Turbine JMB VL3

Andrew Morris said:
Anybody else excited about this? The Turbotech TP-R90 seems very promising!
Click to expand...

No. And also it’s not because I live in the real world. I predict it’s uninsurable and will never sell in the US.
 
Last edited:
122 HP at 7 gal / hr ain’t bad at all.
 
tsts4 said:
No. And also no because I live in the real world. I predict it’s uninsurable and will never sell in the US.
Click to expand...
Even more accurate, it'll never even be FOR SALE in the US. It won't ever get certified, just like the rest of JMB's lineup.
 
Haha y’all are funny, you can buy the Experimental Exhibition 915 VL3 right now and fly it in the US. There are already two here and flying. https://youtu.be/3opHsGsI1j0

120HP at less than 9.0GPH is the official spec, which is amazing! I can’t wait to see it in person. I’d also like to see this engine on the Zlin Norden.
 
Experimental exhibition is one thing. Talk to me when again when it receives S-LSA/E-LSA/E-AB approval. Dream all you want — this thing is DOA.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Haha y’all are funny, you can buy the Experimental Exhibition 915 VL3 right now and fly it in the US. There are already two here and flying.

120HP at less than 9.0GPH is the official spec, which is amazing! I can’t wait to see it in person. I’d also like to see this engine on the Zlin Norden.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's precisely my point. It's experimental exhibition because it isn't certified. The fact is, exhibition comes with limitations/restrictions that simply are not acceptable to most people shopping for an airplane in this price range/category.
 
jrcox19 said:
Yeah that's precisely my point. It's experimental exhibition because it isn't certified. The fact is, exhibition comes with limitations/restrictions that simply are not acceptable to most people shopping for an airplane in this price range/category.
Click to expand...

Yes most people is the keyword here, hence my creating this thread. If I had the money now I’d be ready to buy it ASAP.
 
The thing is the AWC category. The Experimental Exhibition category CAN BE almost as unrestricted as E-AB minus the annual program letter to the FAA, but it can also be highly restrictive to the point of being unpractical as a personal conveyance. Again, I think insurance is the long pole in the tent unless you buy it with cash and self-insure.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Haha y’all are funny, you can buy the Experimental Exhibition 915 VL3 right now and fly it in the US. There are already two here and flying.

120HP at less than 9.0GPH is the official spec, which is amazing! I can’t wait to see it in person. I’d also like to see this engine on the Zlin Norden.
Click to expand...
Except our position engines are more economical and significantly cheaper to purchase. How many rotax 915is can you buy and replace before this makes economical sense? And have more horsepower and less fuel burn.
 
Andrew, don’t get me wrong. I actually wish them all the success in the world, but history is not on their side hence my cynical assessment to your OP.
 
Racerx said:
Except our position engines are more economical and significantly cheaper to purchase. How many rotax 915is can you buy and replace before this makes economical sense? And have more horsepower and less fuel burn.
Click to expand...

I saw a price tag of $50K floating around for the TP-R90 but I’d guess it’s more like $70K now. But with a 3000 hour TBO that’s almost 3X as long as the $41K 915 and at a close fuel burn.
 
Andrew Morris said:
I saw a price tag of $50K floating around for the TP-R90 but I’d guess it’s more like $70K now. But with a 3000 hour TBO that’s almost 3X as long as the $41K 915 and at a close fuel burn.
Click to expand...

Who works on them and where do the parts come from?
 
Just because you put a turbine on the nose of a plane doesn’t make it a TBM. 122 HP at 9 GPH. Well, I get 160 HP from my IO-320 and 8.5 GPH. I’ll take speed / efficiency over a cool sound any day.
 
jrcox19 said:
Sorry, but no you cannot. That does not meet US regulations for LSA
Click to expand...

My point was that this plane was already being sold in US with the usual Rotax engine as an LSA.
 
Warmi said:
My point was that this plane was already being sold in US with the usual Rotax engine as an LSA.
Click to expand...

Your point was obtuse since we’re talking about turbine powered aircraft, not piston powered versions of same.
 
Warmi said:
My point was that this plane was already being sold in US with the usual Rotax engine as an LSA.
Click to expand...
Are you talking about the TL stream? Because that's ALSO not available in the US as an SLSA yet.
 
