banner
banner

29 Mar 2024, 11:01 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 14:32 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
What’s the R&D cost on a 400hp TP to replace every engine in the GA fleet that currently uses 280-310hp engines? How many would be sold if priced at $80k? How long to get your money back? I’d put up 20k for shares in that company.

Val



You know, the price of a brand new TSIO550 is $158,000.

A factory rebuilt is $80,000 - after you return your core.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 17:51 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 03/15/16
Posts: 695
Post Likes: +365
Location: Charlotte NC
Aircraft: Piper Mirage
Yes. But at 80k for a new 400hp tp, almost everyone who needs a new engine would opt for the TP over the piston version. So... your volume of sales/production would be much higher and thus more efficient, lowering the cost.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 18:04 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +336
Company: Cessna (retired)
Username Protected wrote:
What’s the R&D cost on a 400hp TP to replace every engine in the GA fleet that currently uses 280-310hp engines? How many would be sold if priced at $80k? How long to get your money back? I’d put up 20k for shares in that company.

Val



You know, the price of a brand new TSIO550 is $158,000.

A factory rebuilt is $80,000 - after you return your core.


When I was at Cessna we went through this with two different engine manufacturers. First thing they want to know is how many we want to buy. I was never in a position to see any numbers, but it is obvious they weren't real favorable.

They other problem with a 400 hp turboprop is they give great performance (except for fuel flow) on a low altitude airplane but will be slower than a TSIO above 20K or so.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 18:44 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
When I was at Cessna we went through this with two different engine manufacturers. First thing they want to know is how many we want to buy. I was never in a position to see any numbers, but it is obvious they weren't real favorable.

They other problem with a 400 hp turboprop is they give great performance (except for fuel flow) on a low altitude airplane but will be slower than a TSIO above 20K or so.[/quote]

The plane and engine exists already in a Cessna p210 silver eagle or the a36 bonanza turbine conversion...or engine alone is the rolls Royce m250-b17f2....

To say a TSIO is faster above 20k , while maybe.. and I say maybe , is accurate under certain conditions.. we’re are talking an insignificant amount in perfect conditions..and at cruise only....if you were to measure a block to block flight I seriously doubt a tsio would out perform the m250.. climb, takeoff, descent, no shock cooling and reliability and dispatch rate is vastly different... not to mention easier workload....with the turbine greatly outdoing a piston... to compare piston to turbine is to compare apples and oranges....

You have to look at the whole picture, all aspects of performance and reliability to see it clearly

Cessna was first to put that turbine in the p210 and they never followed through with it, which is a shame... it is a perfect combo.. the p210n with the rolls engine.. 3.35 psi and the rolls both have the same sweet spot


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 27 Dec 2019, 19:54 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/15/17
Posts: 668
Post Likes: +336
Company: Cessna (retired)
Username Protected wrote:
When I was at Cessna we went through this with two different engine manufacturers. First thing they want to know is how many we want to buy. I was never in a position to see any numbers, but it is obvious they weren't real favorable.

They other problem with a 400 hp turboprop is they give great performance (except for fuel flow) on a low altitude airplane but will be slower than a TSIO above 20K or so.


The plane and engine exists already in a Cessna p210 silver eagle or the a36 bonanza turbine conversion...or engine alone is the rolls Royce m250-b17f2....

To say a TSIO is faster above 20k , while maybe.. and I say maybe , is accurate under certain conditions.. we’re are talking an insignificant amount in perfect conditions..and at cruise only....if you were to measure a block to block flight I seriously doubt a tsio would out perform the m250.. climb, takeoff, descent, no shock cooling and reliability and dispatch rate is vastly different... not to mention easier workload....with the turbine greatly outdoing a piston... to compare piston to turbine is to compare apples and oranges....

