New small turbines, 200hp in the works

Matthew Rogers

Ejection Handle Pulled
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
1,325
Display Name

Display name:
Matt R
https://www.uavturbines.com/about-uav-turbines-inc/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...urbines-tests-micro-turboprop-on-dron-461056/

https://www.wired.com/story/uav-turbines-microturbine-jet-engine-drone/

Claims 25 hp currently, 80 pound weight, burns US Diesel #2, and a new smaller constant speed propeller tech. 200hp version in development with Defense department money.
Full internal starter and FADEC with relight up to 10,500'
Integrated alternator
"Unbeaten Fuel Economy"

Obviously too good to be true, but maybe someday.....
 
https://www.uavturbines.com/about-uav-turbines-inc/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...urbines-tests-micro-turboprop-on-dron-461056/

https://www.wired.com/story/uav-turbines-microturbine-jet-engine-drone/

Claims 25 hp currently, 80 pound weight, burns US Diesel #2, and a new smaller constant speed propeller tech. 200hp version in development with Defense department money.
Full internal starter and FADEC with relight up to 10,500'
Integrated alternator
"Unbeaten Fuel Economy"

Obviously too good to be true, but maybe someday.....

The engine itself probably isn't too good to be true, but the idea that it'll be FAA certified probably is. :(

I didn't see any fuel burn numbers, either... I'm very curious about that. While the PT-6A-66D on the TBM is clearly a much larger engine (850shp), it burns about 35gph just taxiing, and about 95gph on the takeoff roll. With the same efficiency, 200hp would burn about 22.4gph. Seems like it's a bit on the high side compared to a piston.

But if there was such a thing for the Mooney (more like 300hp instead of 200... Or even better, 400 or 500 flat-rated to 300) and the price was reasonable, I'd be all over it. After all, Jet-A is cheaper than avgas... #thinkofthesavings
 
The SFC will be a killer; the larger engine the better, in terms of efficiency. Its "unbeaten fuel economy" may be when its compared to a converted APU.
 
Plenty of pilots get behind the power curve in a piston, what could possible go wrong in a turbine.
 
The engine itself probably isn't too good to be true, but the idea that it'll be FAA certified probably is. :(

I didn't see any fuel burn numbers, either... I'm very curious about that. While the PT-6A-66D on the TBM is clearly a much larger engine (850shp), it burns about 35gph just taxiing, and about 95gph on the takeoff roll. With the same efficiency, 200hp would burn about 22.4gph. Seems like it's a bit on the high side compared to a piston.

But if there was such a thing for the Mooney (more like 300hp instead of 200... Or even better, 400 or 500 flat-rated to 300) and the price was reasonable, I'd be all over it. After all, Jet-A is cheaper than avgas... #thinkofthesavings

The RR-250 C-20 produces 370 shp and averages a burn of 24gph in helicopter operations. The RR-250 C-18 produced 317shp and averaged a fuel burn of 20gph.
 
That plus turbines have easier power management.

Meh... That depends.

Turbines' main advantage when it comes to engine management: Not having to worry about mixture. Also, if you believe in shock cooling (I don't, but I operate my engine as if I do), well, no worrying about that either.

A wash: No more worrying about CHTs (or TIT if you've got a turbo), but you trade them for ITT.

Turbines' disadvantages - Well, OK, this is for turboprops without FADEC and autothrottles, anyway: Can't shove the power lever to the stop for TO/GA. Have to pay attention to multiple different gauges when setting power to avoid exceeding limits. Inertial separator/ice vanes can have a huge effect on performance.

It really depends on the installation and how many of these things are taken care of for you. I don't really expect non-aviation publications to be talking about FADEC, though. ;)

The other day, we flew a round trip a few hundred miles south, with winds aloft whipping out of the south and IMC up to FL350 the whole way down. Because of the IMC, the inertial separator was on, so we had to pull the power back to 70% to avoid over temping the engine... And when doing so with the cabin heat on, bleed hi went on, further increasing temps and requiring us to pull back to 56%. That knocked a good 50 knots off our TAS. When combined with the nearly 100-knot headwind, it was a long, slow flight. Groundspeed was 165ish for a good chunk of it. 2 hours liftoff to touchdown.

On the return trip, the skies had cleared up but the winds were still howling. No separator necessary, so we were able to use full power. Groundspeed was around 425 knots in cruise, and I saw 470 in the descent. 1.1 hours liftoff to touchdown. Whee!
 
Meh... That depends.

No "depends" about it.

Turbines' disadvantages - Well, OK, this is for turboprops without FADEC and autothrottles, anyway: Can't shove the power lever to the stop for TO/GA. Have to pay attention to multiple different gauges when setting power to avoid exceeding limits. Inertial separator/ice vanes can have a huge effect on performance.

