flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 Hi everyone, as requested, here is an update on the program. Turbine Aeronautics received an injection of funding recently including a South Australian Government grant. This funding has allowed us to proceed full steam ahead with the program. On the boring side of things, we have moved into our new corporate offices in Adelaide which includes a good workshop facility. We have recruited administration staff and our corporate infrastructure is now robust to move ahead (very important for a business!). Earlier this year, both during and in the months after Oshkosh, the Executive Management team was busy visiting potential design program participants with a view to finalising the design teams for the program. We have a number of highly specialised components that we are incorporating into our engines to ensure that the required fuel efficiency and reliability/maintainability targets are met. We have been extremely fortunate to have some of the leading companies in the world in their area of expertise on board for our program. I had better mention here that for commercial reasons, we have chosen to launch with our 200hp engine, but rest assured that our 120hp engine should follow up about 6 months after the 200hp engine. This has been a popular decision amongst the kit manufacturers with whom we have formed close relationships and who have encouraged us to offer them the 200hp engine first. The technical program is well and truly underway for the 200hp engine and we are waiting rather expectantly for the first phase of the analysis process to be completed where we will have fairly accurate (theoretical) specifications for the engine. The good thing about the current analytical software tools are that they are now very accurate in predicting actual conditions (within about 1%). The design work for some of the components/systems is underway and the detailed design work for the major components will start shortly, after completion of the analysis that is currently being undertaken. Our timeline according to our current schedule has first deliveries of the 200hp engine during Q4, 2019, around 2 years from now. Early next year, a new website will be published. We intend to run a Blog on the website, giving frequent progress reports on the program so that enthusiasts can follow our journey. Let me say in closing that this is a huge and complex program. However, the planning that has gone into it is extensive; the quality of our design teams is extraordinarily high; and we as a company are determined and focussed to make this a success and bring the first commercially available, affordable turbine to the guys like you and me that want one in their aircraft. For me, it will be a 200hp Lightning Bug, for you, it may be a 200hp Arion Lightning, or a 120hp Turbine Jabiru or... Here’s a question for you guys, what airframe would you like to see a 120hp or 200hp turboprop in? Cheers, Dave 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Operating a turboprop compared to a large radial is a pussycat. With a turbine,You just turn it with the starter and at the right time feed fuel into it and it either speeds up or melts. The prop has stops (locks) that are there for safety. (Prevent overspeeding). You can use BETA as a brake if the operation approves it.. No real engine management problems.. Autofeather almost universal on any serious application as they can retard multiples of the rated thrust. In my opinion, small turbines , will never be widely used due cost and poor fuel efficiency. They also have no soul (character) for the enthusiast's, that Big round engines have. IF you don't "GET" big round engines they won't be for you. You will break them which is dangerous and costly. Low level and relatively slow (<250) knots they are far more fuel efficient. They provide a considerable challenge to master. Start without backfiring or hydraulicing, manage supercharger- Boost, manifold pressure, Prop Pitch, cooling and "Balanced Power" when manoeuvring/descending. to look after the engine.. Reliability. Turbines are a giant leap forward in reliability in general. they have to be looked after (washed out sometimes) and NO FOD, but some thing like 10x as reliable. Generalising. . Jet's--- Even more mundane and characterless .Only high Bypass ratio ones have a lot of thrust. Most reliable of all and have revolutionised mass transport. Extremely high temp combustion chamber and turbine disc materials have achieved good fuel economy at altitudes. 10,000 + hours between tear downs.. Forget the idea of having them in a 500 KG plane in a practical sense. IF you want to play, a turbo charger will work as a jet motor with a combustion chamber built into it.. You can turn Kero into fear/fun for short bursts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 I know a a certain BD-4 that would go well with a 200HP turbine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Just to add a bit, there must be scope for a smallish say 300 HP engine to get rid of the older flat 6 motors, that struggle to be reliable. Small turboprops will have a large % reduction with the drive being a challenge and the engine RPM's being very high.. Mike, I saw a BD4 J fly at Avalon in the early 90's Short fast flight. Longish (relatively) take off from memory. