Turbine Engine Choices For HBA?

Run-Around

Run-Around

Pre-Flight
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
87
Location
Pennsylvania
Display Name
Display name:
Run-Around
Bear in mind that I'm an airplane ignoramus (at the moment) but aspire to build my own plane one day. Curious to ask the more experienced builders here at POA if you know of any good, reliable turbine engines for homebuilt airplanes? At the moment, cost not considered.

I'm not talking about an ultralight powered by an APU, I'm talking about an airframe of 1400 LBS (or so) that would normally take a 180 − 240 HP piston engine. Is there anything from P&W, GE etc. that would fit the bill, or am I dreaming? (I know that's a small job for a turbine)

I'm more after the burning of JetA than a turbine engine, thus the DeltaHawk turbo diesel was an option until my preferred kit manufacturer told me that engine is heavy and would require ballast in the tail (or some such thing)... turbine engine would be lighter, right?

Anyone know if DeltaHawk is still in business anyhoo? Thanks, Doug
 
You would definitely have a cool factor, but other than that I really don't see why you wound want to do that. You would burn a lot of fuel and not really gain anything. I would stick with tried and true. There are some nice fadec engines in that range for an experimental.
 
PaulS said:
You would definitely have a cool factor, but other than that I really don't see why you wound want to do that. You would burn a lot of fuel and not really gain anything. I would stick with tried and true. There are some nice fadec engines in that range for an experimental.
Click to expand...

I like the peace of mind that comes with burning JetA... there are so many commercial applications for the fuel that it'll be around a long while yet. Meantime, the all-out war on gas will continue to wage.
 
I wouldn't worry about needing to use Jet A due to unavailability of avgas for flying in the US. Now, if you plan on doing a bunch of remote foreign flying then it is a valid consideration.
 
Run-Around said:
NICE! Though it looks to be too powerful for my airframe (listed as an Allison 250 B17C @ 450 SHP).
Click to expand...

Or is it? Are HP from piston to turbine comparable, or could you get away with a more powerful / lighter turbine engine? Perhaps with a stronger mount / firewall? I really don't know what I'm talking about... :) / :( / o_O
 
SkyDog58 said:
I wouldn't worry about needing to use Jet A due to unavailability of avgas for flying in the US. Now, if you plan on doing a bunch of remote foreign flying then it is a valid consideration.
Click to expand...

Remote flying is definitely on the list...
 
BTW, someone stuffed a turbine into a Luscombe 8A, so a Zenith should be possible... Google Speedy Bird for details.

You'll need lots of fuel for those thirsty turbines.
 
N659HB said:
Have you looked into Walter engines?
Click to expand...

No but thanks for the lead, I'll check it out.

I'm only now starting to get serious about fixed wing flying (I'm getting weathered out of ballooning a lot these days and finding crew is difficult as well). Of course I don't intend to start building anything until I log some hours in a plane, but aviation is 99.5% dreaming and .5% flying, isn't it? (or is this because I'm a balloonist?).
 
Run-Around said:
I like the peace of mind that comes with burning JetA... there are so many commercial applications for the fuel that it'll be around a long while yet. Meantime, the all-out war on gas will continue to wage.
Click to expand...

Meh, I've been flying pistons and turbines for a while now, lots of benifits to a turbine, but that isn't really one of them.

The cost of running a small turbine doing low level Cessna 182 type missions, it will cost more in fuel even with Jet A being slightly cheaper.

The good, beta range, smaller failure rate, no shock cooking, less concerned about pre heating.
 
N659HB said:
BTW, someone stuffed a turbine into a Luscombe 8A, so a Zenith should be possible... Google Speedy Bird for details.

You'll need lots of fuel for those thirsty turbines.
Click to expand...

Well, she'll hold 60 gals. with extensions in the wings...
 
James331 said:
Meh, I've been flying pistons and turbines for a while now, lots of benifits to a turbine, but that isn't really one of them.

The cost of running a small turbine doing low level Cessna 182 type missions, it will cost more in fuel even with Jet A being slightly cheaper.

The good, beta range, smaller failure rate, no shock cooking, less concerned about pre heating.
Click to expand...

Okay, I concede, I want the noise and smell too!
 
Run-Around said:
Okay, I concede, I want the noise and smell too!
Click to expand...

It would make one heck of a statement on the ramp :)


Also worthy of mention, having a fully feathering prop is a very nice feature.
 
James331 said:
It would make one heck of a statement on the ramp :)


Also worthy of mention, having a fully feathering prop is a very nice feature.
Click to expand...

Are all turbines constant-speed deals? Sorry man, I don't know a thing here!
 
James331 said:
Meh, I've been flying pistons and turbines for a while now, lots of benifits to a turbine, but that isn't really one of them.

The cost of running a small turbine doing low level Cessna 182 type missions, it will cost more in fuel even with Jet A being slightly cheaper.