Forgive me if I'm a little jaded. Do they have a product, any product that is available on the market? Is this product on the market or just being tested? Can anyone independently verify any of their claims?

We've been hearing about Delta-hawk for what 20 years? Hoping for certification in 2012. 10 years after that and still nothing. Not even for experimental.

There was the turbine RV10 that left a lot to be desired. Something like burning 10 more gph for the same TAS and the company is out of business.

There's the Higgs hawk v4, but they're no longer accepting deposits.

I have a hard time believing they can offer a niche turbine for that price.
 
Velocity173 said:
Just because you put a turbine on the nose of a plane doesn’t make it a TBM. 122 HP at 9 GPH. Well, I get 160 HP from my IO-320 and 8.5 GPH. I’ll take speed / efficiency over a cool sound any day.
Click to expand...

9 GPH, 122 HP sounds great considering the weight savings with a turbine and the fact that you can firewall it for the whole flight. Sure, it burns a little more fuel, but I can live with that given the presumed reliability. Of course, all of this depends on it being reliable and delivering the claimed power and fuel burn numbers
 
kyleb said:
9 GPH, 122 HP sounds great considering the weight savings with a turbine and the fact that you can firewall it for the whole flight. Sure, it burns a little more fuel, but I can live with that given the presumed reliability. Of course, all of this depends on it being reliable and delivering the claimed power and fuel burn numbers
Click to expand...

It’s only about a 100 lb weight savings over a 320 with less HP. If the VL3 doesn’t perform better with the turbine vs the 915is, I’d stick with the 915. In theory the turbine engine is more reliable but there’s no data on this particular engine proving that.

Like I said though, 122 HP at 7/9 GPH is pretty good. I just don’t the weight savings, the price, and possible increased reliability beat out the 915is.
 
kyleb said:
9 GPH, 122 HP sounds great considering the weight savings with a turbine and the fact that you can firewall it for the whole flight. Sure, it burns a little more fuel, but I can live with that given the presumed reliability. Of course, all of this depends on it being reliable and delivering the claimed power and fuel burn numbers
Click to expand...
This turbine weighs 2.2 kg less than the Rotax 915 it's supposed to compete with.
 
First of all, the engine on the RV-10 turboprop was called the PBS TP100 and BPS is very much alive.

Data I’ve seen that includes all components needed to run the Turbotech TP-R90 engine show the weight at 163 pounds, so about the same as a 914 turbo or 912 iS with a max of 135HP. The installed weight of the PBS TP100 is 157 pounds at 241SHP. In the RV-10 they were seeing 180 knots true but burning 18 GPH. Eco cruise was 14 GPH.

The heat exchanger is definitely a game changer with the TP-R90 and the four individuals who started this company definitely know what they are doing. There’s a really good article talking about the engine on page 64 here. https://www.ust-media.com/ust-magazine/UST031/64/

In terms of reliability sure there’s not a lot of data on this engine yet, but a single compressor and turbine wheel inherently is so much simpler in operation vs the 915 I’d feel much better about its reliability. I think the started 3000 hour TBO is evidence of that in comparison to the 1500 hour TBO on the PBS and 1200 of the 915.
 
Andrew Morris said:
First of all, the engine on the RV-10 turboprop was called the PBS TP100 and BPS is very much alive.

Data I’ve seen that includes all components needed to run the Turbotech TP-R90 engine show the weight at 163 pounds, so about the same as a 914 turbo or 912 iS with a max of 135HP. The installed weight of the PBS TP100 is 157 pounds at 241SHP. In the RV-10 they were seeing 180 knots true but burning 18 GPH. Eco cruise was 14 GPH.

The heat exchanger is definitely a game changer with the TP-R90 and the four individuals who started this company definitely know what they are doing. There’s a really good article talking about the engine on page 64 here. https://www.ust-media.com/ust-magazine/UST031/64/

In terms of reliability sure there’s not a lot of data on this engine yet, but a single compressor and turbine wheel inherently is so much simpler in operation vs the 915 I’d feel much better about its reliability. I think the started 3000 hour TBO is evidence of that in comparison to the 1500 hour TBO on the PBS and 1200 of the 915.
Click to expand...

