What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Turbine in a -10

I wonder what it's fuel burn is at say 14000 feet and churning around 160-170HP.

Anyone know?
 
230 -240 mph, not knots

I have seen info on this engine before. I don't know if it is a viable engine or not for the 10. Perhaps if you live in a large part of the world that does not have 100ll, it may be the only way to fly. Just because it doesn't fight your idea of a perfect engine, doesn't make it a bad idea.

If you are going to tear into it, at least use the correct information. I may not have heard it correctly in the video, but it sounded to me like he said 230-240 mph. That doesn't appear to be too far out of line with Vans specs.
 
whatever

knots, mph whatever at 17000' still have a Vne problem in my opinion. Regardless maybe I didn't hear it right, but I also heard 18-24 GPH. Is that right? LOL. I guess if you can afford the turbine the price per hour doesn't matter much anyway.
 
I met the guy last month. He is passionate about the project and it was mostly about fuel availability out of this country. Got to give him the credit for paving the way.
 
johny
knots, mph whatever at 17000' still have a Vne problem in my opinion. Regardless maybe I didn't hear it right, but I also heard 18-24 GPH. Is that right? LOL. I guess if you can afford the turbine the price per hour doesn't matter much anyway.
Click to expand...

Not really, so long as you do not punch out 240HP at 17,000 feet, you need to actually FLY the aeroplane.

I have not used FL170 yet and I doubt I would but FL150-160 is not unheard of for us. We do get around 35LPH up there and a TAS around 160+ knots, depending on weight.

FL140.jpg


So if you keep your IAS under control, and hence TAS, it would be fine. The places where AVGAS is not easily found is growing, even here in Australia, however the problem we have is the distances you need to fly to find anything, could be a problem with Jet/Diesel as you will have less range so it remains to be seen.

If I said we paid about 60% of the AVGAS price for JetA1 and you burned 65% more for the same mission, price would be the same, range much less, but maybe maintenance would be better.

Depends on the initial cost too.

But if there is just NO 100LL well you are not in the price camp....Beggers and choosers they say.

7-8 years ago we looked at the -10 with the Innodyn but it never went anywhere, here is a small chance it could, and if it does, and its viable, maybe down the road it might get up.

I hope they are going to OSH so I can see it :)
 
Anything can be done, but if I had the money for a turbine I would just go buy a proven/certified design. To move cg back forward, move battery to firewall, add another 925 battery for ebus, move baggage area behind engine, move prop forward 24". If that is not enough add a huge alternator and electric motor and have a turbine hybrid. :D
 
love turbines

I do love turbines, I hope they succeed so the turbine prices can come down and make it more resasnable for the rest of us. I think turbines will be the wave of the future. And I suspect the jet fuel of the future will all be natural gas derived from US feedstock. I am hoping that jet fuel (and diesel) becomes have the cost of avgas. I think the Air Force will be leading the way, and we will all be following. So even if the turbine burns 50% more at half the cost, the extended maintance interval will make it more than worthwhile. I am curious if the Vne of the -10 can be increased ala Harmon rockets?

RV10inOz thanks for the screen shot. I am always impressed with the RV10. For 2500 hours and 1/4 the cost, I can be up there with my rich neighbors in their Bonanzas. What a great machine. Can't wait to start a RV10 (maybe an RV12 first to get my feet wet :cool:
 
Last edited:
Not sure where they pulled these numbers from but since turbines lose power with altitude just like atmo piston engines, chances are it will be no faster than a 260hp Lycoming but will burn nearly twice as much fuel so range below O2 altitudes would be pretty poor. Great for cool factor but not for practicality. Have to double the fuel capacity in a -10 tobe useful and it's gonna hrt to fill that sucker up. Pun intended.
 
According to the article they are installing the engine in an RV-10 as a test bed. The gentleman being interviewed in the video mentions that they picked the -10 as a test bed for various reasons. It appears to me that they are working on certifying a turboprop engine and have chosen to use this airframe as the test bed, and nothing more. Nothing in there about offering an RV-10 firewall forward package. So, I guess we can all relax.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
No problem

Solving CG issues is not a problem. When Thrush first put a PT-6 on, in place of the old 1340 cu. in. radial, they simply built a longer engine mount and the pointy nosed airplane was in fact prettier than the snub-nosed radial. My 700 SHP PT-6 only weighs 330 lbs. compared to the radial's 600 HP and 1,000 pounds.

Yep, both 24 volt batteries ahead of the firewall and beaucoup room still, for a 19 gallon hopper rinse tank....rinse the chemical hopper in flight!

My PT-6 burns 47 GPH and the radial burned 40 GPH of avgas:eek:

Best,
 
Engineers?

Was an Aero engineer in college...forgot a lot, but this is what is left with the cobwebs!

From the spec sheet shown it says 241 HP and .82 Lb/HP/hr my math gives me 197 #/hr at 6.8 #/gal gives 29 GPH. What I can't remember if these specs are supposed to be 100 percent and at sea level. If so, is it simple math for de-rating? Make it put out 200 HP but stays constant to higher alt and stick it in an 8/7.

Turbines are most efficient with a high delta T...cold outside, burning as hot as they are designed for I think. With same HP as piston, wouldn't it have same speed with all other things being the same?

Also, with different densities of the fuel (100LL vs JetA) aren't you carrying the same volume at a higher weight in the same tanks?

Just questions for the smart people.
 
This engine was already discussed in another thread. I don't think the RV-10 is a practical platform for a turbine but, as pointed out, it would make a good test bed. That said, I note my friend with the Lancair Propjet quite enjoys staying at flight level and going long distances and puts up with the fact that it is not practical for local breakfast flights with the gang. When he chose that design, his mission requirements were different than mine, and it more than meets his requirements. I could see someone putting up with the limitations of a turbine -10 if it met their requirements, even though I wouldn't be interested in it myself.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top