The good, beta range, smaller failure rate, no shock cooking, less concerned about pre heating.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the more I learn the less think they are more reliable. I think the major difference in reliability is more in how they are run and how they are maintained, since most are used commercially for revenue work. Even in applications like TBM and Pilatus, the systems and how they are run seem much more controlled than most piston aviation engines. I'd be concerned about a turbine in an experimental situation basically run by amateurs who probably have limited funds.

That said, as I said before, the cool factor is definitely high, and maybe worth it for some, but I would not snow myself into thinking it is safer or would be more reliable than a aircraft piston engine, no data there and I would think about that every flight.
 
PaulS said:
Yeah, the more I learn the less think they are more reliable. I think the major difference in reliability is more in how they are run and how they are maintained, since most are used commercially for revenue work. Even in applications like TBM and Pilatus, the systems and how they are run seem much more controlled than most piston aviation engines. I'd be concerned about a turbine in an experimental situation basically run by amateurs who probably have limited funds.

That said, as I said before, the cool factor is definitely high, and maybe worth it for some, but I would not snow myself into thinking it is safer or would be more reliable than a aircraft piston engine, no data there and I would think about that every flight.
Click to expand...

Compare the internal workings of a piston to that of a turbine, I'd take a single engine turbine over a piston twin on a reliability stand point anyday.
 
James331 said:
Compare the internal workings of a piston to that of a turbine, I'd take a single engine turbine over a piston twin on a reliability stand point anyday.
Click to expand...

Ah, I think you missed my point, but that is ok.
 
PaulS said:
Ah, I think you missed my point, but that is ok.
Click to expand...

I got your point, just don't agree with it, by the nature of a turbine it's going to be less failure prone than a piston.

Also it minus start up, it takes much less skill to operate a turbine than a complex piston.
 
Run-Around said:
I'm not talking about an ultralight powered by an APU, I'm talking about an airframe of 1400 LBS (or so) that would normally take a 180 − 240 HP piston engine. Is there anything from P&W, GE etc. that would fit the bill, or am I dreaming? (I know that's a small job for a turbine)
Click to expand...

Anything is possible, it's E-AB after all. My guess is most E-AB turboprops use some version of the Walter 601 over a PT-6 due to cost, and even then you're going to pay at least 2-3 times more than for say a brand new IO-540. Another thing to consider is insurance. Depending on your piloting experience, you might end up with an un-insurable airplane. Food for thought. Diesels are starting to look promising, but as there is no used ones lying around, the cost of one is significantly more right now than a comparable Lycoming or Continental.
 
You have a few choices.

For that power range, the RR250 is the normal choice. C18's, C20's - these are the old Allisons that are in every light helicopter ever built. It's a reverse flow engine, like the PT6, relatively cheap to maintain and has low fuel burn.

Walter 601's are another choice. An Eastern Bloc PT6 knockoff, that's actually now come full circle and is the basis for GE's new H75, H80 series. Very reliable engine, good parts availability, but with more fuel burn than the PT6.

Garrett TPE331's - still in production and very fuel efficient, they burn about 20% less fuel than any free turbine like the RR250, PT6, Great power respond, but because it's not a reverse flow, it's a little trickier to mount them in singles, as the exhaust comes out the back like a stovepipe. But it can certainly be done. A little tip - if you choose one of the first generation TPE331 models, like the -43 and -43BL (575hp), they have no hot section inspections and only 2000hr TBO (but you can run them over). The good news is that these can be had for very little money, as they're not really demanded in the market anymore.
 
tsts4 said:
Anything is possible, it's E-AB after all. My guess is most E-AB turboprops use some version of the Walter 601 over a PT-6 due to cost, and even then you're going to pay at least 2-3 times more than for say a brand new IO-540. Another thing to consider is insurance. Depending on your piloting experience, you might end up with an un-insurable airplane. Food for thought. Diesels are starting to look promising, but as there is no used ones lying around, the cost of one is significantly more right now than a comparable Lycoming or Continental.
Click to expand...

Good thought on insurance... didn't even think about that. Choosing an engine is probably the hardest part of building an airplane! As a first time builder it would be crazy to get into a turbine conversion project but I have this feeling that no matter what engine choice is made, I won't be happy. The manufacturer (Zenith [US] / Zenair [Canada]) recommends the 'Aero Sport Power' brand engines... I guess a lycoming knock-off? I put a high value on reliability (who wouldn't) but without being a mechanic / experienced pilot I just don't know what I'm talking about.
 
stratobee said:
You have a few choices.

For that power range, the RR250 is the normal choice. C18's, C20's - these are the old Allisons that are in every light helicopter ever built. It's a reverse flow engine, like the PT6, relatively cheap to maintain and has low fuel burn.

Walter 601's are another choice. An Eastern Bloc PT6 knockoff, that's actually now come full circle and is the basis for GE's new H75, H80 series. Very reliable engine, good parts availability, but with more fuel burn than the PT6.