You seem sold for some reason that I don’t fathom. I get the appeal, but the simple fact is no one has been able to bring anything to market that is competitive with the current avgas-piston line up. Marketing hype is meanIngless. When main stream manufacturers adopt it or any other design then I’ll jump on the bandwagon. Until then it’s nothing more than a mild curiosity at best.
 
tsts4 said:
You seem sold for some reason that I don’t fathom. I get the appeal, but the simple fact is no one has been able to bring anything to market that is competitive with the current avgas-piston line up. Marketing hype is meanIngless. When main stream manufacturers adopt it or any other design then I’ll jump on the bandwagon. Until then it’s nothing more than a mild curiosity at best.
Click to expand...

Yes, no one has until now hence this thread. It’s not marketing hype with 6 months to develop the engine installation and with 20 hours in 8 days I’d say they have a pretty good idea it’s going to be popular. Yes it will be slower than the 915, but at a fuel burn close to Rotax what else more could you want?

I’d say JMB is a mainstream manufacturer in Europe and I’d also say Safran is a huge player in the turbine field. With JMB is about to fly their second TP-R90 VL3 any day now I can understand why they’re all in too.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Yes, no one has until now hence this thread. It’s not marketing hype with 6 months to develop the engine installation and with 20 hours in 8 days I’d say they have a pretty good idea it’s going to be popular. Yes it will be slower than the 915, but at a fuel burn close to Rotax what else more could you want?

I’d say JMB is a mainstream manufacturer in Europe and I’d also say Safran is a huge player in the turbine field. With JMB is about to fly their second TP-R90 VL3 any day now I can understand why they’re all in too.
Click to expand...

Some of us here have seen enough huge innovative ground breaking products to realize that most of them never materialize. I won't believe until they actually make some production volume happen.

What does Safran have to do with it? They're not building the turboprop in question. Are they?
 
jrcox19 said:
Some of us here have seen enough huge innovative ground breaking products to realize that most of them never materialize. I won't believe until they actually make some production volume happen.

What does Safran have to do with it? They're not building the turboprop in question. Are they?
Click to expand...

This small turboprop has the best shot no question. Check out the link I shared earlier starting on page 64 to learn more about the company’s origins.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Yes, no one has until now hence this thread. It’s not marketing hype with 6 months to develop the engine installation and with 20 hours in 8 days I’d say they have a pretty good idea it’s going to be popular. Yes it will be slower than the 915, but at a fuel burn close to Rotax what else more could you want?

I’d say JMB is a mainstream manufacturer in Europe and I’d also say Safran is a huge player in the turbine field. With JMB is about to fly their second TP-R90 VL3 any day now I can understand why they’re all in too.
Click to expand...

Not impressed. I’ve been following the E-AB world since the mid 90s and in that time I’ve seen a number of promising designs fail. They all had impressive credentials and R&D programs— none succeeded.

As far as JMB being mainstream, I chuckle at that. Being mainstream in Europe doesn’t mean squat, at least for the US market.

I’ve got skin the in game. At some point I’d love to have an affordable, Jet-A burning, drop-in replacement for my IO-540 but I’m not holding my breath.
 
Andrew Morris said:
First of all, the engine on the RV-10 turboprop was called the PBS TP100 and BPS is very much alive.

Data I’ve seen that includes all components needed to run the Turbotech TP-R90 engine show the weight at 163 pounds, so about the same as a 914 turbo or 912 iS with a max of 135HP. The installed weight of the PBS TP100 is 157 pounds at 241SHP. In the RV-10 they were seeing 180 knots true but burning 18 GPH. Eco cruise was 14 GPH.

The heat exchanger is definitely a game changer with the TP-R90 and the four individuals who started this company definitely know what they are doing. There’s a really good article talking about the engine on page 64 here. https://www.ust-media.com/ust-magazine/UST031/64/

In terms of reliability sure there’s not a lot of data on this engine yet, but a single compressor and turbine wheel inherently is so much simpler in operation vs the 915 I’d feel much better about its reliability. I think the started 3000 hour TBO is evidence of that in comparison to the 1500 hour TBO on the PBS and 1200 of the 915.
Click to expand...
Pbs wasn't the company that put it in an RV. The company that tried to put it in an RV entered into an agreement with them and went under shortly after. PBS hasn't tried to do anything except continue to put it in UAV's like they had been. The current 1200 tbo on the 915 will eventually be increased once more real world data is available and will probably get the standard 2000hr tbo.

