The Tradewind Bonanza

[Soulman]

Amazing what boredom discovers...

"The Prop-Jet Bonanza" (http://www.tradewind-bonanza.com/)

A few of the more notable facts:

220kts TAS at 15,000ft
2,500fpm climb to 10,000ft
Take off in 580ft

and my personal favourite:

Land in 320ft

320ft? You've got to be kidding me! :eek:

Anyone had the honour?



Soulman.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Certainly lots of sex appeal...BUT.

With a turbonormalised IO550 you're doing 210+ kts at 15000' for 1/4 of the cost and have a substantially increased payload/range (over the standard A36) instead of taking a BIG hit in that department by bolting on the PT6...and needing tip tanks to get just some of it, not all, back.

Put Tip tanks on the Turbonormalised Bo and you just leave the Tradwinds wondermachine for dead.

[Led Zep]

Those exhausts don't look right for a PT-6? Could be an Allison 250 like the Cessna 210 turbine conversion - think it is called the Silver Eagle?

Whatever, where do I buy either? I'll write 'em a cheque...:E

[Wizofoz]

I'd say it falls foul of the limitation that affects many piston-to-turbine convertions- That being that what is Vno in a piston (and can be exceeded in still air) becomes Vmo (which is a limit) in a turbine.

Anyway, I'd rather have one of http://www.epicaircraft.com/ These

[Newforest]

Those exhausts don't look right for a PT-6? Could be an Allison 250 like the Cessna 210 turbine conversion - think it is called the Silver Eagle?

Whatever, where do I buy either? I'll write 'em a cheque...:E

Yes, they are Allison 250's and the dealer has three for sale.

[tinpis]

Allison 250 reminds tin of..... NOMAD ! yak...:yuk:

[airag3]

I remember reading the original article in US Flying magazine about Beachcrafts own conversion of the A-36 to turbo-prop and called it the Lightning , what i don't recall is why they discontinued the project.

[Lodown]

Just a guess in response to your post Airag 3...

Like a T Model Ford conversion into a hot rod, the result looks great, but is not very practical for anything other than parades, bragging rights and as a head turner.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yup that about covers it.

On a practical basis it makes not a lot of difference whether it is an Alison or a PT6...the former being a converted helicopter engine.

The numbers just do NOT stack up...unless you have SOO much money that cost and operating economics are not a influencing factor.

I am not current on what a turbine conversion is worth but it would be in the vicinity of USD200K ++. For that you get a rocket like climb rate over a bog standard Bo...and that is all.

For $75k US, assuming you don't have an engine already..or your engine is TBO and you want new...you can get a blue printed GAMI spec TNIO550...that is REALLY spec'd up with porting, polished dis and dat and flat rated at full power to 20K...that just drops in your existing engine mounts.

You will then have a Bo that will climb at 1500'/min to near 10K and average 1000'/min+ to the high teens and that will cruise lean of peak EGT at 80+% power using 17 gallons /hr at 214Kts. Fit 15 USG tips for about AUD12K and you will have a still air range of over 1300nm with very satisfactory reserves...IFR reserves is the term...a 100nm alternate and 45 minutes + in the tanks on shutdown.

Turbonormalising is not like turbocharging. TN is merely maintaining normal msl MP up to 20k...TC is 'ground boosting'....where you get some higher MP at MSL...36inches or whatever.

Because the TN engine is only producing normal rated continuous power, and at much lower CHTs etc due LOP, it does not impact TBO. I could turbonormalise my IO550, which only has 300 hrs since complete overhaul with new Millenium Superior cylinders, which are what they use on a GAMIspec engine, for a little more than USD 30k...and if I had the money I would in a heartbeat.

TSIO engines like A36TC, C210P, C310, 340, 402 etc get absolutely hammered and virtually never make TBO...1200 hrs is more common.

A TNIO550b...like any normally aspirated engine, can be operated through TBO in private ops...Schedule 5 it is called...thus you could easily get 2000+ hrs before even changing a cylinder if you operate them properly and with regular flying....say 50 hrs a year.

What many people forget with turbines is the time limit on overhaul/hot section inspections. Typically turbine engines are limited to 3000 or 10 yrs...a piston under schedule 5 is 'on condition'. The only way you can get approval for 'on condition' with turbines is through airline style trend monitoring...so unless you are flying 300 hrs/year, even above average private aircraft ultilisation would still not top 100, your engine overhaul costs/hr are astronomical.

I know someone through the American Bonanza Society, which I belong to, who has done the PT6 conversion and he quiet freely admits the numbers DO NOT stack up....but money is not a factor for him and he does lots of long overwater flights..REALLY long overwater...and just for fun and private travel I might add.:D

So for NO improvement in performance overall you would be paying something like 200-250k for the conversion and maybe $200/hr overhaul allowance, based on an average of 50 hrs/annum for 10 yrs, for a turbine as against 75K and $22/hr overhaul allowance for a piston engine...and that if you overhauled it after 2000 hrs which is only 300 past TBO..operated properly you could easily see 2500 hrs +.

