What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

RV-10 Turbine ?

J

JShafer

I'm New Here
Hey guys,

New member here, long time looker and I finally got the bug and ordered my tail feathers so I can start bucking rivets. Anyways I was bumming around on barnstormers and came across the TP-100 powered RV-10 for sale. Any thoughts on the instability of the project?
 
Thanks Mike I've really enjoyed reading your posts along with many others. I am incredibly excited to be buolding my own RV.
 
Joseph,

Congratulations on getting started with your RV-10 kit.
The RV-10 is a fantastic airplane even with just the factory recommended IO-540. I am coming up on 3 years and over 300 hours great flying in my RV-10.

I talked to the owner of the turbine powered RV-10 at Osh this year and I can't say I was impressed. Like most, I am always looking for something new and exciting and a turbine on an RV always sounded good to me.
I have been around long enough to see these promises come and go and just like the RV turbine predecessors this one will most likely end up being one of a kind. I was told the fuel consumption to be over 20 gph and according to the owner cruise speeds around 140 kts:eek:.
Compare that to 170ts at 12GPH with a good old fashioned IO-540.
He assured me that speeds and fuel consumption would improve once operating at the flight levels but now you must always have oxygen on board.
Certainly good to have but a lot of your flights are going to be an hour or 2 flying to lunch or something or sightseeing with friends and you just don't want to be at 20 000 feet for that.
He also metioned the cost to be over 100 000 dollars for the FW package.
You can buy 2 brand new IO -540 for that.
I can't tell you about the "instability " of the project but seeing it for sale
is not bolstering my confidence in the longevity of this turbine dream.
You asked... Just my opinion, stick with the factory plan unless you are truly an
engineering experimenter who has lots of money and knowledge to turn this dream into reality.
 
JShafer said:
came across the TP-100 powered RV-10 for sale. Any thoughts on the instability of the project?
Click to expand...

Take a look at this, very educational:
https://www.vansaircraft.com/pdf/hp_limts.pdf

Making a long story short, these planes were designed to not "flutter" within the envelope that a piston engine provides. Once you get up high with a turbine, your TAS can get really high and thats what produces flutter. And that can ruin your day.
 
I talked to the guy at OSH this year on the price of the turbine conversion and without batting an eye, he said $160,000...:eek:
 
Van will hate this one... it has 120 gallons in the wings. The only advantage is that you can get into positive control airspace - the slowest one up there at 199 knots true. Guess who is going to get all the off-course vectors?

John
 
Speed at altitude won't be anything impressive since hp drops off about the same as an atmo piston engine and this is why the fuel flow drops off too up high. Cool factor is there but little practicality for a non-flat rated turboprop in an unpressurized aircraft and you'll need a fat wallet to feed it.
 
While all of the technical criticisms of the design have valid points, the thing to rememebr is that there are parts of this world where Avgas is unavailable, and Jet A is all you can find. For some, this might be a reasonable alternative. That or a diesel conversion.....

Just looking at this globally!
 
Valid point

The avgas availability worldwide is certainly a valid consideration.
However, for little or no extra cost or modification
An IO 540 can easily be adapted for mogas available everywhere,
Or at least in most places where jet fuel is available.
If you think 91 octane is too hard to find, low octane 87
Would also be ok with 7.5 : 1 compression .
As always I enjoy reading and checking out new innovations.
If a turbine installation did in fact become available even with a couple of downsides, I would take a serious look at it,
 
Last edited:
Nobody mentioned the sound? Oh my gosh so awesome. Ok maybe not 160k worthy and yeah speed is a let down I thought it would be faster.
 
The RV-10 is not a good design for a turbo engine IMHO. I get the lack of Avgas arguments as need for an alternative that burns JET A.

I won't waste a lot of space as I'm not likely to change anyone/s mind that is already made up on the subject. But here is the crux:

If I am going to invest, say $100K, in a powerplant I would surely want it attached to an airframe somewhat optimized for the same. For a turbo that means very high altitude cruise, etc. That ain't the RV-10, period.

