If they are able to achieve a fuel burn of 12.7gph at 150hp output that would still be an amazing accomplishment for a turbine engine. The burn would only be around a 25% increase over a reciprocating engine.
It's very exciting to finally see development progress toward a small-GA turboprop engine, but I'm concerned about a couple of sentences in the video, at 1:51: "Our goals [...] have been to sell the engine for the same price as a piston engine, and then to have a fuel burn that is the same as a piston engine. Those are very lofty goals and we haven't achieved them a hundred percent, and probably won't..." Indeed. I presume they're comparing against something with roughly similar cost and power, like the 210hp Lycoming IO-390 (which, at 75% power, will have horsepower and fuel consumption similar to the TurbAero's 12.7 gph at 150hp as stated in the video). I'll be very interested to see just how far short of their goals they end up. My prediction is that installing this engine with a compatible propeller like the 5-blade constant-speed DUC-Hélices unit shown, with a custom cowling, will push *well* into six figures. No doubt there will be well-heeled builders who are willing to spend the money for the turbine sound and smoothness, but the majority will continue to install used or rebuilt O-320s and O-360s. Sadly, unless it attracts a high-volume commercial customer, I doubt this project will ever achieve the economies of scale that would make it widely affordable in the Experimental Amateur-Built market. Perhaps low volume will be enough to make a profitable enterprise for TurbAero. I certainly wish them luck.
You can buy small GA sized turboprops already, incl. heat exchanger, TurboTech from france makes one and afaik they are flying them. The recent demo of the turboprop VL3 had one.
He's so loving this engine and why wouldn't you it's awesome !! Weight would be half a piston engine ? Great figures for power if it holds up . Following
Based on how aviation projects typically go.....the cost estimate is about 50% or less of reality. So.....around $170,000+ by the time it makes it to an end-user airframe. Please prove me wrong.
That is the problem with GA, eventually we will run out of old doctors with money to burn. Someone needs to bring true cost effectiveness to the market now. Even kitplanes are getting ridiculous now. Unfortunately, the FAA is our own worst nightmare and with the special interests pushing a global climate "crisis" agenda, I think GA is likely to suffer even more.
@@glsracer The reality of the climate crisis has little to do with it. GA is hard. Power plants are really hard. Turbine power plants are really, really, really hard. I understand and appreciate the ambition of the individuals and companies that are pushing for innovation. The costs typically come from the avalanche of practical details that come at the end of the project. Manufacturing extremely precise, low-volume, specialty machines is expensive. That gets even worse when lives are on the line. Everything has to be controlled, monitored, and tightly toleranced. On top of all that.....the design cycle almost always takes many multiples of the originally budgeted time.....that cost gets added to the end product as well.
@@Factory400 The problem is the required materials are extremely hard to work, and expensive. You could probably build a jet engine from mild steel, 'cheaply', if you allowed a monstrous amount of cooling that destroys the efficiency. Even then, you may only get 1 start out of it, and 10 hours of run time. Something that can be started 5000 times is probably going to cost deep into 7 figures if only 8 are made per decade. Gulfstream survives because there are lots of millionaire people whose companies are footing the bill. GA, where the 'owner' is footing the bill, not so much.
@@glsracer as a guy with two siblings that are doctors I can say that I’m richer than both together after 20 years of us all working. Doctors are not the ones raising prices.
I don't know much about turbine engines, but thermodynamically speaking it would be more efficient by a long shot to heat the atmospheric temperature air before the compressor.
@@thewheelieguy heating the air before the compressor would have exactly the opposite effect. The air would be hot and less dense before entering the compressor, thus reducing the mass of air available for combustion. Thermodynamically, it makes sense to head the compressed air. This is where heat needs to be added to the brayton cycle, and that is why fuel is combusted after the compressor/before the turbine. Heating the compressed air with exhaust gas decreases the amount of fuel needed to reach the same temperatures and improves fuel efficiency.