Operated properly, with balanced injectors, all cylinder monitors, and knowledge, piston engines burning 100LL are still WAY more economical than turbines unless you are wanting/needing a Kingair class of aeroplane.

Even then a Chieftain will still carry 8 bums more economically than a Kingair...you have to either need or be prepared to pay for the later....like the choice between a Bonanza and a Baron...it is a PURELY economic decision...one is not 'safer' than the other in overall terms....if you are prepared to pay a 250% premium you can get some extra redundancy...not a huge amount given latest SE technology. But you better be properly trained to fly the later or you will be very dead very quickly if you lose an engine at the wrong time.

The only thing on the horizon which may change this dynamic is diesel technology...it is HUGELY exciting...but early days yet.

In fact Diesel is SO promising that even if I had the money to turbonormalise my IO550 I would wait 5 yrs and see what Theilert can come up with.

I believe that Diesels burning avtur will be so economically compelling in 5 yrs that current technology will be knocked on it's arse. Based on figures they are getting out of a Beech Duke with twin turbo 350hp diesels burning avtur the economics will see DOCs dropping by 60+%.

As an indication of what I am talking about if you transpose the numbers from the Diesel Duke test aircraft to a Bonanza with a 310 hp version of the same engine, which is on the drawing board, you would be talking $20/hr for fuel instead of the $80/hr we are paying at the moment. A Baron would be double that.

The only hurdles that remain to be overcome are TBR (Time between Removal) and weight of the engines. When people like SMA and Thielert fix those two issues TCM and LYC will be out of the engine making business....or more likely in the diesel engine business too.

On my IO55b engine with Gamijectors I burn 20 liters an hour less fuel than with standard TCM injectors...that is in excess of AUD30.00/hr saving...over 1700 hrs factory recommended life that is over AUD$51000 saved on fuel alone..without factoring in savings on cylinders because they are operated cooler...if I get 2000 hrs out of this engine that goes out to AUD$60000.00.

My last overhaul, including the EDM700 engine monitor and Gamijectors and new cylinders was AUD$41000.00. With a diesel engine on present prices there would be a further saving of AUD$120000.00 just on fuel alone and assuming the diesel TBR remains the same as the piston TBO....it's more likely to nearly double over time.

Those are the sort of numbers that will breath life back into GA....not the crap DS spouts.

The economics for diesels are actually compelling right now for commercial ops like flying schools etc...for private ops doing 10% of the annual utilisation they remain in the future.

[gassed budgie]

When Beech flew the Lightning back in the 80's they were more than happy with the aircraft and it's projected performance figures.
They did their sums and estimated that by time they got it to the dealers and onto the market it was going to cost nearly a million dollars a copy.
What they weren't too sure about was how many people would've been prepared to part with that amount of money for a single engined turbine.
They figured not a lot, so the project was cancelled.

[tinpis]

The Beech Duke Thielert conversion shows what a breakthrough diesel can make

Germany: The Beech Duke with Thielert V8 350HP has flown for the first time on November 18. This is the first diesel conversion that demonstrates a reduced weight compared with original gasoline engines: Exactly 50 Lbs. The Duke diesel is faster by 10 Knots at FL 220 despite a slightly lower power at sea level. Here is comparative performance figures claimed by Martin Hagensieker, see http://www.dukeb60.de/ with photographs:

______________Diesel V8__________________Lycoming
Power_________350 hp_____________________380 hp
At rpm________2.300______________________2.900
Cruisepower______70 %_______________________67 %
At rpm________2.000______________________2.500
Fuelflow/h______2 x 45 ltr./11 gal._____________2 x 80 ltr./20 gal.
Fuel capacity_______78 ltr./232 gal.__________878 ltr. 232 gal.
Fuel___________Jet-Fuel__________________AVGAS 100 LL
Fuelprice Europe___65 – 1,45 EUR/ltr._________1,45 – 1,80 EUR/ltr.
Fuelprice USA____3 – 4 USD/gal._____________4 – 5 USD/gal.
Speed________220 kts/FL 220______________210 kts./FL 220
Climbspeed______1,200 ft/min________________1,000 ft/min
TBO__________2,400 hour__________________1,600 hour
Price
for Overhaul___2 x 50.000 EUR____________2 x 60.000 EUR
Price
for first kit___2 x 175.000 EUR__________N/A
Range___________2.000 nm_________________1.100 nm

Note that with a range of 2,000NM, the Duke Thielert can fly from any destination in Western Europe to any destination on the East coast of North America both ways in three legs, with required reserves on the Atlantic. And, at the (low) market price of a Beech Duke today, plus some $ 400,000 conversion cost, and a fuel flow of 22 gallons/hour of Jetfuel, it will be the most affordable business aircraft for such a mission. :ok: :ok: :ok:

[YesTAM]

I have been watching Thielert and SMA with interest. There still seems to be a little matter of cooling these beast under Australian (Or apparently American) summer conditions.

