@MojoGrip, It does look like a very nice engine , gearbox & prop assembly... But with the testing requirements, the tooling, the product liability requirements, the raw materials that will be necessary, the modification of the OEM airframe designs that this engine can work on, and to satisfy the safety regulations that the FAA mandates for certificated aircraft and the STC's that the certificated airframe manufacturer(s) would have to produce for this powerplant to be used on, would mean that the original price quote of $85 k. for the engine/gearbox/prop, would actually end-up being much higher... The STC alone without the powerplant or prop, to use this non OEM engine & prop on a certificated airframe that was originally designed for a 200+ HP powerplant probably would end-up costing well over $50k. This engine & prop should be available for LSA type Of EXPERIMENTAL aircraft only... Then, maybe the people making this engine/gearbox/prop combo will have a better chance at finding buyers for it... Because there are already used certificated planes available, that already have 200+ HP engines, that will probably end-up co$ting much less , and take much less time to prepare ,than to modify a plane to take an engine like this... It would not surprise me if the Cirrus that this engine was targeted to be used on, would end-up costing the owners at least another $250k. (Probably more) and at least 3 months to install and meet all requirements that a very courageous I.A. would approve... My guess is after viewing all the trouble and co$t to make a mod like this, the potential customer would start looking at Mooney's, Bonanza's, 210's, etc...Another question about doing mods to certificated planes is , which insurance company will carry it, and how much will that insurance cost?How many I.A.'s /FBO's are available, to do annual inspections on a plane with these types of modifications? How much will those annuals cost? Where does one go to find FAA/PMA certified parts for an aircraft that was heavily modified? How much will those parts cost? Will non OEM FAA/PMA parts still be available in another 10-15 years? There are so many factors to consider, when taking on modifications on aircraft, ESPECIALLY certificated aurcraft... Leave it stock Amigo...
@@michaelmartinez1345 Will be used and proven on Experimentals initially. Certified versions would certainly cost a lot more and would likely sink the project financially as has happened to many new engine designs like Mistral and Orenda.
@@rv6ejguy Right on!!! Yes , my guess is the experimental aircraft market would be an excellent place to market such an engine... Is it a centrifugal flow compressor? If so, is it a twin stage impeller? What is the reduction gearing ratio? My guess is the people with Lasairs, RV's , Glassairs & other high-end SLA's might be developing some real interest in this unit....
Its not that impressive. The engine I am using for an experimental helicopter will use less that 43lph at 150kw and weigh less. You may think its good compared to lycoming and continental, but turbine engines are a poor design for aircraft everything considered. Aviation engines are 50 years behind in technology. My engine also makes that power up to 13500 METRES, not feet.
I won’t get excited about any clean sheet power plant until there are about 100 built. Then, it’ll have sufficient support to be a real option. 1000 TBO kinda sucks. Output / fuel burn / cost … a 390 is still a better overall option I’m thinking. Might be fun in a glassair 1, cassutt, long ez or other small and slippery airframes that could get high and go fast. Does it have beta?
One thing I learned from attending 50 years of Oshkosh: There are MANY "dream ideas" there. Few actually happen. Don't put any money on these unless you don't care if you lose it. I DO hope this comes to fruition, though.
100% agree. Been going the last 30 years and many of these companies are searching for investors but never pan out. My favorite is the company with a new piston engine complete with dyno sheet that defies the 5250 formula.
I don’t have a problem with your thought and I understand exactly what you’re talking about, but this isn’t a great jump in technology but rather a very good idea. I don’t understand why this hasn’t already happened. Hell we have turbines for RC aircraft. Why haven’t they been able to perfect a small turbine for an aircraft? Heck we had all kinds of small turbines in power supplies for starting jets in the Air Force for decades! Small Turbines for APUs. Why in Gods name hasn’t this already been done? It seems like Mojo said this would be a game changer and and if it works no way anyone loses money on this project
@@guggyp Simple, fuel consumption of small turbine engines suck, most are nothing more than glorified turbochargers with a burner between the compressor and the power disk. Their simple design makes them light and functional enough to use as apu's of fixed output, where temperatures and loads are generally static. If used in a propulsion environment they can have short lifespans due to mechanical and thermal stress, and again their just too small to run efficiently at this atmospheric pressure. giving them absurdly high fuel burns.
@@Flightstar ok. I’m just wondering if they can start jet engines on restarts why not as a small aircraft engines Are they that poor in maintenance and lifespan?
???? As a Certified factory build?? I don't understand your comment. You must know that have to build your own.. I knew a guy named Dave that build one in Portland Oregon back in about 1974. People are still building them.. there is guy in Hillsboro OR pretty near flying his.. he is on youtube too.
Another uninformed individual. BD-5 kits are out there. But the plane itself was just poorly deigned. If you mean the jet engine BD-5J then there are out there too if you want to spend $100k on a toy with no range or payload.
Once certified, this will be a game changer! Point of correction though...there are quite a few small turbine engines flying around like the TP100 turbine from Turbine solutions and the 90hp turbine that's optional in the Mosquito XE helicopter.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn a jet engine is a jet engine whether it's an APU or ground power unit. As long as it goes thru the rigours of certification, no one will care if it powered a go cart or avionics systems
Cool, until I get to considering these points: The BSFC of a small turbine engine has _never_ come close to a piston engine. Bigger is better. The highly-developed P&W PT-6 isn't as efficient as this engine is claimed to be. Unless the engine is severely de-rated (that is, has a higher thermodynamic capacity then the 200 hp indicates), it cannot likely produce 75% power at 10K feet. I do suspect this to be the case, however. Jet-A weighs >10% more per gallon, so even at the same fuel burn you'll lose useful load; add about 11%, so your 240 lbs full gasoline tanks will now weigh over 265 lbs. The Allison/R-R 250-C20B variant weighs much less, makes _double_ the power, and is well developed, yet this new engine claims > 20% BSFC improvement. Given only my experience (getting huge turbofan engines FAA/EASA certified is part of my day job, and specific fuel consumption and low emissions are always critical items) and research, my prediction is that the engine will be short in life and high in fuel burn. Keeping turbines alive for thousands of hours is a difficult chore; for small ones, the number of cycles is more critical.
Piston engines usually max out at 75% at 10,000 ft, a turbine by definition, is their own build in turbo charger , so I can believe it will do better. The PT-6 is less efficient with the reversed flow, but that suits quite a few helicopter designs and they are quieter. I heard straight thru designs like Garrett, the noise drive me nuts and it encourage public restrictions. This engine is at the starting point, give it time, and more important, money for further developments.
I was and kinda still am skeptical, however these engines are going to utilize a recuperator which will be a game changer as far as fuel burn is considered. That also explains why it weighs more than “comparable” turbines.
Hello Kenny. Our Talon is designed incorporating recuperator technology. Could I please suggest that you research recuperator technology associated with small gas turbine engines. That research will give you an insight into how we will be achieving our fuel efficiency. The drawback of incorporating recuperator technology is that being a high density microchannel heat exchanger, it weighs a lot. We have sacrificed much but not all of the weight advantage of a traditional turbine over a piston engine in order to bring the fuel efficiency closer to the piston engine. In addition, our engine is de-rated at sea level. It should maintain 200hp to 8,000' before power available will reduce. We calculate at 10,000' that it should have over 180hp available. If takeoff weight is a limiting factor for a flight, the additional SG of the JetA is a disadvantage. But in your example above i.e. 240lbs of Avgas versus 265 lbs for JetA, with the installed weight of the Talon being probably 50 lbs less than an equivalent IO-360, the Talon plus its heavier JetA still offers more payload capability than the IO-360 equipped aircraft. Of course, we are still in the developmental phase and the engine has not yet run. Please give us time to get the Talon on the test stand (early next year) and we anticipate that we will be able to clarify and validate all specifications and performance capabilities at that time.
