It's the Swearingen touch !

Bakgat vliegtuig, Jy't groter eiers as die meeste pilot's.

What is your plans for the avionics?

Hilgard

I thought all Ravins (500) had winglets?

Nice to see someone putting money to an idea! Great! Look forward to hear about her first flight.

Will it be pressurized? Doesn't seem so with those big windows. Also, you might want to consider the Garrett TPE331-5's or -10s that sit on the MU-2 and Commander. They're about 20-30% more fuel efficient compared to the Walters and PT6's.

Cool project.

So what's the end game here? Is it going to become a kit, are you planning to take it all the way to certification, or are you just building a cool plane for yourself?

Come on Adam, 20-30% more efficient than a Walter or Pratt? Maybe if you compare it to an old -20.

Your lucky if you can get 5% more efficient. Thats if you can get the Garrett started at all.

If it was that good Piper, Textron, Daher or Pilatus would be using it.

Sorry, but that is just false.

Go compare specific fuel consumption.

TPE331 is about 20-30% more fuel efficient than similar size PT6.

My own engines, TPE331-10AV, measure out at 0.48 lbs/shp/hr in cruise from aircraft instrumentation, published is 0.504 lbs/shp/hr.

A PT6A-114A is roughly the same size power as my engines, published sfc is 0.618 lbs/shp/hr, or 29% worse fuel consumption. Some small PT6 can get down below 0.600 but not much below.

Walters M601 is slightly worse, 0.620 lbs/hp/hr.

The advantage is slightly more if you include the jet thrust, or equivalent shaft horse power, due to the better thrust from TPE331 exhaust versus the PT6 exhaust nozzles. The above numbers don't include that factor.

The large PT6 can get lower sfc, but then the large TPE331 does as well. Larger is better for sfc.


TPE331 is harder to package for single engine installations due to direct rear exhaust.

TPE331 is used more in twins, and they have very good range as a result: Conquest 441, Commanders, MU2, Merlins, B100 King Air.

Mike C.

When you get ready for "pretty" exhaust stacks, contact Thrush Aircraft in Albany, GA. They took those square stacks on the GE and made them into works of art, or maybe they had Acorn Welding do it, but anyway, they are very slick.

Again the TPE331 is used in out of production older twins, that says it all.


If it was that good, Beechcraft would have kept it in the King Air line but elected to go back to the PT6.

Hi There guys!

Yip the last 10 % takes 90% of the time!!
I started this project for myself so I was the guy responsible for financing everything
As time went on I started to realize what I actually got into and before I knew it I was in it for the long haul!!
Mainly the reason things are taking so long as it is!!
Well I managed to get myself now to a point where things are taking shape.
I have a partner on board now who is assisting with the last R&D and that helps a bit.

i suppose things like this will never happen unless you have some or other idiot (ME ) around to do things out of pure love for the game!

As for the end game I suppose we will manufacture if demand is there.
We manufactured moulds so that we will be able to reproduce to the same standard.
Haven't thought the "kit" thing through yet??
Before I can go that route i will have to find a suitable partner on the other side of the pond to be able to give the necessary customer service in any event.
As for certification, that would be wonderful , but that is waaaay outside of my "fighting weight"

I have not done 1 inch of marketing yet because i feel i want to have something that is flying and with proven numbers.
I do not believe in "pie in the sky" and empty promises.........
When i give the final performance figures you know the plane will deliver.
Just as a matter of interest we will be doing all our testing in a "Hot and High" environment. (avg temp summer 32 degrees Celcuis @ 4100 feet ) so density alt is very high!!

Why??

An aircraft capable of just fitting the bill at sea level is useless to me. The moment you take it up to the high and hot altitudes here in South Africa it becomes a 1 or 2 seater with full fuel
That was one of the main reason why i got into this project in the first place.

yes Craig , those stacks look a whole lot better than the Walter one's

Yes, a full dual Garmin G3X system for avionics.

Hope i answered your questions

Cheers
Abrie

PS: Hilgard

My eiers het nou al gekrimp tot 2 klein droe ertjies!!!!!

Sorry for the "Afrikaans" guys but Hilgard made a comment referring to my short and curley's so i just responded.