You have to look at the whole picture, all aspects of performance and reliability to see it clearly

Cessna was first to put that turbine in the p210 and they never followed through with it, which is a shame... it is a perfect combo.. the p210n with the rolls engine.. 3.35 psi and the rolls both have the same sweet spot[/quote]

I do not disagree and neglected to say in my initial statement that my performance comparisons also consider cost for the performance. If one could get the turboprop for equivalent cost or for $80K, it would obviously be the choice, but so far that has not been remotely possible. Conversions are worse since everything FWF is new and there are significant changes to systems elsewhere. Sort of like saying a 425 is only a 421 with turboprop engines.
I worked on the 250 a little bit and even got a ride in it once. I was not very impressed, again considering the likely cost. When using the climb and descent performance, it was an ear popper, and had some undesirable yaw characteristics that might have needed a bigger vertical (not my area of expertise though). I think the failure to go ahead was mainly financial but those descisions were way above my level.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 00:39 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
Username Protected wrote:
When I was at Cessna we went through this with two different engine manufacturers. First thing they want to know is how many we want to buy. I was never in a position to see any numbers, but it is obvious they weren't real favorable.

They other problem with a 400 hp turboprop is they give great performance (except for fuel flow) on a low altitude airplane but will be slower than a TSIO above 20K or so.


The plane and engine exists already in a Cessna p210 silver eagle or the a36 bonanza turbine conversion...or engine alone is the rolls Royce m250-b17f2....

To say a TSIO is faster above 20k , while maybe.. and I say maybe , is accurate under certain conditions.. we’re are talking an insignificant amount in perfect conditions..and at cruise only....if you were to measure a block to block flight I seriously doubt a tsio would out perform the m250.. climb, takeoff, descent, no shock cooling and reliability and dispatch rate is vastly different... not to mention easier workload....with the turbine greatly outdoing a piston... to compare piston to turbine is to compare apples and oranges....

You have to look at the whole picture, all aspects of performance and reliability to see it clearly

Cessna was first to put that turbine in the p210 and they never followed through with it, which is a shame... it is a perfect combo.. the p210n with the rolls engine.. 3.35 psi and the rolls both have the same sweet spot


I do not disagree and neglected to say in my initial statement that my performance comparisons also consider cost for the performance. If one could get the turboprop for equivalent cost or for $80K, it would obviously be the choice, but so far that has not been remotely possible. Conversions are worse since everything FWF is new and there are significant changes to systems elsewhere. Sort of like saying a 425 is only a 421 with turboprop engines.
I worked on the 250 a little bit and even got a ride in it once. I was not very impressed, again considering the likely cost. When using the climb and descent performance, it was an ear popper, and had some undesirable yaw characteristics that might have needed a bigger vertical (not my area of expertise though). I think the failure to go ahead was mainly financial but those descisions were way above my level.[/quote]

The performance, reliability and added safety of the m250 to the p210 is amazing ... you need to fly it again... the differences are significant... and I agree with 2 of your points.

1. I would like to see the m250 engine for double the price of a new piston engine not 3-6x ...and my guess is if cessna fulfilled in their p210r m250 prototype... that engine would cost far far less money due to volume and competition with the pt6 in turboprops... there is now a 650hp m250 w dual fadec that Cessna would have had all that technology as it evolved..

2. the p210n needs a bigger rudder, regardless of what engine is in it... it’s not dangerous, you just have to use rudder trim... the R model fixed that (certainly the best and fullest expression of the 210 line) and fixed all of the punch list items in design... with the m250 would be a perfect combo.. (fuel efficiency, performance, range) but Cessna bailed and missed the entire single engine turbo prop market... Cessna has managed to really blow it in the GA market for many years now, even when they were in the perfect position to own the market... for 40 years they have abandon all but trainers) ... once with p210R turbine (of which they built the prototype) and then with the Ttx only to hand it to cirrus who has gone on to take basically the same plane and dominate... it is amazing how Cessna blew it so big time in these segments...

Last edited on 28 Dec 2019, 09:54, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 03:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/06/11
Posts: 791
Post Likes: +387
Don’t forget about mooney blowing it with the TBM and the mu-2. ;-)


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 08:19 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/05/09
Posts: 4082
Post Likes: +2731
Location: Small Town, NC
Username Protected wrote:
Don’t forget about mooney blowing it with the TBM and the mu-2. ;-)


one of the guys in my practice had the Mooney Mustang. I think about it every time I fire up the TBM.

