25 Apr 2024, 07:51 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected |
Message |
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 12:31 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/22/12 Posts: 523 Post Likes: +281
|
|
Wow ok that is expensive. Since I've not had to overhaul anything yet, can someone tell me approx what the cost to overhaul the IO-550B is? And for point of comparison, what would the cost be to do a TN conversion?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 21:36 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4702 Post Likes: +2705
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
Very rough ballpark for a IO550 overhaul is 50K + install (~10K). Lots of variability depending on shop and what parts are usable. Parts shortages can cause all sorts of distortions to this. Does the IO550R require a new prop? And if so, is your existing prop near end of life? Username Protected wrote: Wow ok that is expensive. Since I've not had to overhaul anything yet, can someone tell me approx what the cost to overhaul the IO-550B is? And for point of comparison, what would the cost be to do a TN conversion?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 29 Jul 2022, 21:42 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4702 Post Likes: +2705
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
Also, have to ask... could you TN a IO550R?
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 30 Jul 2022, 09:52 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1611 Post Likes: +272 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Also, have to ask... could you TN a IO550R? No, you cannot TN an IO-550R. There isn't enough room in the cowl for it. I also wanted to note a correction. The IO-550R has a TBO of 2200 hours, not 2000.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 30 Jul 2022, 09:53 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/17/10 Posts: 1611 Post Likes: +272 Location: Valparaiso, IN
Aircraft: Lancair Evolution
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Wow ok that is expensive. Since I've not had to overhaul anything yet, can someone tell me approx what the cost to overhaul the IO-550B is? And for point of comparison, what would the cost be to do a TN conversion? The IO-550R conversion comes with a new prop.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 10:27 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/12/08 Posts: 7429 Post Likes: +2256 Company: Retired Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
|
|
Username Protected wrote: As I said, the V35 that we owned with an IO-550B flies 168 ktas. That’s awfully slow for a 550 powered V35. Our A36 was faster with an IO-520-BA. Quote: As far as the IO-550R plane flying 190 ktas. It does. I flew it. It was impressive how fast it climbed and how fast it flew at 10k.
I have heard there are some IO-550R planes that fly over 200 ktas. Perhaps they found someone that is good with rigging like you mentioned for IO-550B planes. Don't know.
The other benefit of the IO-550R setup vs the IO-550B as well as a TN plane is that you have much cooler cylinder head temps and have a longer TBO. 200 KTAS down low (normally aspirated engine) is tough to achieve because the drag is extensive. I’m guessing you’d have to be cruising well into the yellow arc. My TAT TN 550 always has modest CHT’s. Summer time in the 340 deg. F. Range and in the winter 300 - 320 deg. F. Depending upon the OAT. Quote: The A36 with the IO-550R flies 185 ktas with no tip tanks. (At least that is what is reported, I have not flown in one) None for us either and none required. Quote: IO-550B overhaul schedule is 1700 hours IO-550R overhaul schedule is 2000 hours
The IO-550R conversion also moves your CG forward a couple inches.
I have also heard that at overhaul of the IO-550R that there is less wear and tear. Did Continental change the valves / valve guides on the 550R? If not I would question any TBO change. If they did, well good for them. It’s about time….
_________________ ABS Life Member
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 31 Jul 2022, 12:28 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4702 Post Likes: +2705
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
what gives the 550R more power than 550B, etc? Its it tuned intakes and exhaust?
Just curious.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 01 Aug 2022, 09:09 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/22/12 Posts: 523 Post Likes: +281
|
|
Yes prop is near end of life for us.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 12:26 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/27/09 Posts: 981 Post Likes: +508 Location: Knoxville TN
Aircraft: C150J
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've often wondered about the work Rover, the British car company, did on regerative gas turbines for cars in the late 50s to latish 60s. They were trying to win the Inedex of Efficiency at Le Mans.
They were very serious about the possibility of gas turbine powered passenger cars. If any of you were ever familiar with the Rover 2000 the front suspension design was quite complex in order to leave the space for a propose turbine powered variant. Chrysler made this a reality with their jet car. It was fully developed and was the same cost and efficiency as the piston cars at the time, yet it was far more durable and reliable. It would run on any fuel and was released to dealers for evaluation. The program was suddenly canceled and the cars were reclaimed by Chrysler. Watch the Jay Leno video on his, it was amazing technology. I do not understand why this engine was not adopted for aviation use it would have been a low cost turban. I believe the Abrams tank uses a version of it.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 12:44 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/02/11 Posts: 1334 Post Likes: +1343 Location: N Alabama
Aircraft: 1968 B55
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I've often wondered about the work Rover, the British car company, did on regerative gas turbines for cars in the late 50s to latish 60s. They were trying to win the Inedex of Efficiency at Le Mans.
They were very serious about the possibility of gas turbine powered passenger cars. If any of you were ever familiar with the Rover 2000 the front suspension design was quite complex in order to leave the space for a propose turbine powered variant. Chrysler made this a reality with their jet car. It was fully developed and was the same cost and efficiency as the piston cars at the time, yet it was far more durable and reliable. It would run on any fuel and was released to dealers for evaluation. The program was suddenly canceled and the cars were reclaimed by Chrysler. Watch the Jay Leno video on his, it was amazing technology. I do not understand why this engine was not adopted for aviation use it would have been a low cost turban. I believe the Abrams tank uses a version of it.
Yep, the engineer who did a large chunk of the Chrysler turbine work was Sam Williams, founder of Williams International. There were a number of unique features of the car, including the fact that it wasn't ever sold-- customers were allowed to "preview" it for 3 months, with all expenses except fuel paid, if they agreed to sign an NDA and do a bunch of product interviews with Chrysler to give the company feedback.
Steve Lehto's book on the car is fascinating if this sort of thing is your jam. https://amzn.to/3JngE85
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 19:11 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/15/17 Posts: 688 Post Likes: +351 Company: Cessna (retired)
|
|
Cessna explored the low cost turbine concept sometime before I retired in 2002. Wanted to get Malibu performance at Malibu prices for the bottom member of the family. Didn't work out.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 02 Aug 2022, 19:17 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 01/06/08 Posts: 4702 Post Likes: +2705
Aircraft: B55 P2
|
|
It is an interesting problem.
For road vehicles, diesel, electric or both (in a hybrid) are probably the best technologies in the near future. Same for watercraft and rail.
For large aircraft, nothing is likely to displace turbines except maybe in very specialty applications.
Small aircraft risk being left out in the cold. Turbines are too expensive. Diesels have a long long history of not working out well in GA aircraft. OTOH we could see spark ignition engine fuel starting to become scarce and extremely expensive if GA becomes the only consumer.
|
|
Top |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us
BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a
forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include
the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner,
Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.
BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates.
Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.
Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024
|
|
|
|