What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Turbine Aeronautics

What do you imagine the aerobatics capability of the engine being? My dream to be putting it into an RV-8 and doing "gentleman's aerobatics". Inverted flight, loops, rolls, etc. What is likely to be the G limit, and other applicable limitations?

Hi David,

The engine is being designed to sustain a target of 9g with short duration overloads to 12g, in order to be suitable for aerobatics. The final g limitations will be determined following finalisation of the bearing system design and rotordynamic analysis.

Negative g should not be a problem. A suitable gearbox oil system will be offered.

Dave
 
Would love to see a 250hp version of this engine.

Are there other viable RV-10 turboprops? What happened to the TP-100?

Supposedly they are delivering them. I believe they advertise 230hp. However, they lack the regenerator feature of the TA solution and so burn twice the fuel of a normal Lycosaurus. I do not know their lapse rate. If not flat rated like the TA solution, then they likely only produce about half that at 16,500’.

RV-20?

Is that getting outside of what could realistically be done as a kit homebuilt?

That seems like it would be up to Vans and the community. Velocity already sells a twin version.
 
Supposedly they are delivering them. I believe they advertise 230hp. However, they lack the regenerator feature of the TA solution and so burn twice the fuel of a normal Lycosaurus. I do not know their lapse rate. If not flat rated like the TA solution, then they likely only produce about half that at 16,500?.



That seems like it would be up to Vans and the community. Velocity already sells a twin version.

PBS are delivering the TP100 but I get the impression that it is not a popular option. With a Specific Fuel Consumption almost twice that of the LyConti's, there appears to be limited interest.

We have had pleasing interaction with Vans senior management who are cautiously watching our progress. I hope that once we can prove our product and our company to them, that they might come up with some interesting new aircraft.

Dave
 
Turbine RV18

How about designing the D.R. suggested RV18 around the turbine engine, al la Drago? Great high altitude climb performance, light weight, better fuel availability and greater reliability. Maybe a feathering and beta range prop could be made available! :eek:
Think of a smaller version of the Turbo Otter.
 
Design

Lots of things COULD be designed but Van's is a business; there has to be a substantial ROI for any new aircraft design...

Realistically, what is the market size for a turbine powered super STOL, ala Drago?

Pretty small, I would wager...
 
Beta and Reverse

Is the engine capable of utilising a reversing propeller?

I understand it adds an extra level of complexity that's not really required. I'm mostly curious if the bearings and gear box are designed to handle beta range and/or reverse.

Depends on idle prop RPM, beta might even be important.
 
STOL Turbine

Lots of things COULD be designed but Van's is a business; there has to be a substantial ROI for any new aircraft design...

Realistically, what is the market size for a turbine powered super STOL, ala Drago?

Pretty small, I would wager...

You're most likely correct if it was very much like Draco. The market may be fairly healthy for something along the lines of a Skywagon. A slightly larger, high wing, STOL capable RV10, if you will.
 
You're most likely correct if it was very much like Draco. The market may be fairly healthy for something along the lines of a Skywagon. A slightly larger, high wing, STOL capable RV10, if you will.

These aircraft already exist and the market isn't there for them. People want a certified aircraft once you get into this category. Very few people need something this big and expensive for personal use. That's why the ones that are out there aren't selling like hotcakes.

Reading through the past few pages of comments guys are throwing out good ideas like how do we heat the cabin and can we get bleed air or beta? All good questions, and some can be considered during the engine design, but if we keep piling more and more **** on how is he supposed to get an initial design out? This is exactly how we see cars being designed today. By the time the engine is done it has 80 pounds of emissions **** that weighs down the engine and necessitates a need for even more power from that engine to keep up with the new emissions stuff.

Luckily, it sounds like he Turbine Aeronautics is taking it in for future wish list items, but is pushing on with the design. Let them get a running engine on the market then we as the consumer can play the what if game all we want.
 
Is the engine capable of utilising a reversing propeller?

I understand it adds an extra level of complexity that's not really required. I'm mostly curious if the bearings and gear box are designed to handle beta range and/or reverse.