_________________
"Find worthy causes in your life."


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 14:59 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
If I were to guess, based on rumors I've heard, I think an OEM with some volume commitment would pay around $100k for a TSIO550 and probably around $300k for a 400-500hp turbine.

The M250's numbers put it exactly where it belongs: In light helicopters. The mix of what it does well are that it is lightweight, small, reliable and performs well at low altitude. It burns a lot of fuel for the power it makes. (Rolls-Royce's BSFC numbers). But it is the right lump to fit into a light helicopter. Low and behold, that's where they go.

They don't make as much sense as a turboprop. They've been fitted in a few, notably the P210 and B36/A36 conversions, which honestly, aren't the most sensible airplanes, the P210 making more sense than the latter.

The PT6 on the other hand, makes more sense as a turboprop and less as a light helicopter engine. And there ya go, they're in the noses of most SETP's and dominant in turboprop twins.

Like I said, you push down on one parameter and the others pop up.

There will never be a "low cost" turbine for light aircraft. The physics of pumping air through small spaces is the limiting factor, and there's no getting around it.

The M250 is a prime example of that. The compressor section is what, 3"-4" in diameter? The turbine wheel is also very small. The friction of pushing air around is significant and the smaller the thing, the more loss incurred per mass of air moved. Also, the small sizes of things eliminate the possibility of implementing things like film cooling of nozzles and turbine blades.

As far as regenerative or recuperating turbines, yes that improves efficiency, but at higher weight and initial cost.

Also, not a new idea. This company announced a recuperator for the M250 series engines in 2009:

https://frontlineaerospace.com/technolo ... cuperator/

In turbines, you either pay for it upfront, or you pay for it in fuel, or you pay for it in life-limit/maintenance.


Last edited on 28 Dec 2019, 18:23, edited 2 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 17:02 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 4402
Post Likes: +1719
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
"Sonex To Offer Two-Place Jet Kit"
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... et-project

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHSnMbE ... e=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7igFzSyr-8k

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFBownbtg0E

_________________
nightwatch...


Last edited on 28 Dec 2019, 17:20, edited 4 times in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 28 Dec 2019, 17:09 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
Username Protected wrote:
If I were to guess, based on rumors I've heard, I think an OEM with some volume commitment would pay around $100k for a TSIO550 and probably around $300k for a 400-500hp turbine.

The M250's numbers put it exactly where it belongs: In light helicopters. The mix of what it does well are that it is lightweight, small, reliable and performs well at low altitude. It burns a lot of fuel for the power it make. (Rolls-Royce's BSFC numbers). But it is the right lump to fit into a light helicopter. Low and behold, that's where they go.

They don't make as much sense as a turboprop. They've been fitted in a few, notably the P210 and B36/A36 conversions, which honestly, aren't the most sensible airplanes, the P210 making more sense than the latter.

The PT6 on the other hand, makes more sense as a turboprop and less as a light helicopter engine. And there ya go, they're in the noses of most SETP's and dominant in turboprop twins.

Like I said, you push down on one parameter and the others pop up.

There will never be a "low cost" turbine for light aircraft. The physics of pumping air through small spaces is the limiting factor, and there's no getting around it.

The M250 is a prime example of that. The compressor section is what, 3"-4" in diameter? The turbine wheel is also very small. The friction of pushing air around is significant and the smaller the thing, the more loss incurred per mass of air moved. Also, the small sizes of things eliminate the possibility of implementing things like film cooling of nozzles and turbine blades.

As far as regenerative or recuperating turbines, yes that improves efficiency, but at higher weight and initial cost.

Also, not a new idea. This company announced a recuperator for the M250 series engines in 2009:

https://frontlineaerospace.com/technolo ... cuperator/

In turbines, you either pay for it upfront, or you pay for it in fuel, or you pay for it in life-limit/mainenance.


If you take the Cessna p210n silver eagle and the Jetptop, you will have really good examples of how the engine matching the mission matters..

