Might be more of a market for a 200 hp turbine.

There’s no such thing as too much horsepower.

The trouble with turbines is they are stupidly thirsty. For normal bugsmashing a piston engine is much more economical.

There’s no such thing as too much horsepower.

The trouble with turbines is they are stupidly thirsty. For normal bugsmashing a piston engine is much more economical.

While I haven’t flown the P2010, it’s little brother the P2008 is the nicest handling aircraft I’ve ever flown.

I also agree that this will be a flop in the U.S. PBS has a 241 horsepower turboprop but it’s not certified and drinks heavy. Once Rotax comes out with a 250+ horsepower engine that should be a game changer.

to me, the advantage of that engine would be as a diesel supercub that has twice the range, or converts half the fuel load to payload, vs its lycoming avgas-powered equivalent. Of course that only works if the new engine is the same wet weight.

to me, the advantage of that engine would be as a diesel supercub that has twice the range, or converts half the fuel load to payload, vs its lycoming avgas-powered equivalent. Of course that only works if the new engine is the same wet weight.

dry weights don't mean much when comparing liquid cooled to air cooled engines. They leave off not just the water but usually the entire cooling system.

Exactly. I cannot see a favorable amortization schedule for an engine replacement requirement at 1200 hours for any sort of training environment. It would seem to drive the hourly cost much too high for not much (if any) of a measurable gain.

Dan

capital cost matters too. What does at diesel, vs turbine vs avgas 300HP engine cost.

For many people the engine capital cost is significant. (I say having just replaced an IO520)

https://www.turb.aero/

200 Hp turbine, got to go to Australia for proof of concept.

Not bad. If their figures work out you're looking at a 200 hp (sea level) engine that burns around 13.5 gph at cruise at 10,000 feet. That cruise power is about the same as an IO-520 at 65%, but with turbine reliability and burning less expensive (and lead free) Jet-A. As a replacement for something like an IO-360 it'd really kick some butt. I'd buy one (if I had something to put it in.)

Not bad. If their figures work out you're looking at a 200 hp (sea level) engine that burns around 13.5 gph at cruise at 10,000 feet. That cruise power is about the same as an IO-520 at 65%, but with turbine reliability and burning less expensive (and lead free) Jet-A. As a replacement for something like an IO-360 it'd really kick some butt. I'd buy one (if I had something to put it in.)

They don’t say. It would have to burn more than the price difference between Avgas and Jet-A to make it a lesser choice. I agree that it’s not well suited to a 172 or similar, but I don’t think that was their target market.

It probably won't.

I don't mean to be negative, but the industry has been making gas turbine engines of all sizes and descriptions for 70 years, but has somehow failed to make low power gas turbines with attractive fuel specifics.

In real life, they have mostly been on the order .9lbs/hp/hr.

Regenerator (aka recuperator) equipped turbines might be substantially better. But of course, heavier, more complex and more costly. For many reasons, they haven't hit the market, though they have been developed over the years.

Small turbines suffer from a lot of things, beginning with the physical challenges of moving air through small spaces. It works better in large turbine engines, where the spaces and parts are bigger and the RPM much lower.

I think this also somewhat begs the question of why avegas engines aren't better.

An spark ignition engine that ran on auto gas, with electronic mixture, ignition, turbocharger should be pretty good. I know there have been a lot of failed attempts to use automobile engines in aircraft, but no more than there have been failed attempts at diesles and small turbines.

The other approach is a modern version of a standard aircraft engine - with the sort of automated assembly that makes auto engines very reliable.

Of course I guess the market is just too small