I have a Cardinal 177B... so interested in this engine, not just for reaching the Cardinal RG speeds but also the biggest flaw in the 177B is the forward CG it's almost impossible to stay w/i cg envelope... This engine would reduce all that weight up front, increase the performance while maintaining very similar fuel burn! @TurbAero please include the C-177B in your STC plans!
Thanks for the comment Jonathan, you hit the nail on the head with the benefits. We have had a few interested Cardinal owners, and we anticipate a certificated version of the engine being available a few years down the track!
I'm strongly leaning towards a slightly stretched version of an Osprey 2 with the Talon engine. My other choice would be an engine swap for a Buccaneer.
Will be in the market for an TSIO-540 in the next year for my experimental kitplane. Would love it if they scaled it up and offered a TA400TP! Would definitely consider that. Alas, the 200 is too small for my plane. But I wish them luck, this sounds very promising. Maybe someday...
Yes, it could go into a Bearhawk as well. It’s still around 18-24 months until anticipated deliveries. Please keep watching our TH-cam channel for updates.
@@RR-kl6sl The project is still going but we have had to put the brakes on while we source additional funding. We are in conversations with several potential parties but we need to get one of them across the line before we can restart the program.
I own a Piper 140 and also an Ercoupe 415C. I would like to convert to a turbine due to the reliability, but I fear that the cost would be prohibitive, and also the complexity of the pilot ratings.
Hi Lynn, whilst we can't currently say how certification will change the purchase price, for the experimental model we are anticipating an initial price of $85,000. Considering fuel burn and maintenance costs, we anticipate that over the lifecycle of the engine, the total cost ends up similar to that of a comparable reciprocating engine. In terms of pilot ratings, we plan to offer transition training for those converting to a turbine aircraft. However, we expect that flying behind a turbine will be picked up by most relatively quickly.
I think that you can put these turboprop engines in but you just need a type certificate for it because it’s gonna have more than 200 horsepower and on top of that it’s gonna change the center of gravity on the plane so you would have to retest to see if it’s air worthy and that’s if you can fit it on the plane. You also have to consider the equipment that is needed. Since most of diamond aircraft come with the g1000 avian ice it shouldn’t be to hard to adjust and put the new sensors and gauges in but still . Also the fact that the Austro engine is a certified engine that means turbaero would have to certify the kit for the engine itself and that can take years. It’s a nice dream and I was wondering the same thing for the diamond da62.
Hi Jay. What a great little aircraft! I first saw one as a young 5yo in the first book that I bought in book club in primary school, back in the late 60’s. A turbine Baby Great Lakes would be very cool!
Surprised there was no mentions of Vans various aircraft types being considered. Price point is looking reasonable and not too dissimilar with the announced price increase Lycoming have recently announced, assuming the $85k price point is where it is indeed released to market at.
Have you considered the bladeless tech behind the Tesla turbine? It would be revolutionary, pun intended. But seriously, have the bladeless turbine to receive the exhaust gasses and it’ll spin up to 70,000 rpms. Imho.
Excellent pickup, well spotted and thanks for your feedback! It should have been a 4 cylinder engine there or alternatively, a Continental 6 banger, but not a Lycoming 6 banger. We can't change it now but we have taken your observation on board and will pay more attention to detail to avoid these slip ups in our future videos.
Hi First Last. The aircraft's characteristics, performance requirements and mission profile of the aircraft will determine whether more or less volume of fuel is used by the Piston engined aircraft or the Talon turbine engined aircraft. There are some mission profiles where our Talon engine will actually burn less volume of fuel than the piston. However, you are correct, with the density of JetA being around 10% higher than for Avgas, the same volume of fuel will weigh 10% more in the turbine powered aircraft. For a 50 usg (189 litres) fuel tank, that will equate to 36lbs (16kgs) of extra fuel weight in the JetA. With an installed weight of the Talon being around 50-100lbs less than an equivalent piston, the fuel weight/engine weight saving tradeoff is likely to be fairly neutral for a given flight range. For shorter flights where less fuel is carried, the benefit is in favour of the weight saving of the engine. At the end of the day, the aircraft's characteristics, performance requirements and the mission profile will determine which is of the most benefit on the day.