@@skyler9903 Thank you - I had based that quip on just the heat transfer rates being better from the exhaust to cooler ambient air. Heat engine cycles and continuum mechanics were never my thing.
@@thewheelieguy I understand where you are coming from. It would be easier to get more heat transfer with a smaller heat exchanger before the compressor
I wish them all the luck in the world and can see them getting customers if they can keep the cost under $125-$130k, about what a new TIO-360 will set you back. A lot of folks will want one just for the bragging rights of flying a Turbo-prop. The increased efficiency, power and fuel burn are all important and comparable, but I would also like to know what their projection is for TBO. That number will have a big impact imho on the actual cost of ownership and market penetration. If it is not significantly greater than the TIO-360 It's going to be a hard sell.
You are absolutely smoking bad crack! If your paying anywhere near that kind of money for a POS TIO-360, you are that sucker. The Continental TIO-360 is the worst joke any manufacturer ever pulled on the aviation community. I’ve NEVER seen a TIO-360 get anywhere near TBO, and I’ve been busting knuckles on aircraft for 35 years! A turbine engine has miles to go before it ever gets anywhere near the “efficiency” of an internal combustion engine. Quit looking at all of the sparkly shit and do a little research. The first time something on this oil burner breaks you’ve just blown your “efficiency” margins in repair costs! This engine will NEVER make it market for an affordable price other than to serve a niche market of idiots with more money than common sense!
No mention of tbo at all, and how many hours to that tbo, even estimated would give us a ball park area to consider. I love turbine power, but not the expense of a rebuild, or replacement.
I don't understand why we haven't seen the engine run yet. I like that they bought an rv-7 to put it on but not why an RV that was already done and flying then just remove the piston engine like how Edge Performance bought a flying rv-9 to show off their engine
They don't yet have a completed engine to even run on a test stand yet. That's another year away, they say. What is mounted on that RV-7 airframe is just a metal mockup.
Chysler with their turbine cars used an exhaust gas regen heat exchange 50 years ago. Highway mileage was not bad, but city driving economy sucked. Probably would have made a good turboprop aircraft engine to compete against the Pratt and Whitney Canada turbo props.
Mogas is cheaper than jet fuel, piston engines are cheaper than turbines, this seems silly. At higher power levels (400+ hp), this might make sense, but a 200 hp turbine is going to drink fuel like there's no tomorrow, even with a recuperator.
Maybe it's silly and maybe it's not. The advantage of a gas turbine engine is it can provide a lot of power in a very small and light package and the main disadvantage being that it is has so far been impossible to get a small gas turbine engine with efficiencies that are comparable to piston engines of similar power outputs. While I'm not going to be an early adopter of such an engine, I think the best attitude is to wait and see what they can do with their approach. There's no theoretical reason why it can't work. Let's see what they can actually build.
@@jonathanguthrie9368 Sorry, my comment was a bit lazy and didn't fully explain why I believe the development of this engine to be a waste of time. IMO, modernizing piston engines makes much more sense at these power levels. Consider the Adept Airmotive 320T/360T, it's significantly more efficient than traditional aircraft engine designs, while also being much smaller and lighter than traditional aircraft engines in the same power output range. The main reason why the engine in this video will never work is cost. Turbine engines are inherently more expensive than piston engines, and even if this engine manages to have the same fuel burn as a piston engine, it will be burning more expensive fuel.
@@PistonAvatarGuy I still don't understand why you object them wasting their own money to pursue an unachievable objective. If you're right, it will be apparent soon enough. Should that come to pass, you have my permission to tell me "I told you so."
@@PistonAvatarGuy there is however an awful lot of critics in this world. I've faced off against a few myself. Some have proven me wrong & some I have proven them wrong. But hey we gotta try right? Just think about Orville & Wilbur's critics telling them, you can't fly! Yah see what I'm sayin? Ha ha
Wouldn't you need a type certificate to fly your individual specific plane if you made it turbine powered? FAA regs never considered small planes having jets or turboprops.