I am ex U.S. Air Force Jet Engine Mechanic ( GE F-108/ CFM-56-2, GE F-110 and P&W F-100 PW-200, 220s ). Why did the General Aviation world not jump on the Boeing T50 and T60 light turboprop and turboshaft engines from since the 50s and 60s? They worked great on the U.S. Navy's QH-50D anti-submarine drone helicopters and the Cessna O-1 " Bird Dog " light observation plane turboprop variants.
Seems like a cool concept! Careful with the "CG stays the same" comment. It may be near the same weight, but the extended nose means more weight forward with the arm, so you have the weight of the nose PLUS the weight of the propeller farther forward, which could be a big change to the arm and moment. But for $80k??? That's awesome!
Maybe. Maybe not. The one thing that separates this engine from other aircraft turbines is the use of a recuperator. This has the ability to GREATLY improve efficiency. But it also increases size and weight. And most importantly, nobody has ever built a recuperated gas turbine that is truly reliable. This last factor is going to be the crux of the whole project.
That is a game changer for light and experimental. With a variable pitch propeller: its Reno racing! Love to hear the start up and running. Hi Mike from Sydney Australia 🌏🇦🇺
It is a LOOOOONG way from 3D printed mock-up to a proper turboprop engine. I really hope they succeed. The concept is fantastic, but a mountain of engineering ahead. Good luck to them.
I was a military pilot and went through teething issues with turbines and it definitely is a tense situation for a long time. We weren't their test pilots even though it seemed like it. They test a lot of fixes that don't work very well or make things worse before they become trustworthy enough to not always in the back of your mind.
Those are amazing fuel burn specs! Lovin these small turboprop / IC engine replacements. AFAIC this is the powerplant of the future for everything! For automotive use it would make a light and effective low-emission generator for hybridized use.
Unfortunately, if you put a turbine on a CAR 3 OR FAR 23 certificated twin you now must comply with all the SFARs on life limited airframe components. That’s why no one has a(successfully) done it.
@@autophile525i there are four (I think) categories of ‘experimental’ . The one most are familiar with is Experimental - Amateur Built. You can fly IFR, carry passengers, etc. But the airframe has to be at least 51 percent amateur built. This rules out modifying a twin. The other types are like Experimental Research, Experimental Exhibition, Experimental Light Sport. You could put the 310 in research or exhibition but you can’t carry passengers. I owned a 310B for seven years then got a 310R. I flew the R for 18 years. LOVED it. Best General Aviation twin I ever flew. Only twin better was the Boeing 757. But the FAA said I couldn’t fly it any more (aged out). I alway thought if I could find Diesels to put on, I could burn Jet A, get way better fuel consumption and not worry about Life Limited airframe parts.
A smooth, quiet turbine with 200 HP at under 13 GPH and less than 300 pounds?? What's not to like about that?? As they prove the engine in service the TBO will increase further reducing the cost of operation. Keep and eye on this one.
To your point, I was nearly taken in by Jim Bede's letter in 1968 promising to build an aircraft for a very low price all that was required, a small deposit to secure a delivery slot. As you may know, that aircraft was stalled in the certification process and likely due to a cash shortfall the project was sold to Grumman and became the Yankee, but that "very low" price evaporated.
Efficiency is obtained by the heat exchanger preheating compressed air thus saving the corresponding amount of fuel. The real challenge is to minimise pressure drop thru the HE which here seems to be annular.
Mike this motor and the DeltaHawk will be the end of Lycoming and Continental as we know it!! Lycoming has a fadec E2 engine they want $120,000 aint nobody paying that when for $80,000 or $90,000 these are available ❤😊 These Motors will hold folks til the electric motors catch up❤
Mojo, the PBS TP100 only weighs 157 pounds wet for 241SHP and costs around $120K. 1500 TBO, that’s the turboprop I’d be rolling with if I had the money.
Can you imagine Celera 500L with a super fuel efficient small turboprop engine like this? The combo will be so monstrously efficient, it will break the universe in half.
I don’t see how the much higher fuel burn makes sense to light aircraft owners, not to mention the high cost+maintenance. I don’t beleive the 12gph burn rate at all.
You obviosly understand the trade-offs why little turbines don't exist. In the lower horsepower recips beat the stars out of turbines and they are very reliable. For the higher horsepower turbines are the only thing that make sense. In between it's pick your poison.
@@jackt6112 Hi! I was literally born into the aviation industry, GA. I've seen so many potential engines come and go unfortunately. It's a pity that we don't have any big changes as on the automobile side, of course they have a lot more money. A late friend of mine flew Junkers aircrafts with Junkers opposed two stroke Diesel engines in the early forties. very good specific fuel consumption. He was a chief test pilot of Junkers. After the war, all the money went into turbines of one sort or the other. Best greetings from Sweden.
@@rudolfabelin383 I started out as an aviation mechanic for the military and then the academy and flight school. For small aircraft, I've owned a Skyhawk but love the Mooney. People that say turbines are simple don't live in the real world. A small, practical, low-cost turbine is an oxymoron. The problem with small turbines is they are difficult to scale down well with regard to efficiency and cost, plus it's more than just hours. Each start costs you money. Weight has to be awfully important for smaller turbines to make sense which is why you only see them in smaller helicopters and even then you need to keep them busy making real money. The little turbines are not more reliable than a recip. Even the little Allisons were certified looong before they deserved to be. IMO the PT-6 is the base. It's going to require a technology breakthrough such as molded ceramic parts for a GA engine to have any promise, and even then, there is nothing cheap about the fuel control, gearing, etc.
From the schematic it looks like they took pieces from a turbocharger, added a gear box, and some kind of power recovery device (recuperator) to use the exhaust gas for add on efficiency. Compare this engine to the Rolls Royce, former Allison turbine engine, used in several helicopters and adapted to fixed wing aircraft. When I was servicing them in Vietnam it was called the T-63 A5A. It was limited to 317 hp by the transmission in the OH-6A. 600 hp was required to turn the compressor. The engine weighed 171 pounds when ready to install in the Hughes helicopter. They were very reliable, although I do have a photo to prove they were not quite bullet proof.
Definitely wish them great luck in bringing this to market. It's vaporware for now, but it all sounds plausible so it should be great to have this working on actual aircraft! For anyone interested in learning more about turbine engines, I can highly recommend the AgentJayZ channel.
An $80k engine that probably won't come anywhere close to currently claimed performance numbers that cranks out less power than a $60k twin turbo piston engine while burning more fuel... not exactly a game changer.
If it's not built the weight and fuel burn are hypothetical and you know they didn't guess to the high side. 12.5gph to make 180hp isn't really overly mpressive compared to old engines and doesn't beat the already certified compression ignition diesels!
Can't see the value. The UL520is weighs 108 Kg (237.6 lbs - 35 lbs. less than the TurboAero), and has 200 hp on takeoff, 150 hp cruise at 11 GPH, which is 0.44 BSFC. It's also a 6 cylinder, which means smoother than a 4-banger (though admittedly, not as smooth as a turbine). The UL520T is a turbocharged version that has 220 hp, and 220 hp all the way up to 15 K', which weights about the same as the TurboAero, and the UL520iS costs around $35,000.
