seen it at the Friedrichshafen trade show in Germany last April. Seemed well-thought out and well-engineered. Interesting concept too, recognising that a lot of the fuel burn in a turbine can be prevented by pre-heating the incoming air with exhaust air through an intricate heat exchanger.

Should make a pretty interesting setup in an RV3 or -4...
 
Lufthans said:
Interesting concept too, recognising that a lot of the fuel burn in a turbine can be prevented by pre-heating the incoming air with exhaust air through an intricate heat exchanger.
Click to expand...
My calculations could very well be incorrect but it appears that it would have a cruise fuel burn of about 4 gallons per hour. That is the same as a Rotax 912iS.

Any word on total weight?
 
The price point being bandied about by our engine reporter at KP is closer to $130K (but there is nothing official about it). From what I have seen, it is probably the likeliest contender to be successful in the small turbine department, but that’s a LOT of money to put on an RV-3 or (an underpowered @ 1410 HP) RV-4. The other thing to remember is that as soon as you have a turbine, you have to have an approved maintenance program for your aircraft, and you also have to have an “Experimental Aircraft Authorization (A Type Rating by another name) under current rules. So are required to comply with any Service Bulletins issued by the manufacturer. Right now, the entire Subsonex fleet in the US is grounded because the engine manufacturer has to replace all of our turbine wheels, and can only process four engines per month.

That piston engine is starting look pretty good…huh?
 
Amadeus said:
My calculations could very well be incorrect but it appears that it would have a cruise fuel burn of about 4 gallons per hour. That is the same as a Rotax 912iS.

Any word on total weight?
Click to expand...
According to the website it's 85kg which I believe is around 188lbs looked up an o320 and it says 244-278lbs
 
Ironflight said:
The price point being bandied about by our engine reporter at KP is closer to $130K (but there is nothing official about it).
Click to expand...
I'm not sure a light sport exists that could justify $130k in powerplant alone. An RV12 with all options, avionics and other, can be built for the price of this turboprop alone.
 
Ironflight said:
The price point being bandied about by our engine reporter at KP is closer to $130K (but there is nothing official about it). From what I have seen, it is probably the likeliest contender to be successful in the small turbine department, but that’s a LOT of money to put on an RV-3 or (an underpowered @ 1410 HP) RV-4. The other thing to remember is that as soon as you have a turbine, you have to have an approved maintenance program for your aircraft, and you also have to have an “Experimental Aircraft Authorization (A Type Rating by another name) under current rules. So are required to comply with any Service Bulletins issued by the manufacturer. Right now, the entire Subsonex fleet in the US is grounded because the engine manufacturer has to replace all of our turbine wheels, and can only process four engines per month.

That piston engine is starting look pretty good…huh?
Click to expand...
I've always heard turbines are far more reliable. Apparently the FAA doesn't think so?
 
Ironflight said:
The price point being bandied about by our engine reporter at KP is closer to $130K (but there is nothing official about it). From what I have seen, it is probably the likeliest contender to be successful in the small turbine department, but that’s a LOT of money to put on an RV-3 or (an underpowered @ 1410 HP) RV-4. The other thing to remember is that as soon as you have a turbine, you have to have an approved maintenance program for your aircraft, and you also have to have an “Experimental Aircraft Authorization (A Type Rating by another name) under current rules. So are required to comply with any Service Bulletins issued by the manufacturer. Right now, the entire Subsonex fleet in the US is grounded because the engine manufacturer has to replace all of our turbine wheels, and can only process four engines per month.

That piston engine is starting look pretty good…huh?
Click to expand...
Paul,

I was under the impression that aircraft under 12500 lbs and not powered by turbojet or turbofan engines did not require a type rating, and as such turboPROP powered aircraft wouldn't require this unless otherwise determined by the administrator. Does the EAA (what a crazy dual acronym) ... Experimental Aircraft Authorization apply to Turbo*props* as well as turbojet/fans?


Keith
 
Benjamj said:
Paul,

I was under the impression that aircraft under 12500 lbs and not powered by turbojet or turbofan engines did not require a type rating, and as such turboPROP powered aircraft wouldn't require this unless otherwise determined by the administrator. Does the EAA (what a crazy dual acronym) ... Experimental Aircraft Authorization apply to Turbo*props* as well as turbojet/fans?


Keith
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, yes - for any TURBINE engine’d E-AB requires an authorization. Oh…and if you make it a twin, or give it two seats, you have to do annual currency check rides….
 
Ironflight said:
The price point being bandied about by our engine reporter at KP is closer to $130K (but there is nothing official about it). From what I have seen, it is probably the likeliest contender to be successful in the small turbine department, but that’s a LOT of money to put on an RV-3 or (an underpowered @ 1410 HP) RV-4. The other thing to remember is that as soon as you have a turbine, you have to have an approved maintenance program for your aircraft, and you also have to have an “Experimental Aircraft Authorization (A Type Rating by another name) under current rules. So are required to comply with any Service Bulletins issued by the manufacturer. Right now, the entire Subsonex fleet in the US is grounded because the engine manufacturer has to replace all of our turbine wheels, and can only process four engines per month.

That piston engine is starting look pretty good…huh?
Click to expand...
Off topic, but I can’t let this pass, how many Subsonex are in the fleet waiting?
 
johntwilcox said:
Off topic, but I can’t let this pass, how many Subsonex are in the fleet waiting?
Click to expand...
Flying airplanes? Maybe 20-25 I’d guess….but there are also a few BD-5J’s, and Bob Carlton has built a number of single and multi-engined sailplanes with the engine. And then there are some non-single-use drones. We were told that at 4-5 engines per month, it would take the factory 15 months to get through the entire fleet of engines in the field.
 
Well, I watched that all in French language 50 minute video in its entirety last nite... and gotta admit that I'm more than impressed.

Quoted is a price of 100K€, which whilst quite hefty could balance very well in view of TBO, lead free flying, fuel avail, smoothness, and quietness, against quickly rising Lycosaurus and Rotax prices and threats of leaded gas disappearance.
250/400 hp version on the near horizon.
This could well be the future guys :cool:
 
Last edited:
Like many things in our world, the math on the price premium can work out if you're a school or other provider that puts a lot of hours on an airframe. Aerial imaging platforms are also a good candidate due to lower vibration, and significantly less fuel burn than a PT-6A.
A longer TBO, less maintenance, and the cost advantage of Jet-A can get you to be in the same operational cost ballpark as a 916is.

For most of us casual flyers in the US where 200 flight hours in a year would be a lot, a turboprop is going to be more for bragging rights. In countries where 100LL is significantly higher than Jet-A, the math is even more different.

Hopefully they'll change the unbroken history of companies that show up at Oshkosh promising to produce a GA-friendly turboprop, then going silent a few months later. Until then, my answer is the same as ever: "I will pay attention when anyone can give them money and have one delivered a few weeks later."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top