It sounds better than it did last year. It needs to be lighter than a piston engine making the same hp at the same fuel burn or less and be comparable in price before builders will be buying them fast enough to give piston engines actual competition. It's possible but they must perfectly the process and build them in bulk. We would all love to run turbine but we're skeptical because we've never come close to affording one. Fix that problem and you have a deal.
Who cares about the RV. Give us specifics of the engine and the progress on it. How many test hours do you have on your running prototype? What are your details on construction and materials? Let's see your blueprints.
Everybody should watch "Why New Aircraft Engine Ideas Rarely Succeed" th-cam.com/video/_k1TQGK3mZI/w-d-xo.html Add on top of that the completely unproven tech they're trying to bring to market, plus the fact that for the recuperator to recoup the investment, this engine would have to replace piston engines in current production planes, and...
Maybe that’s why they’re not involved. Avgas is currently around $11 per gallon over here. Anything bigger than a Rotax is getting very expensive to run.
I like to see a video that shows this turbo engine running with a propeller. And post the actual shaft HP and fuel burn rate
I want this to take off in a bad way. This is a great idea for many reasons.
If they are able to achieve a fuel burn of 12.7gph at 150hp output that would still be an amazing accomplishment for a turbine engine. The burn would only be around a 25% increase over a reciprocating engine.
What's different on this snake oil this year
When it actually runs let me know
It's very exciting to finally see development progress toward a small-GA turboprop engine, but I'm concerned about a couple of sentences in the video, at 1:51: "Our goals [...] have been to sell the engine for the same price as a piston engine, and then to have a fuel burn that is the same as a piston engine. Those are very lofty goals and we haven't achieved them a hundred percent, and probably won't..." Indeed. I presume they're comparing against something with roughly similar cost and power, like the 210hp Lycoming IO-390 (which, at 75% power, will have horsepower and fuel consumption similar to the TurbAero's 12.7 gph at 150hp as stated in the video). I'll be very interested to see just how far short of their goals they end up. My prediction is that installing this engine with a compatible propeller like the 5-blade constant-speed DUC-Hélices unit shown, with a custom cowling, will push *well* into six figures. No doubt there will be well-heeled builders who are willing to spend the money for the turbine sound and smoothness, but the majority will continue to install used or rebuilt O-320s and O-360s. Sadly, unless it attracts a high-volume commercial customer, I doubt this project will ever achieve the economies of scale that would make it widely affordable in the Experimental Amateur-Built market. Perhaps low volume will be enough to make a profitable enterprise for TurbAero. I certainly wish them luck.
At least they recognize they're lofty and they're not there. Instead of all talk, but nothing to show.
You can buy small GA sized turboprops already, incl. heat exchanger, TurboTech from france makes one and afaik they are flying them. The recent demo of the turboprop VL3 had one.
Seems to be a pretty honest info package
…we need another year.. every year.
He's so loving this engine and why wouldn't you it's awesome !! Weight would be half a piston engine ? Great figures for power if it holds up . Following
Based on how aviation projects typically go.....the cost estimate is about 50% or less of reality. So.....around $170,000+ by the time it makes it to an end-user airframe.
Please prove me wrong.
That is the problem with GA, eventually we will run out of old doctors with money to burn. Someone needs to bring true cost effectiveness to the market now. Even kitplanes are getting ridiculous now. Unfortunately, the FAA is our own worst nightmare and with the special interests pushing a global climate "crisis" agenda, I think GA is likely to suffer even more.
@@glsracer The reality of the climate crisis has little to do with it.
GA is hard. Power plants are really hard. Turbine power plants are really, really, really hard.
I understand and appreciate the ambition of the individuals and companies that are pushing for innovation. The costs typically come from the avalanche of practical details that come at the end of the project.
Manufacturing extremely precise, low-volume, specialty machines is expensive. That gets even worse when lives are on the line. Everything has to be controlled, monitored, and tightly toleranced.