@@spency787 Well, I think you overstate how cheap Jet-A is. It certainly is not half the price to the GA world. I checked a number of local dromes in L.A. and one in Guymon, OK, and in all cases, Jet A was approx. 80-83% of the price of 100 LL. With the turbine getting 0.56 BSFC (TurboAero's unproven numbers, which are almost certainly the theoretical best value) vs. in an avgas engine in the 0.40-0.44 lbs/hp-hr range, (actual experienced values running LOP of many engines) the gas engine. That means you are using 72-78% of Jet-A fuel consumption (by weight) in the TurboAero, all of which means that there is no fuel cost advantage to using the TurboAero - it works out pretty much that the fuel cost comparison is a push and I would estimate even favors 100LL engine over TurboAero. I am not against Jet-A per se. If the Higgs Diesel ever comes to fruition, which they say would have 0.40 BSFC, that would make a lot of sense: low weight, many more smaller power pulses, greater density fuel, etc, that would indeed make sense.
@@gradytalbot9101 My apologies I should have explained that I’m from the U.K. My local field sells JET A1 at £0.72 ($0.99*) per litre and 100LL Avgas at £1.65 ($2.27*) so more than double on this side of the Atlantic! 😳. (*Prices as of 1st Sept 2021)
@@spency787 That does explain it. I also gotta think that continued development of Jet-A burning engines, whether two stroke or four stroke, is certainly the future, and if not soon, it will be in due course. EPS was developing a six cylinder diesel that had a BSFC of 0.32, or so, (they claim BSFC 0.29 at horsepowers less than 200). Man, a compression ignition engine burning a BSFC in the low 0.3's would have to be nirvana - great range and low fuel costs. The Higgs diesel (two stroke spark ignition) claims 0.4 BSFC, which would be great all by itself. The Higgs diesel is an injected two stroke that is going to have a pretty constant air supply, so it is always running lean of peak, meaning no fuel waste, so should get have a pretty constant BSFC regardless whether on takeoff, climb, or cruise.
It’s amazing to me that in this day and age we can’t build a motor for general aviation that’s not more reliable than a well made auto motor. I’m sure one day it’ll happen. Maybe it’s this one. But like I said in replying to another comment, we’ve had small turbine engines for decades. Look at the many uses- we had a power cart in the Air Force called a dash 60 to start our fighters. It was a small turbine motor. We use small turbines for APUs. We have small turbines for RC aircraft. Why has this not happened yet? This should increase reliability and it’s going to be a money maker. Wonder why it’s taken so long. It’s going to be as much as a complete avionics upgrade so not too painful for aviation owners financially. This is exciting.
@@TurbAero what advantage does this engine offer realistically over the engine from PBS Velka Bites? How do we know it’s not going to be another Innodyn Turbine letdown? How can you realistically expect those low fuel burn numbers when just on pure thermodynamics a smaller engine will have a much higher specific fuel consumption?
Prob not on the Risen. this engine is is 270 lbs... and the heaviest engine in the risen is currently the rotax 915is (140hp) 167lbs... That plane flies incredible by the way 210Kn TAS @9000ft. These look good for a v-twin!
@@superskullmaster We anticipate that our BSFC will be around 0.56 lbs/hp/hr at 10,000' 180hp, while the TP100 offers 0.90 lbs/hp/hr at their cruise power of 188hp. This represents a significant advantage to the Talon in fuel efficiency The Talon should cost less than the TP100. We have had reports from operators of the TP100 that there are some technical issues with the engine that require more periodic maintenance. However, we need to validate these advantages by proving our specifications and performance figures through demonstration. We plan to be able to do that early next year. Please give us time to follow our project plan to achieve that. The thermodynamics that you refer to probably doesn't take into consideration the recuperated Brayton cycle. Please research (modern) recuperator technology so that you have an understanding of the technology we are integrating into our engine and the effect that it has on the fuel efficiency of the engine. Once you've done that, we would be happy to engage in discussion around the technology.
Turbo props are so much more reliable , i know conversation done to the Pilatus porter they had to extend the nose length tot get the CoG right cos they are so small and light by comparison. that seems quite heaven maybe they have bulked up the engine :)
Granted I'm a total luddite when it comes to turboprop engines, but what's the advantage of this over say an Allison 250? According to the interwebs the Allison is 173 pounds and has 380 shp. Price is certainly a win over the Allison but is performance of this new engine really that good comparatively? Genuinely curious, not slapping a new product around.
Thanks for your interest Mike. As you say, the price point will be significantly in favour of the Talon. This point alone will likely sway many towards the Talon. Cost of spare parts and cost of overhaul will be other factors.
@@AntonEMaes well, the fuel burn is much higher than what this engine forecasts so there’s that. Plus since the Subsonex is a thing, the core engine will survive so I think it has a much better chance than this engine. 🤷🏾♂️
Mike, what would be the performance considerations with this Engine vs. what you're already using? I understand your Sling is presently flying a Rotax 915 - could your aircraft's airframe handle the additional midflight aerodynamic stressors that a 200hp Engine like this one would generate? I'd be interested in What aircraft would this fit (could it fit the Sling? how about the Avocet or the Dark Aero?). Mainly, just curious what design considerations you'd also have to take into consideration if one were to retrofit this onto an Experimental kit aircraft??
@@harrynikuta3668 59 more HP at a similar power to weight ratio in a more simplified package. But with about double the fuel burn. I will be really great for some missions and worse than the Rotax in others. I want it just for the noises it makes on start up :P
With a turbine this small, what would be the throttle responsiveness? And how does that compare to equivalent 150 to 200 hp piston engines? And what is the power growth potential of this engine? How does its weight compare?
I'm not in the aviation industry but really enjoy it and wish I had the time and money to get into it but being a OTR Truck that is a really hard thing to do but I digress. My out take of the price point of this engine is that $80k is definitely a nice wish full thinking. Due to current market values materials that would be needed to make this turbine engine. My guess when this turbine engine is able to come to market. You'd most likely be looking at a price point of $120k - $180k due to inflation and chip shortages that they would need for their computer control modules. But if they are truly able to keep it near that $80k mark when they come to market with it. It definitely will be a engine of envy amongst pilots and aircraft owners in the light craft section of aviation. It might even cause an upset in the light craft market in a way that it would cause a lot of light craft prices to go up because of this turbine engine that could be shoe horned into place. But honestly. Only time will tell what will happen.
Four years ago they were saying this would weigh 80 lbs. That would have been especially impressive at $80,000. At 270 lbs certified, it will be competing with the O-360. Certified, at that price, it will do well, but I doubt for experimentals. Edge Performance rebuilds (or they did) Yamaha Apex snowmobile engines, getting 200hp on 140lbs and half the price. Using this engine would make for a slick aircraft, and likely a more reliable one, but it seems that with modestly powered experimental aircraft, saving only 50 lbs won't tip the scales, and that pricy turbo props will only begin to get appealing into the 500 hp range, overtaking the LS and similar auto conversions. I think this engine would really shine if certified and used on a pressurized light twin design to get good high altitude performance and fuel consumption.
1000 hour TTBO for $80K @ 200 HP is not deal by any stretch even if you fly high alt. Compared to a IO360 producing 200 HP with a t TTBO @ 2000 hours for approx $30k. Sure it will not produce the same at 10K feet and above but the cost and the fuel burn does not justify.
It's interesting. It's looks nice but also rather incomplete. I wouldn't call 80grand cheap but it's not entirely unworkable. I would much prefer a turbofan jet of similar size though. It's both simpler, lighter and a lot quieter and can sit at the back instead of a front noise maker.
I was looking at these to replace the Rotax 915s engines for the Tecnam p2006t. They are both too heavy 270# and too pricey ... $85K ouch! But that config would still make a sweet aircraft. Yeah, looking to get away from Avgas but that weight sux. ;)
If their numbers stay the same it would have more power and torque at all altitudes and if fuel burn is as advertised it would be cheaper per hour due to the cost of the fuel being cheaper and can get as high as 20k @140hp. Then with the turboprop we have the reliability, smoother ride no vibrations, quieter, more torque better take off, climb and landing performance as well as beta, a higher altitude at 20k, it’s lighter, more aerodynamic front section therefore faster and quieter. And be the envy of people like you 😉.