Depends on idle prop RPM, beta might even be important.

The engines are designed to be used in both tractor and pusher configuration. The gearbox bearings will handle loads in both directions.

Dave
 
These aircraft already exist and the market isn't there for them. People want a certified aircraft once you get into this category. Very few people need something this big and expensive for personal use. That's why the ones that are out there aren't selling like hotcakes.

Reading through the past few pages of comments guys are throwing out good ideas like how do we heat the cabin and can we get bleed air or beta? All good questions, and some can be considered during the engine design, but if we keep piling more and more **** on how is he supposed to get an initial design out? This is exactly how we see cars being designed today. By the time the engine is done it has 80 pounds of emissions **** that weighs down the engine and necessitates a need for even more power from that engine to keep up with the new emissions stuff.

Luckily, it sounds like he Turbine Aeronautics is taking it in for future wish list items, but is pushing on with the design. Let them get a running engine on the market then we as the consumer can play the what if game all we want.

Too true Shane.

The engine we plan to get to market will likely suit 90+% of customers. That is our sole focus at this point, although we are both building and considering wish list items for potential future incorporation. As you say, there must be an ROI available to us on these wish list items. If not, unfortunately, they will not happen.

Dave
 
McNeil Aviation - Escrow's for a Turbine Aeronautics PowerPlant

Hello Turbine Aeronautics

Well, I am up for it and have made my Escrow.com administration/application today.

Now for planning purposes do you have a Test Airframe we may be able to assist at McNeil Aviation in that area at this time.

Please PM me for a chat and contact details if you do!
 
My concern with this would be the effect on CG. 250-300 lb off the nose of an RV means you have to move that lighter powerplant a looooong way out to balance everything again.

As a powerplant, it shows great promise for someone looking to design an airplane around it. 120-200hp are great ranges to carry two people aloft, for casual cruising around (120hp) or stellar performance (200hp) but to optimize it you'll have to start over and configure the airframe with the lighter powerplant in mind. An RV with the wing moved back, or the seating moved forward, could do it, but you're still looking at significant engineering.

In between the firewall and turboprop, you have options. BRS, Header tank, or batteries for the turbine. Or a combination of any two. So the engine doesn't have to be pushed to far out in the front. IMHO.
 
In between the firewall and turboprop, you have options. BRS, Header tank, or batteries for the turbine. Or a combination of any two. So the engine doesn't have to be pushed to far out in the front. IMHO.

These are exactly the options that our first RV14 customer is considering. We will be working closely with him to facilitate his installation. His solution may well assist other RV owners.

Dave
 
In between the firewall and turboprop, you have options. BRS, Header tank, or batteries for the turbine. Or a combination of any two. So the engine doesn't have to be pushed to far out in the front. IMHO.

Running out of fuel AND creating an aft CG would make for a bad day..................:eek:
 
Im not very familiar with the RV3. I have a 6, but the 3 i was looking at had a Header Tank. Maybe he knows something you don't?

Hi Jereme,

I think you will find that gasman was differentiating between an aircraft that has been designed to have a header tank which takes into consideration the effect of either a full or an empty tank on the cg (such as the RV3 you refer to) versus an aircraft that has a header tank installed which was not a part of the original design.

A header tank used to shift the cg forward to help balance a light engine may have the aircraft within its cg envelope when full or partially full, but unless the calculations have been done properly could compromise the aft cg limit when empty.

This clarification is provided for those who may not be familiar with the effect of burning off fuel on the cg and the potential for the aircraft to be within cg limits for takeoff but after burning off fuel, may lead to the aft cg limit being compromised.

Dave
 
Last edited:
Im not very familiar with the RV3. I have a 6, but the 3 i was looking at had a Header Tank. Maybe he knows something you don't?

Possible, but it was probably the primary (and only) fuel tank.
Early RV-3's had just a single tank mounted fwd of the instrument panel (similar to a J3 Cub). There was no other fuel tank(s).

