130shp Turboprop engine for ultralights

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,752
Location
CT, USA
Not for ultralights, at least not by the US definition.

(Mod note: moved to the appropriate forum.)
 

Derswede

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2016
Messages
1,027
Location
Central North Carolina
Wonder what I could do with one on my CGS Hawk? VTOL? I imagine the climb rate would be good, until fuel ran out. Fuel consumption figures would be interesting to see. Pops, wanna do a SSSC with a turbine?

Derswede
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,531
Location
Upper midwest in a house
Fuel consumption figures would be interesting to see.
Since I doubt there will be any earth shattering improvements in efficiency over what we already have, let's average the numbers and we end up with: ~.6 lbs/eshp/hr. or;
.6 x 120 (realistic eshp) = 72 pph / 6.7 (fuel density) or 10.7 gph.
For recreational type cruising fuel burn should be in the 7-8 gph range or roughly equivalent to a C-172.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,624
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
Sorry for the nastiness, but:

There needs to be some sort of Capital Punishment law, or waterboarding, or electroshock penalty for any aviation company that hires one of those meme-wielding, Millennial-infested marketing companies to make their product videos using those horrendous, hackneyed, over-wrought f****g jump cuts every two seconds!

If the viewer never gets to actually comprehend what the product is, they're not "teased", they're annoyed. Don't they teach the concept of "credibility-killers" in marketing school any more?

How 'bout if I showed the company a quick half-second shot of my checkbook or a pile of money, but the sales department never get to ascertain if the actual amount of money in the pile is enough to consider me a potential customer?
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,890
Location
US
If the viewer never gets to actually comprehend what the product is, they're not "teased", they're annoyed. Don't they teach the concept of "credibility-killers" in marketing school any more?
But did you hear the music? The chanted vocals, the deep, authoritative drums? It is very inspiring!
If you go to the web page at the OPs link, don't expect more information.
Since I doubt there will be any earth shattering improvements in efficiency over what we already have, let's average the numbers and we end up with: ~.6 lbs/eshp/hr. or;
.6 x 120 (realistic eshp) = 72 pph / 6.7 (fuel density) or 10.7 gph.
For recreational type cruising fuel burn should be in the 7-8 gph range or roughly equivalent to a C-172.
Is that .6 based on very small turboprops? Turbine engines typically get less efficient as they get smaller.

Cost-wise, being able to run on Jet A would take a lot of the sting out of it.
 
Last edited:

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,294
Location
SC
Not for ultralights, at least not by the US definition.
Light Sport are currently not allowed to have turboprop engines either. I really like the Bristell line of aircraft and this engine might be a great fun factor on that airframe.

But I agree with VB that the video almost made me open hand slap my monitor across the room. Whoever did that so called promotional video needs to be looking for a job elsewhere ...

JOOMO (Just One Old Man's Opinion) ...
 

Pops

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Log Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2013
Messages
8,948
Location
USA.
For the JMR would be nice and IF I had room for more fuel tanks. My 16.6 gal wouldn'd last long. Almost forgot, IF I had the money.
Ready disliked the video.
 
Last edited:

Sockmonkey

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2014
Messages
2,073
Location
Flint, Mi, USA
Sticking that much power on an an ultralight, do you even need to bother with the prop? The jet thrust alone should be plenty when you dispense with the weight of the gearbox. Then save more wight by using shorter gear since prop strikes won't be a thing.
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,294
Location
SC
The Bristell type is under scrutiny here in Ireland and the UK because of a fatal crash that killed a good friend of mine. I wouldnt touch it.
Can you shed more light on this? From what I can ascertain the problem is spin recovery (or the lack of). From one article:

Following a number of fatal spin‑related accidents involving BRM Aero Bristell aircraft in Australia and overseas, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) reviewed the flight test data supplied by the aircraft manufacturer against the ASTM standard for which the manufacturer self‑certifies compliance. CASA found that there was not enough information in the initial and follow-up test data to provide them with assurance that the aircraft type meets the required standards for spin recovery.

Perhaps this should be it's own thread ...
 

TarDevil

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2010
Messages
848
Location
Coastal North Carolina/USA
Sorry for the nastiness, but:

There needs to be some sort of Capital Punishment law, or waterboarding, or electroshock penalty for any aviation company that hires one of those meme-wielding, Millennial-infested marketing companies to make their product videos using those horrendous, hackneyed, over-wrought f****g jump cuts every two seconds!

If the viewer never gets to actually comprehend what the product is, they're not "teased", they're annoyed. Don't they teach the concept of "credibility-killers" in marketing school any more?

How 'bout if I showed the company a quick half-second shot of my checkbook or a pile of money, but the sales department never get to ascertain if the actual amount of money in the pile is enough to consider me a potential customer?
I wondered why I wanted to hit something after watching that video.
Well put, VB!
 

PaulCarroll

New Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2021
Messages
1
I would say that, if this video did not appeal to you, then you are not their target market. Simple as that.
They are no doubt looking for young, high-tech types that want to do something "cool" and "be one of the first", nevermind if it makes any sense.
If the marketing doesn't appeal to you, then the product isn't for you.

I give anyone credit for TRYING to come up with new and innovative products. Sure, 98% are absolute failures, but without people willing to push to try to develop new stuff then the industry stagnates. Doubt me? How many Wright Flyers are being sold today? Where is their company today? You could even argue that their original airplane was a dismal market failure as they had to quickly abandon the design...

Not saying that you shouldn't be skeptical of all marketing (Caveat emptor, after all...) but no need to bash companies because their marketing style doesn't appeal to you.
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,890
Location
US
I think most people here who are criticizing the marketing are criticizing the marketing, not the entire company or the idea.
Maybe the idea deserves criticism, maybe it doesn't. Not much data to go on so far. Which brings us back to the marketing.
 

Victor Bravo

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jul 30, 2014
Messages
8,624
Location
KWHP, Los Angeles CA, USA
I know very very very little about turbine engines. What they have invented may be the greatest thing ever (I genuinely hope it is).

What I do know a fair bit about is communicating a message, or generating interest in something, or "compel the reader to action" as it says in all the mar-comm textbooks.

If they create a fantastic engine, and then fail miserably to let people know about it, or fail miserably to establish credibility in a market that is made up of people with more on the ball than the average person... they might need to hear about it and hopefully care enough to fix it.

Apologies if I came off harshly, but how they did the video annoyed me and perhaps a few others.
 
Top