@@ashsmitty2244 ULPower 520T has 220HP takeoff power and maintains that to 15,000'. It can still make 200HP past 20,000'. Pull the prop back to 2400 and drop the power to cruise and it'll still run 180+ hp. BSFC is 0.48 lbs/hp/h for the ULPower compared to 0.5628 lbs/hp/h for the stated performance of the TurbAero. 17.25% more fuel by weight for the same power, although jet fuel is ~12% denser so it's 0.084 gal/hp/h for the turbine compared to 0.08 gal/hp/h for the piston engine. On something as weight-limited as the Dark Aero the weight of fuel is a huge factor. And I'm not gonna envy anything about a Dark Aero. As much as I wanted to love the Dark Aero, and even considered dropping the cash to put in a pre-order, I decided that it's just not very practical. The SAF (spousal approval factor) is just too low in a plane that you practically wear and that has very limited baggage space. Not to mention the realization that by the time the damn things are available and I'd have one built, the possibility of having to haul around some crotch goblins is a very real concern. The Dark Aero also has no lightning protection -- composite airframes usually get a metal mesh embedded on the outside -- and static wicks will be useless without that conductive layer. There's also no option for anti-ice, which is a huge factor for a fast cross-country plane. There's also the question of how long can you realistically sit cramped into such a small cabin. Just because your plane can fly for 6+ hours doesn't mean you'll be able to tolerate that long in the cabin. If I were ten years younger and single I'd be all over the Dark Aero, and I guess that's the target market, but nowadays I'd take a used Cirrus or Cessna TTx over it in a heartbeat. I'm hoping there's a Piper Malibu somewhere in my future; or a Meridian/JetProp if I ever strike it rich. I can't say that a PA-24 has ever treated me wrong, so I guess I'm turning into a Piper fanboy. Alternatively, I'd gladly take a Lancair ES-P if one came on the market at a decent price, or ideally the RDD LX-7 but those are currently more than double my anticipated upgrade budget. Realistically I see a Bonanza or Mooney in my future to build time in a complex high performance, otherwise I'd be uninsurable and unsafe in a Malibu. There's also the cost of annuals in a Malibu. While the ~$250-300k price tag isn't too hard to swallow, the $10k+ annuals, $15k insurance, and larger hangar requirements make for some very expensive flying time unless you can log a lot of hours.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn SAF 😂😂😂 I just had to quickly respond to that because it’s gold. Mine is called the D.O. Director of Operations. Do this do that… I thought the UL520 that Dark Aero are using is 200 HP and NA. The engine you’re describing sounds fantastic, I had no idea the UL turbo was that good. To be honest I didn’t know it existed, thanks for sharing your knowledge, I have learned much
TBO target for this engine is 3000 hrs, just confirmed with Turbaero. More details on turb.aero. Stay tune for more updates.
@MojoGrip, It does look like a very nice engine , gearbox & prop assembly... But with the testing requirements, the tooling, the product liability requirements, the raw materials that will be necessary, the modification of the OEM airframe designs that this engine can work on, and to satisfy the safety regulations that the FAA mandates for certificated aircraft and the STC's that the certificated airframe manufacturer(s) would have to produce for this powerplant to be used on, would mean that the original price quote of $85 k. for the engine/gearbox/prop, would actually end-up being much higher... The STC alone without the powerplant or prop, to use this non OEM engine & prop on a certificated airframe that was originally designed for a 200+ HP powerplant probably would end-up costing well over $50k. This engine & prop should be available for LSA type Of EXPERIMENTAL aircraft only... Then, maybe the people making this engine/gearbox/prop combo will have a better chance at finding buyers for it... Because there are already used certificated planes available, that already have 200+ HP engines, that will probably end-up co$ting much less , and take much less time to prepare ,than to modify a plane to take an engine like this... It would not surprise me if the Cirrus that this engine was targeted to be used on, would end-up costing the owners at least another $250k. (Probably more) and at least 3 months to install and meet all requirements that a very courageous I.A. would approve... My guess is after viewing all the trouble and co$t to make a mod like this, the potential customer would start looking at Mooney's, Bonanza's, 210's, etc...Another question about doing mods to certificated planes is , which insurance company will carry it, and how much will that insurance cost?How many I.A.'s /FBO's are available, to do annual inspections on a plane with these types of modifications? How much will those annuals cost? Where does one go to find FAA/PMA certified parts for an aircraft that was heavily modified? How much will those parts cost? Will non OEM FAA/PMA parts still be available in another 10-15 years? There are so many factors to consider, when taking on modifications on aircraft, ESPECIALLY certificated aurcraft... Leave it stock Amigo...
@@michaelmartinez1345 Will be used and proven on Experimentals initially. Certified versions would certainly cost a lot more and would likely sink the project financially as has happened to many new engine designs like Mistral and Orenda.
@@rv6ejguy Right on!!! Yes , my guess is the experimental aircraft market would be an excellent place to market such an engine... Is it a centrifugal flow compressor? If so, is it a twin stage impeller? What is the reduction gearing ratio? My guess is the people with Lasairs, RV's , Glassairs & other high-end SLA's might be developing some real interest in this unit....
Its not that impressive. The engine I am using for an experimental helicopter will use less that 43lph at 150kw and weigh less. You may think its good compared to lycoming and continental, but turbine engines are a poor design for aircraft everything considered. Aviation engines are 50 years behind in technology. My engine also makes that power up to 13500 METRES, not feet.
@@chippyjohn1 and what engine is that?
I'll believe it when I see an actual working version.
😁😁
We can always hope it works out.
Ill put it on my BD-5, LOL
I won’t get excited about any clean sheet power plant until there are about 100 built. Then, it’ll have sufficient support to be a real option.
1000 TBO kinda sucks.
Output / fuel burn / cost … a 390 is still a better overall option I’m thinking.
Might be fun in a glassair 1, cassutt, long ez or other small and slippery airframes that could get high and go fast.
Does it have beta?
@@christianjforbes I'm with you. Only 1000 hours on TBO? That fuel burn sounds wildly optomistic, especially at that low altitude.
One thing I learned from attending 50 years of Oshkosh: There are MANY "dream ideas" there. Few actually happen. Don't put any money on these unless you don't care if you lose it. I DO hope this comes to fruition, though.
100% agree. Been going the last 30 years and many of these companies are searching for investors but never pan out. My favorite is the company with a new piston engine complete with dyno sheet that defies the 5250 formula.
I don’t have a problem with your thought and I understand exactly what you’re talking about, but this isn’t a great jump in technology but rather a very good idea. I don’t understand why this hasn’t already happened. Hell we have turbines for RC aircraft. Why haven’t they been able to perfect a small turbine for an aircraft? Heck we had all kinds of small turbines in power supplies for starting jets in the Air Force for decades! Small Turbines for APUs. Why in Gods name hasn’t this already been done? It seems like Mojo said this would be a game changer and and if it works no way anyone loses money on this project
@@guggyp Simple, fuel consumption of small turbine engines suck, most are nothing more than glorified turbochargers with a burner between the compressor and the power disk. Their simple design makes them light and functional enough to use as apu's of fixed output, where temperatures and loads are generally static. If used in a propulsion environment they can have short lifespans due to mechanical and thermal stress, and again their just too small to run efficiently at this atmospheric pressure. giving them absurdly high fuel burns.
@@Flightstar ok. I’m just wondering if they can start jet engines on restarts why not as a small aircraft engines
Are they that poor in maintenance and lifespan?
Engines look so simple and clean until you add the plumbing.