It's very interesting BUT try if you can to completely arrest yourselves and realize that a turboprop while smoother will still be much the same utility as a piston prop as a front noise maker and the colonial primitive look that a prop plane has. In a sense it becomes the worst of both worlds, the design compromise of a prop and the cost of a jet. Try your sully best to instead realize that you could make an even smaller and simpler turbofan jet product that's more reliable, cheaper to develop and produce, has natural twin engine applicability, has the design freedom of jets, the silent sophistication of jets and the vastly superior looks. And keep in mind that the distance record without refueling of 40000km belongs to a simple off the shelf Williams FJ44-4 turbofan engine, going 500km/h. A turbofan engine around 16kg with 100kg thrust could propel lean ~5-600kg planes to mach 0.7 with over the ocean engine redundancy. Consider what a revolution that could be. How a producer of such engine could very quickly become a half billion dollar company. Whereas a turboprop has no real revolution potential. Same performance plane but a more expensive engine with a different sound. You are not going to listen, no one ever does but you should.
Hello Dan. Thank you for expressing your point of view. Your perception of the potential for a small turbofan is consistent with our own so we are on the same page there. That initiative has always been on our radar. Indeed, our engineering team is keen to start on that product which they perceive to be the most satisfying product for them to develop. However, market research has firmly dictated the order in which we will develop our turbine engine products. The available market is critical when launching a new product. If we started with a turbofan, there are no existing aircraft designed to be optimal for such a powerplant and noone would design one until the powerplant was proven. Spending many tens of millions of dollars on developing an engine where we couldn't sell any until someone designed an aircraft to use it just doesn't make sense. That said, once we are a half billion dollar company, we could develop the turbofan to make us a 1 billion dollar company and to allow me to have my own personal jet which has always been an ambition for me! 🙂
@@TurbAero With due respect, that is an error in judgment. A market will instantly appear with a turbofan product. Darkaero will redesign their plane. Cirrus will obviously adapt the SR22 class instantly. Any producer that does not will be outcompeted. Just the enthusiast market for wild conversions will no doubt consume any amount of product you can make initially. To delay is 100% a mistake, not maybe, not let's wait and see or we'll get around to it, 100% a mistake. The Turboprop project should be ended with extreme prejudice if it at all distracts from a turbofan. There was no market for electric cars before Tesla either. The other producers were going to get around to it whenever. As a result Tesla is today 700 times more worth than Aston Martin. About as much as all car makers in the world combined. Soon to be the biggest company in the world and it wont end there. Tesla will make faster than light starships. There is ok excitement around small turboprops, a turbofan product will drive the market crazy. Turboprop will not expand the market, it will be a neat novelty for some planes to show off without any real change in specs but have higher price. a turbofan product will revolutionize GA. Textron will offer hundreds of millions for the company.
@@DanFrederiksen Dan, we respect your opinion and indeed, we agree with elements of your point of view. That is why elements of what you suggest are already considered in our business plan. However, there are a multitude of considerations, influences and factors that I suggest you are not considering that have a bearing on the viability and achievability of what you are proposing. Your suggestion only scratches the surface of all the factors that need to be considered when making such a critical business decision. I am not going to discuss those in this forum but you can be assured that we, as a small (for now) but ambitious and driven Australian company, have assessed these factors and this assessment has provided the strategic direction for our company, both short-term and long-term. We believe that you underestimate the value proposition of our turboprop product in our target markets. There are enough points of difference with the existing piston engines for our turboprop engine to appeal to enough of our target markets to make the business successful and to enable us to execute on our long-term strategies. That said, we will look forward to seeing the DarkAero/Vans RVxx twin-turbofan experimental kit aircraft and the certificated Cirrus SR22TT and Baron G58TT etc. twin turbofans gracing the skies in due course.
