19 Apr 2024, 23:58 [ UTC - 5; DST ]
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 28 Nov 2019, 22:49 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/08 Posts: 2921 Post Likes: +928 Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory Location: Dayton, OH
Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Absolutely. Fred, do you know if there are any thought or plans to move up to larger turbines if this program is successful? This will likely be scaled up, not big enough for GA applications though. Looking for UAV’s, engine is designed for limited life and low cost. Low enough cost that we can build a significant number of aircraft. Not sure if we’ll ever design and build a turbo shaft in the 300-500 hp class.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 30 Nov 2019, 11:13 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/12/16 Posts: 49 Post Likes: +21
Aircraft: Tecnam P2008
|
|
I feel like the PBS TP100 is about the best choice out there at the moment. 241 SHP, weighs 157 pounds installed and costs $120K. Fuel consumption 18-20 GPH. Not too bad to have reliable turbine power.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 20 Dec 2019, 03:35 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 11/22/12 Posts: 2596 Post Likes: +2352 Company: Retired Location: Lynnwood, WA (KPAE)
Aircraft: 1993 Bonanza A36TN
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I feel like the PBS TP100 is about the best choice out there at the moment. 241 SHP, weighs 157 pounds installed and costs $120K. Fuel consumption 18-20 GPH. Not too bad to have reliable turbine power. Except that the TBO is just 300 hours, so the per hour engine reserve alone makes it expensive to run, plus the fuel burn.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 20 Dec 2019, 06:49 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I feel like the PBS TP100 is about the best choice out there at the moment. 241 SHP, weighs 157 pounds installed and costs $120K. Fuel consumption 18-20 GPH. Not too bad to have reliable turbine power. Fuel consumption is much more than that: Take-off (5 min) 0.847 lb/HP/hr Maximum continuous 0.863 lb/HP/hr Normal cruise 0.901 lb/HP/hr .901 lb * 188 (hp) = 169.4 lbs/hr = ~25 gal/hour for cruise. .847 * 241 = 204 lbs/hour = ~30 gal/hour for takeoff .863 * 214 = 185 lbs/hour = ~27 gal/hour max continuous.
_________________ A&P/IA P35 Aerostar 600A
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 20 Dec 2019, 12:07 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/18/12 Posts: 787 Post Likes: +399 Location: Europe
Aircraft: Aerostar 600A
|
|
Username Protected wrote: I always wondered if there are 15K of these in service, why is the price is so high? Not low cost :( but a great engine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Model_250. Because the greedy Corporate owner did not make it Open Source !
_________________ A&P/IA P35 Aerostar 600A
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 20 Dec 2019, 18:33 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 08/06/10 Posts: 15 Post Likes: +1
Aircraft: ms880b
|
|
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.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 12:29 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/23/18 Posts: 130 Post Likes: +30
|
|
I certainly want to see innovation, and the rolls Royce M250-B17F/2 is a 200 lb turbine Turbo prop that burns 25 gph for flight planning purposes (about 22 in cruise) (in the p210n silver eagle) ... has 450-500Hp takeoff power (at sea level) and 380hp continuous... it is sensitive to temperature and altitude.... but still falls squarely in the performance envelope of the 15-21k’ flight levels for GA... and for those who want higher and faster, there are variants that go to 650hp.. so they could be flat rated to higher critical altitudes.. Rolls even has a FADEC module for the m250 series... It is used in the silver eagle conversion and a bonanza a36 conversion, soloy 206 conversion.. and a few other fixed wing planes... Now the problem is it is very expensive... a new one lists around $700k? I don’t know how to get that price down or why it is that expensive... is it a function of cost of production? Monopoly? Scale of sheer number (or lack thereof)? If someone committed to converting 1000 airplanes would the cost be radically different? I don’t know..., but there already is an engine in existence since the 1950’s that is suited to the job.. Rolls had a new model RR500 version, specifically designed for GA that they were going to make that they shelved in 2012.. flat rated to 325hp at 15K’ https://youtu.be/j2nD7Nqh7B4I don’t know why, perhaps the price tag and the fact that there are virtually zero Pressurized ga aircraft currently made (except the piper M class and they are dedicated to the pt6)... Boggles my mind that cirrus and diamond are not pressurized... even 3psi would be a game changer for those aircraft...and open up the world of turbine potential to them... I mean who really wants an engine that is designed for 15-20’ and have to wear O2 all the time... not me...
Last edited on 22 Dec 2019, 22:07, edited 5 times in total.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 14:20 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 12/07/17 Posts: 7035 Post Likes: +5807 Company: Malco Power Design Location: KLVJ
Aircraft: 1976 Baron 58
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Guys, we're gonna see electric motors as the main propulsion unit long before we'll ever see mass market or low cost turbines. Ship has sailed. And I'm not talking about electric aircraft. The main problem I see for electric aircraft over even electric cars is the fuel loading issue. Now it is possible to trade fuel and therefore range for cargo capacity. When the fuel is a battery that can’t be easily removed you won’t be able to do that. You’ll have to move to aircraft designs where it is possible to fill the tanks and the seats for the seats to be of any use.
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 14:26 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 09/23/18 Posts: 130 Post Likes: +30
|
|
Username Protected wrote: Guys, we're gonna see electric motors as the main propulsion unit long before we'll ever see mass market or low cost turbines. Ship has sailed. And I'm not talking about electric aircraft. Then what are you talking about? Please elaborate...
|
|
Top |
|
Username Protected
|
Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine.... Posted: 22 Dec 2019, 14:40 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: 04/29/13 Posts: 706 Post Likes: +476
Aircraft: C177RG, ATOS-VR
|
|
The only way I see electric propulsion entering the mainstream is it will be tied to a motor generator or fuel cell. Batteries have become much more efficient in the last 20 years, but they would have to get even better by a couple orders of magnitude. Having a very efficient generator feeding the electric motor, with a small battery pack, could work. The generator could run at a constant power output with the batteries making up for takeoff. This would allow for a more efficient generator design.
Vince
|
|
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
|
|
|
|