Same with car engines
2:36 “the weight of the engine is only 270 horsepower” lol
It's a regular thing...
Two times at least. To excited to think..
He quotes contradictory numbers, but so enthusiasticly.
From 3D plastic model to operational new-design turboprop engine in less than 2 years!
That's quite ambitious, especially for a small company.
It will take the FAA twenty years to approve it.
They could print most of it quite quickly
CAD design, simulation and analysis shortens everything.
I will believe it when I see it. I’m still waiting for the BD5
???? As a Certified factory build?? I don't understand your comment. You must know that have to build your own.. I knew a guy named Dave that build one in Portland Oregon back in about 1974. People are still building them.. there is guy in Hillsboro OR pretty near flying his.. he is on youtube too.
@@jenniferwhitewolf3784 It's something like; promises, promises, given the BD5's history. Jim Bede was looking for that perfect powerplant too.
The AIRPLANE is flying, it just needs an ENGINE. There's been a number of different types used.
Another uninformed individual. BD-5 kits are out there. But the plane itself was just poorly deigned. If you mean the jet engine BD-5J then there are out there too if you want to spend $100k on a toy with no range or payload.
You missed the boat on the BD5 a couple decades ago, my friend.
Once certified, this will be a game changer! Point of correction though...there are quite a few small turbine engines flying around like the TP100 turbine from Turbine solutions and the 90hp turbine that's optional in the Mosquito XE helicopter.
Repurposed APUs aren't really on par with a purpose-built turboprop engine.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn a jet engine is a jet engine whether it's an APU or ground power unit. As long as it goes thru the rigours of certification, no one will care if it powered a go cart or avionics systems
@@rmshivo they'll care how fuel efficient it is...
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn agreed. So for now we wait to see if we'll hv an engine 2023 and the numbers it'll put out.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn Is the TP100 a repurposed APU? I did not think so.
Ive been expecting this for the last 10 years......its about time
Cool, until I get to considering these points:
The BSFC of a small turbine engine has _never_ come close to a piston engine. Bigger is better. The highly-developed P&W PT-6 isn't as efficient as this engine is claimed to be.
Unless the engine is severely de-rated (that is, has a higher thermodynamic capacity then the 200 hp indicates), it cannot likely produce 75% power at 10K feet. I do suspect this to be the case, however.
Jet-A weighs >10% more per gallon, so even at the same fuel burn you'll lose useful load; add about 11%, so your 240 lbs full gasoline tanks will now weigh over 265 lbs.
The Allison/R-R 250-C20B variant weighs much less, makes _double_ the power, and is well developed, yet this new engine claims > 20% BSFC improvement.
Given only my experience (getting huge turbofan engines FAA/EASA certified is part of my day job, and specific fuel consumption and low emissions are always critical items) and research, my prediction is that the engine will be short in life and high in fuel burn.
Keeping turbines alive for thousands of hours is a difficult chore; for small ones, the number of cycles is more critical.
Piston engines usually max out at 75% at 10,000 ft, a turbine by definition, is their own build in turbo charger , so I can believe it will do better. The PT-6 is less efficient with the reversed flow, but that suits quite a few helicopter designs and they are quieter. I heard straight thru designs like Garrett, the noise drive me nuts and it encourage public restrictions. This engine is at the starting point, give it time, and more important, money for further developments.
I was and kinda still am skeptical, however these engines are going to utilize a recuperator which will be a game changer as far as fuel burn is considered. That also explains why it weighs more than “comparable” turbines.
Hello Kenny. Our Talon is designed incorporating recuperator technology. Could I please suggest that you research recuperator technology associated with small gas turbine engines. That research will give you an insight into how we will be achieving our fuel efficiency. The drawback of incorporating recuperator technology is that being a high density microchannel heat exchanger, it weighs a lot. We have sacrificed much but not all of the weight advantage of a traditional turbine over a piston engine in order to bring the fuel efficiency closer to the piston engine.
In addition, our engine is de-rated at sea level. It should maintain 200hp to 8,000' before power available will reduce. We calculate at 10,000' that it should have over 180hp available.
If takeoff weight is a limiting factor for a flight, the additional SG of the JetA is a disadvantage. But in your example above i.e. 240lbs of Avgas versus 265 lbs for JetA, with the installed weight of the Talon being probably 50 lbs less than an equivalent IO-360, the Talon plus its heavier JetA still offers more payload capability than the IO-360 equipped aircraft.
Of course, we are still in the developmental phase and the engine has not yet run. Please give us time to get the Talon on the test stand (early next year) and we anticipate that we will be able to clarify and validate all specifications and performance capabilities at that time.
I am ex U.S. Air Force Jet Engine Mechanic ( GE F-108/ CFM-56-2, GE F-110 and P&W F-100 PW-200, 220s ). Why did the General Aviation world not jump on the Boeing T50 and T60 light turboprop and turboshaft engines from since the 50s and 60s? They worked great on the U.S. Navy's QH-50D anti-submarine drone helicopters and the Cessna O-1 " Bird Dog " light observation plane turboprop variants.
@@leonswan6733 Lycoming for instance has more lawyers than engineers on the payroll.
Seems like a cool concept! Careful with the "CG stays the same" comment. It may be near the same weight, but the extended nose means more weight forward with the arm, so you have the weight of the nose PLUS the weight of the propeller farther forward, which could be a big change to the arm and moment. But for $80k??? That's awesome!
I seriously hope this comes to market. "Game changer" may be the most over-used phase in the industry but if this happens it really would be just that
With the lighter engine further forward, the effective weight would be the same, that's why the CG is the same.
Specs sounds really great but once they have an actual running prototype I'll bet those fuel flow numbers will go up by at LEAST 50%.
Nope.
As well it's pricey point
Maybe. Maybe not. The one thing that separates this engine from other aircraft turbines is the use of a recuperator. This has the ability to GREATLY improve efficiency. But it also increases size and weight. And most importantly, nobody has ever built a recuperated gas turbine that is truly reliable. This last factor is going to be the crux of the whole project.
That is a game changer for light and experimental. With a variable pitch propeller: its Reno racing!
Love to hear the start up and running.
Hi Mike from Sydney Australia
🌏🇦🇺
I have a Solar T-62 with the same performance/fuel burn, they've been around for ever.
running? where did you see that?
It is a LOOOOONG way from 3D printed mock-up to a proper turboprop engine. I really hope they succeed. The concept is fantastic, but a mountain of engineering ahead.
Good luck to them.
Looks to me engineering is done. Which is the easy part. Building it at any volume is the hard part.
I was a military pilot and went through teething issues with turbines and it definitely is a tense situation for a long time. We weren't their test pilots even though it seemed like it. They test a lot of fixes that don't work very well or make things worse before they become trustworthy enough to not always in the back of your mind.
Sounds like Deltahawk all over again! A decade later and still hasn’t shipped!
I understand that it's speeds while descending straight down are very impressive.
Those are amazing fuel burn specs! Lovin these small turboprop / IC engine replacements. AFAIC this is the powerplant of the future for everything! For automotive use it would make a light and effective low-emission generator for hybridized use.
The price will have to drop by a factor of around 20 before this engine could become a viable option for automotive use.
Smoooooth... and no rods letting loose👍👍. These might make a really neat axial twin.. one in front, one in rear.
Get this thing STCd, and I can see a ton of old twins getting a new lease on life. I’m looking at you, Cessna 310.
Unfortunately, if you put a turbine on a CAR 3 OR FAR 23 certificated twin you now must comply with all the SFARs on life limited airframe components. That’s why no one has a(successfully) done it.
@@rexmyers991 What about getting one into the experimental category? What are the limitations there?