It really depends on the installation and how many of these things are taken care of for you. I don't really expect non-aviation publications to be talking about FADEC, though. ;)

On piston engines with turbo's you can't firewall the throttle either. Doing a go around in a turbine is no big deal, just push the power up and go, it's either going to be temp or torque as the limiting factor.

Even using inertial separators, engine anti ice or bleed air is no big deal.
 
On piston engines with turbo's you can't firewall the throttle either.

Most turbo planes I’ve flown you can and do firewall the throttles for takeoff (Navajos, Twin Cessnas, etc).

However the turbine engine management is still way easier.
 
No "depends" about it.

Care to actually defend your position with additional statements? ;) What is easier about engine management on the turbine, with the exception of the manual mixture control on a piston?

On piston engines with turbo's you can't firewall the throttle either.

Again, it depends. Automatic or manual wastegate (PA24/PA30), you can. Fixed (M20K/PA34) or throttle-linked (TR182) you can't.

Doing a go around in a turbine is no big deal, just push the power up and go, it's either going to be temp or torque as the limiting factor.

Right, but it's still an additional thing you have to pay attention to at a critical moment of the flight.

Even using inertial separators, engine anti ice or bleed air is no big deal.

But again, it's an additional task and an additional thing to consider when it comes to engine management. Your average 182 driver isn't necessarily going to find it easier to operate than the O-470 unless there's some level of FADEC involved.
 
However the turbine engine management is still way easier.

Ted,

Can you expand on that? Maybe I've just been flying pistons for way longer than turbines and gotten so used to them that it's second nature, but I find that I'm paying as much or more attention to engine management in the turbine. :dunno:
 
Care to actually defend your position with additional statements? ;) What is easier about engine management on the turbine, with the exception of the manual mixture control on a piston?



Again, it depends. Automatic or manual wastegate (PA24/PA30), you can. Fixed (M20K/PA34) or throttle-linked (TR182) you can't.



Right, but it's still an additional thing you have to pay attention to at a critical moment of the flight.



But again, it's an additional task and an additional thing to consider when it comes to engine management. Your average 182 driver isn't necessarily going to find it easier to operate than the O-470 unless there's some level of FADEC involved.

This is where training kicks in. My first few hours in a turbine was years ago in a Beech 99, and yes, coming from Twin Cessnas it seemed daunting, but once I got familiar, I found it was much easier to manage that the pistons. Same goes with a turbine helicopter versus a piston helicopter, the turbine is much easier.
 
The solar turbines have been out for some time, not very expensive at all and the exp guys haven’t adopted to them.
 
I flew 400 series Cessnas and Navajo's, and always remembered not to go to the firewall, but to set max MP for TO.

Maybe there was a difference in how the operations you flew for set their turbo controllers. Both Navajos and turbo Twin Cessnas have turbo controllers that you adjust so that full throttle = max takeoff manifold pressure. When properly adjusted that’s what you should get, and I never had issues with adjusting them. This is especially important on Continentals since operating at less than full throttle (physically) will reduce your fuel flow because of how the fuel controller works so you can end up with less than spec’d fuel flow on takeoff (and Continental already has their specs too low on fuel flow). On a Lycoming it’s less of an issue since the fuel controller relies on the Venturi in the servo to provide the airflow measurement, but the turbo controllers should still provide max rated boost at physical full throttle.

Now, that’s not to say all of them are adjusted correctly. Many aren’t, and of course they can (and do) fail. So you should always still watch for an overboost condition.
 
The solar turbines have been out for some time, not very expensive at all and the exp guys haven’t adopted to them.

The smallest product I can find from them is the Saturn 20. At 1,590 hp, it's a wee bit overkill, even for an RV. ;) And considering it's intended for industrial use, I doubt weight was a consideration in the design.

Or were you talking about something else? :dunno:
 
Ted,

Can you expand on that? Maybe I've just been flying pistons for way longer than turbines and gotten so used to them that it's second nature, but I find that I'm paying as much or more attention to engine management in the turbine. :dunno:

Like Doc said, it’s because you’re new to it.

No fiddling with mixture. Start? Hit the start button, maybe turn fuel on depending on the turbine you’re flying. No significantly different procedures for cold, kinda cold, really cold, hot, sorta hot. No worries about preheating below 40F. You don’t have to mess with watching EGT and CHT for each cylinder, just watch EGT/ITT and your oil temp occasionally.

Yeah on takeoff you have to watch you don’t over torque the engine (or in my case watch for overtemp too). On start you have to scan for hot starts and hung starts. Once you get 100 starts in the starting is second nature.
 