On top of all that.....the design cycle almost always takes many multiples of the originally budgeted time.....that cost gets added to the end product as well.
@@Factory400 The problem is the required materials are extremely hard to work, and expensive.
You could probably build a jet engine from mild steel, 'cheaply', if you allowed a monstrous amount of cooling that destroys the efficiency. Even then, you may only get 1 start out of it, and 10 hours of run time.
Something that can be started 5000 times is probably going to cost deep into 7 figures if only 8 are made per decade. Gulfstream survives because there are lots of millionaire people whose companies are footing the bill. GA, where the 'owner' is footing the bill, not so much.
@@glsracer as a guy with two siblings that are doctors I can say that I’m richer than both together after 20 years of us all working. Doctors are not the ones raising prices.
@@Mobev1 you could be right about that. Whoever it is has more dollars than sense.
Did they say about what the gear box will be turning the prop at RPM wise? Anything about the weight of it?
pistons routinely use turbos to combat atmospheric losses
I assume they are adding heat to the inlet air with the recuperater after the compressor?
I don't know much about turbine engines, but thermodynamically speaking it would be more efficient by a long shot to heat the atmospheric temperature air before the compressor.
@@thewheelieguy heating the air before the compressor would have exactly the opposite effect. The air would be hot and less dense before entering the compressor, thus reducing the mass of air available for combustion. Thermodynamically, it makes sense to head the compressed air. This is where heat needs to be added to the brayton cycle, and that is why fuel is combusted after the compressor/before the turbine. Heating the compressed air with exhaust gas decreases the amount of fuel needed to reach the same temperatures and improves fuel efficiency.
@@skyler9903 Thank you - I had based that quip on just the heat transfer rates being better from the exhaust to cooler ambient air. Heat engine cycles and continuum mechanics were never my thing.
@@thewheelieguy I understand where you are coming from. It would be easier to get more heat transfer with a smaller heat exchanger before the compressor
@@thewheelieguy ...... NO
Will you do a video about the Rapture Bug?
I wonder if the airplane factory guys could adapt this the the Sling TSI. Now that would be a screamer!!
This sounds like hundreds of other projects that take a lot of investor money and then go nowhere.
What is the critical altitude?
Looking forward to a running prototype.
Me too!
any current updates now
I wish them all the luck in the world and can see them getting customers if they can keep the cost under $125-$130k, about what a new TIO-360 will set you back. A lot of folks will want one just for the bragging rights of flying a Turbo-prop. The increased efficiency, power and fuel burn are all important and comparable, but I would also like to know what their projection is for TBO. That number will have a big impact imho on the actual cost of ownership and market penetration. If it is not significantly greater than the TIO-360 It's going to be a hard sell.
You are absolutely smoking bad crack! If your paying anywhere near that kind of money for a POS TIO-360, you are that sucker. The Continental TIO-360 is the worst joke any manufacturer ever pulled on the aviation community. I’ve NEVER seen a TIO-360 get anywhere near TBO, and I’ve been busting knuckles on aircraft for 35 years! A turbine engine has miles to go before it ever gets anywhere near the “efficiency” of an internal combustion engine. Quit looking at all of the sparkly shit and do a little research. The first time something on this oil burner breaks you’ve just blown your “efficiency” margins in repair costs! This engine will NEVER make it market for an affordable price other than to serve a niche market of idiots with more money than common sense!
No mention of tbo at all, and how many hours to that tbo, even estimated would give us a ball park area to consider. I love turbine power, but not the expense of a rebuild, or replacement.
Will the engine be safer than piston?
This one will never work
Turbines are generally quite reliable, but hot section inspection and overhauls can be expensive.
Put it on the New RV-15
I am dreaming of a RV8T…
I don't understand why we haven't seen the engine run yet. I like that they bought an rv-7 to put it on but not why an RV that was already done and flying then just remove the piston engine like how Edge Performance bought a flying rv-9 to show off their engine
They don't yet have a completed engine to even run on a test stand yet. That's another year away, they say. What is mounted on that RV-7 airframe is just a metal mockup.