@@TurbAero all that sounds very much like excuses to never do the right thing. How long until you can sell the turboprop and no longer delay starting on a turbofan? is it now? 2 years? indefinite endless delay? am I going to read a bankruptcy statement 5 years from now so 10 years was wasted because you knew best? put it on a big board somewhere. make it an unwavering goal. don't consider, do.
What about replacing a rotax 912 UL, is it possible?
Can’t wait to see mass production
Thank you for the support!
How about the Sling range of aircraft???
Nice! I want to get a lightning and this was one of my questions! I'm excited.
Listening from Australia, was pretty sure that was an Aussie accent, checking online verified it :-) Go Aussie
Looks really good
Perfect for a RV8 as you said. Longer nose would be awesome ! Price is surely a little bit deterrent as long as you don’t get high production.
I have a Cardinal 177B... so interested in this engine, not just for reaching the Cardinal RG speeds but also the biggest flaw in the 177B is the forward CG it's almost impossible to stay w/i cg envelope... This engine would reduce all that weight up front, increase the performance while maintaining very similar fuel burn! @TurbAero please include the C-177B in your STC plans!
Thanks for the comment Jonathan, you hit the nail on the head with the benefits. We have had a few interested Cardinal owners, and we anticipate a certificated version of the engine being available a few years down the track!
The 120hp would be a very interesting fit for a diamond 20!
How about a Glastar Sportsman?
A Sportsman would suit the Talon well!
Would also love to see an automotive version!
could you put this in a Cessna 340
Hi Hubert, a Cessna 340 would probably benefit from our 300-350hp certified variant which we aim to develop after the Talon.
I'm strongly leaning towards a slightly stretched version of an Osprey 2 with the Talon engine. My other choice would be an engine swap for a Buccaneer.
When are they available? And how much.
We are anticipating an $85,000 price figure, with the first deliveries to be in late 2025/early 2026.
What is the fuel burn?
Hi David, throttled back to 150hp at 10,000ft we anticipate a fuel burn of 12.7GPH.
Will be in the market for an TSIO-540 in the next year for my experimental kitplane. Would love it if they scaled it up and offered a TA400TP! Would definitely consider that. Alas, the 200 is too small for my plane. But I wish them luck, this sounds very promising. Maybe someday...
The next engine we are currently planning on developing after the Talon is one in the 320-350hp range, which sounds like it may suit your kitplane!
No bearhawk? when is it available?
Yes, it could go into a Bearhawk as well. It’s still around 18-24 months until anticipated deliveries. Please keep watching our TH-cam channel for updates.
The 300-375 hp version would be much better in a bear hawk
Will your turboprop work in the Columbia 400?
The higher, 350 horsepower engine would most likely be more suitable for a Columbia 400.
Wonder how this would work in a Cessna 337
Man this would be a great motor for a lancair 4
What's the status ?? Has been silent for a while and the phone number on the website says out of service... you didn't stop the project did you??
@@RR-kl6sl The project is still going but we have had to put the brakes on while we source additional funding. We are in conversations with several potential parties but we need to get one of them across the line before we can restart the program.
ty
How about a carbon cub?
A Talon would be very nice on a Cub!
Super cub? Piper pa-12?
what is the fuel burn? ---
Preliminary figures fuel-burn wise for the TA200TP Talon show an anticipated 12.6GPH at 150hp and 10,000'.
cant wait
RV-10!
🙏🏼🇺🇸💪🏼
I own a Piper 140 and also an Ercoupe 415C. I would like to convert to a turbine due to the reliability, but I fear that the cost would be prohibitive, and also the complexity of the pilot ratings.
Hi Lynn, whilst we can't currently say how certification will change the purchase price, for the experimental model we are anticipating an initial price of $85,000. Considering fuel burn and maintenance costs, we anticipate that over the lifecycle of the engine, the total cost ends up similar to that of a comparable reciprocating engine. In terms of pilot ratings, we plan to offer transition training for those converting to a turbine aircraft. However, we expect that flying behind a turbine will be picked up by most relatively quickly.