Or were you talking about something else?
I believe he meant Soloy who have been doing turbine conversions since the 80's using the Allison/RR 250 series turbine engines. However, they never really took off as the market is very narrow. Add the initial cost of $250k plus the DOCs on a turbine it's more of one those mods you just want to have vs being cost-effective.
https://www.soloy.com/index.html
 
Last edited:
the exp guys haven’t adopted to them.
The experimental side uses mostly Garret/Honeywell APUs for their turbine engines. There was a company years ago that looked to take these TSO'd APUs to the next level of certification and put in GA aircraft like the Soloy conversions mentioned above, but they ran into to the same long-term economics of putting in a six-figure engine into a 5 figure airframe. Plus the TC certification costs of a turbine engine vs a TSO engine is not even close.
 
SOLAR T-62-2A1-32 TURBINE • $15,000 • FOR SALE • Solar Titan T62-2A1 w/ -32 hot section and "T" wheel. This is one of the rare Joe Bedo engines and his personal engine, the best of the best. He turns the 95hp 2A1's into the 150 hp -32's, zero balanced and ceramic coated and all new seals. I've had my hands on 25+ of these engines and this one is the tightest I've ever seen. I consider it a zero time engine, and probably a lifetime engine for the right person in the right application. A tech maintenance and service manual and a few spares, igniter, filters, and an older -32 power head (for parts) go with it. • Contact Robert Murray, Owner - located Austin, TX United States • Telephone: 512-921-3725 • Posted October 4, 2019 • Show all Ads posted by this AdvertiserRecommend This Ad to a FriendEmail AdvertiserSave to WatchistReport This AdView

1474091_watermark_orig.jpeg
 
Traditional turbines are not efficient until you get pretty high. Don't see this being worth it compared to pistons.
 
Traditional turbines are not efficient until you get pretty high. Don't see this being worth it compared to pistons.

Turbines offer better reliability, much smoother operation (less vibration) and can burn a variety of fuel. They are also lighter than their piston counterparts.
 
^ that

Also bleed air is useful
 
https://www.uavturbines.com/about-uav-turbines-inc/

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...urbines-tests-micro-turboprop-on-dron-461056/

https://www.wired.com/story/uav-turbines-microturbine-jet-engine-drone/

Claims 25 hp currently, 80 pound weight, burns US Diesel #2, and a new smaller constant speed propeller tech. 200hp version in development with Defense department money.
Full internal starter and FADEC with relight up to 10,500'
Integrated alternator
"Unbeaten Fuel Economy"

Obviously too good to be true, but maybe someday.....

Some years ago another company named Innodyne tried to do the same thing. They even had a flying prototype. It all disappeared around 2008.
 
No "depends" about it.



On piston engines with turbo's you can't firewall the throttle either. Doing a go around in a turbine is no big deal, just push the power up and go, it's either going to be temp or torque as the limiting factor.

Even using inertial separators, engine anti ice or bleed air is no big deal.

Unless you flying Rotax, what 200 hp engine is turbo charged?
 
Unless you flying Rotax, what 200 hp engine is turbo charged?

Been several over the years. Some were aftermarket.

The Piper Turbo Arrow, Mooney 231, Cessna 337 Turbo, Piper Seneca to name a few.
 
SOLAR T-62-2A1-32 TURBINE • $15,000 • FOR SALE • Solar Titan T62-2A1 w/ -32 hot section and "T" wheel. This is one of the rare Joe Bedo engines and his personal engine, the best of the best. He turns the 95hp 2A1's into the 150 hp -32's, zero balanced and ceramic coated and all new seals. I've had my hands on 25+ of these engines and this one is the tightest I've ever seen. I consider it a zero time engine, and probably a lifetime engine for the right person in the right application. A tech maintenance and service manual and a few spares, igniter, filters, and an older -32 power head (for parts) go with it. • Contact Robert Murray, Owner - located Austin, TX United States • Telephone: 512-921-3725 • Posted October 4, 2019 • Show all Ads posted by this AdvertiserRecommend This Ad to a FriendEmail AdvertiserSave to WatchistReport This AdView

1474091_watermark_orig.jpeg

Aha! I saw one of those on a BD-5J at Poplar Grove a couple months ago.

It occurs to me that you kinda need an airplane purpose-built for an engine like this. It's not like you're going to hang it on the front of your RV in place of where a LyContisaur would normally go. Maybe that's why they didn't take off, so to speak.

Been several over the years. Some were aftermarket.

The Piper Turbo Arrow, Mooney 231, Cessna 337 Turbo, Piper Seneca to name a few.

Yep. Both Conti (TSIO-360) and Lycoming (TIO-360) have/had turbo 200s.
 
No fiddling with mixture.

