View Full Version : Walter 601AG

07-07-2011, 09:44 AM
Has anyone mounted one in a Rocket? There is a RV10 with one, just wondering.

pierre smith
07-07-2011, 01:42 PM
Do you have a link to the turbine -10?


07-07-2011, 04:58 PM
Yes I have, thats where the gears started spinning in my head, I have crunched the numbers over and over and the 601 just makes a lot of sense in that plane. Have you operated one in one of your dusters?

Mike S
07-07-2011, 05:23 PM
Do you have a link to the turbine -10?


Yes I have, thats where the gears started spinning in my head,

Methinks that Pierre was requesting you post the link.

07-07-2011, 06:14 PM
So I am tired, and a little slower than my normal, just shy of inbred, slow on the pick up.......


Mike S
07-07-2011, 06:47 PM
"Come see us at Osh 2010"


07-07-2011, 11:33 PM
Yeah, so it doesn't exist yet, despite the claim in the first post. Anyway, my friend with the Propjet is running one of those and he seems fairly happy, but I have no experience with the current owners and their website seems a bit sketchy. I was impressed when the former owner flew his Propjet to Flagstaff to help my friend troubleshoot his engine installation and perform the first flight - this even though he no longer had a stake in Dimech. He and his wife both worked on my friend's plane for many hours on a pre-flight inspection. Good people.

But, despite my impression of the Walter and the support available for it, I wouldn't want it in a -10. Van has said (though I can't find the quote right now) that he doesn't recommend a higher HP rating for the airframe. Also, turbines guzzle JetA. My friend loves his Propjet for long distance flights but he never joins us for breakfast hops because the fuel cost is just too silly. They also work best up high, so his pressurized cockpit makes long flights at 18k plus no problem but you'd be on O2 the whole time in a -10. If you just want "gofast" for a Rocket I could see it but otherwise it's not really practical.

pierre smith
07-08-2011, 05:01 AM
Yes I have, thats where the gears started spinning in my head, I have crunched the numbers over and over and the 601 just makes a lot of sense in that plane. Have you operated one in one of your dusters?

The Walter engines are used in some conversions from 1340 cu. in. P@W radials and the turbine Lancairs. Even then, you're looking at $100,000+ for a USED engine! An RV-10 with 500 HP? Methinks suicide and break-the-bank fuel consumption, around 40 GPH...my 680 HP PT-6 drinks 47 GPH when I'm working with a heavy load and a "conservative" 38 GPH ferrying:eek:....$148/hour for fuel alone. I have 234 gallons of fuel capacity. Yep, I buy an 18 wheeler tanker at a time.


07-08-2011, 05:57 AM
Not a Walter. It's a PBS TP100


Remember the SubSonex? A TJ100


The TP100 is rated at 180Kw....about 240 HP:


07-08-2011, 07:59 AM
Wups! I was mislead by the original poster's question. Yep, Dimech is not putting a Walter in an RV. Same objections to the TP-100, though, except for the HP being too high.

07-09-2011, 11:41 PM
I briefly kicked around the idea of a turbine HR2 in my head. My fantasy turbine was the 400+ horsepower Rolls Royce model 250 turboprop conversion STCed for the Bonanza and C210. This fantasy lasted about five minutes until I found one for sale: $125,000 very used... Plus the fuel consumption is atrocious at low-altitude... Plus most of the critical components are life-limited and cost tens of thousands of dollars each... Plus the installation is non-standard and would cost a fortune in both money and time... Plus they aren't designed for aerobatics.

Well, nevermind then. I think I'll stick with pistons.

07-10-2011, 12:55 AM
Welcome to the world of turbine engines! They may as well just run on money instead of jet fuel, would eliminate a step.

pierre smith
07-10-2011, 05:12 AM
The life-limited parts you mention are measured in "cycles". Each spinning component such as the compressors and PT wheel (power turbine) have their own cycle life.

A cycle is a startup, flight, landing and shutdown. We do mostly partial cycles in ag work, where we land, hot fuel and load, never shutting down 'til the end of the day. There's a formula for calculating partial cycles but in essence, not shutting down equals roughly 1/2 a cycle because from 550 Celsius (at idle), to outside temp is a huge thermal shock, which we avoid by hot loading (engine stays running).

In their favor is extremely light weight to horsepower ratios..my PT-6 weighs around 320 lbs and makes 680 SHP/1630 ft. lbs. of torque plus they're smooth as silk...no vibration whatsoever....but man, you pay dearly for this dependability. My engine has over 9,000 hours and has not yet been overhauled! We're allowed to do IRANs,...Inspect and Repair As Necessary.


07-12-2011, 11:09 AM
I did a LOT of research before going forward with this project. First the Walter web site claims 18 GPH per hour at 80% at 80* OAT. Second, way more HP to weight that a 540, and although you dont need them, just nice to have them if I do.
The 601 AG was made for Uri to cropdust beets in northern Whereverstan, its built like a tank and will run forever, Fuel, at the FBO I fuel my current plane, 100LL is 5.60 a gallon, Jet A 5.25, so price is almost a wash.
Right now there are 2 601's on Barnstormers, one is a display, the other, is a mid to low time, for $14K, thats the same or less than what I will pay for a good mid time 540.
I will keep all informed of its progress, its going to be quite a while brfore I get ready to hang the powerplant, and at the rate things are going, aircraft may be against the law in our country.

07-12-2011, 12:24 PM
Well nothing wrong with taking a look if they show up. EAA has them listed as booth 639 for Airventure.