Cirrus might produce Epic Turboprop?

TangoWhiskey

TangoWhiskey

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
14,210
Location
Midlothian, TX
Display Name
Display name:
3Green
http://www.flyingmag.com/news/cirrus-outlook-includes-turboprop-single-jet-plans-solid?cmpid=010512

At the company’s global sales meeting in Central Florida that is currently under way, Cirrus’ Pat Waddick told Flying that the company is taking a very tentative look into production of a variant of the all-composite Epic Escape, the sleek, single-engine turboprop from former kit- and would-be certificated manufacturer Epic Aircraft of Bend, Oregon. Cirrus’ parent company, CAIGA, purchased the assets of Epic out of bankruptcy last year. Cirrus Executive VP of sales and marketing Todd Simmons said that Cirrus is simply "evaluating to see if there is an opportunity" with a turboprop product, which would seem natural given Cirrus' long experience with composite construction.

The single-engine pressurized turboprop niche is today populated by few airplanes, with only the Piper Meridian coming in at less than $3 million.Simmoms stressed that any discussion of a launch was premature.
Click to expand...

I've been a secret admirer of the Epic; has nice performance, graceful aeronautical lines, etc.
 
A guy parks his Epic in my (common) hangar. Sweet looking plane. Big. Serious trailing link landing gear. Interior is from the "Spartan Homebuilt" school of design, but Cirrus and BMW Design could fix that in a minute.

Good move for Cirrus, I'd say. IMHO, single-engine turboprops are going to be a more attractive market segment, long term, than the VLJs. Piper should retool the Altaire into a big-brother step-up for the Meridian.
 
Sam D said:
Interesting -- especially given that Alan Klapmeier is now with Kestrel.
Click to expand...

That was my thought. Cirrus not only wants to get into a good market, but they want to have something as a "Natural upgrade" from the SR22, and not lose those people to Piper, Kestrel, etc.
 
I only wish there was some kind of reliable and inexpensive Walter 601 or something. PT-6 is twice too big minimum (I know that it comes in whole bunch of sizes, but even the smallest ones are big). There's also an obsolete single-spool turbo from RR, called "350" or some such, which is almost Walter's size, but it's expensive and possibly out of production. If the engine were there, airplanes could be made.
 
I agree a more reliable version of the 601 would be nice. Although I think GE bought up the rights to the 601, so that might allow for a more reliable version (expect the price to go up).

The Rolls Royce (previously Allison) 250 turboprop is very attractive for its low weight and reasonable efficiency. I find its layout to be rather intriguing, it's quite compact.

This is the main reason why I'm a big piston engine proponent. So long as you don't need big size in your plane, you can get a ton of performance out of a high-powered piston engine (or two).
 
Ted DuPuis said:
This is the main reason why I'm a big piston engine proponent. So long as you don't need big size in your plane, you can get a ton of performance out of a high-powered piston engine (or two).
Click to expand...
Maybe if we all get together and chant "Deltahawk! Deltahawk!! Deltahawk!!!", the heavens open and a shiny ghost of Henning descends to us, bearing a cheap, lightweight, durable and reliable aviation diesel. Meanwhile my plan is to become super rich and buy a PC-12.
 
IIRC, GE is working on improving and expanding the Walter product line.

Maybe it'll help drive down PT46 pricing.....Well, it's nice to dream.

I think it's kinda funny that Cirrus is more or less directly confronting Alan K and Kestrel. What the heck went on behind the scenes at Cirrus?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
The Rolls Royce (previously Allison) 250 turboprop is very attractive for its low weight and reasonable efficiency. I find its layout to be rather intriguing, it's quite compact.
Click to expand...

The Extra 500 uses a RR 250 B17 with 450shp. By not using a flat-rated version of a bigger engine like the Meridian or TBM, that puts some limits on the power available at cruise altitudes.
 
I visited with Doug King at the factory in Bend last year, and I've always been fascinated by the planes. As a former proud Col400 owner I think this is the obvious next step in aviation. From what I know of the china deal I'm not sure how they would be able to introduce the Escape (my personal favorite) into the US market as the LT Owners Group was supposed to have exclusive rights to the US i thought?
 
zaitcev said:
Maybe if we all get together and chant "Deltahawk! Deltahawk!! Deltahawk!!!", the heavens open and a shiny ghost of Henning descends to us, bearing a cheap, lightweight, durable and reliable aviation diesel.
Click to expand...

Good luck with that. The inherent nature of diesels (high peak cylinder pressures) tends to make them heavy. Turbines have a distinct advantage because they have relatively steady pressures within them.

Meanwhile my plan is to become super rich and buy a PC-12.
Click to expand...

This is probably more likely.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Good luck with that. The inherent nature of diesels (high peak cylinder pressures) tends to make them heavy. Turbines have a distinct advantage because they have relatively steady pressures within them..
Click to expand...

I've never understood why a diesel has to have significantly higher peak ICP than a gasoline engine. Is this a requirement in order to gain the efficiency improvement that diesels offer? Seems to me that by metering the fuel delivery on a diesel with direct injection such that fuel input is a (n inverse) function of ICP, one could spread the burn over a longer period.
 
gismo said:
I've never understood why a diesel has to have significantly higher peak ICP than a gasoline engine. Is this a requirement in order to gain the efficiency improvement that diesels offer? Seems to me that by metering the fuel delivery on a diesel with direct injection such that fuel input is a (n inverse) function of ICP, one could spread the burn over a longer period.
Click to expand...

I'm probably wrong, don't know much about diesels but I think they just require higher pressures to light off the fuel.
 
gismo said:
I've never understood why a diesel has to have significantly higher peak ICP than a gasoline engine. Is this a requirement in order to gain the efficiency improvement that diesels offer? Seems to me that by metering the fuel delivery on a diesel with direct injection such that fuel input is a (n inverse) function of ICP, one could spread the burn over a longer period.
Click to expand...

I don't know all of the details of why that is, but I think most of it has to do with the higher compression ratios. Higher compression tends to increase peak pressure, and have a steeper ramp. With direct injection it would be theoretically possible to increase the burn duration with multiple pulses, but you're also looking at a very small time window for that. The technology may simply not be there yet.
 
Higher compression allows you to extract more power from a given amount of fuel. Since fuel efficiency is the main benefit of a diesel, you lose the benefit if you don't have high compression.

Also, a diesel is a compression engine. If you don't compress the mixture to the point of autoignition, it ain't a diesel.
 
GE is working on some things, I've had a nice chat with someone in the know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top