Never heard of More being used on the TBM, if your flying part 91 in the US you dont need any program as you can keep going without overhauling.




Interesting, because I have been hearing about people using the More program on PC-12 and TBM's.

The airplane will be slightly over $1m if the customer buys new everything. If they are willing to accept a used PT6 with a fresh hot section, they can very easily get in the game for under $1m.

I had never even heard of the program before, so it is news to me. I think most of the people that are doing it may be in Canada.

A little 411 on fiberglass...

They build racing skow sailboats out of fiberglass and after a few seasons, a fiberglass skow is no longer competitive because they get "soft" from the flexing during sailing and absorb the puffs of wind rather than transmit them into forward energy...

The racing skow boat builders have succeeded in keeping Carbon Fiber against the rules because they know that a carbon fiber boat would last a lifetime and it would be very expensive so they would sell fewer boats in the first place and no repeat business...

Anybody wanna fly an airplane that gets "soft" over time?

Can you cite an example of a GA aircraft where this has presented itself?

Any chance racing boat builders sacrifice structural integrity and longevity in exchange for speed built to last a season or two?

Doug,

Isn't that due to design at the edge of the structural capability of fiberglass? I recall the same thing with older aluminum and wood racing boats.
My brother has a 25 year old fiberglass ski boat, no perceptible softness in it. A good friend on mine is taking his 1970 fiberglass boat now on the Loop, I have asked him these questions before. He says, fiberglass actually is like metal and does fatigue if pushed to its limit. As long as you do not push to the limit, you do not get that kind of fatigue. I also trust his knowledge since he is a material/structural engineer and used to design boats for a living.

Tim

Yes, this is true, boats need to be light, but so do airplanes...

Fiberglass, bends and when it does some fibers break, and it becomes softer over time. More material equal less flexing and that means less fatigue....

I am not saying fiberglass isn't useful in airplanes, I 'm saying, that it is prone to getting soft...

Ok, here is what I have found out:

Assume Pre-preg 7781 fiberglass vs. 12K carbon fiber

1. Carbon is 3X more in cost
2. Carbon is same strength in tension
3. Carbon is 2X better in stiffness (This is key)
4. Fiberglass is 50% heavier than the 12K carbon fiber (This is key)

I think the Velocity is a wet layup, therefore it would be even heavier than the Pre-preg fiberglass, but would cost less.

So what it comes down to is if the cost is your overall driving force and if so are you willing to leave useful load off the table?

I believe that #3 is important because of what Doug has mentioned.

Doug,

What do you know, or can you tell me anything about the Raptor? I took a look at their website but didn't know if you have covered it at all or have knowledge of the project. Seems to me that their goals are quite lofty in their pricing and performance numbers.

Thoughts?

This is the first I have heard of the Raptor... I have flown the Velocity XL 5 with the 350 turbo Lycoming and it is stupid fast... Not a particularly nice airplane to fly, and none of the Canard designs have much, if any, tolerance for icing...

On the website, this company looks like a one man operation...

Ok, thanks. Interesting comment about Canard design and icing. I wonder how these designs propose to fix this issue.

Im pretty sure the More program is only available on N registered aircraft.




I had never even heard of the program before, so it is news to me. I think most of the people that are doing it may be in Canada.

I really don't have any clue about that.

Here I dont see Canada, it makes sense Pratt is here and protect its own business.

MORE COMPANY, INC. SUMMARY OF FOREIGN APPROVALS STATUS AS OF DECEMBER 1, 2011
There are 1850 PT6A engines that are now using or have used the MORE Instructions For Continued Airworthiness. The first engines were placed on the MORE Instructions For Continued Airworthiness autumn 1993.
The countries that have issued their own FAA equivalent STC's and thereby formally recognize the MORE "Instructions" / FAA STC's are: Brazil, Germany, and Argentina.
The countries that have provided MORE Company, Inc. with a formal validation letter in respect to recognizing our MORE FAA STC's in their country on aircraft registered in their country are: Australia, Austria**, Costa Rica, Denmark, New Zealand, Panama*, Paraguay**, Peru, United Kingdom, Uruguay* and Venezuela.
The countries that have recognized the MORE FAA STCs by allowing aircraft registered in their country to operate utilizing the MORE Company FAA
STCs but who have not issued a formal letter to MORE Company, Inc. are: Albania*, Bahamas*, Belgium*, British Virgin Islands*, Cayman Islands, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Dominican Republic*, France, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras*, Hungary*, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica*, Mexico, Morocco*, Netherlands-Antilles*, Nicaragua*, Puerto Rico*, Solomon Islands*, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Turks & Caicos Islands, and Turkey*. Comment, most of the above named countries have Bi-Lateral Airworthiness Agreements with the United States of America. These countries have allowed the direct use of the United States, Federal Aviation Administration, Supplemental Type Certificate without additional review from the respective country’s airworthiness regulatory authority.
The countries marked with an asterisk (*) have one to three engines using the MORE IFCA. The other countries have four or more engines using the MORE IFCA. The countries marked with two asterisks (**) have no engines currently using the MORE IFCA.
1132B Airport Rd. Minden, NV 89423 * (775) 782-3346 * (775) 782-3349 Fax www.morecompany.net * email info@morecompany.net

So I had the chance to talk with an aeronautical engineer that isn't involved with our project and he basically confirmed that our airplane is possible. We will have to be very diligent to keep an eye on the weight of the bird to ensure the engine we want to use will work.

What engine is that?