A header tank by definition is a smaller tank that is fed by the other aircraft tanks, that is positioned at a higher level than those tanks so that some head pressure is provided for in the feed to the engine.
 
Possible, but it was probably the primary (and only) fuel tank.
Early RV-3's had just a single tank mounted fwd of the instrument panel (similar to a J3 Cub). There was no other fuel tank(s).

A header tank by definition is a smaller tank that is fed by the other aircraft tanks, that is positioned at a higher level than those tanks so that some head pressure is provided for in the feed to the engine.

My 2 cents worth.

If the plane was ALREADY designed with a header tank, it will be no help at all with CG in compensating for the lighter weight of the turbine. Battery, BRS, permanent O2 tanks (since you now have an engine that will happily fly to the high teens) are all candidates to add forward CG to avoid having to move the engine far out front.
 
Yes, CG is a factor, BUT..............

Am I the only one who thinks that having a fuel tank forward of the firewall is a bad idea?
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one who thinks that having a fuel tank forward of the firewall is a bad idea?

I don't think anyone is advocating having header tanks/oxy tanks etc. forward of the firewall. If anyone did do that, they should probably be reported to the TSA as a suspicious person.

However, if the firewall could be moved forward 6-12", there would be scope to add weight aft of the new firewall location, but well forward for cg purposes.

Dave
 
Or an oxygen tank, and for the same reason.

While O2 tanks do lose some weight slowly as they discharge, the difference in weight change over a flight is far less than for fuel. Locating them where a header tank would have been would result in far less CG change than a comparable fuel tank.
 
While O2 tanks do lose some weight slowly as they discharge, the difference in weight change over a flight is far less than for fuel. Locating them where a header tank would have been would result in far less CG change than a comparable fuel tank.

You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.

Throw a rod on the engine, ventilate the block and fill the FWF with an oil fire - now lets think for about half a second about what happens when the oxygen tank ruptures/leaks and turns your airplane into a blowtorch, with you on the downwind side.

Adding a second firewall further forward and then putting those things in the new firewall-aft space has some merit - but some things should NOT be FWF.
 
Last edited:
You missed the point entirely. It was never about CG, it was about the oxygen.

Throw a rod on the engine, ventilate the block and fill the FWF with an oil fire - now lets think for about half a second about what happens when the oxygen tank ruptures/leaks and turns your airplane into a blowtorch, with you on the downwind side.

Adding a second firewall further forward and then putting those things in the new firewall-aft space has some merit - but some things should NOT be FWF.

I don't think it would be the issue you make it out to be. Yes, there would be a momentary increase in combustion temperature - but only momentary.

Edit: Reading back through this, somebody misunderstood me. I did not advocate for O2 forward of the firewall, but in lieu of the header tank.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it would be the issue you make it out to be. Yes, there would be a momentary increase in combustion temperature - but only momentary.

Edit: Reading back through this, somebody misunderstood me. I did not advocate for O2 forward of the firewall, but in lieu of the header tank.

Fair enough on your position choice - but as for the momentary increase in combustion temperature, I'm going to disagree.

I have a fair bit of experience in "assisting" things normally not considered to be fuels to burn in the presence of various oxidizers. I know what can happen, I've seen it and done it, and I prefer not to let it happen in an aircraft.

Now back to the subject at hand - what is the ballpark timeframe on this RV14 install?
 
Fair enough on your position choice - but as for the momentary increase in combustion temperature, I'm going to disagree.

I have a fair bit of experience in "assisting" things normally not considered to be fuels to burn in the presence of various oxidizers. I know what can happen, I've seen it and done it, and I prefer not to let it happen in an aircraft.

You can disagree. IMHO the air moving under the cowl would blow any O2 short of a catastrophic tank failure clear too fast to materially affect combustion unless fuel were streaming directly onto the leak or the tank was otherwise right up against the source of fuel, which would indeed be a foolish installation choice. A catastrophic failure would empty the tank almost immediately.