TBH, I don't "fiddle" much. Once in and out for prime, in after start, lean for roughly constant EGT during climb, lean to just LOP for cruise, rich for landing.

In a way, the leaning during climb is analogous to fiddling with the power lever during climb... It's just that the climb is much shorter so usually I'll only have to pull the mixture back 2-3 times during the climb. I'm constantly fiddling with the power lever during climb to get at least 95%/115% torque, depending if I'm flying the 850 or 900.

Start? Hit the start button, maybe turn fuel on depending on the turbine you’re flying.

I'm starting to think maybe it's the fact that I'm flying two different planes with somewhat different procedures...

In the 850, there's three power levers and a rocker switch for the starter. Ignition Auto, Boost pump on, starter switch on, check for rotation and oil pressure, at 13%Ng put the condition lever in lo idle, make sure it lights up, make sure it hits 30%Ng in less than 30 seconds, secondaries come on at about 40%, turn the starter switch back off at 50%, condition lever to hi idle at 53%, Ng stabilizes at 69±2%, we have a good start...

It's kinda similar in the 900 except the starter switch is a momentary switch that you hold for two seconds, and the starter will cut itself off automatically at 50%, though you do have to monitor it to make sure it does so. You also don't have a condition lever (or a prop lever), the power lever is like three legs of a stick shift (with "3rd gear" missing). Essentially, the right-hand leg of the h is the condition lever, the center shelf of the h is the prop, the top left is the normal power range and the bottom left is beta/reverse.

No significantly different procedures for cold, kinda cold, really cold, hot, sorta hot. No worries about preheating below 40F. You don’t have to mess with watching EGT and CHT for each cylinder, just watch EGT/ITT and your oil temp occasionally.

Well, generally I leave the Mooney plugged in below 40F... Cold starts are normal, hot starts use your procedure, and the only other thing that varies with temp is how long I prime.

OTOH, in the TBM it's not uncommon for us to be doing a quick-ish turn. An actual quick turn, we really can't do without a GPU, especially in the 850, and many FBOs refuse to give you the GPU on a TBM because they put the power port up at the engine compartment, so the lineman has to get within an arm's length of a spinning prop to unplug it. (I don't like that much either, for that matter.)

Generally, we'll open up the covers and wait for the ITT to come down to about 260C before attempting a start, and we'll wait until it's been spinning for 20 seconds to light it up. We need to have about 20-30 minutes between shutdown and restart, though... And I don't have to worry about that at all in the Mooney, I can shut down and start right back up again if I want/need to.

Yeah on takeoff you have to watch you don’t over torque the engine (or in my case watch for overtemp too). On start you have to scan for hot starts and hung starts. Once you get 100 starts in the starting is second nature.

I've probably got most of that - It just seems like a lot to pay attention to. Or maybe it's just that I'm even more wary because it's a lot easier to cook an engine on the start, and it costs 10x what mine does. ;)
 
I've probably got most of that - It just seems like a lot to pay attention to. Or maybe it's just that I'm even more wary because it's a lot easier to cook an engine on the start, and it costs 10x what mine does. ;)

In 15,000+ hours of flying turbines I've never seen a hot start. Had a few hung starts, a few no light off starts, but never a hot start.
 
Generally, we'll open up the covers and wait for the ITT to come down to about 260C before attempting a start, and we'll wait until it's been spinning for 20 seconds to light it up. We need to have about 20-30 minutes between shutdown and restart, though...

Why?
 
We need to have about 20-30 minutes between shutdown and restart, though
Really? Most turbine helicopters I've run usually have a max TOT limit prior to start due to the drive train load. But every RFM states to perform a dry motor to get the TOT down to an acceptable level (usually 150). Then you initiate the start. During certain ground mx procedures like T/R balance I might do 5 or 6 runs in the span of 20 minutes. Don't recall a similar start temp limit on the King Airs or other fixed wing aircraft I've run before, only a max limit. Does your aircraft have such a limit?
 
These have been out for awhile. Rumored at $115-125K, I don’t see them becoming an engine for the masses.

 
Really? Most turbine helicopters I've run usually have a max TOT limit prior to start due to the drive train load. But every RFM states to perform a dry motor to get the TOT down to an acceptable level (usually 150). Then you initiate the start. During certain ground mx procedures like T/R balance I might do 5 or 6 runs in the span of 20 minutes. Don't recall a similar start temp limit on the King Airs or other fixed wing aircraft I've run before, only a max limit. Does your aircraft have such a limit?


Yup, same with the turbines I've flown, just spin it up for a bit to get the temp down before you through fuel at it.

Main shutdown time limit we would hit would be before a engine rinse, or starter limits, but for a quick turn its just spin it up to cool it down and away you go
 
Back
Top