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 flyvulcan, better work on CASA to eliminate the no turbine restriction for the Basic Class 2 Med and RAAus for the same. facthunter, these guys re trying to prove you wrong. A little extra fuel burn for a possibly cheaper engine with significantly longer TBO with seriously lower overhaul costs and much higher reliability will sell. Now can it be made as a turboshaft driving an alternator? Sounds right for my idea of a two seat kitplane that cruises fast and has VTOL enabled by distributed electric propulsion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Borgelt Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 You are thinking of the BD-5. This is a link to pictures of BD-4s Main Photo Gallery – BD-4 Experimental Aircraft Community Site Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 In my opinion, small turbines , will never be widely used due cost and poor fuel efficiency. These are the two areas that we are paying significant attention to in order to make our products viable in the market. Historical perceptions/facts should not be applied to what is available now. The technology is there to address these historical issues with small gas turbine engines and we are applying the latest proven technology to deliver a product that should change those historical drawbacks of high cost and high fuel burn. Thanks to the recent significant advances in the capabilities of the design and analytical software, the huge reduction in cost of that software, the reduction in cost of the “exotic” materials needed for a turbine and the significant reduction in costs associated with the manufacturing of the precision components needed for turbines, the time is now right to develop a lower cost turboprop. To address the historic high fuel burns for small gas turbine engines, we are incorporating recuperator technology which improves specific fuel consumption considerably, with acceptable downsides of weight and volume. Our target is a maximum SFC of 0.55lbs/hp/hr at Optimum Cruise Power. Initial indications are that we may be able to do better but 0.55 is the target maximum. Yes, that is a little more than the equivalent power pistons, but not a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 The "THING" I saw was low wing so obviously a BD5.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 flyvulcan, better work on CASA to eliminate the no turbine restriction for the Basic Class 2 Med and RAAus for the same. Part of our strategy is to seek an FAA amendment to the LSA regulations in the US to permit the use of turbine engines in LSAs. The submission has been prepared but we are waiting for our next prototype to run where we can demonstrate the “simple” operation of the engine through its single lever control, as well as extol the safety benefits of an engine where the pilot never needs to look at his engine instruments (I’m definitely not suggesting that is what should be done!) as the engine control unit will ensure that no engine parameters are ever exceeded. For the pilot, it will be a case of starting the engine by pushing the button. Thereafter, more power push the throttle forward; less power, pull it back. Easy, the ECU controls both the engine and propellor so that the pilot doesn’t have to worry about mixtures, carby heat, prop control etc. Simple! If we can get the FAA to amend their rules, it will be easier for CASA to follow. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Good Luck Fly Vulcan. You can accept slightly higher specific fuel consumption although who knows where fossil fuels are going? Weight is on your side too. As operator, I've flown big pistons jets and turboprops. Props are a problem. reliability and cost. Is a realistic high bypass Jet a goer in small sizes. The $$'s risk in this is very high. You won't be the first trying to go there. Jets are easy to operate. the "aura" about them is false. You don't have to be especially clever or gifted at all. It's the simplest of all engines to operate. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 Good Luck Fly Vulcan. You can accept slightly higher specific fuel consumption although who knows where fossil fuels are going? Weight is on your side too. As operator, I've flown big pistons jets and turboprops. Props are a problem. reliability and cost. Is a realistic high bypass Jet a goer in small sizes. The $$'s risk in this is very high. You wont; be the first trying to go there. Jets are easy to operate. the "aura" about them is false. You don't have to be especially clever or gifted at all. It's the simplest of all engines to operate. Nev Nev, we intend to address the existing market first which means propellors. That just makes economic sense. However, being a jet guy myself, we intend to move into that space once the company has financial security. I need a couple of 150-200lbf jets for my Jet Bug (Komet) but we are looking at the 4 seat personal jet market downtrack which we believe has good potential. In this class, 2 x 500lbf turbofans would give the 4 seat personal jet reasonable performance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 You might have a noise problem without a FAIR bit of bypass.. COST..??? Yikes. Who makes money out of aeroplanes? Gun and drug smugglers.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 We are offering an AK47 and some white powder with each engine sold... PS for any law enforcement officers that read this, that was a joke! 