@@autophile525i there are four (I think) categories of ‘experimental’ . The one most are familiar with is Experimental - Amateur Built. You can fly IFR, carry passengers, etc. But the airframe has to be at least 51 percent amateur built. This rules out modifying a twin. The other types are like Experimental Research, Experimental Exhibition, Experimental Light Sport. You could put the 310 in research or exhibition but you can’t carry passengers. I owned a 310B for seven years then got a 310R. I flew the R for 18 years. LOVED it. Best General Aviation twin I ever flew. Only twin better was the Boeing 757. But the FAA said I couldn’t fly it any more (aged out). I alway thought if I could find Diesels to put on, I could burn Jet A, get way better fuel consumption and not worry about Life Limited airframe parts.
@@rexmyers991 Thank you for the rundown!
@@rexmyers991 You need to upload some story time videos. I’ll bet you have some good ones!
So this is a mock-up of an idea. Should hit the market in 10 years.
Why do I feel that engine is gonna end up in some crazy-ass car?! But seriously, you cover the smaller end of general aviation very very well! Thanks!
Not so sure about a car. $80000 for 200HP is ALOT when you can get 300+HP from a junkyard LS.
I wouldn’t hold your breath. Remember Innodyne Turbines? Of course not.
Hope they make a 250 version if they do they can have my kidneys !
Our follow-on product is intended to be around 300hp. Would that suit you?
@@TurbAero I think the 300hp version is the only one that stands a chance. The lower the HP the higher the SPC.
@@superskullmaster That's true in general, but I wouldn't mind a 150hp turboprop if the SPC is 15% higher than the 915
turboprops break down a lot and starting one is a pain in the ass
What planet do you live on?
A smooth, quiet turbine with 200 HP at under 13 GPH and less than 300 pounds?? What's not to like about that?? As they prove the engine in service the TBO will increase further reducing the cost of operation. Keep and eye on this one.
This is what we need to stick in our twin Sling!! Let’s do it Mojo
I believe this engine will never fly but still interesting how people are amazed by a trestle and a table full of numbers...
why not? there are 90hp gas turbine engines flying on experimentals, so why not?
To your point, I was nearly taken in by Jim Bede's letter in 1968 promising to build an aircraft for a very low price all that was required, a small deposit to secure a delivery slot. As you may know, that aircraft was stalled in the certification process and likely due to a
cash shortfall the project was sold to Grumman and became the Yankee, but that "very low" price evaporated.
This is too good to be true and I'm sure we would all believe it when we see it fly.
Efficiency is obtained by the heat exchanger preheating compressed air thus saving the corresponding amount of fuel. The real challenge is to minimise pressure drop thru the HE which here seems to be annular.
That Pontiac Eggshell Blue... 👍
Mike this motor and the DeltaHawk will be the end of Lycoming and Continental as we know it!!
Lycoming has a fadec E2 engine they want $120,000 aint nobody paying that when for $80,000 or $90,000 these are available ❤😊
These Motors will hold folks til the electric motors catch up❤
Mojo, the PBS TP100 only weighs 157 pounds wet for 241SHP and costs around $120K. 1500 TBO, that’s the turboprop I’d be rolling with if I had the money.
Unless your original engine was 160ish Lb wouldn’t that screw up the W&B on your plane?
Can you imagine Celera 500L with a super fuel efficient small turboprop engine like this? The combo will be so monstrously efficient, it will break the universe in half.
I don’t see how the much higher fuel burn makes sense to light aircraft owners, not to mention the high cost+maintenance. I don’t beleive the 12gph burn rate at all.
In my head as I crunch some very rough numbers, I'm getting 16GPH for 200 HP.
A turbo prop for a Cirrus
Or
An Engine swap for my Altima
" Forever forever forever ever forever?!?! "🎶🎤🤣🤣🤣🤣 Thx for sharin brotha man as always. #SALUTE✊🏾✈️😎
This looks suspiciously like the mockup I saw at Oshkosh 20 years ago.
Great concept! I think the RC Jet engine companies (Jet Cat, Jets Munt, Xicoy, AMT) could bring something like that to market.
3 or 4 Jetcat Turbines connected to a gearbox and turboprop.... thirst little engines though.
Lycoming io-360 = 256lbs. Turboprop has only 4 moving parts? Does that include the reduction drive?
Wow... Would like to see this come to market!
Hi Mike!
Cool if this works. The specific fuel consumption is always a problem the smaller the turbine is.
You obviosly understand the trade-offs why little turbines don't exist. In the lower horsepower recips beat the stars out of turbines and they are very reliable. For the higher horsepower turbines are the only thing that make sense. In between it's pick your poison.
@@jackt6112 Hi!
I was literally born into the aviation industry, GA. I've seen so many potential engines come and go unfortunately. It's a pity that we don't have any big changes as on the automobile side, of course they have a lot more money. A late friend of mine flew Junkers aircrafts with Junkers opposed two stroke Diesel engines in the early forties. very good specific fuel consumption. He was a chief test pilot of Junkers. After the war, all the money went into turbines of one sort or the other.
Best greetings from Sweden.
@@rudolfabelin383 I started out as an aviation mechanic for the military and then the academy and flight school. For small aircraft, I've owned a Skyhawk but love the Mooney. People that say turbines are simple don't live in the real world. A small, practical, low-cost turbine is an oxymoron. The problem with small turbines is they are difficult to scale down well with regard to efficiency and cost, plus it's more than just hours. Each start costs you money. Weight has to be awfully important for smaller turbines to make sense which is why you only see them in smaller helicopters and even then you need to keep them busy making real money. The little turbines are not more reliable than a recip. Even the little Allisons were certified looong before they deserved to be. IMO the PT-6 is the base. It's going to require a technology breakthrough such as molded ceramic parts for a GA engine to have any promise, and even then, there is nothing cheap about the fuel control, gearing, etc.
Sick hearing about it let’s all get interested when it’s mounted and working in a plane. I can’t even fund one online working
Hell I was thinking at least $200k for a new turbine, and that was on the extreme low side. but $80k? Wow.
Pricey for an engine that doesn't exist, though.
It's pricey for a centrifugal
From the schematic it looks like they took pieces from a turbocharger, added a gear box, and some kind of power recovery device (recuperator) to use the exhaust gas for add on efficiency.
Compare this engine to the Rolls Royce, former Allison turbine engine, used in several helicopters and adapted to fixed wing aircraft. When I was servicing them in Vietnam it was called the
T-63 A5A. It was limited to 317 hp by the transmission in the OH-6A. 600 hp was required to turn the compressor. The engine weighed 171 pounds when ready to install in the Hughes helicopter. They were very reliable, although I do have a photo to prove they were not quite bullet proof.
Sounds wonderful and it would be better to actually see that original prototype engine that does not yet appear on youtube.
Wow! That makes me wanna mojogrip my longEZ!
Cara essa turbininha gera 200hp incrivel tecnologia de ponta .totalmente limpa .maravilha
Definitely wish them great luck in bringing this to market. It's vaporware for now, but it all sounds plausible so it should be great to have this working on actual aircraft! For anyone interested in learning more about turbine engines, I can highly recommend the AgentJayZ channel.
That's a brilliant channel, to be sure.
It was a 3D Printed mockup.
Good to switch to jet juel. (Stunned that Leaded Avgas is still legal!)
It’s a great idea and it’ll be a game changer. I’ll be getting one ASAP and putting it in something like a Black Shape or similar.
An $80k engine that probably won't come anywhere close to currently claimed performance numbers that cranks out less power than a $60k twin turbo piston engine while burning more fuel... not exactly a game changer.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn Check out the pocket rocket. 450 SHP turboprop that burns 85-90 doing 270.
Your opinion is?
Cool; would be good to see it with all the a/c and other electronics wired to it.