I played around with O2 tanks too as a kid, both in a welding shop and a steel mill where everything was oily.... It might be fun if we had lots of government funding to run simulations to find out how likely various installations and disasters would be to cause a catastrophe... :D
 
O2

I agree, just a momentary rise in pressure and
Temperature, then shortly after you can look for
Your clothes and the rest of your aircraft.
 
I don't think anyone is advocating having header tanks/oxy tanks etc. forward of the firewall. If anyone did do that, they should probably be reported to the TSA as a suspicious person.

However, if the firewall could be moved forward 6-12", there would be scope to add weight aft of the new firewall location, but well forward for cg purposes.

Dave

That's a very interesting idea, on the small Lancairs that would create a small space to install permanent O2 which in turn would help with the W&B change using the lighter engine.

Been two months since we've heard from you - any development updates for your fans? Is there somewhere (Facebook, etc.) where you post progress?
 
That's a very interesting idea, on the small Lancairs that would create a small space to install permanent O2 which in turn would help with the W&B change using the lighter engine.

Been two months since we've heard from you - any development updates for your fans? Is there somewhere (Facebook, etc.) where you post progress?

Hi Bill,

We are trying to keep our publicity low key until we have tangible, running hardware that folks can see and where we have demonstrable and verifiable performance figures. Too many folks have been promised new fangled inventions that have not delivered and consequently, folks are wary.

Our approach has always been to remain low key until we are no longer vapor ware, so we are refraining from getting out there until we have something real to show (website aside).

As our prototype engine comes together during Q4 this year in preparation for its first runs late this year/early next year, we will publicize our progress more actively on social media. A Facebook page will probably be the main interactive forum.

As of now, the development work is progressing in a very pleasing manner. We shall shortly be prototyping and testing some of our individual components to verify the actual performance of those components against the theoretical performance.

I speak with my Chief Technical Officer on a daily basis and it?s a bit like a soap opera. I can?t wait for the next installment. This is a very exciting project for me and to see it coming together, with a light at the end of the tunnel is a great feeling. Of course, I need to temper my expectations because this is a complex technical program that we are running. It would be unrealistic to expect that once on the stand, we can push the start button and it will work right first time. However, we have a very experienced team of designers working on our engine and their knowledge and experience will help minimize the potential pitfalls.

I?ll be at Oshkosh for the week. I?d be happy to catch up with folks that want to meet up (I am meeting many of the airframe manufacturers and other suppliers so my time will be a bit restricted). If folks on this forum show an interest, we may be able to coordinate to meet at an eatery or display where I?d be happy to answer what questions I can.

Dave
 
Thanks for the update Dave. Good luck with your meetings with the airframe manufacturers. Hopefully they?ll be receptive to ideas that will help ?future proof? their airplanes which, in the long run, will be good for general aviation future overall. Hint hint....Jet A is the future😎
 
49clipper

Dave,

What kind of CS speed prop will be required on the turbine? Will a standard cs prop used on a recip work, or does it take something special? I realize they would normally have beta thrust, but other than that? Just wondering about the added cost of the prop.
Jim
 
Dave,

What kind of CS speed prop will be required on the turbine? Will a standard cs prop used on a recip work, or does it take something special? I realize they would normally have beta thrust, but other than that? Just wondering about the added cost of the prop.
Jim

I suspect any hydraulic prop capable of handling 200hp would work. No piston power pulses, a 200 hp prop would probably be overengineered but why change what works.

Beta thrust would probably be extra complication since the prop governor would have to be smart enough to increase pitch to increase rpm in beta, opposite of what they normally do. And, really, when do you need beta thrust for any 200 hp aircraft? Don?t feel bad, I was the wonk asking for bleed air...
 
Dave,

What kind of CS speed prop will be required on the turbine? Will a standard cs prop used on a recip work, or does it take something special? I realize they would normally have beta thrust, but other than that? Just wondering about the added cost of the prop.
Jim

We are currently assessing propellor options. It is likely that not any cs prop system will work. Our engine may need a system that can alter the blade angle at a fairly high rate. Traditionally, turbines are slow to wind up from idle then when a certain % rpm is achieved they literally take off. We need to ensure that we use a prop system that is matched to our engines.

