New 240hp turbine for light aircraft
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, but at altitude that's probably 60% less in lapse rate, so not so bad. And in Europe where Jet A1 isn't taxed, this could quite quickly become cheaper to run than an Lycosaurus.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,499
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet A1 is only tax free if it is used to fly commercial on international routes, at least in some countries in europe. Still cheap compared to avgas, but that is mainly because avgas is a rare and therefore expensive to produce fuel.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jet A1 is now taxed for private use in the UK, on a self declaration basis. There are various exemptions e.g. training flights.
This tax has killed the case for diesel conversions instantly.
This tax has killed the case for diesel conversions instantly.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How long would that be true if these (or any similar) engines began to be prolific?
In saying that as Peter says 18 per hour for 240hp seems fine. But if that's in the cruise as the guy said it will be 30gph or so at msl.
Could be an excellent unit for the right aircraft.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: on short final
Age: 48
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So they are claiming around 30mph speed advantage over a lycoming engine on the RV10
Wonder what they could acheive in a really efficient airframe, such as the planned Panthera from Pipistrel
Pipistrel Aircraft Panthera | Pipistrel
Much lighter than the IO390 as well.
I guess it makes a lot of sense for longer missions where you plan to fly FL150 for long periods of time with the comfort of a turbine engine. Not ideal for a bimble just outside the circuit
Wonder what they could acheive in a really efficient airframe, such as the planned Panthera from Pipistrel
Pipistrel Aircraft Panthera | Pipistrel
Much lighter than the IO390 as well.
I guess it makes a lot of sense for longer missions where you plan to fly FL150 for long periods of time with the comfort of a turbine engine. Not ideal for a bimble just outside the circuit
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see how they can claim a given speed.
So much depends.
With a turbine you do get a more efficient cowling shape, generally. But the fuel is heavier so you get less range even for the same SFC, and no turbine will match the SFC of a correctly leaned piston engine.
It's lighter but that merely severely screws up your W&B, requiring a very long mounting frame - see the Jetprop conversion. The resulting position of the nose gear could impact (pun intended) the prop clearance on grass
I'd like to see the real fuel flow at say 240HP, ISA. If they are doing 18USG/hr then they have a sterling proposition but I think they will have bent some rules of physics doing that because AFAIK nobody has got anywhere near that before.
So much depends.
With a turbine you do get a more efficient cowling shape, generally. But the fuel is heavier so you get less range even for the same SFC, and no turbine will match the SFC of a correctly leaned piston engine.
It's lighter but that merely severely screws up your W&B, requiring a very long mounting frame - see the Jetprop conversion. The resulting position of the nose gear could impact (pun intended) the prop clearance on grass
I'd like to see the real fuel flow at say 240HP, ISA. If they are doing 18USG/hr then they have a sterling proposition but I think they will have bent some rules of physics doing that because AFAIK nobody has got anywhere near that before.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: BFS
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Much more reliable. But the cost of the overhaul may not be for the faint hearted! And there's the hot section check to factor in also, again probably more costly than a new Lyco or Connie.
Maybe as its specifically aimed at light aircraft the costs will be more in line with reality. I hope so.
Maybe as its specifically aimed at light aircraft the costs will be more in line with reality. I hope so.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's a rule of thumb saying that turbines start to make sense at 400BHP. I was told this is mostly a function of blade diameter as the main energy loss is due to the gap between the blade and the sheath and the larger the diameter, the smaller it is in relation to the whole thing.
One argument against turbines in single engine planes is that they stink and being placed in front of the cockpit, you get to breathe a lot of turbine exhaust. That alone would probably keep me from buying a single engine turbine.
One argument against turbines in single engine planes is that they stink and being placed in front of the cockpit, you get to breathe a lot of turbine exhaust. That alone would probably keep me from buying a single engine turbine.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should not be breathing anything at all. I have an electronic CO detector and it reads zero during normal ops. Sometimes, in slow flight, you get 10-30ppm and it goes off, and sometimes it picks up the exhaust from the plane that landed before me. But during flight, the reading is zero.
That's perhaps true for the 1960s Allison heli engines whose business Rolls Royce bought, and are trying to flog a 450HP one with a prop shaft on the end. There are some interesting developments now - example. I have no financial interest in that venture but know the people behind it well.
But no turbine will match a piston engine for SFC. Even the huge and state of the art engines on a 787 only just about match a piston engine for efficiency.
turbines start to make sense at 400BHP.
But no turbine will match a piston engine for SFC. Even the huge and state of the art engines on a 787 only just about match a piston engine for efficiency.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You should not be breathing anything at all. I have an electronic CO detector and it reads zero during normal ops.
Every time I was on a single engine turbine aircraft, I noticed strong exhaust smell in the cabin, especially during ground operations. Turbine exhaust is oily and has a much stronger smell than petrol engine exhaust. In a multi engine turbine, you are not seated directly behind the turbines so it's less of an issue.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What type of a/c was that?
I've been in a Jetprop and flown a TBM850 for 1.5hrs but never smelt anything.
I know CO doesn't smell but if exhaust was entering the cockpit then CO would register on a decent meter - unless you are running peak-EGT or LOP in which case there shouldn't be any, but you won't be doing that during high AoA flight.
I've been in a Jetprop and flown a TBM850 for 1.5hrs but never smelt anything.
I know CO doesn't smell but if exhaust was entering the cockpit then CO would register on a decent meter - unless you are running peak-EGT or LOP in which case there shouldn't be any, but you won't be doing that during high AoA flight.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's nothing inherently difficult in the design and manufacture of turbines with todays CNC machinery. It's got fewer parts than a piston. Therefore, it is possible to design a turbine that would cost less than any piston engine. All it takes is one visionary and it could be reality tomorrow. Don't expect it from the old guard, tho - they're to comfy with their overpriced military contracts to do an about face. It will have to be an outsider.
If this is the company, I don't know.
If this is the company, I don't know.