VansAirForceForums  
Home > VansAirForceForums

-POSTING RULES
-Advertise in here!
- Today's Posts | Insert Pics

Keep VAF Going
Donate methods

Point your
camera app here
to donate fast.






VAF on Twitter:
@VansAirForceNet

  #11  
Old 03-12-2022, 08:46 PM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 973
Default

What problem do RVs have that a turbine will solve?

Power? The airframe doesn't need more power, most of them are bumping up against airspeed limits (practically speaking, Vno), so don't need more power.

Cost? Lycomings are expensive, but turbines are even more. Double by the cost estimate on the TurbAero site.

Reliability? I'll believe this one once the teething problems are worked out. Pistons flying back and forth, valves clattering, etc., lots of high stress parts to go wrong. Established turbine engines are more reliable than equivalent piston engines.

Fuel economy? Turbines loose here, until they start getting bigger. Went full nerd at work yesterday. PW-120, in cruise at FL250 and -50*c, was making 1200hp consuming 550lbs/hr. Works out to 0.46lbs/hp/hr. Now to fit a PW-120 and the 13' diameter propeller on my plane. The TurbAero engine is nowhere near this efficient at a 10th the size.

Simplicity of operation? Single or two lever control is big. No mixture, just power lever and propeller control. Although this already happens with EFI options (EFII and SDS).

Burns Jet A? Don't see any established Jet A options. If gasoline really isn't an option, this could be a possibility. There is another thread about a piston diesel/Jet A option.

Altitude performance? RVs with the Vne being in TAS really hampers altitude performance potential. Not sure the airframe could really utilize that power at altitude. Just not a good match-up of engine altitude capability with airframe altitude capability. If we wanted to fly at 160kias (220ktas) and FL200, we'd need a different airframe.
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage assembly, it's a riveting job!
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2023
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-13-2022, 10:54 PM
CamTom12 CamTom12 is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Newport News, VA
Posts: 40
Default

Turbines make their money in the flight levels. Or at least in the O2 levels.

Below that they're not that efficient.
__________________
Ruppe Racer
E-AB PA-22/20-160
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-14-2022, 08:40 AM
Northernliving Northernliving is offline
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 700
Default

It would sound and smell great, be amazingly smooth and be really cool. I've thought through it too and arrived at the same conclusion. My son designs turbines for GE, and I've picked his brain many times to see if I'm missing anything and these just aren't solutions for down low.
__________________
Brian J.
Boston, MA
RV8 Based at ORH - Purchased
New Superior IO-360-B1AC2 w/Hartzell Composite CS
RV8 - #83313 - Under Construction (sort of!)
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-14-2022, 09:14 AM
rv6ejguy's Avatar
rv6ejguy rv6ejguy is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 6,448
Default

A couple observations:

Unless the turbine is flat rated, don't expect altitude performance to be much better than a naturally aspirated piston engine of the same SL power. Turbine efficiency improves the higher you go but inlet mass flow decreases at the same rate as on a piston engine.

The TurbAero engine hopes to improve efficiency considerably over other turbines by using a recuperator. It remains to be proven that this will work sufficiently well and be cost effective. It's a challenging engineering and manufacturing goal.
__________________

Ross Farnham, Calgary, Alberta
Turbo Subaru EJ22, SDS EFI, Marcotte M-300, IVO, Shorai- RV6A C-GVZX flying from CYBW since 2003- 462.1 hrs. on the Hobbs,
RV10 95% built- Sold 2016
http://www.sdsefi.com/aircraft.html
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiy...g2GvQfelECCGoQ


Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-16-2022, 11:52 AM
David Z David Z is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Thunder Bay Ontario
Posts: 973
Default

It appears the engine is flat-rated to some degree. The following quote is from the TurbAero website (linked in post 1).

Quote:
Please note that at ISA conditions, the power available from the Talon is 200hp up to 8,000’ with maximum power at 10,000’ and ISA conditions being around 187hp
Granted, nobody is going to cruise around at max take-off power and everything redlined (turbine temperatures, engine speeds), so reasonable climb/cruise power settings will likely be available comfortably above 10,000. 147hp (74% of 200hp) is still available at 20,000'
__________________
RV8
Empennage Passed Pre-close Inspection
Wings mostly done
Fuselage assembly, it's a riveting job!
83126
Dash 8 day job is financing the RV8
Donation till September 2023
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-20-2022, 10:00 PM
Turbine Aeronautics Turbine Aeronautics is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 57
Default

This post will be a little long so you might want to grab a coffee before you settle in to read.

There are a lot of excellent discussion points raised in the posts above and I'd like to take this opportunity to address some of them. This first response will be of a generic nature, and I will then endeavour to respond to the individual posts where I think a response would add value or clarity to the discussion.

I need to start by making it very clear that the Talon is still under development. We have completed the design of the prototype and are currently having components sourced/manufactured for that prototype engine. All figures that we have or are putting out there are predictions only at this stage. It will not be until we have run the engine and have obtained verifiable data that we will be able to publish actual performance data.