Very interesting indeed, especially if they can actually meet the price and fuel burn estimates.
If it's not built the weight and fuel burn are hypothetical and you know they didn't guess to the high side.
12.5gph to make 180hp isn't really overly mpressive compared to old engines and doesn't beat the already certified compression ignition diesels!
Lol 3:30 that's what I was thinking. The reason you use them is that they do not stop.
Can't see the value. The UL520is weighs 108 Kg (237.6 lbs - 35 lbs. less than the TurboAero), and has 200 hp on takeoff, 150 hp cruise at 11 GPH, which is 0.44 BSFC. It's also a 6 cylinder, which means smoother than a 4-banger (though admittedly, not as smooth as a turbine). The UL520T is a turbocharged version that has 220 hp, and 220 hp all the way up to 15 K', which weights about the same as the TurboAero, and the UL520iS costs around $35,000.
Reliability should be higher in a turbine but agree it’s hard to pay the premium when a piston can do just a much for less…
Yes but you run turbines on Jet A1 which is half the price of Avgas so if you are flying lots of hours then there is a cost offset to consider.
@@spency787 Well, I think you overstate how cheap Jet-A is. It certainly is not half the price to the GA world. I checked a number of local dromes in L.A. and one in Guymon, OK, and in all cases, Jet A was approx. 80-83% of the price of 100 LL. With the turbine getting 0.56 BSFC (TurboAero's unproven numbers, which are almost certainly the theoretical best value) vs. in an avgas engine in the 0.40-0.44 lbs/hp-hr range, (actual experienced values running LOP of many engines) the gas engine. That means you are using 72-78% of Jet-A fuel consumption (by weight) in the TurboAero, all of which means that there is no fuel cost advantage to using the TurboAero - it works out pretty much that the fuel cost comparison is a push and I would estimate even favors 100LL engine over TurboAero.
I am not against Jet-A per se. If the Higgs Diesel ever comes to fruition, which they say would have 0.40 BSFC, that would make a lot of sense: low weight, many more smaller power pulses, greater density fuel, etc, that would indeed make sense.
@@gradytalbot9101 My apologies I should have explained that I’m from the U.K. My local field sells JET A1 at £0.72 ($0.99*) per litre and 100LL Avgas at £1.65 ($2.27*) so more than double on this side of the Atlantic! 😳. (*Prices as of 1st Sept 2021)
@@spency787 That does explain it. I also gotta think that continued development of Jet-A burning engines, whether two stroke or four stroke, is certainly the future, and if not soon, it will be in due course. EPS was developing a six cylinder diesel that had a BSFC of 0.32, or so, (they claim BSFC 0.29 at horsepowers less than 200). Man, a compression ignition engine burning a BSFC in the low 0.3's would have to be nirvana - great range and low fuel costs. The Higgs diesel (two stroke spark ignition) claims 0.4 BSFC, which would be great all by itself. The Higgs diesel is an injected two stroke that is going to have a pretty constant air supply, so it is always running lean of peak, meaning no fuel waste, so should get have a pretty constant BSFC regardless whether on takeoff, climb, or cruise.
That is amazing! Are they really available today?
How would this Turbo Prop go in a Velocity Pusher single engine pls .
Ultra light weight
Wow! 12.6 gph is ambitious , well every body needs to have a dream. You can day anything on paper I would like to see a working engine.
This could be a game changer. I hope they succeed!
Turboprop without pressurization, why other than TBO and weight. Is that enough?
I hope they make more powerful models quickly. Awesome good luck to em
It’s amazing to me that in this day and age we can’t build a motor for general aviation that’s not more reliable than a well made auto motor. I’m sure one day it’ll happen. Maybe it’s this one. But like I said in replying to another comment, we’ve had small turbine engines for decades. Look at the many uses- we had a power cart in the Air Force called a dash 60 to start our fighters. It was a small turbine motor. We use small turbines for APUs. We have small turbines for RC aircraft. Why has this not happened yet? This should increase reliability and it’s going to be a money maker. Wonder why it’s taken so long. It’s going to be as much as a complete avionics upgrade so not too painful for aviation owners financially. This is exciting.
I wish you had a way to change hp out put from 200 - 300 hp now that would be a game changer !!!!
Rolls Royce has a small turbine too with a range of out put that is a great turbine with 3500 hrs TBO
"The weight of the engine is only 270 horsepower." I know you meant to say Pounds there. I just found it funny when you said it like that. lol
I read your comment literally he said it! Weird!
Would this fit a Velocity Twin or a Risen V tail?
That would be sweet.
Hi MAGA. Yes it would. We are already engaged with some Velocity owners about installing the Talon into Velocity aircraft including the V-Twin.
@@TurbAero what advantage does this engine offer realistically over the engine from PBS Velka Bites? How do we know it’s not going to be another Innodyn Turbine letdown? How can you realistically expect those low fuel burn numbers when just on pure thermodynamics a smaller engine will have a much higher specific fuel consumption?
@@superskullmaster they are using recuperator technology which increases efficiency.
Prob not on the Risen. this engine is is 270 lbs... and the heaviest engine in the risen is currently the rotax 915is (140hp) 167lbs... That plane flies incredible by the way 210Kn TAS @9000ft. These look good for a v-twin!
@@superskullmaster We anticipate that our BSFC will be around 0.56 lbs/hp/hr at 10,000' 180hp, while the TP100 offers 0.90 lbs/hp/hr at their cruise power of 188hp. This represents a significant advantage to the Talon in fuel efficiency The Talon should cost less than the TP100. We have had reports from operators of the TP100 that there are some technical issues with the engine that require more periodic maintenance.
However, we need to validate these advantages by proving our specifications and performance figures through demonstration. We plan to be able to do that early next year. Please give us time to follow our project plan to achieve that.
The thermodynamics that you refer to probably doesn't take into consideration the recuperated Brayton cycle. Please research (modern) recuperator technology so that you have an understanding of the technology we are integrating into our engine and the effect that it has on the fuel efficiency of the engine. Once you've done that, we would be happy to engage in discussion around the technology.
Turbo props are so much more reliable , i know conversation done to the Pilatus porter they had to extend the nose length tot get the CoG right cos they are so small and light by comparison. that seems quite heaven maybe they have bulked up the engine :)
Put it on a Cherokee! Wanna hear that jet whine
Looks like an RC Turbine
Granted I'm a total luddite when it comes to turboprop engines, but what's the advantage of this over say an Allison 250? According to the interwebs the Allison is 173 pounds and has 380 shp. Price is certainly a win over the Allison but is performance of this new engine really that good comparatively? Genuinely curious, not slapping a new product around.
Thanks for your interest Mike. As you say, the price point will be significantly in favour of the Talon. This point alone will likely sway many towards the Talon. Cost of spare parts and cost of overhaul will be other factors.
PBS Velka Bites already has a turboprop in this range. It uses the same core engine as the jet on the SubSonex.
wow 20% more power and 1/2 the weight. I wonder how long it lasts
@@AntonEMaes well, the fuel burn is much higher than what this engine forecasts so there’s that. Plus since the Subsonex is a thing, the core engine will survive so I think it has a much better chance than this engine. 🤷🏾♂️
Daymmn! I was burning 30l/h of 95 octane @ 100mph @ 630m asl in a 4 cylinder Toyota. 47 l/h @ FL 100 for 150 horses is insane economy.
Mike, what would be the performance considerations with this Engine vs. what you're already using? I understand your Sling is presently flying a Rotax 915 - could your aircraft's airframe handle the additional midflight aerodynamic stressors that a 200hp Engine like this one would generate? I'd be interested in What aircraft would this fit (could it fit the Sling? how about the Avocet or the Dark Aero?). Mainly, just curious what design considerations you'd also have to take into consideration if one were to retrofit this onto an Experimental kit aircraft??