I hope Thielert goes for the 2 litre version of the Mercedes Diesel, it might be a little more powerful and a little less stressed.

The limiting factor with diesels is the same as petrol engines - how much power you can extract vs. TBO. I watch it all with interest.

[the wizard of auz]

The Duke diesel is faster by 10 Knots at FL 220 despite a slightly lower power at sea level.
Now theres a scary thought. they have trouble at sea level as it is............ and unfortunately, thats where all the take offs occur. :eek: :}

[yowie]

Not all! (Much?) Better hot and high perf by the sounds of it,bring it on:8

[Ozgrade3]

I believe that there is no provision for field overhaul for the Centurion 1.7 engine, the engine is replaced by the factory. The factory does, and will do all overhauls for some time so they can guage the wear patterns of the engine in service. Accordingly the TBR (time between replacement) as its called has been set low. Happens with all new type enginesengines. They stste that over time, as experiance grows, they will dramatically increase the TBR and may eventually licence engine shops to perform overhauls.

Now what I;d love to see is a pair of the 4 ltr 350 hp V8's mated to a 10 seat pressurised composite, state of the art fuselage. Now that would be awesome.

[Chimbu chuckles]

A Beech Duke..as mentioned above.

Certainly the technology is not overly mature yet...but give it time and I think it could be the 'lifeline' that GA seems to need.

If they can come up with an IO520/550 replacement with less than 1/2 the DOCs there will be a LOT of older aircraft that will become viable again..Barons, C310s, Chieftain, Bonanzas, Cherokee 6, Lance, C210. I think it is exciting technology.

[BEACH KING]

Chimbu and others,

Thanks for starting a very interesting thread. I too am very excited by the new emerging diesel technologies. The huge advantages of vastly reduced fuel flow, increased engine TBO and some 21st century technology may just be the thing to save GA in Australia! I think another large advantage is the increased safety afforded by the abolition of spark ignition and high octane 100LL if things go bad.

I hope the engine developers can overcome the problem of diesels overheating when putting out good power. I have read that this was a big problem with the Twin Diamond diesel that ran into heat trouble at altitude in outback Aus. The thing to remember is that at altitude there is less air with which to cool things down, but the turbo keeps the power at altitude pretty much the same as at sea level.

Chimbu, very interested to know how you get the 20 L/H fuel burn reduction. I imagine you are doing the lean of peak thing. Do you find much of a drop in TAS? I have GAMI injectors and 6 point egt/cht monitor on my BO also (althought only a IO520) and when I go LOP the TAS drops to buggery.
As I reckon aircraft are for getting you somewhere quick, I squirt in the extra fuel to ROP to get some good cruise speeds (all be it at extra running cost).
Anyone have any idea when these new engines look like becoming available and rough ballpark cost.

[Woomera]

The Allison 250 is a great engine, but........
This engine is currently used in nearly 50 different military and civilian applications. It has proven to be THE premier, light turbo-prop engine of all time.
........they obviously are not aware of the GAF Nomad!

Saw two Allison 250 powered Bonanzas a few years ago on a Bonanza Club tour of northern Australia (headed for PNG I think). They stood out on the ground due to a very significant nose leg extension ... to accommodate the larger prop diameter!!

Chuck ... PT6 indeed - you of all people should know better!!! :mad: Wash your mouth out!!

Sunny Woomera

[Chimbu chuckles]

Yeah I know:sad: I only got about 4500hrs sitting between em:ok:

Beech King. I reckon between 380F hottest cyinder LOP and the same limit ROP there is about 20 liters/hr difference. Sometimes when pushing a strong HWC at high alt I go ROP...not always though...Usually I go LOP...or when cruising at low altitude I always go LOP...sometimes if only climbing to < about 4000' I even climb LOP.

Probably about 7 knots difference in TAS in the 6000' to 8000' range with my IO550b and 3 bladed BlacMac. I look at it this way;

165Ktas @ 50 liters/hr = 3.3anm/liter. (typical for me)
172ktas @ 65-70 Lt/hr = 2.46-2.92anm/liter.

With a 15kt HWC.

150Kt GS @ 50liters/hr = 3.0gnm/liter
158-160Kt GS @ 65-70liters/hr = 2.28-2.43gnm/liter

Going fast costs money and range no matter what in a piston single.

Leaned to 48-49liters/hr I once flew Redcliffe-Cairns with a 15-20kt TWC, about 4.0 hrs block time, and landed with 110 liters in the tanks....about 3.65gnm/liter:ok:

[Led Zep]

The Allison 250 is a great engine, but........

........they obviously are not aware of the GAF Nomad!

Saw two Allison 250 powered Bonanzas a few years ago on a Bonanza Club tour of northern Australia (headed for PNG I think). They stood out on the ground due to a very significant nose leg extension ... to accommodate the larger prop diameter!!

Chuck ... PT6 indeed - you of all people should know better!!! :mad: Wash your mouth out!!

Sunny Woomera

Wasn't it the original versions of the 250Cxx model that sent so many S76s to watery graves in the North Sea?