Cheers

The TPE331 is installed on these current production aircraft, the first two being twins:

Dornier DO-228NG
CASA C-212 Aviocar
General Atomics MQ-9 Reaper
One Aviation Kestrel 350 (announced)
Comp Air 9 (kit)

There are a number of conversions available today, but they aren't technically "new" aircraft. A very popular one is the Cessna 208 by Texas Turbine, for example. More speed, more range, more power, same or less fuel.

Not a whole lot of in production twins that use PT6, either. Just not a whole lot of turboprop light twins in production at all.


King Airs were never about efficiency or lower cost.

Beech used the TPE331 during a strike at Pratt. The message was, we can switch if you don't get your act together.

Today, the B100 has a strong following as it combines the King Air airframe with the efficiency and lower cost of the TPE331 engine.

Mike C.

Hey boet, chuck us the sleutels for dai ding, en ek es veg..........

Quite interesting but SA has a strong aviation culture.

Where are you based?

[quote="Marc Bourdon"]Again the TPE331 is used in out of production older twins, that says it all.


If it was that good, Beechcraft would have kept it in the King Air line but elected to go back to the PT6.


[quote]

Hi Marc,
Good to hear someone still bashing the 331's I certainly think the TBM900 is a fine SE airplane. If I have the number right your TBM9 burns about 55 GPH at FL310, which is its maximum certified altitude, doing just over 300 KTAS. My 331-10 powered 441 burns 51 GPH (ISA) at FL 350 doing around 300 KTAS, or if I go lower to hang with a TBM, around 60 GPH at FL310. (I usually see around 46 GPH at the usual ISA +10 or 15 at FL350). Since it burns less fuel than a TBM, gets better mileage, and carries 475 gallons useable versus 291 Gallons for a TBM, it has a 2200+ NM range. 4100 lbs useful means loading up on fuel and the 11 place cabin, front nose baggage and rear baggage. Overhaul costs 400 hrs ago were $160k and $190k, 4600 hours until next overhaul. I hear the overhaul cost of ONE large PT-6 is more than what was paid for my 2 Garrett's..... I also think the PT6 are very reliable engines, possibly more so than a Garrett, but they are both very reliable, and both are in SE turbine airplanes. Seems to me the specific fuel consumption per hp/hr does not explain the large difference in fuel consumption. My theory is the Garret's benefit more from RAM effect since the inlet air does not do a 180 degree, and the overall small cross sectional area of the typical installation results in less drag. Also, since no engine exhaust soot is typically deposited on the airframe, this also reduces drag.

I think the TBM is a great plane, hence a lot of people buy it, but if someone wants a twin with more range, payload, large cabin, altitude capability, redundancy, I have not found too many things not to like about the 441, except it is not made anymore.

When I landed in Reykjavik with my 441 in May of last year after a direct flight from Canada, I felt sorry for the 4 people that landed shortly after me in a TBM after stopping in Greenland for fuel - the cabin stuffed with baggage and survival suits in the back.... Great that they had no propulsion (engine, fuel, fuel pump, propeller,governor, etc.. issues! I still had several hours of fuel left after a much longer flight....

Seems the fuel and engine reserves per hour might be close for both airplanes, maybe the 441 overhaul costs will be less due to the 5000 hr TBO. Capital costs savings on the 441 might pay for more maintenance for an older airframe, and I do NOT have to "overhaul" the landing gear at fixed intervals.......

I have heard the pratts are more popular with OEM's because they are less expensive to buy, and they do not care about overhaul costs...?

I guess the proof will be if the TBM's will still sell for over $1M when they are 35 years old

It is very difficult to give a direct comparison of PT-6 versus Garrett. The best comparison I know of is the Fairchild Metroliner installation. Fairchild was asked by a customer to install the very popular PT-6 engine in the Metroliner instead of the Garrett engines. Same plane, two different engines. One of the persons that was involved in this trial let me take the enclosed picture. The PT-6 is 1 knot faster top speed but burns almost 50% more fuel. Empty weight went up by 500 lbs. Only one airplane was ever built with the PT-6 engine option. I do not know if it was sold....

So if the PT-6 is so superior (in all cases) why was it scrapped in this installation? Seems to me the particulars of each installation is super critical, maybe something went wrong here? It is hard for me to understand why the PT-6 would underperform so much. Was it a lemon of a PT-6? I do not think the PT-6's would be as popular as they are if this example was always the norm, Are there other examples proving the opposite?