Our performance or specification predictions are based on the design work and analyses that our engineering team have carried out, using industry standard software that is proven to be extremely accurate. Our turbomachinery, combustor, fuel delivery, rotor and bearing systems are fairly conventional so their performance can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. Our recuperator component has added a measure of complexity to designing a well-balanced system, but again, there is software that can fairly accurately predict heat exchange technology performance. The technical challenge with our recuperator is to get the performance that we would like in a small package, that doesn’t cost an arm and a leg, and to be actually able to build it.

Another generic statement that I would like to make in relation to discussion around our engine is that there is a lot of knowledge but also misunderstanding out there about turbine technology. Also, generalities have been made that do not apply to specific circumstances, technologies or products. When discussing this technology, I would encourage participants in this forum to be open to learning new stuff and be prepared, through education, to be open to considering changes to preconceived ideas or “prior knowledge”.

If you would like to understand about our technology better and you are attending SUN ‘n FUN 22, please come and visit our display and speak directly with our Chief Technology Officer who is leading our design effort. He is very good at answering the technical questions in a way that either the most technical or least technical person can understand.

With that now said, let me address some of the points that have been raised.

The first point is that power is power. 200hp is 200hp regardless of whether it is from a piston engine or a turbine engine. For the same power on the same airframe, the performance will be identical.

However, there are several factors to be considered that could influence aircraft performance:

1. A Talon installation will likely allow the use of a more aerodynamically efficient engine cowling that should result in less drag for the airframe. What this means is that for an identical power setting, the turbine RV with the cleaner cowling would fly faster than the piston RV. Alternatively, for an identical speed, the turbine RV would use less power.
2. The Talon should offer 200hp for take-off at sea level, a maximum power of 187hp at 10,000’ and a maximum power of 147hp at 20,000’, whereas the IO-360 M1B quoted in Post #1 offers a maximum power of 180hp at sea level, a maximum power of 128hp at 10,000’ and a maximum power of 86hp at 20,000’ (from Figure 3-26 of the Operators Manual). Maximum power available will limit the performance of the aircraft (take-off, climb and cruise). Because the Talon is flat-rated to around 8,000’, it will have a power advantage over most of the naturally aspirated IO-360 variants at altitudes above 5,000’. If you have a high elevation or high density altitude home airport, the Talon’s performance should be a positive.

Switching to the topic of fuel consumption, any individual considering a powerplant needs to determine what their most common mission profile is, or if not the most common mission profile, at least the most limiting mission profile that they will fly.

As Paul Dye indicated in Post #4, you need to define the mission before doing an analytical comparison of fuel consumptions. Once you have defined the mission and set the parameters for doing the comparison (power required and altitude being key factors), then be careful to compare apples to apples. Specific Fuel Consumption comparisons are not valid when comparing a JetA burning aircraft to an Avgas burning aircraft due to the different densities of the fuel (JetA being around 10% more dense than Avgas). What this means is that a turbine that has a SFC of say .55 lbs/hp/hr will actually be burning the same volume of fuel per hour as a piston that has a SFC 0f 0.50 lbs/hp/hr. Since we buy fuel by the gallon and the tanks hold a set number of gallons, volume of fuel is most important to us (except where weight limits are more critical than volume limits).

A secondary but other important factor is the cost differential between JetA and Avgas. In many parts of the US. JetA is around 10-20% cheaper than Avgas. Meaning that the turbine can burn 10-20% more fuel before the fuel cost for the piston becomes cheaper. In parts of Europe, the cost differential between JetA and Avgas is much higher, so the fuel cost equation is more in favour of the turbine in Europe than for the piston.

I will give one example of a comparison for the forumites to ponder:

The aircraft concerned is an RVxx and this owner’s typical mission is a 3 hour flight, going as fast as he can to minimise his time in transit. Let’s assume the piston engine fitted is the IO-360 M1B referred to in Post #1.

I’m going to make several assumptions about the power required to achieve the maximum speed the owner of this example aircraft is comfortable to cruise at. I will also use the fuel prices from today at KOSH for this example (Avgas - $5.89 per gallon; JetA - $4.99 per gallon)

Sea-level comparison:
Assumption – The aircraft requires 150hp to cruise at its maximum cruise speed (TAS).
Piston – Burns 9.2gph at $5.89 per gallon = $54.20 of fuel per hour (Figure 3.6 from the Operators Manual)
Turbine – Burns 14.5gph at $4.99 per gallon = $72.40 of fuel per hour

Over the 3 hour flight, the turbine burns 15.9 gallons of fuel more than the piston and the fuel cost is $54 more for the turbine.