Looks like similar power to weight ratio to a Rotax 915is.
I actually don't know what's this turboprop's advantage over rotax
@@harrynikuta3668 59 more HP at a similar power to weight ratio in a more simplified package. But with about double the fuel burn. I will be really great for some missions and worse than the Rotax in others. I want it just for the noises it makes on start up :P
@@hobblyjig in this case, I would prefer pistons.
I wonder what swapping two of these onto a twin would do.
Give you two very thirsty turbines with less performance than existing turbocharged piston engines.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn assuming your pistons haven’t had any 🐎 escape the pen (which they most definitely have).
With a turbine this small, what would be the throttle responsiveness? And how does that compare to equivalent 150 to 200 hp piston engines? And what is the power growth potential of this engine? How does its weight compare?
"2-4 moving parts, total."
*My HPT blades would like to have a word with you*
I'm all seriousness, this is a great idea! I hope it catches on and gets STC'd for more airframes
OH! I feel a new Skyhawk swap coming on!!!!! Maybe even the Apache!
I'm not in the aviation industry but really enjoy it and wish I had the time and money to get into it but being a OTR Truck that is a really hard thing to do but I digress. My out take of the price point of this engine is that $80k is definitely a nice wish full thinking. Due to current market values materials that would be needed to make this turbine engine. My guess when this turbine engine is able to come to market. You'd most likely be looking at a price point of $120k - $180k due to inflation and chip shortages that they would need for their computer control modules. But if they are truly able to keep it near that $80k mark when they come to market with it. It definitely will be a engine of envy amongst pilots and aircraft owners in the light craft section of aviation. It might even cause an upset in the light craft market in a way that it would cause a lot of light craft prices to go up because of this turbine engine that could be shoe horned into place. But honestly. Only time will tell what will happen.
Four years ago they were saying this would weigh 80 lbs. That would have been especially impressive at $80,000. At 270 lbs certified, it will be competing with the O-360. Certified, at that price, it will do well, but I doubt for experimentals. Edge Performance rebuilds (or they did) Yamaha Apex snowmobile engines, getting 200hp on 140lbs and half the price. Using this engine would make for a slick aircraft, and likely a more reliable one, but it seems that with modestly powered experimental aircraft, saving only 50 lbs won't tip the scales, and that pricy turbo props will only begin to get appealing into the 500 hp range, overtaking the LS and similar auto conversions. I think this engine would really shine if certified and used on a pressurized light twin design to get good high altitude performance and fuel consumption.
Very interesting, I look forward to seeing it on aircraft!! Hope it works as advertised
🧐 My lycoming 360 generates the same 150 hp burning 7 gph with a 2000 tbo at half the purchase price
Turbines are roughly 10x more reliable than pistons.
Just imagine what that would do on a Long EZ or in a Prescott pusher !
Yeah! Mojo would grip his longEZ
Power and reliability are good features for a great engine. But they're not enough
What about response time at low altitude, low speed ?
The power of a 1000cc motorcycle engine
1000 hour TTBO for $80K @ 200 HP is not deal by any stretch even if you fly high alt. Compared to a IO360 producing 200 HP with a t TTBO @ 2000 hours for approx $30k. Sure it will not produce the same at 10K feet and above but the cost and the fuel burn does not justify.
Need to know fuel consumption at full power and at idle. Also, I am more interested in the recuperator design.
This is a $150k engine easy. 99% of the GA fleet will never see one installed.
Wow! nice to know I like Props over pistons. Thanks for sharing Mojo.
These guys are from Australia. This is expected fuel burn for a 200hp. No surprise. It’s still a problem for GA flying at low altitudes.
Wow
It's interesting. It's looks nice but also rather incomplete. I wouldn't call 80grand cheap but it's not entirely unworkable.
I would much prefer a turbofan jet of similar size though. It's both simpler, lighter and a lot quieter and can sit at the back instead of a front noise maker.
Mike you need to visit the manufacturer I would love to see the inside of that engine
Turbo prop mooney would be slick.
I was looking at these to replace the Rotax 915s engines for the Tecnam p2006t. They are both too heavy 270# and too pricey ... $85K ouch! But that config would still make a sweet aircraft. Yeah, looking to get away from Avgas but that weight sux. ;)
Would be great on a bush plane, like a Carbon Cub.
I’d love to put one in a Dark Aero.
and get lower fuel efficiency and less power than a ULPower 520T
If their numbers stay the same it would have more power and torque at all altitudes and if fuel burn is as advertised it would be cheaper per hour due to the cost of the fuel being cheaper and can get as high as 20k @140hp.
Then with the turboprop we have the reliability, smoother ride no vibrations, quieter, more torque better take off, climb and landing performance as well as beta, a higher altitude at 20k, it’s lighter, more aerodynamic front section therefore faster and quieter.
And be the envy of people like you 😉.
I should be their sales rep. Lol.
@@ashsmitty2244 ULPower 520T has 220HP takeoff power and maintains that to 15,000'. It can still make 200HP past 20,000'. Pull the prop back to 2400 and drop the power to cruise and it'll still run 180+ hp. BSFC is 0.48 lbs/hp/h for the ULPower compared to 0.5628 lbs/hp/h for the stated performance of the TurbAero. 17.25% more fuel by weight for the same power, although jet fuel is ~12% denser so it's 0.084 gal/hp/h for the turbine compared to 0.08 gal/hp/h for the piston engine. On something as weight-limited as the Dark Aero the weight of fuel is a huge factor.
And I'm not gonna envy anything about a Dark Aero. As much as I wanted to love the Dark Aero, and even considered dropping the cash to put in a pre-order, I decided that it's just not very practical. The SAF (spousal approval factor) is just too low in a plane that you practically wear and that has very limited baggage space. Not to mention the realization that by the time the damn things are available and I'd have one built, the possibility of having to haul around some crotch goblins is a very real concern.
The Dark Aero also has no lightning protection -- composite airframes usually get a metal mesh embedded on the outside -- and static wicks will be useless without that conductive layer. There's also no option for anti-ice, which is a huge factor for a fast cross-country plane. There's also the question of how long can you realistically sit cramped into such a small cabin. Just because your plane can fly for 6+ hours doesn't mean you'll be able to tolerate that long in the cabin.
If I were ten years younger and single I'd be all over the Dark Aero, and I guess that's the target market, but nowadays I'd take a used Cirrus or Cessna TTx over it in a heartbeat.
I'm hoping there's a Piper Malibu somewhere in my future; or a Meridian/JetProp if I ever strike it rich. I can't say that a PA-24 has ever treated me wrong, so I guess I'm turning into a Piper fanboy. Alternatively, I'd gladly take a Lancair ES-P if one came on the market at a decent price, or ideally the RDD LX-7 but those are currently more than double my anticipated upgrade budget. Realistically I see a Bonanza or Mooney in my future to build time in a complex high performance, otherwise I'd be uninsurable and unsafe in a Malibu. There's also the cost of annuals in a Malibu. While the ~$250-300k price tag isn't too hard to swallow, the $10k+ annuals, $15k insurance, and larger hangar requirements make for some very expensive flying time unless you can log a lot of hours.
@@ParadigmUnkn0wn SAF 😂😂😂 I just had to quickly respond to that because it’s gold.
Mine is called the D.O. Director of Operations. Do this do that…
I thought the UL520 that Dark Aero are using is 200 HP and NA. The engine you’re describing sounds fantastic, I had no idea the UL turbo was that good.
To be honest I didn’t know it existed, thanks for sharing your knowledge, I have learned much
love it for GA, but also, I’d love to put one in the Hyundai