VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

- POSTING RULES
- Donate yearly (please).
- Advertise in here!

- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

  #1  
Old 04-15-2017, 02:56 AM
KRviator's Avatar
KRviator KRviator is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sydney, Aust.
Posts: 699
Default Turbine Aeronautics

Apparently they have a 120HP turboprop available "soon" to the point they have started taking orders from Sun'n'Fun last week.

100HP fuel burn is a claimed 8USGPH, so it isn't exactly economical, but if you enjoy pushing the boundaries and want to upset Van by putting one in an RV-12, they have just released their website and have a youtube video of the prototype.

Target market initially appears to be the Tucano crowd, but if it proves successful, it probably won't be long until someone puts a pair of them in an RV-10 to build that ever-elusive "twin-turbine time".

And the all important question...$$$$ According to their website:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine Aeronautics
Pricing
Final prices for our engines will be determined and advised to delivery slot holders and general customers, once the engines are actually in production. However, we provide the following price guides for our launch engines:
​TA120TP - A similar price to a fully equipped Rotax 914
​TA200TP - A similar price to a new IO360

If the final price or specifications, as advised to holders of reserved delivery slots when their engine is ready for delivery is not acceptable to the slot holder, they may cancel their reservation and receive the appropriate refund of their deposit.
EDIT: Just realised their corporate offices are in Sydney too - but I have no involvement in any way with them, just became aware of the engine on the RecFlying boards.
__________________
Once you have tasted flight you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return - Leonardo DaVinci

My Flickr gallery: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35521362@N06/

RV-9A 19-8519 - Finished on 10th February 2016 after 4 years, 9 months and 19 days! The 1020th RV-9 flying.

First flight 26th March 2016. Phase I done. Essential specs 145KTAS @ 2400RPM, 8000', 24.2LPH, Initial RoC 1800FPM.

Last edited by KRviator : 04-15-2017 at 03:02 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-15-2017, 05:36 AM
blueflyer's Avatar
blueflyer blueflyer is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 840
Default

I hope they do well. It sounds exciting.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-15-2017, 06:40 AM
Mel's Avatar
Mel Mel is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Dallas area
Posts: 9,962
Default Just a side note........

Quote:
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
Apparently they have a 120HP turboprop available "soon" to the point they have started taking orders from Sun'n'Fun last week.
100HP fuel burn is a claimed 8USGPH, so it isn't exactly economical, but if you enjoy pushing the boundaries and want to upset Van by putting one in an RV-12,
A turbine engine in an RV-12 does not meet LSA parameters in the U.S.
This aircraft would be an amateur-built and could not be flown by a sport pilot.
__________________
Mel Asberry..DAR since last century
A&P/EAA Tech Counselor/Flight Advisor
Specializing in Amateur-Built and Light-Sport Aircraft
<rvmel(at)icloud.com>
North Texas (8TA5)
RV-6 Flying since 1993, 172hp O-320, 3-Blade Catto (since 2003)
Legend Cub purchased 12/2017
FRIEND of the RV-1
Eagle's Nest Mentor
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-15-2017, 10:26 PM
Alex Edwards Alex Edwards is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 66
Default

Thier bigger engine they propose for the future might be interesting in an RV-10.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-16-2017, 03:08 AM
Hwood Hwood is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Central Alabama
Posts: 230
Default Thoughts

Very interesting indeed....I wonder what the weight is? Also, not as economical but jet fuel is cheaper and going to be around for awhile longer (we hope).

Perhaps Van's new RV-20? An experimental jet?
__________________
Hwood
N469SH / "Crazy Woman" (sold)
Working on Another -8
Exempt but paid
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-16-2017, 03:59 AM
mike newall's Avatar
mike newall mike newall is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Yorkshire, England
Posts: 1,619
Default

Ironically - too light.

Much as other turbine conversions. Look at Pilatus Porter, Soloy 207 etc.

The 200hp version is half the weight of a piston, yes the fuel burn is higher but it looks like a real possibility for the tandem airplanes that don't like a lot of weight up front.
__________________
"I add a little excitement, a little spice to your lives, and all you do is complain!" - Q

Donated in 2018
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:04 AM
edsong's Avatar
edsong edsong is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Hatton, ND
Posts: 119
Default TBO?

Or whatever they call it for turbines.
__________________
Edson Grindeland
Hatton, ND
RV-8 Flying
http://www.hattonflyingcircus.com
You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:23 AM
BillL BillL is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central IL
Posts: 4,357
Default Looking at the website . . .

With the 200hp unit operating at 180 hp and 14.6 gah, a 7 would need 68 gal of fuel for the same time burn as 42 gal standard. Add that to the spec weight and it is not bad, still less than the Lyc + fuel weight. Getting W&B and sorting out the flight profile for X-CTY still TBD, but it appears competitive, initial investment aside. Maybe a new "Rocket" purpose modified for the engine capability?

Oh- I did not see the altitude rating - is it flat rated to 18K?

It looks like a bad investment, but more power to the guys for their initiative.
__________________
Bill

RV-7
1st Flight 1-27-18
Aerobatics done
Phase II 8-3-18
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-16-2017, 06:53 AM
dlomheim dlomheim is offline
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: (2OK2) OK City, OK
Posts: 358
Default Turbines in GA a/c

The biggest issue with GA turbines has always been the light engine weight (which then c,reates an ugly long pinocchio nose) and the really high fuel burn! For a jet engine to be really efficient they need to operate at "flight levels" which then requires pressurization and special systems (O2 regulators, etc.), and some training. Hi cool factor; but never seemed too practical for RVs.

Doug Lomheim
RV-9A Mazda 13B FWF
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-16-2017, 07:03 AM
mburch's Avatar
mburch mburch is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Northwestern USA
Posts: 1,170
Default

Maybe not well-suited to RV's, but this does look like it would be a great fit for little baby helicopters.
__________________
Matt Burch
RV-7 (last 90%)
http://www.rv7blog.com
VAF #836
For organizational convenience I have disabled private messaging, but please feel free to contact me by email.
Please note that any opinions expressed in this message are my own and not those of my employer.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:46 PM.


The VAFForums come to you courtesy Delta Romeo, LLC. By viewing and participating in them you agree to build your plane using standardized methods and practices and to fly it safely and in accordance with the laws governing the country you are located in.