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mAgNeToDrOp Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Oooh yeah!Scaled down to a single seat with an option for a second seat in tandem or set up for a single bed behind the main seat! Would that be the perfect single pilot camping setup? Thinking about it, and looking at you avatar :) , a scaled down PC-6 would probably look a bit like a hornet, maybe stretch the nose a bit for the turbine. That would be mint.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 The long nose is only for balance. Moving the wing (and wheels) back is more costly and not as sexy? Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 re-read the thread, drool worthy engine, .... Now somebody go and build a scaled down Pilatus Porter PC-6 for this please... A scaled down pc-12 with the 200hp version would be good too while we are putting in requests.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 What airframe with 120hp on the back - scales down Horten IX - lots of volumn on the cofg line in the wing for fuel 9m span gives 10m^2 for 95.10 if you’re interested 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 I can't see one working without a CS prop. When you go down that road you might as well be going fast or you are wasting the technology. The plane should be 150 knots Plus. nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 I’ll take a twin turbofan RV10 thanks! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 I can't see one working without a CS prop. When you go down that road you might as well be going fast or you are wasting the technology. The plane should be 150 knots Plus. nev Funnily enough, we have had a lot of interest from the low and slow community. Mainly from the perspective of short field take-off and landings. The light weight of the engine combined with the constant speed prop offering both static and dynamic thrust, as well as the potential for beta operations has some of the Cub type manufacturers interested. Sure, their loiter fuel flow wont be good but those dirt strips, river sandbars etc. may become that little bit more accessible. BTW, the engine will only come with a CS prop that is fully controlled by the ECU. We intend to offer a selection of gearbox ratios in order to allow different sized props swinging at different speeds. The prop rpm will be set to match the reduction gear ratio optimum output speed so that again, the single lever throttle control will simply be a more power/less power, go faster/go slower, climb faster/climb slower scenario for the pilot. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 A scaled down pc-12 with the 200hp version would be good too while we are putting in requests.... It will likely go in one of these as we have a great relationship with the manufacturer: If you want one, they are available in Australia. See The Flying Legend | Your new aircraft or PM the user Tucano on this site. I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you! Dave 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Brady Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 As an engine guy I am really interested in the Fuel Control Unit and prop control on your engine as these are core to the challenges to be overcome in turboprop and turboshaft engines if they are to have practical application. That is a fixed pitch propellor which is unique/uncommon on a turboprop. The FCU will have a big job to do. Really interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyvulcan Posted December 19, 2017 Author Share Posted December 19, 2017 We will likely brand our unit something like a “Power Control Unit” which will simply be a combination of an Engine Control Unit (ECU) and a prop controller. Our challenge with the prop pitch control system will be to have a system that can alter pitch at a high rate, in order to keep up with the potentially rapid rpm changes of the power turbine. We intend to work with a single prop control company to develop this mechanism (if we cannot find a suitable off the shelf product). We will work with that prop hub company and some blade manufacturers to offer a range of hub and blade options to suit whatever application the engines may be used in. Due to the dangers associated with operating a turboprop with an incorrect prop system, we will offer only a single prop system option with our engines; one that we will have thoroughly tested. We have used a fairly good ECU system on our proof of concept engine but we want to develop a more robust unit that offers redundancy in the event of a component failure, so you can anticipate a dual channel control system with no common components. So much to think of... so much to do... Fun times ahead! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDavies Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Will these turbines be rated with 110% take off or intermittent power as some turbines are? if so, this would allow them to compete on equal terms with the Rotax 915 135hp engine which is only only rated to 135hp on short bursts? It seems quite a few manufacturers are looking at offering Rotax 915 options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted December 19, 2017 Share Posted December 19, 2017 Most power limitations on turbines relate to service life. There is always a limit TGT or whatever they wish to call it where you reduce the power to keep under it.. "Sick" engines tend to run hotter. The turbine wheel temp is limiting. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now