Let's talk turbines for SELs

M

MountainDude

Cleared for Takeoff
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
1,017
Display Name
Display name:
MountainDude
This looks very promising, but why only 141hp?

Solutions | TURBOTECH | Innovative turbines, Turboprops, Turbogenerators & Range-Extenders

TURBOTECH designs, develops and manufactures innovative regenerative turbines & propulsion systems. Combining proprietary heat-exchangers with state-of-the-art turbines, TURBOTECH's recuperated turbines power conventional and innovative aircraft architectures.
www.turbotech-aero.com www.turbotech-aero.com

In cruise, this would support a Cessna 182 at 100% power (equivalent to 50% power on the O-470) burning 10 gph. It would not be powerful enough for a takeoff, however.

With all the technology available today, it's frustrating that turbines are not widely available and affordable for SELs.
 
Oooh, I have something in mind for this one
 
Sounds like some great multi turbine time to me, then.
 
It's based on an APU. They make about that much hp. If you want more you need something like an Allison/Rolls Royce C250.
 
Hmmm. That "turbogenerator" version could be interesting. It's still a bit underpowered, but if you have a relatively small battery (compared to an all-electric plane), you could just turn the engine on and let it go to full power right away to charge a battery, and then put battery + engine output together through an electric motor of a higher power rating so you can make that 182 take off. You could then shut down the engine immediately after landing, and have a nice quiet taxi to the hangar.

You could even put a plug on it and save more fuel - You wouldn't need it to charge up the battery for takeoff.

That said, it's still not big enough for my needs - At takeoff I'm at 280hp, and at cruise I'm at 182hp. I feel like you need to be able to at least get 65% cruise power out of it.
 
MountainDude said:
This looks very promising, but why only 141hp?

Solutions | TURBOTECH | Innovative turbines, Turboprops, Turbogenerators & Range-Extenders

TURBOTECH designs, develops and manufactures innovative regenerative turbines & propulsion systems. Combining proprietary heat-exchangers with state-of-the-art turbines, TURBOTECH's recuperated turbines power conventional and innovative aircraft architectures.
www.turbotech-aero.com www.turbotech-aero.com

In cruise, this would support a Cessna 182 at 100% power (equivalent to 50% power on the O-470) burning 10 gph. It would not be powerful enough for a takeoff, however.

With all the technology available today, it's frustrating that turbines are not widely available and affordable for SELs.
Click to expand...
Guessing when they say "innovative aircraft" they may mean things that are designed to fly without people and in dangerous areas.
 
asicer said:
The website says that in addition to Jet-A this engine can also run on UL91 and AVGAS (100LL).

That should make for an entertaining conversation with the FBO. :)
Click to expand...
Heh... "Just throw whatever in there. Maybe some fry oil from the restaurant or something." :rofl:
 
dans2992 said:
Watch out… your “ramp/handling fees” will go up by 10x when you go turbine.
Click to expand...
So will your CDI rating.

At least this company has something Turbaero doesn't: A running engine.
 
MountainDude said:
I was thinking about that. Just mount one on each wing. That would be the coolest looking and most aerodynamic 182 ever.
Click to expand...
Like a little brother to this guy:
2021-07-27_CessnaSkyCourier.jpg
 
without reading it I'm going to guess the business model........

raise lots of money, get people to buy STC's early, get people to invest lots of money, market it at the next 12 OSH's as "almost there, we just need the final certification", then blamo, out of business bye bye everyone's money. you can read it here in a few years, folks.
 
Yeah. I hate these stories. Company new to aviation goes to innovate and then realizes that the people that have been doing it for 100 years actually did know what they were doing and reliable flying machines are really expensive to build.
 
I absolutely love the idea of an affordable-ish turbine engine for GA, but I don't think this company will be the one to deliver it.
I'm a bit biased having worked with the French before, but I don't think their culture of 87 weeks of mandatory paid vacation per year is a recipe for success when it comes to aggressively innovating and cutting through gov't regulation to break into GA.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
I absolutely love the idea of an affordable-ish turbine engine for GA, but I don't think this company will be the one to deliver it.
I'm a bit biased having worked with the French before, but I don't think their culture of 87 weeks of mandatory paid vacation per year is a recipe for success when it comes to aggressively innovating and cutting through gov't regulation to break into GA.
Click to expand...

Yea, those French can't do anything for GA :rolleyes:

iu


img.axd


965732.jpg
 
Doc Holliday said:
Yea, those French can't do anything for GA :rolleyes:

iu


img.axd


965732.jpg
Click to expand...
I didn't say the french can't do anything for GA...
Only that I wouldn't count on them to deliver results in any kind of a hurry... like before their VC funding dries up.
 
