This looks interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mhwpGjT_lE

Used the Orenda engines, which I think were some sort of Corvette ZL1 derivative. Think they came pretty far with the prototype, but never finished certification. BTW, that 1200hp is total hp, not aside.

To bad more alternatives to lyc and cont don't exist.

I remember they were looking at marketing these as a replacement/swap for the small PT6. Cheaper than overhaul (well, you can prove just about anything on paper).

I think this is the airplane discussed on the Robinson website. Horribly overweight, ended up being a one or two pax airplane with minimal fuel, and a host of other issues that I don't clearly recall at the moment. It was sort of a poster child for all the negatives of using a basically automotive powerplant in an aircraft.

Edit: Not Robinson, EPI engines. It was a full fuel, zero pax airplane, and had torsional issues with the wings due to the extra 350 pounds a side in engine installation weight.

I remember they were looking at marketing these as a replacement/swap for the small PT6. Cheaper than overhaul (well, you can prove just about anything on paper).

Given that last editorial comment (lighter, cheaper, quieter, faster) this link should be posted or cross linked to the thread on GA engines and why they're so expensive. How old is this thing anyway? Looks like thirty years ago, which may prove the point on cost, always easier said than done.

It seems like the 740 lbs vs 270 lbs for a PT6a would be a deal killer for almost any application.

Well, maybe.

PT6A-135 is 350 lbs. Turbines need heavier batteries and wiring, so maybe another 100 lbs can be saved there. So the weight increase is about 700 lbs net (400 lbs each engine minus 100 lbs wiring/battery).

700 lbs is about 105 gallons. The piston engine will use about 35% less fuel (by weight) for the same power, or about 25% less by volume.

These airplanes typically hold 350-400 gallons. For the piston version, you'd put in 25% less fuel for the same trip.

Further, the turboprop engine burns much more at lower altitudes, and during taxi, so the advantage is somewhat more than 25%.

Net effect is that when the turbine is full fuel, and the piston is filled for the same trip, they weigh about the same. The piston then has the option of taking on more fuel and going further, though with reduced cabin load.

For a shorter flight, the turbine can carry more.

So it isn't all that unreasonable a trade off.

Mike C.

I had a few friends try out the Orenda/Trace engines on their Air Tractors. I don't think a single one of them is left flying. The guys liked the power and smoothness of the engines but the reliability just wasn't there. I don't think any of them ever got put down by a power failure, but there was certainly a lot of money lost for downtime waiting for parts and or support. If my memory serves correctly, I think most of the problems were with engine accessories like turbos.

Of the planes that I knew of that were converted, all will eventually be wearing a PT6 up front since the writing seems to be on the wall and the planes are unmarketable with the V-8 power plants.

It burns the wrong fuel.

Not sure what these guys are smoking but I would never believe that someone would pull a PT6 to install these gas burning Trace engines.
If it was a diesel then that would be different.
I knew the guy who tried to get this Orenda engine going on a single Otter.
Problems after problems, they end up putting a PT6 back in it.

Just to be clear, my hat is off to them (Orenda) for trying to do something new in piston aviation. That takes guts.

Yeah, it would be heavier.

If someone develops a reliable, 700 HP, 600 lbs, turbo diesel, my plane would go twice as far on the same fuel.

Alas, does not seem likely.

Mike C.

"New"?

Unfortunately, the events of 9/11 required Orenda to re-focus entirely on their military projects, and the OE600 project was canceled. The design was later purchased by a group of investors who intend to sell the engine under the Texas Recip brand, but it is unclear if this project is continuing. On August 29, 2006 the president of Texas Recip, Paul Thorpe was sentenced to 3 years and five months for defrauding investors, telling them the money was being invested in the engine project, or other investments, when it was actually being used to pay off investors in a previous scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orenda_OE600

As for Texas Recip, that's clearly not a "new" trick in aviation.

Mike C.

Yes and it was all Canadian R & D money.