How about the Diamonds? They already use Jet Fuel. Imagine a DA42 with two Talons!!!!
Those are certified aircraft you can’t just change the engine
I think that you can put these turboprop engines in but you just need a type certificate for it because it’s gonna have more than 200 horsepower and on top of that it’s gonna change the center of gravity on the plane so you would have to retest to see if it’s air worthy and that’s if you can fit it on the plane. You also have to consider the equipment that is needed. Since most of diamond aircraft come with the g1000 avian ice it shouldn’t be to hard to adjust and put the new sensors and gauges in but still . Also the fact that the Austro engine is a certified engine that means turbaero would have to certify the kit for the engine itself and that can take years. It’s a nice dream and I was wondering the same thing for the diamond da62.
I'm building a Baby Great Lakes. The 120 might interesting in that plane.
Hi Jay. What a great little aircraft! I first saw one as a young 5yo in the first book that I bought in book club in primary school, back in the late 60’s. A turbine Baby Great Lakes would be very cool!
While this is good information, I would be more impressed by seeing your engine powering a bunch of different planes. Maybe in your next video?
Hi Jeff, we will certainly have videos of engines on aircraft once we have an engine in one!
Hey everybody/there’s a lot of talk here/and the talk goes on and on
You missed the key question, what is the cost? $$$$ That been the key stumbling block for turbine for decades.
Hi Tony, we anticipate a purchase price of $85k for the Talon.
Surprised there was no mentions of Vans various aircraft types being considered. Price point is looking reasonable and not too dissimilar with the announced price increase Lycoming have recently announced, assuming the $85k price point is where it is indeed released to market at.
2:10
Have you considered the bladeless tech behind the Tesla turbine?
It would be revolutionary, pun intended. But seriously, have the bladeless turbine to receive the exhaust gasses and it’ll spin up to 70,000 rpms.
Imho.
says 0-320/0-360...shows 6cyl lycoming, come on guys
Excellent pickup, well spotted and thanks for your feedback! It should have been a 4 cylinder engine there or alternatively, a Continental 6 banger, but not a Lycoming 6 banger. We can't change it now but we have taken your observation on board and will pay more attention to detail to avoid these slip ups in our future videos.
😳🤯
A turbine Husky!
Turbine people always talk about engine power to weight, but never the extra weight of fuel required to maintain the same range.
Hi First Last.
The aircraft's characteristics, performance requirements and mission profile of the aircraft will determine whether more or less volume of fuel is used by the Piston engined aircraft or the Talon turbine engined aircraft. There are some mission profiles where our Talon engine will actually burn less volume of fuel than the piston. However, you are correct, with the density of JetA being around 10% higher than for Avgas, the same volume of fuel will weigh 10% more in the turbine powered aircraft.
For a 50 usg (189 litres) fuel tank, that will equate to 36lbs (16kgs) of extra fuel weight in the JetA. With an installed weight of the Talon being around 50-100lbs less than an equivalent piston, the fuel weight/engine weight saving tradeoff is likely to be fairly neutral for a given flight range. For shorter flights where less fuel is carried, the benefit is in favour of the weight saving of the engine. At the end of the day, the aircraft's characteristics, performance requirements and the mission profile will determine which is of the most benefit on the day.
Lots of words but no engine. No video of a prototype running. Nothing except words and theory. Still waiting. Still hoping. Still sceptical.
They are basically upscaling the turbotech tp-r90, so it is not such a matter of if, its mostly a matter of when, IMO.
Another "Paper engine" yawn. . .
We are currently in the prototyping phase of the Talon, with the aim to have an engine on the test stand next year. Stay tuned; it's coming!
@@TurbAero that’s great to hear and I will stay tuned!