MountainDude said:
With all the technology available today, it's frustrating that turbines are not widely available and affordable for SELs.
Click to expand...
Or instead of waiting on someone else, get a used Solar T62 or Allison T63 turbine for around $20K, find a suitable airframe, mount the turbine up front with an acceptable prop, and have some fun under a Exp Exh AWC??
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
I don't think their culture of 87 weeks of mandatory paid vacation per year is a recipe for success
Click to expand...
I worked with a lab in France for a bunch of years. Like the rest of Europe, they do enjoy a great deal of vacation. What always amazed me was that they seemed to be off for a lot of religious holidays that fell on a Wednesday, which invariably meant a long weekend (Wed-Sun), because (they said) why would you go back to work for just two days after a holiday?
 
Slick trick, with 52 weeks in a year. 87 weeks of vacation is a job.
 
My understanding is turbines aren't particularly efficient at low altitude. You use a turbine in a SEL plane like a Pilatus Porter where you need light weight and high performance, and fuel consumption isn't a factor.

Same is true with small naval ships and tanks. The original prototypes of the M1 Abrams tank had diesel engines. The diesel versions had half the fuel burn of the current turbine powered tanks. They also had about half the speed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WDD
GaryM said:
I worked with a lab in France for a bunch of years. Like the rest of Europe, they do enjoy a great deal of vacation. What always amazed me was that they seemed to be off for a lot of religious holidays that fell on a Wednesday, which invariably meant a long weekend (Wed-Sun), because (they said) why would you go back to work for just two days after a holiday?
Click to expand...
I mean, why would you go for the two days beforehand? Just take the whole week, you're only losing 35 hours of work time anyway.

That said, we are the polar opposite. We worship work, as if it's the entire point of life. Kinda sick when you step back for a minute.
 
Bell206 said:
Or instead of waiting on someone else, get a used Solar T62 or Allison T63 turbine for around $20K, find a suitable airframe, mount the turbine up front with an acceptable prop, and have some fun under a Exp Exh AWC??
Click to expand...
I think it wouldn't be experimental-exhibition, it'd be experimental-flight test and you'd have a ticking clock before you either have to get it certified or de-modify it.
 
eman1200 said:
raise lots of money, get people to buy STC's early, get people to invest lots of money, market it at the next 12 OSH's as "almost there, we just need the final certification", then blamo, out of business bye bye everyone's money. you can read it here in a few years, folks.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think you're spot on.

ArrowFlyer86 said:
affordable-ish turbine engine for GA....
Click to expand...
That...... has got to be a oxymoron.

Turbines are going to be more expensive than GA piston engines. Turbines make sense when you size up the aircraft to the point where the where the size/weight of a piston engine delivering the needed HP would be too heavy and too unreliable, or just won't provide the power needed, etc. Crop duster air tractor needs a lot of power, so it is a turbine I believe. A Skyhawk, not so much.

For 4 place GA aircraft? Will the cost of overhaul/TBO hours be less than a piston? Initial cost? Cost of repairs?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
That said, we are the polar opposite. We worship work, as if it's the entire point of life
Click to expand...
Yep, live to work seems (or seemed) to be the norm in the US. The new generation, not so much, though. They definitely value their free time and personal lives more.
Europe has always been work to live.
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it wouldn't be experimental-exhibition, it'd be experimental-flight test
Click to expand...
You could do it under experimental-exhibition. Look at the biplane with a jet engine flying at airshows, or other similar birds. Yes, you sort of have to tell them where you're going, but it's not a show stopper.
Experimental - Research&Development can actually be less restrictive (fly a lot more often with no direct oversight) and more restrictive (it comes with a pre-defined operational area).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it wouldn't be experimental-exhibition, it'd be experimental-flight test and you'd have a ticking clock before you either have to get it certified or de-modify it.
Click to expand...
As mentioned it could be all done under E/Exh, however, that would be a ACO/MIDO call. Given a new but existing turbine would replace a recip in an existing airframe, a typical route would see the aircraft go E/R&D for 30 or 60 days simply to verify the combo will fly and not lawn dart, then the aircraft would go E/Exh to further develop the new combo.

The main reason is E/R&D is very restrictive in scope and area, requiring a monthly review of need and the certificate expires at 1 year. The E/Exh certificate has an unlimited duration with a yearly program letter requirement, but basically allows an unlimited area of ops and use with minimal conditions.

I believe this was the same route the Corsair V8 172 used, but have seen it used a number of times with different aircraft. Since a turbine is used there will be a few other requirements than a recip project will have, but it still is a fairly simple and "inexpensive" route to take for a project of this type.
 
www.stratosaircraft.com

Stratos Aircraft | Faster, Farther, More Comfortably.

Stratos Aircraft is singularly focused on building aircraft for one specific performance quadrant of the turbine market. The management team behind the Stratos 716 Project consists of successful engineers, entrepreneurs and experienced aerospace executives.
www.stratosaircraft.com www.stratosaircraft.com

They wouldn't let me use their aircraft in my series' 4th book.
Just Aircraft was happy to let me use theirs in the 5th book.
 
Last edited:
Kinda funny that they post a weight to thrust, instead of thrust to weight ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top