130shp Turboprop engine for ultralights

HomeBuiltAirplanes.com

Help Support HomeBuiltAirplanes.com:

rv6ejguy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Messages
4,152
Location
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
It's cool that they've got this far and kudos for that.

I say the teaser videos are mostly useless though in actually selling a product like this. Might generate general interest but few would follow through and buy based on this video. Add some facts as this is clearly already flying- weight, cost, BSFC, TBO, availability wouldn't be too much to ask... That would generate more genuine buyer interest and less questions.
 

Twodeaddogs

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
1,099
Location
Dunlavin, County Wicklow,Ireland
Can you shed more light on this? From what I can ascertain the problem is spin recovery (or the lack of). From one article:




Perhaps this should be it's own thread ...
My friend, in his capacity as an instructor, was converting the new owners onto the type and each of the syndicate's members,bar one,turned up to be trained. In turn, each convertee went up with the instructor and carried out a local flight and demonstrated manouvers such as turns, practise forced landings and so on and also slow flight to the pre-stall buffet. By the late afternoon, it was time to wrap up and put the aircraft away when the last member turned up and asked to get in a flight.My friend obliged and off they went. The rest of the group went home. When the instructor didnt arrive home for dinner, his wife began to ring around to see if he had gone elsewhere. The airfield owner found that the aircraft had not returned before nightfall and began to alert the relevant authorities about a missing aircraft. In time, a SAR heli was tasked to check the local area with night vision equipment but failed to find them but they were found at dawn the next day, in the corner of a field. The aircraft was mostly intact and unfortunately,both men were dead. The aircraft had clearly fallen in a flat attitude and virtually all of it was in one small area. The GPS and other electronics had survived and were able to give details of the flight route and behaviour. It is still under investigation but I know that it is paying close attention to the C of G position.
 

addicted2climbing

Well-Known Member
Log Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2012
Messages
1,168
Location
Glendale, CA
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
Youd be out of gas by the time you taxied to the end of the runway with only 5 gallons...

That video is horrible... I was waiting for it to say...Next time on Survivor!
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,290
Location
SC
The aircraft had clearly fallen in a flat attitude and virtually all of it was in one small area. The GPS and other electronics had survived and were able to give details of the flight route and behaviour. It is still under investigation but I know that it is paying close attention to the C of G position.
I hate it for the loss of your friend.. My heart goes out to you.

I read about concerns with spin recovery ability (or the lack of) in a few stories found on the web. Until now I wasn't aware that this may be an issue with the design. I really appreciate you taking the time to pass this along.
 

EzyBuildWing

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
173
Location
Sydney NSW Australia
TWO of these turboshaft-engines on a Lockwood AirCam would be awesome and would win all the SuperSTOL competitions....
The free publicity would be massive, if handled right!
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
816
The OP was here a few minutes ago And should have posted the following , it really makes me think it’s some sort of scam?



Specifications STV 130 HP

Engine type: Turboprop

Compressor: 1-stage centrifugal flow compressor
Turbine: 1-stage gas generator power turbine and 1-stage free power turbine

Lenght: 555 mm
Diameter: 280 mm
Dry Weight: 30,00 kg

Maximum Power Output: 130 hp up to 33.000 ft
Air Mass Flow: 0,97 kg/sec
Overall Pressure Ratio: 3,5:1
Fuel consumption: 32kg/hr Diesel
Lubrication: 145gr/hr Turbine oil
Gearbox: Epicyclical, equipped with oil cooling radiator
Number of fuel injectors: 6
TBO at 2.000 hours or 10 years
TBO estimated cost € 13.000
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,696
Location
Fresno, California
The OP was here a few minutes ago And should have posted the following , it really makes me think it’s some sort of scam?



Specifications STV 130 HP

Engine type: Turboprop

Compressor: 1-stage centrifugal flow compressor
Turbine: 1-stage gas generator power turbine and 1-stage free power turbine

Lenght: 555 mm
Diameter: 280 mm
Dry Weight: 30,00 kg

Maximum Power Output: 130 hp up to 33.000 ft
Air Mass Flow: 0,97 kg/sec
Overall Pressure Ratio: 3,5:1
Fuel consumption: 32kg/hr Diesel
Lubrication: 145gr/hr Turbine oil
Gearbox: Epicyclical, equipped with oil cooling radiator
Number of fuel injectors: 6
TBO at 2.000 hours or 10 years
TBO estimated cost € 13.000
So, about 70 PPH fuel consumption. that puts a limit on your flight time on a lightweight aircraft unless you have lots of excess payload capacity.