10,000’ comparison:
Assumption – The aircraft still requires 150hp to cruise at its maximum cruise speed (TAS).
Piston – (cannot offer 150hp at 10,000’ but at it’s maximum power of 128hp, it will be burning 11.0gph at $5.89 per gallon = $64.80 of fuel per hour (Figure 3.6 from the Operators Manual – Max power curve because 128hp is maximum power available at 10,000’)
Turbine – Burns 12.7gph at $4.99 per gallon = $63.40 of fuel per hour

Over the 3 hour flight, the turbine burns 5.1 gallons of fuel more than the piston but the fuel cost is $4 less for the turbine, but also remember that the turbine is operating at 22hp higher than the piston so the aircraft will be cruising faster, making the flight shorter. This makes the economics even better for the turbine as far as fuel cost is concerned and actually means that there may be very little differential in the amount of fuel used for this flight.

20,000’ comparison
Assumption – The aircraft requires 120hp to cruise at its maximum cruise speed (TAS).
Piston – cannot offer 120hp at 20,000’ but at its maximum power of 89hp, it will be burning 8.7gph at full throttle (Figure 3.6 from the Operators Manual) @ $5.89 per gallon = $51.20
Turbine – Burns 9.0gph at $4.99 per gallon = $44.90 of fuel per hour
Over the 3 hour flight, the turbine burns 1 gallon more fuel than the piston but the fuel cost is $18.90 less for the turbine and the turbine is offering 31hp more than the piston so cruise speed will be much better for the turbine, offering way better fuel economics (better range when cruise speeds are considered, less fuel cost).

Conclusion:

What the above example demonstrates is that under certain scenarios, the piston offers better range (less fuel burn) and a lower fuel cost. However, for a different scenario, the turbine can offer more range (less fuel burn) and a lower fuel cost.

So, from a basic range and fuel cost perspective, the typical mission of the aircraft is important to determine whether a piston or a turbine makes sense for you.

So that is fuel considerations covered.

Now there are weight, size, reliability, scheduled maintenance requirements, TBO, customer support (spare parts, access to maintainers, participation in a pro-active Health and Usage Monitoring system program etc.), coolness, sound, smoothness of engine, cost to purchase, cost of overhaul, cost of inspections, single lever control and simplicity of operation (safety), automatic engine protection systems (safety and simplicity for pilot), and a myriad of other factors/features that need to be considered.

Once we have run our engine and thoroughly tested it, we will have the data that you need to make an educated and valid comparison of engine options. When it comes to that time, I encourage anyone considering the buy decision to take the time to define their mission profiles, determine what the key factors are that they need from their engine and then do a valid apples to apples comparison between the options.

The good news is that while the turbine will not be the solution for some or even many, at least it will be an option. It’s always better to have choice than no choice.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-20-2022, 10:26 PM
spatsch spatsch is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Denison, TX
Posts: 391
Default

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

In my initial post I actually had outlined some constrains of my mission profile. One of my main constrains was no oxygen required. So that limits me to 12500 feet. I guess I don’t even fly at 128hp at 10000 feet as my actual fuel burn is around 9gph at that altitude.

I would also be worried about the relatively low Vne of the RVs. E.g. for the 20000 foot number will that keep my RV below 230 TAS?

Thx again!

Oliver
p.s. I am all for choice. I was just trying to figure out if that is something for me and my RV.
__________________
Oliver Spatscheck
RV-8 N-2EQ -- flying 500+ hours
Fokker DR-1 N-22EQ -- under construction
http://www.spatscheck.com/oliver
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-20-2022, 10:39 PM
gregfuess gregfuess is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 121
Default

The only problem I see is that for a flight today, there is no turbine for the RV-XX, so the burn and savings rates don't matter, because there's no turbine to experience them today.

Maybe a turbine will be available by your next top end overhaul. Maybe it won't. There was another company ~10~12 years ago that made promises, and even taking deposits. That company no longer exists as far as I can tell.

If you want to fly in the next 1~3 years, it won't be with a turbine.
__________________
Greg Fuess
Albuquerque, NM
N521GF
Working on an RV-14

Last edited by gregfuess : 03-20-2022 at 10:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-20-2022, 11:01 PM
Turbine Aeronautics Turbine Aeronautics is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 57
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by spatsch View Post
Thank you for the detailed explanation.

In my initial post I actually had outlined some constrains of my mission profile. One of my main constrains was no oxygen required. So that limits me to 12500 feet. I guess I don’t even fly at 128hp at 10000 feet as my actual fuel burn is around 9gph at that altitude.

I would also be worried about the relatively low Vne of the RVs. E.g. for the 20000 foot number will that keep my RV below 230 TAS?

Thx again!

Oliver
p.s. I am all for choice. I was just trying to figure out if that is something for me and my RV.
Hi Oliver,

You did identify several important mission parameters so you were thinking along the right lines and you were certainly asking the right questions. When our engine is ultimately being delivered to customers, I'm sure you will have done a diligent assessment of it's suitability and appropriateness for your aircraft.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-20-2022, 11:08 PM
gregfuess gregfuess is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turbine Aeronautics View Post
When our engine is ultimately being delivered to customers, I'm sure you will have done a diligent assessment of it's suitability and appropriateness for your aircraft.
When do you anticipate that your engine will ultimately be delivered to customers?
__________________
Greg Fuess
Albuquerque, NM
N521GF
Working on an RV-14
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 10:17 AM.


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.