For safety reasons, we will only recommend some specific systems that we have tested on our engines. We hope that folks will heed our recommendations.

Dave
 
We are currently assessing propellor options. It is likely that not any cs prop system will work. Our engine may need a system that can alter the blade angle at a fairly high rate. Traditionally, turbines are slow to wind up from idle then when a certain % rpm is achieved they literally take off. We need to ensure that we use a prop system that is matched to our engines.

For safety reasons, we will only recommend some specific systems that we have tested on our engines. We hope that folks will heed our recommendations.

Dave

Hey Dave, <SNIP> any news to report for the past 4 months?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hey Dave, <SNIP> any news to report for the past 4 months?

Hi Bill,

We have commenced prototyping of components, some of which will undergo individual testing and others which will be going straight into the prototype engine. It is very exciting for me to see some hardware after many years of design.

One of the most important components of our engine is the recuperator. This is the technology that will have the single highest influence on achieving the necessary fuel efficiency for our engine. We have what we believe to be the optimum recuperator design for our engine but what we need to do is test that design to enable a correlation between the theoretical performance determined by analyses and actual performance determined on a test rig. We have fabricated 3 recuperator test sections; two of our earlier designs along with our latest design. During February, we shall be testing all 3 test sections and will compare the actual performance against the theoretical performance. Once we have the correlation for each configuration, we will then be able to determine with more accuracy whether we need to redesign in theory, in order to achieve the actual performance required for the engine. I am looking forward keenly to seeing those results.

The rest of the engine design looks like a piece of art to me. It has been amazing seeing it come together. I need to give my engineering team full credit for their dedication to our project, I am extremely fortunate to have such a talented team. We have had around 15 engineers working on the program, some of who have come out of the Pratt & Whitneys, Honeywells, Allied Signals etc. and they are now working on a project where they are not constrained by conventional thinking and have the opportunity to both suggest and implement innovative ideas.

Due to the lead time required to produce components, we are still a few months away from assembling and running the engine but mid-year is an achievable target. We are confident of running the engine before Oshkosh and we are pretty excited to have reserved a booth at Oshkosh this year where we intend to display for the first time. Actual hardware that is, not vapourware. The booth is within about 50 yards of the Vans display so access will be easy for those visiting the Vans booth. We intend to have an actual engine on display. Naturally, this is all predicated on maintaining our current development timeline, but we are confident of doing so. However, I need to place the usual caveat for a development program and that is that delays do happen....

We have been developing a new website and we just launched a new holding page. The full website will go up around May but will coincide with first engine runs. Through the new site, we will be launching a more public profile. As I have mentioned previously, we have been trying to maintain a low profile so as to manage expectations. There are always delays in a highly technical development program like ours so we only want to start our concerted marketing campaign, once we have a high degree of certainty that we can deliver within a specific timeframe. We are not too far from that point.

Our first customer will be installing his engine in his new-build RV14 so an RV will be one of the first aircraft to fly with our engine. You can rest assured that we will start a thread on this forum about that aircraft when it happens.

So, it'll be fairly quiet for the next six months from the news perspective while we prototype components, assemble the prototype engine and get it on to the test stand. From the technical perspective, me and my team will be extremely busy!! I know that readers of this forum are Vans fans, but I sure can't wait to put a 200hp turbine on the front of my new-build Lightning Bug which is the reason I started this venture in the first place 9 years ago. I'm looking forward to leaving those Legacies in my wake!! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Exciting stuff Dave. Thanks for the update. Hope the testing go smoothly with no big surprises- except good ones!
 
Exciting stuff Dave. Thanks for the update. Hope the testing go smoothly with no big surprises- except good ones!

Thanks Ross.

We are not naive enough to believe that testing will proceed without any hiccups. But what we will do is the same as what we have done when design issues have arisen. We identify the root cause, we identify solutions, we select the best option, we implement the solution then re-test. Our team is both patient and determined. We also want to "do it right", because that will benefit everyone involved from the design team through to the customers.
 
Back
Top