It's very interesting BUT try if you can to completely arrest yourselves and realize that a turboprop while smoother will still be much the same utility as a piston prop as a front noise maker and the colonial primitive look that a prop plane has. In a sense it becomes the worst of both worlds, the design compromise of a prop and the cost of a jet. Try your sully best to instead realize that you could make an even smaller and simpler turbofan jet product that's more reliable, cheaper to develop and produce, has natural twin engine applicability, has the design freedom of jets, the silent sophistication of jets and the vastly superior looks. And keep in mind that the distance record without refueling of 40000km belongs to a simple off the shelf Williams FJ44-4 turbofan engine, going 500km/h. A turbofan engine around 16kg with 100kg thrust could propel lean ~5-600kg planes to mach 0.7 with over the ocean engine redundancy. Consider what a revolution that could be. How a producer of such engine could very quickly become a half billion dollar company. Whereas a turboprop has no real revolution potential. Same performance plane but a more expensive engine with a different sound. You are not going to listen, no one ever does but you should.
Hello Dan. Thank you for expressing your point of view. Your perception of the potential for a small turbofan is consistent with our own so we are on the same page there. That initiative has always been on our radar. Indeed, our engineering team is keen to start on that product which they perceive to be the most satisfying product for them to develop. However, market research has firmly dictated the order in which we will develop our turbine engine products. The available market is critical when launching a new product. If we started with a turbofan, there are no existing aircraft designed to be optimal for such a powerplant and noone would design one until the powerplant was proven. Spending many tens of millions of dollars on developing an engine where we couldn't sell any until someone designed an aircraft to use it just doesn't make sense. That said, once we are a half billion dollar company, we could develop the turbofan to make us a 1 billion dollar company and to allow me to have my own personal jet which has always been an ambition for me! 🙂
@@TurbAero With due respect, that is an error in judgment. A market will instantly appear with a turbofan product. Darkaero will redesign their plane. Cirrus will obviously adapt the SR22 class instantly. Any producer that does not will be outcompeted. Just the enthusiast market for wild conversions will no doubt consume any amount of product you can make initially. To delay is 100% a mistake, not maybe, not let's wait and see or we'll get around to it, 100% a mistake.
The Turboprop project should be ended with extreme prejudice if it at all distracts from a turbofan. There was no market for electric cars before Tesla either. The other producers were going to get around to it whenever. As a result Tesla is today 700 times more worth than Aston Martin. About as much as all car makers in the world combined. Soon to be the biggest company in the world and it wont end there. Tesla will make faster than light starships.
There is ok excitement around small turboprops, a turbofan product will drive the market crazy. Turboprop will not expand the market, it will be a neat novelty for some planes to show off without any real change in specs but have higher price. a turbofan product will revolutionize GA. Textron will offer hundreds of millions for the company.
@@TurbAero Diamond will make a plane for it too
@@DanFrederiksen Dan, we respect your opinion and indeed, we agree with elements of your point of view. That is why elements of what you suggest are already considered in our business plan. However, there are a multitude of considerations, influences and factors that I suggest you are not considering that have a bearing on the viability and achievability of what you are proposing. Your suggestion only scratches the surface of all the factors that need to be considered when making such a critical business decision. I am not going to discuss those in this forum but you can be assured that we, as a small (for now) but ambitious and driven Australian company, have assessed these factors and this assessment has provided the strategic direction for our company, both short-term and long-term.
We believe that you underestimate the value proposition of our turboprop product in our target markets. There are enough points of difference with the existing piston engines for our turboprop engine to appeal to enough of our target markets to make the business successful and to enable us to execute on our long-term strategies. That said, we will look forward to seeing the DarkAero/Vans RVxx twin-turbofan experimental kit aircraft and the certificated Cirrus SR22TT and Baron G58TT etc. twin turbofans gracing the skies in due course.
@@TurbAero all that sounds very much like excuses to never do the right thing. How long until you can sell the turboprop and no longer delay starting on a turbofan? is it now? 2 years? indefinite endless delay? am I going to read a bankruptcy statement 5 years from now so 10 years was wasted because you knew best?
put it on a big board somewhere. make it an unwavering goal. don't consider, do.