Turbine Engine Choices For HBA?

jsstevens said:
I think they did:
Take-off (5 min) 0.847 lb/HP/hr
Maximum continuous 0.863 lb/HP/hr
Normal cruise 0.901 lb/HP/hr

.901 lb * 188 (hp) = 169.4 lbs/hr = ~25 gal/hour for cruise.

.847 * 241 = 204 lbs/hour = ~30 gal/hour for takeoff

.863 * 214 = 185 lbs/hour = ~27 gal/hour max continuous.

Need some big tanks...
Click to expand...

Thanks for looking this up... didn't realize turbines were quite so thirsty. The 801 carries 30 gallons standard with extensions to double that. Even at 60 gallons though, that's not much endurance with those burn rates. Point for piston engine.
 
Run-Around said:
Thanks for looking this up... didn't realize turbines were quite so thirsty. The 801 carries 30 gallons standard with extensions to double that. Even at 60 gallons though, that's not much endurance with those burn rates. Point for piston engine.
Click to expand...
You're welcome. It was on the website in the performance table. Turbines usually have consumption number in lbs/hour and fuel in lbs rather than gallons. Form there it was simple math...
 
I should note that my dad has always wanted a Cessna Caravan. I think we might be able to swing it cost wise, but mom is afraid to fly so we aren't an 'aviation family.' As awesome as that plane would be, it's a tremendous investment for a boys' day out. Hence our affection for the 801... it's sorta like a mini caravan. Not as capable but mostly as fun at much less the cost.
 
Run-Around said:
In all likelihood, if I move forward with the build myself, I'll be going with the Lycoming O-360 for exactly the reasons you point out. Hell, I don't even have any hours in a plane yet. The problem is that before you start to build, you've got an infinite number of planes and options to choose from... once you commit, you're locked in.
Click to expand...

I know a turbine has a definite cool factor, but there's a reason the old Lycosaurs are still with us, they just work. The fuel flow on small turbines at low altitude is such that you'd have such a short range that the airplane wouldn't be all that useful.

Run-Around said:
Along those lines, glad I didn't start building the 801-heavy duty in 2012 when I first bought the rudder kit. Now Zenair offers the 801-super duty with enlarged surfaces netting an additional 200 LBS of disposable load. See I'll build my plane and then something better'll come out!
Click to expand...

There will always be something better coming along, but at some point you just have to jump in. We're not eternal.
 
FormerHangie said:
There will always be something better coming along, but at some point you just have to jump in. We're not eternal.
Click to expand...

Very true (and especially so with electronics... I don't even try to keep up). As they say, no time is perfect... you've got to jump in when you can or you never will!
 
By the way, here's a good video of the 701 / 750 with a turbine powerplant. So cool! Just wish I could see an 801-SD with an appropriately sized turbine implant. the 701 / 750 is just too small for my applications.

 
I have seen taxi tests of a LongEZ with the gas generator from a APU bolted to the back. This was at KSUX around 2010, not sure whether he ever dared to take it in the air.
 
There was an outfit several years ago (around 2005ish IIRC) that had stuffed a small turbine into an RV-8. They had it at OSH a few years in a row. I would always stop and oogle at it, but it never materialized into anything mass-produced. Haven't seen or heard of them in a long time.

Seems like the main issues were fuel consumption vs. capacity (RV-8 only has 40gal standard and maybe up to 50 with extenders) and airframe limitations - RVs aren't designed to to super high and super fast.
 
What engine is bolted to the rear fuselage of the Sonex-variant jet? One-X is it? I forget, the plane won't for the OP (it's single place), but the engine might.
 
jaymark6655 said:
TJ-100, but I would look at piston diesel first if you must burn Jet A, MOGAS burning Lycoming would be best mirroring whatever one else is saying.
Click to expand...

I think it'll probably be a Lycoming in reality... but a guy can always dream. I think a piston diesel is good middle ground, just concerned about reliability and maintenance with a powerplant that isn't strongly proven. I REALLY want this plane to fly (not be a so-called 'hangar queen') so I'll probably go with a tried and true choice.

Thanks all for the input.
 
CJones said:
There was an outfit several years ago (around 2005ish IIRC) that had stuffed a small turbine into an RV-8. They had it at OSH a few years in a row. I would always stop and oogle at it, but it never materialized into anything mass-produced. Haven't seen or heard of them in a long time.

Seems like the main issues were fuel consumption vs. capacity (RV-8 only has 40gal standard and maybe up to 50 with extenders) and airframe limitations - RVs aren't designed to to super high and super fast.
Click to expand...


There was an RV-10 with a small turbine (a Walter, I believe) in the commercial exhibit area at Oshkosh in 2015. Looked like a very nicely done installation, and the proponents were flight testing it. Don't recall seeing it this past year.
 
GRG55 said:
There was an RV-10 with a small turbine (a Walter, I believe) in the commercial exhibit area at Oshkosh in 2015. Looked like a very nicely done installation, and the proponents were flight testing it. Don't recall seeing it this past year.
Click to expand...
It is probably the one I saw in 2016. TP100 weight 137 lbs. making 241 hp.14067849_10206736757634464_583674828277822508_o.jpg 14115535_10206736768434734_5777674021994564716_o.jpg 14054584_10206736777634964_1138163484473231142_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top