Bearhawk Aircraft Bearhawk Tailwheels LLC Eric Newton's Builder Manuals Bearhawk Plans Bearhawk Store

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

turbo-prop?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • turbo-prop?

    Not sure if this is appropriate for this forum, please delete if needed. I stumbled across this on another forum. There are some W&B issues that would have to be resolved. But it certainly looks interesting for the Patrol. The biggest issue is it weighs 100lbs less than an O-360. But the performance would be pretty interesting.


    Turbine Aeronautics offers small efficient turbine engines to the recreational aviation markets and for military and civil UAVs and drones.
    Scott Ahrens
    Bearhawk Patrol Plans Built
    #254

  • #2
    Turbines have a lot of advantages, but burn lots of gas at low altitude. They are really at their best up in the flight levels. I always thought their prices would come down, but they never did.

    Comment


    • #3
      BG--- looks interesting--- on paper--- but I all most get the impression that the actual engine does not yet exist.... did you see any data on what the price will be ?
      If it is 3 or 4 times the price of a piston engine--- then its a non starter. (like the little allisin conversions) if its as expensive as a used PT-6.... same problem.....

      In terms of weight-- I would think we would want more HP----
      like 250-300 HP and maybe 250 lbs weight.

      Did you see any price mentioned ? (just curious) and TBO ?

      Comment


      • davzLSA
        davzLSA commented
        Editing a comment
        The pricing was mentioned and it will be the cost of new Lycomings and Continentals, they did offer deals if you are among the first ones to order one. They are not in production yet. Said by the end of 2019 they are supposed to be delivered. They want a $500 refundable deposit and there is a signup up page on the web site. I think Ill wait until they are actually in production and someone buys one and puts it on an airplane and it actually flies. Otherwise this may be a unicorn.

    • #4
      I looked at their website. They claimed they were aiming for new 914 price for the 120 hp, and new O-360 price for the 200 hp. I hope it works outs. Lots of promises and dreams in aviation. Their website has no videos of a running engine, they are not hiring under their career section. They are accepting deposits however. Sound familiar?

      I wish them well, especially those putting down deposits.

      Comment


      • Chewie
        Chewie commented
        Editing a comment
        I work in the engine industry and those are very accurate metrics to go by! Also if they have any decent white papers to show some level of thinking and intelligence, that's a good thing too.

      • davzLSA
        davzLSA commented
        Editing a comment
        They do have a video of a running engine. Its under the our engines tab on the web site.

    • #5
      That website hasn't changed in 4 years probably.

      Comment


      • #6
        I do not know anything about pricing. After seeing that turbo-prop Dracgo at Oshkosh last year it has been an appealing modification.
        Scott Ahrens
        Bearhawk Patrol Plans Built
        #254

        Comment


        • #7
          A turbo prop that could run on diesel would be a pretty cool option. I looked at many engine options including a t-prop for my BH and when you look at fuel burn numbers for a t-prop it just doesn't make any since; at least for me it doesn't. I want 5hrs worth of fuel and even with aux tanks I couldn't get there...not even close. But if you just want a high performance toy and are good with frequent fuel stops then a t-prop would be really awesome.

          I think it's important to remember that Draco was built with one goal in mind, to set the high altitude landing and takeoff record. It's a really really cool airplane though.
          I'm a Tapatalk user so I can't see your "comment"

          Comment


          • #8
            Another possible option is the tp100 I don't know much about it other than I can't afford it. http://www.pbsaerospace.com/our-prod...rboprop-engine

            Comment


            • Gerhard Rieger
              Gerhard Rieger commented
              Editing a comment
              The last time I read about the TP100 it burned about 17gal/hr. and the price was about $70k plus for the unid. Less power than a IO540, I will stick to my Lycoming

          • #9
            JP-4 etc is basically diesel with anti-ice and other additives...see Prist as that is an anti-ice in a can the turbo prop, bizjet and commercial guys use to spike their fuel to control icing. When I had a customer headed to a place the fuel may be questionable, they would buy a case of the cans and use it when fueling.

            I tried to find it, but couldn't, there was a company out of Germany a couple years ago that had developed a way to make compressor and turbine blades by 3D printing them, that would withstand the rigors of engine use...but they probably got bought up by GE and the like as this would "drive the price down" as Syvolo stated.

            Turbines don't really get "efficient" until the 400 hp and up range...hence the reason you don't see "small" turbines much. Soloy used to make a small turbine, Dad had one in a Hiller helicopter we used to hunt with...it replaced the 300 HP franklin that was in the HIller. It cut the range, but the performance was spectacular especially at the higher elevations in the Rockies where he used it. In a pinch when they couldn't get JET A or JP-4, 5, 6, 7, or 8...they would cheat and use diesel run through filters and lots of Prist to get the helo to a place where the appropriate fuel could be purchased.

            Comment


            • #10
              Would love a reasonably priced turbine.. Avgas cost me right around 8 bucks a gallon bulk from the fuel barge that delivers my diesel...usually order 35,000 gallons a year...it’s always jet fuel...this past fall they delivered ultra low sulfur jet...magically became number one diesel by adding lubricity..not. $2.23 a gallon.