But aviation attracts experimentation by those who seem to want to spend a ton of money trying to disprove what a century plus of aeronautical engineering has already proven.

If you got money to burn - go for it.
 
I love turbines

Was fortunate to get a right seat ride in a C90 King Air last weekend. I love everything about the plane and turbine engines, power, smoothness, reliability, TBO. Right up until the time I asked the pilot about fuel flow. Cruising at 16,000 it was 300lbs/hr per side!

I realize this is a totally different plane and mission, but MAN ARE THOSE THINGS THIRSTY.

It makes the 9 gph in my RV7a or the 12 gph in the RV10 sound downright thrifty.
 
There's only one place you can put another 60 gallons of fuel - in the wings. I know it's been done, but those planes are carrying Avgas, which weighs about 6 ppg. Jet A weighs 6.8 ppg. As long as you never exceed the wing loading, I guess you could get away with it, but it's not very prudent....

John
 
Look at the Rolls M250 turboprop. It makes up to 450 shp and it's average sfc is around .7.

So running at, let's say, 70% gives you about 315 shp. So .7 x 315 / 6.75 = 32.6 gph of Jet A.

Yep, pretty thirsty for a 200 ktas airplane...
 
If someone wants more speed, I would love to see a turbo normalized installation. I am surprised nobody has done it yet as far as i know. It would be a nice comparison to the TN cirrus and bonanzas.
 
Turbo-Normalised RV10

The reason is mostly bang for buck. I have played with numbers for a TN system, but the issue is TAS. Vans say do not exceed the IAS Vne number in TAS. Get an RV10 up at 17-20k feet with a TN and you will blow that easy, S&L let alone when you want to descend.

As many of you know, I have friends in the right places for such a development. ;) It would take firm commitments to justify, and it would actually have to fit under the cowls and not cause fires :eek: no melting paint.

Send me PM's with expressions of interest. We can do the homework at least.
 
If someone wants more speed...

They should probably look at other designs...

Now if someone were to undertake a full blown flutter analysis of the RV-10 so as to increase the 200 KTAS limit, well, that would be fine, too!:D
 
rocketman1988 said:
And the price of that engine exceeds the price of the rest of the airframe. Definitely cool though!
Click to expand...

Even at that price, it is still half what a Lancair is. Not as fast, but still pretty cool. We need to encourage people to buy into the concept - then it will be cheaper for the rest of us later!
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
Even at that price, it is still half what a Lancair is. Not as fast, but still pretty cool. We need to encourage people to buy into the concept - then it will be cheaper for the rest of us later!
Click to expand...

Even at that price, it is half of what an IO -540 RV-10 is. I retuned today to Pennsylvania from a trip to Pensacola FL. 750 nm, 3.9 hours each way, and 39 gallons of fuel each way (some wind assistance). Anyone who cares about actual performance can do the math, and folks who are determined to be cool and throw their money down a hole in the ground can do that too.
 
rockwoodrv9 said:
Even at that price, it is still half what a Lancair is. Not as fast, but still pretty cool. We need to encourage people to buy into the concept - then it will be cheaper for the rest of us later!
Click to expand...

While it may not be as fast as a LancAir, the RV-10 (or any RV) can land at any airport that does not have an "H" in the middle of the airport diagram.

Take a look at the landing distance for both and you decide. The evolution lists its landing distance as 1200' while the RV-10 is listed at almost half that at 650'. The RV-10 could theoretically land and takeoff in less distance than the LancAir can land in.

So, while the LancAir is faster between large airports, over long distances, the RV-10 is the ticket, if you have to go into small county airports.

The other performance number that really counts for those airplanes is the cost of insurance. Again, the RV-10 wins hands down. Then again, if you can afford the LancAir, you can probably afford the insurance for one.

For me, it is kind of like the SR-20/22, simply not an airplane I wish to own at any price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top