I'm all for alternative power sources. But nothing has come forward to make it worthwhile for me to want to put it in before other options. It's more intriguing overseas where 100LL is difficult to find. We don't have that problem here. Honestly it sounds like you have a monetary incentive to hype it up.
 
tsts4 said:
Not impressed. I’ve been following the E-AB world since the mid 90s and in that time I’ve seen a number of promising designs fail. They all had impressive credentials and R&D programs— none succeeded.

As far as JMB being mainstream, I chuckle at that. Being mainstream in Europe doesn’t mean squat, at least for the US market.

I’ve got skin the in game. At some point I’d love to have an affordable, Jet-A burning, drop-in replacement for my IO-540 but I’m not holding my breath.
Click to expand...

Well you should be impressed because small turbine design won’t get any better than this.

That’s the PBS TP100 until Turbotech releases a larger version. $150K FADEC 241SHP and weighs 157 pounds installed.
 
Well I’m far from it. I’m sorry, but what’s your experience in aircraft ownership and maintenance, particularly turbine ownership?
 
Every time I post excited about a new product or development it’s either lame because it’s too new or I’m being paid to say these things haha. In aviation three positives and one constructive comment would go a long ways. Peace out y’all.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Well you should be impressed because small turbine design won’t get any better than this.

That’s the PBS TP100 until Turbotech releases a larger version. $150K FADEC 241SHP and weighs 157 pounds installed.
Click to expand...
Just because turbine won't get any better doesn't mean I should be impressed. For a turbine it's hp to weight ratio is pretty fat. You're very defensive of a product that isn't even for sale yet. It's essentially vaporware. Unavailable. Not for sale. Made by a 5 year old foreign company that has zero products on the market. I'd love to put an alternative engine in an RV build in a few years. The TP100 that Diemech used in that project didn't do anything that made me warm and fuzzy. It made less power and burned twice the fuel. So any weight savings was used up by having to haul 30 extra gallons of a fuel that weighs roughly 1 pound per gallon more.

This engine competes with the Rotax. A proven design made by a proven company. It burns more fuel than the Rotax but has almost zero weight savings. If any, as data on it is sparse... because it's not on the market.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Every time I post excited about a new product or development it’s either lame because it’s too new or I’m being paid to say these things haha. In aviation three positives and one constructive comment would go a long ways. Peace out y’all.
Click to expand...
As one of the naysayers, I feel like I should further explain where I stand. I would LOVE for this to become real. I'm rooting for them, I really am. Unfortunately I all too often see younger (i'm not old, I promise) people new to aviation buy into every new thing that gets announced. Until it's real, it's hard to imagine it'll ever materialize. That affects aviation, automotive, software (video games) and nearly every single industry unfortunately
 
Haha man you’re hard to impress, if you want efficiency you have to add weight via the heat exchanger. I’d say its a great tradeoff as you’re still looking at 40 pounds less installed vs the 915.

Vaporware means no sign of the actual product. These will be shown at AERO in ten days with pricing details available and I hope this engine becomes one of the best in its class for longevity and reliability.
 
AC-Aero have shown an actual product with pricing. They have yet to sell anything. That’s just one example. Us naysayers have been down this road before. Innodyn, Deltahawk, the list goes on and on. Like I posted above, I want them to succeed but until they are selling AND delivering units with a U.S. support program in-place, it’s all hype and no substance essentially making it vaporware regardless if they have a physical example with a price sheet.
 
Andrew Morris said:
Haha man you’re hard to impress, if you want efficiency you have to add weight via the heat exchanger. I’d say its a great tradeoff as you’re still looking at 40 pounds less installed vs the 915.

Vaporware means no sign of the actual product. These will be shown at AERO in ten days with pricing details available and I hope this engine becomes one of the best in its class for longevity and reliability.
Click to expand...
Delta-hawk had an engine in a cirrus they flew to Oshkosh in 2014. Still nothing on the market. Yes, I'm jaded. Rotax 915IS is 185lbs. What little information I can find they say this engine weighs 176lbs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top