              Comment


              • #11
                Originally posted by whee View Post
                I think it's important to remember that Draco was built with one goal in mind, to set the high altitude landing and takeoff record. It's a really really cool airplane though.
                Does anyone know if it was successful in doing that very thing?

                A small turbine on a smaller plane would be much more effective for STOL. Like the one imagined by whoever set up that website. If the mission is two people into a high DA spot, why not a Zenith CH701 turbine which will get in and out of a 50ft runway...

                By any measure except "wow factor" or highest price tag, the worlds most expensive Wilga doesn't compared well. Unpopular person opinion - I think it's a folly.


                Comment


                • #12
                  A while back, I got a little stick time in an Alouette II helo. It was owned by a local farmer. The fuel tank is HUGE! I asked him how much it cost to fuel it up. "Aint bad. Only burns about 30 gph.... of offroad diesel..". says the farmer..

                  Bill

                  Comment


                  • #13
                    Hello everyone. I just found this thread which is discussing our engines. I have signed up for the forum so that I could interact with you.

                    Firstly, I'll provide some clarification to some of the issues raised above.

                    With two years of development already behind us, we are presently in the detailed design phase for our launch engine, the 200hp TA200TP. The first components are expected to be prototyped in around 3 months time. Our target is to have the complete prototype engine running on the test stand before the end of this year. While that is our aim, this is an extremely complex project where issues are to be expected. We are hoping that the quality of our design team will help minimise the possibility for issues to arise, but we are not that naive to expect that this program will conclude without any problems arising along the way.

                    The proof of concept engine that is shown on the video was built and run long before a decision was made to commercialise the project. That specific engine was built to power a personal single seat project of mine and was intended to be a one-off. That engine was not in the least bit optimised and used many not-so-compatible components. Consequently, it did not achieve the power that I required but did actually run fairly well and taught me a lot about problem solving. I decided to discontinue with that engine in order to focus on a viable commercial engine instead, that would be developed by specialists in a professionally run program. The decision to pursue a commercial engine program came with the knowledge that a fully clean-sheet design was needed, in order to be able to offer the features that would be imperative to success in the market, i.e. low cost, excellent reliability, acceptable fuel efficiency etc.. Meeting these imperatives is an extremely demanding challenge, but through the combination of having a talented and very experienced design team and incorporating recent technology, we are currently well placed to overcome these challenges and deliver the product to the market.

                    For our 200hp engine, the price point is now estimated to be around $55k. We will have more clarity on that once the detailed design phase is completed and we have consulted our component suppliers.

                    In relation to performance, our 200hp engine is estimated to offer 200hp for takeoff at sea level, ISA conditions. It should offer a cruise power of up to 180hp at 10,000', burning around 13gph at that power. It should also offer around 140hp at 20,000'.

                    We will be aiming for a minimum TBO of 3,000 hours but testing will validate that target.

                    Our very dated website requires an overhaul and this is currently being undertaken. A little later this year, we shall have a much more informative and interactive social media presence.

                    It is true that we are accepting $500 deposits to reserve a delivery slot for our engines. The $500 is paid directly into an escrow account (www.escrow.com) which we cannot touch until the buyer signs a purchase agreement. Should a deposit holder wish to withdraw his deposit, he may do so at any time (less the $30 or so escrow fee). When his engine is ready for delivery, he may complete the purchase of his engine, or he may have his deposit refunded, it is the buyers choice. I am an experimental aviation nut myself. I've seen the Bede's and others come and go, with people like us being burned along the way. This is why I set up the deposit program in this way. There is no risk for the buyer who can recover his funds at any time. Turbine Aeronautics can only access the funds when a buyer confirms that he will take delivery of his engine and signs the purchase agreement.

                    I hope that information clarifies a few points for readers. I have very limited time to participate in forums at the moment but I shall pop back periodically to address any questions that might arise.

                    Dave

                    Comment


                    • #14
                      I wish you well and hope you are successful. But 180hp output during 13 gph of Jet A is a similar BSFC as a piston putting out the same hp on gasoline. I am going to have to say I am skeptical.

                      Comment


                      • #15
                        Originally posted by svyolo View Post
                        I wish you well and hope you are successful. But 180hp output during 13 gph of Jet A is a similar BSFC as a piston putting out the same hp on gasoline. I am going to have to say I am skeptical.
                        I understand the scepticism. That sort of SFC has not been achieved (publicly) by a small gas turbine powerplant. Have a read about recuperator (compact heat exchanger) technology. This will give you some background as to how we could achieve our target SFC.

                        Scepticism is a healthy quality. It puts the onus on us to demonstrate the performance. Our recuperator designer has done it before and the improvement in efficiency over an unrecuperated engine has been demonstrated. I sincerely hope that at the end of this year, I will be able to publish independently verified figures for our engine that will please the readers (and the market!).

                        Comment


                        • svyolo
                          svyolo commented
                          Editing a comment
                          Scott;
                          I took your advice and looked into it. Most of it was scientific papers written 10-15 years ago. Nothing currently functioning. The parameter for it to work was very high turbine inlet temps, which requires extreme material science, and probably very advanced ceramics.

                          I saw design ideas and drawings, but not a picture of something that worked.

                          The only "hard" data, is that you are soliciting deposits. In real, and not theoretical, money.
                      Working...
                      X