Garrett TPE331's - still in production and very fuel efficient, they burn about 20% less fuel than any free turbine like the RR250, PT6, Great power respond, but because it's not a reverse flow, it's a little trickier to mount them in singles, as the exhaust comes out the back like a stovepipe. But it can certainly be done. A little tip - if you choose one of the first generation TPE331 models, like the -43 and -43BL (575hp), they have no hot section inspections and only 2000hr TBO (but you can run them over). The good news is that these can be had for very little money, as they're not really demanded in the market anymore.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the informative response stratobee, plenty for me to research from your post. Doug
 
One other thing to consider is whether the designer and/or kit manufacturer has developed a turbine firewall forward package for the aircraft. If not and you have to roll your own then add a significant time to the build. Take the most conservative build estimate and triple it. You'll probably be required via your OPLIMS to have a structured and FAA approved maintenance program for the turbine as well. Might want the take a look at FAA order 8130.2J which has all of the possible OPLIM requirements.
 
Run-Around said:
Good thought on insurance... didn't even think about that. Choosing an engine is probably the hardest part of building an airplane! As a first time builder it would be crazy to get into a turbine conversion project but I have this feeling that no matter what engine choice is made, I won't be happy. The manufacturer (Zenith [US] / Zenair [Canada]) recommends the 'Aero Sport Power' brand engines... I guess a lycoming knock-off? I put a high value on reliability (who wouldn't) but without being a mechanic / experienced pilot I just don't know what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

First off, let m preface this by saying I have zero experience building/working on airplanes. I do have a couple of decades experience working on race cars, and in many ways the two are similar.

You're wanting to build a CH801, sounds like a nice airplane, As amateur built airplanes go, it's large, which means more building time, so you've chosen a substantial project already. You stated that you're not a mechanic. Let me tell you what I've learned in my years dealing with race cars: If someone can sell you a bolt on part that meets your needs, things go together quickly. If you have to modify it, things go together slowly. If you have to fabricate from scratch or get someone to build it from scratch, unless you are an experienced fabricator and have a well equipped shop, an entire season can go by before you get things put back together. And I was starting with a working car before the issue came up that made me go looking for a new piece. You're building an airplane from a kit. If you go with an unsupported engine, you've added the task of getting something custom from the firewall forward. If you're putting an engine in that no one has ever used before, who's going to do the engineering on the new pieces? Zenair can provide you with a firewall forward kit for either a Lycoming O-360 or a Aero Sports Power O-375. Take advantage of that.

If you're really concerned about avgas, have the folks at Aero Sports Power build you a mogas friendly O-375. Build the fuel system to tolerate E-10 and you'll never have any fuel availability issues.
 
N659HB said:
Nice little engine. Too bad they don't list fuel consumption in the specs.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Run-Around said:
Okay, I concede, I want the noise and smell too!
Click to expand...

Yeah; there's something about the smell of diesel...
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. Big tanks, for sure.
 
tsts4 said:
One other thing to consider is whether the designer and/or kit manufacturer has developed a turbine firewall forward package for the aircraft. If not and you have to roll your own then add a significant time to the build. Take the most conservative build estimate and triple it. You'll probably be required via your OPLIMS to have a structured and FAA approved maintenance program for the turbine as well. Might want the take a look at FAA order 8130.2J which has all of the possible OPLIM requirements.
Click to expand...

I will inquire with them but I'm fairly confident that they don't offer a firewall forward package for turbine conversion. The problem is that I have enough money to be dangerous (ie. it's tempting to get involved with such a project as installing a turbine engine but would it just be a huge waste... maybe so?). Perhaps I could hire a third party to modify the aircraft / install the turbine engine.
 
FormerHangie said:
First off, let m preface this by saying I have zero experience building/working on airplanes. I do have a couple of decades experience working on race cars, and in many ways the two are similar.

You're wanting to build a CH801, sounds like a nice airplane, As amateur built airplanes go, it's large, which means more building time, so you've chosen a substantial project already. You stated that you're not a mechanic. Let me tell you what I've learned in my years dealing with race cars: If someone can sell you a bolt on part that meets your needs, things go together quickly. If you have to modify it, things go together slowly. If you have to fabricate from scratch or get someone to build it from scratch, unless you are an experienced fabricator and have a well equipped shop, an entire season can go by before you get things put back together. And I was starting with a working car before the issue came up that made me go looking for a new piece. You're building an airplane from a kit. If you go with an unsupported engine, you've added the task of getting something custom from the firewall forward. If you're putting an engine in that no one has ever used before, who's going to do the engineering on the new pieces? Zenair can provide you with a firewall forward kit for either a Lycoming O-360 or a Aero Sports Power O-375. Take advantage of that.

If you're really concerned about avgas, have the folks at Aero Sports Power build you a mogas friendly O-375. Build the fuel system to tolerate E-10 and you'll never have any fuel availability issues.
Click to expand...

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.

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!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top