The silver eagle with the m250 and 3.35 psi pressurization is perfectly matched for a plane designed for 16-20k ‘ @215knots .. if you used a pt6 in this plane, you would have far less range burning too much fuel down low..., flying the altitude the plane was designed for,the m250 is right engine for the job.. a great balance of performance and range (25gph flight planning block to block)

In the jet prop, if you fly in the teens, you are using too much fuel and your range goes way down, but because it has 5.5 psi Pressurization, you can get it up higher and take advantage of the pt6... maybe you are burning 35 gph at 28,000 feet but going 265knts

For a piston replacement for a typical GA plane, the m250 would be a better choice... the PT6 will require you to carry too much For your typical useful Load of a GA conversions, not to mention a non pressurized plane will more likely be flow in the mid to upper teens than the mid to high 20s...

The m250 is not just for helicopters, but it is optimized for certain flight levels... and the reason it is not done more... $$$.. a company with buying and production power has not knocked on rolls door.. if they did.. the price would be far more reasonable

If cirrus offered a 3.5 psi pressurized sr22 turbine (m250) for $1.3... I think it would sell a lot of them... a price point and capability allows for a truly reliable pressurized moderately priced turbine.. (this is what the p210 silver Eagle is).. I’d love to see a new one...

A large block piston has a failure (of some sort) once every 800 hrs
The m250 has a failure (of some sort) once every 1,000,000 hrs


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2019, 10:26 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
Username Protected wrote:

As far as regenerative or recuperating turbines, yes that improves efficiency, but at higher weight and initial cost.

Also, not a new idea. This company announced a recuperator for the M250 series engines in 2009:

https://frontlineaerospace.com/technolo ... cuperator/




This device, according to that description heats the air prior to combustion... which means you are basically making this engine “more efficient” by reducing the horsepower... by using hot air... I can’t think of a good reason I would want that in a GA aircraft.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2019, 10:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/22/08
Posts: 2914
Post Likes: +922
Company: USAF Propulsion Laboratory
Location: Dayton, OH
Aircraft: PA24, AEST 680, 421
Username Protected wrote:

As far as regenerative or recuperating turbines, yes that improves efficiency, but at higher weight and initial cost.

Also, not a new idea. This company announced a recuperator for the M250 series engines in 2009:

https://frontlineaerospace.com/technolo ... cuperator/




This device, according to that description heats the air prior to combustion... which means you are basically making this engine “more efficient” by reducing the horsepower... by using hot air... I can’t think of a good reason I would want that in a GA aircraft.

This means less fuel has to be burned in the combustor, by using waste energy from the exhaust. The trick is making lightweight efficient heat exchangers, now facilitated by additive manufacturing techniques.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2019, 11:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 09/23/18
Posts: 130
Post Likes: +30
[/quote]


This device, according to that description heats the air prior to combustion... which means you are basically making this engine “more efficient” by reducing the horsepower... by using hot air... I can’t think of a good reason I would want that in a GA aircraft.[/quote]
This means less fuel has to be burned in the combustor, by using waste energy from the exhaust. The trick is making lightweight efficient heat exchangers, now facilitated by additive manufacturing techniques.[/quote]

I understand making a powerful engine weaker by adding hot air.. to save GPH.. how about just starting off with a less powerful engine that burns less fuel, if that is your goal...

It’s a race to see who is slowest...


Top

 Post subject: Re: Low cost turbine....
PostPosted: 29 Dec 2019, 12:18 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 08/24/13
Posts: 8409
Post Likes: +3662
Company: Aviation Tools / CCX
Location: KSMQ New Jersey
Aircraft: TBM700C2
Username Protected wrote:
I understand making a powerful engine weaker by adding hot air.. to save GPH.. how about just starting off with a less powerful engine that burns less fuel, if that is your goal...

It’s a race to see who is slowest...


Energy is recovered from the exhaust heat and used to help the compressor section. This recovers the energy and increases efficiency. With the heat recovery the compressor doesn't need to work as hard. Similar to how a turbocharger increases a piston engine efficiency.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 133 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 9  Next




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

Jump to:  

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

.cav-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.daytona.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.