What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-8 Turbaero Retrofit?

Majorpayne317641

Well Known Member
I met the guys developing the 200hp Turbaero turboprop engine at Sun N Fun last summer. I am very interested but I have wondered how we could retrofit our aircraft to accommodate this engine. Anyone else thinking the same? I know it will fit space wise, but it would require new engine mounts, cowling, fuel filler on the tanks, and probably a larger fuel supply line to name a few things. I'd love to get other people's perspectives on this if anyone else is also thinking about buying this engine once it comes to production.
 
Still not likely they could achieve the same BSFC as a piston engine, so you would have to also consider larger fuel tanks or shorter range.
 
Turd Aero

I’d wait til they at least get a running prototype before even thinking of what’s entailed in a retrofit.
 
Chris---they will build the engine mount---or a supplemental mount to install it in the 8. I guess. You can take most everything FWF and scrap it----a new dry sump oil tank will be needed, similar to the one they had in the 7A mockup at OSH. A fuel header tank will be needed, probably mounted in ( what used to be) the forward baggage area. Probably 2-3 gals. The diagram I have didnt show returns, but I suspect that there will be some sort of bypass return to the header tank.

The pics I took at OSH show the 7A mockup and part of the mockup plumbing, mainly the oil system. Keep in mind this is a mockup and most likely will all be changed once other systems get in place. No, we didnt build them.

If you want some other info, email me at [email protected]

Tom
 

Attachments

  • 20220725_161305.jpg
    20220725_161305.jpg
    507.9 KB · Views: 187
  • 20220725_161323.jpg
    20220725_161323.jpg
    659.8 KB · Views: 179
  • 20220725_161340.jpg
    20220725_161340.jpg
    427.8 KB · Views: 180
Chris, not trying to be critical at all, just don't understand why you'd be interested. Can you go into the expected advantages a bit?

Thanks,
Dave
 
Reliability of a turboprop? More power, longer TBO, yes its not for everyone. I really don't care if it eats more fuel.

Break break

Tom, thank you for the pictures from Oshkosh I guess I missed that.
 
Chris, not trying to be critical at all, just don't understand why you'd be interested. Can you go into the expected advantages a bit?

Thanks,
Dave

If this engine can be made to run, many of the Reno sports class racers will want to install it.
 
You are correct in that there will be changes necessary in order to retrofit the Talon. We will be working, ideally in conjunction with Van's, to develop FWF packages for RV's to make this swap as seamless as possible.

We will be detailing the install of the Talon on our RV7T (turbine RV-7A) - we have a build thread on this forum (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=208523) as well as a YouTube series documenting the work going into it. As we progress, you will be able to follow along and see what would be required to install a Talon on similar airframes.

In terms of advantages..... performance, reliability and maintenance, TBO, NVH, fuel used. We have always promoted that the engine will not necessarily be for everyone, and it depends on your typical mission - for those that like to fly high and fly fast, would prefer to run Jet-A, like the sound/smoothness/reliability of a turbine etc. it will be a very viable alternative.
 
I love the idea of small turbines for many reasons;
- jet A is cheaper and way easier to find and cheaper which is only going to get more exaggerated as 100LL gets completely phased out
-reliability, longer TBO’s, better cold starts, negligible warm up and cool down time
-you can fly much faster longer. No shock cooling allows you to stay higher longer with steeper descents. You can maintain a fast speed throughout the entire patter until I’d imagine less than 3 mile final
 
Thank you for that, I didn't realize you guys had a thread. The progress looks great I'm super excited to see it flying. An RV-8A would be a great option. With that engine it would be like a mini T-6.


You are correct in that there will be changes necessary in order to retrofit the Talon. We will be working, ideally in conjunction with Van's, to develop FWF packages for RV's to make this swap as seamless as possible.

We will be detailing the install of the Talon on our RV7T (turbine RV-7A) - we have a build thread on this forum (https://vansairforce.net/community/showthread.php?t=208523) as well as a YouTube series documenting the work going into it. As we progress, you will be able to follow along and see what would be required to install a Talon on similar airframes.

In terms of advantages..... performance, reliability and maintenance, TBO, NVH, fuel used. We have always promoted that the engine will not necessarily be for everyone, and it depends on your typical mission - for those that like to fly high and fly fast, would prefer to run Jet-A, like the sound/smoothness/reliability of a turbine etc. it will be a very viable alternative.
 
I love the idea of small turbines for many reasons;
- jet A is cheaper and way easier to find and cheaper which is only going to get more exaggerated as 100LL gets completely phased out
-reliability, longer TBO’s, better cold starts, negligible warm up and cool down time
-you can fly much faster longer. No shock cooling allows you to stay higher longer with steeper descents. You can maintain a fast speed throughout the entire patter until I’d imagine less than 3 mile final

While I'm looking forward to seeing the Talon engine finish testing and enter production, there is much to prove on any new engine design, especially on the durability front. You can't compare new turbine designs to legacy ones like PT6s and 331s which have been in service for decades and accumulated 10s of millions of flight hours.

There is a long ways to go here and TurbAero understands that.
 
I hope they should change it because the Unlimited warbird class is in it's last leg because running it is too expensive.

The top Sport Class engines output in excess of 800hp when running 400mph+ laps. The thermodynamic rating of the Turbaero is about a 1/4 of this so it wouldn't be a viable alternative here.
 
And $80-100,000

Assuming that is the true range for the price of it...I just called a distributor to ask how much a brand new lycoming IO-360 costs (run of the mill, not thunderbolt). Without a core, they are $96k. So it is actually very competitive with a piston engine if you compare apples to apples.
 
While I'm looking forward to seeing the Talon engine finish testing and enter production, there is much to prove on any new engine design, especially on the durability front. You can't compare new turbine designs to legacy ones like PT6s and 331s which have been in service for decades and accumulated 10s of millions of flight hours.

There is a long ways to go here and TurbAero understands that.

I also understand this, I have lots of testing experience with new to production items. It is a great step towards something tangible if it works.
 
I like jet engines, in fact most of my flying career has been flying jets. Unfortunately at the moment I can see no advantages. In this case they are ESTIMATING some time in the future something like 200 hp equivalent, which is about the same as a Lycoming. The big advantage is burning jet A. In many places around the world Avgas is difficult to find. Regardless of power, the airframe is limited by its VNE, and that is not something to treat casually.

A possible advantage might be the ability to fly at flight level altitudes.
In a fully developed engine, long life and reliability are factors. I don’t know about turboprops, but jet engines are usually ‘lifed’ in the tens of thousand hours. Having said that, how many hours do the majority of light aircraft pilots fly?

Having said all that, if they could get 400 or more hp, it would be a blast to takeoff and climb at 10,000 ft/min. And cruise in a jet stream.

Regards to all, Brent
 
Back
Top