Chysler with their turbine cars used an exhaust gas regen heat exchange 50 years ago. Highway mileage was not bad, but city driving economy sucked. Probably would have made a good turboprop aircraft engine to compete against the Pratt and Whitney Canada turbo props.
they are sold as Williams engines today
Mogas is cheaper than jet fuel, piston engines are cheaper than turbines, this seems silly.
At higher power levels (400+ hp), this might make sense, but a 200 hp turbine is going to drink fuel like there's no tomorrow, even with a recuperator.
Maybe it's silly and maybe it's not. The advantage of a gas turbine engine is it can provide a lot of power in a very small and light package and the main disadvantage being that it is has so far been impossible to get a small gas turbine engine with efficiencies that are comparable to piston engines of similar power outputs. While I'm not going to be an early adopter of such an engine, I think the best attitude is to wait and see what they can do with their approach. There's no theoretical reason why it can't work. Let's see what they can actually build.
@@jonathanguthrie9368 Sorry, my comment was a bit lazy and didn't fully explain why I believe the development of this engine to be a waste of time.
IMO, modernizing piston engines makes much more sense at these power levels. Consider the Adept Airmotive 320T/360T, it's significantly more efficient than traditional aircraft engine designs, while also being much smaller and lighter than traditional aircraft engines in the same power output range.
The main reason why the engine in this video will never work is cost. Turbine engines are inherently more expensive than piston engines, and even if this engine manages to have the same fuel burn as a piston engine, it will be burning more expensive fuel.
@@PistonAvatarGuy I still don't understand why you object them wasting their own money to pursue an unachievable objective. If you're right, it will be apparent soon enough. Should that come to pass, you have my permission to tell me "I told you so."
@@jonathanguthrie9368 Just take a second to imagine a world where no one ever criticized anyone for doing something stupid.
@@PistonAvatarGuy there is however an awful lot of critics in this world. I've faced off against a few myself. Some have proven me wrong & some I have proven them wrong. But hey we gotta try right?
Just think about Orville & Wilbur's critics telling them, you can't fly! Yah see what I'm sayin? Ha ha
Wouldn't you need a type certificate to fly your individual specific plane if you made it turbine powered? FAA regs never considered small planes having jets or turboprops.
Sounds like they’re trying to use
Chrysler’s regeneron type of thing
from the 1960s in this engine…
It sounds better than it did last year. It needs to be lighter than a piston engine making the same hp at the same fuel burn or less and be comparable in price before builders will be buying them fast enough to give piston engines actual competition. It's possible but they must perfectly the process and build them in bulk. We would all love to run turbine but we're skeptical because we've never come close to affording one. Fix that problem and you have a deal.
Who cares about the RV. Give us specifics of the engine and the progress on it. How many test hours do you have on your running prototype? What are your details on construction and materials? Let's see your blueprints.
Wrap that lab prototype in a bed sheet and tow it to OSH
Test cell data please. 🧐
ถ้าทำตลาดจริงจังขายได้แน่นอนเศรษฐีเมืองไทยเยอะต่อให้ภาษีแพงเท่าไหร่รถซุปเปอร์คาร์ยังวิ่งเต็มถนน
Everybody should watch "Why New Aircraft Engine Ideas Rarely Succeed" th-cam.com/video/_k1TQGK3mZI/w-d-xo.html
Add on top of that the completely unproven tech they're trying to bring to market, plus the fact that for the recuperator to recoup the investment, this engine would have to replace piston engines in current production planes, and...
Me recuerda a Elon Musk, muchas promesas
He needs to get some Brits involved. They know what they are doing.
Maybe that’s why they’re not involved. Avgas is currently around $11 per gallon over here. Anything bigger than a Rotax is getting very expensive to run.
This will never make it to market, unfortunately.
wishful thinking ....looks like an anodized beer keg .....show a cut away
BAD! Not in a good way.