I like it, but you have to go in knowing the trade offs you’ll have to make.
I wonder what the TBO overhaul costs are?
 

Vigilant1

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Supporter
Joined
Jan 24, 2011
Messages
5,872
Location
US
Fuel consumption: 32kg/hr Diesel
= 10.8 GPH
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.
(Bold added): Pretty darn close!
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
816
I see that the original poster peruses this thread regularly so why don’t you tell us how much is things gonna cost?

be aware then anything over about 20,000 bucks US it’s going to be declared a nonstarter here.
 

Daleandee

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 11, 2015
Messages
1,290
Location
SC
All I know is it would look great on the front of my current airplane ...
 

Pilot-34

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2020
Messages
816
I think two of them would look wonderful on my amphibian at $20,000 apiece
I think they would be plum ugly at $100,000 apiece
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,349
Location
Memphis, TN
For the US if it can’t power an RV8, they are not going to sell them. Not legal for our LSA classified aircraft which really is a small market here. It’s not going to be useable without a constant speed prop. A turbo prop is run at flight RPM and prop moved to change thrust. Governor keeps the engine at the power setting. With a jet, you throttle a governor not the engine. The rest of the world is exactly opposite in types of aircraft flown. 200 hp homebuilt turboprop at $60,000 would have a 5,000 person waiting list. Certified at $120,000 would be bigger since the cheapest out there now is about $250,000.
 

Dan Thomas

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
5,745
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.
Small turbine engines are notoriously inefficient. In the '90s there was a fellow at the Arlington fly-in marketing two versions of converted APU, with gearbox and controllable prop. The fuel burn numbers were horrible. The 150-hp version would have drained my Jodel's 15-gallon tank in less than an hour. It burned 18 GPH. A Lycoming O-320 burns 9.6 GPH at full throttle, redline RPM.
 

Turd Ferguson

Well-Known Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
5,522
Location
Upper midwest in a house
I think two of them would look wonderful on my amphibian at $20,000 apiece
I think they would be plum ugly at $100,000 apiece
That cost marker might be achievable if a vendor steps in a provides a rental power plant. $100/hr per engine - fly 20/hrs per yr and you’d spend your $40k (2 engines) in 10 yrs which is the calendar overhaul interval.
 

bmcj

Well-Known Member
HBA Supporter
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
13,696
Location
Fresno, California
Isn’t that what the last line in the specifications means? €13,000?
Oops, you are correct. I saw that price and just assumed it was the selling price, completely missing the words “TBO estimated cost”.

Now, after Brexit, England will have to show the price in pounds. That may prove a little confusing when you try to calculate the price per unit weight because the units will cancel each other out. 🤣
 

Dana

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 3, 2007
Messages
9,748
Location
CT, USA
Now, after Brexit, England will have to show the price in pounds. That may prove a little confusing when you try to calculate the price per unit weight because the units will cancel each other out.
Nah, it'll just be a dimensionless coefficient, Cpw...

I know the OP didn't really mean "ultralight", at least as it's defined in the US, but some years ago Larry Berg ("pFranc Larry" for those who were messing with Garmin handheld GPS's in the late 1990s) built and flew a turboprop ultralight, IIRC it was a converted start cart engine. No real reason except "just because".


Later, he put it on a Mosquito helicopter:


Sadly, he took his own life a few years later.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,349
Location
Memphis, TN
The general pluses for a turbine anything is less weight, more reliability, more power with less effort.

Less weight. I know a RR250 installation will be about 200 lbs less than a Lycoming 540. The trade is you can always carry 200 lb more fuel or one more person with the same fuel.

More reliability. In general that is true with vetted engines. Longer TBO. You can overhaul two Lycoming engines for about the same amount as a hot section for aRR250. 5% more reliability and longer maintenance intervals. For a non working aircraft is it worth it?

More power. It’s not fuel efficient power so you have to put it to use. You can go fast or lift heavy. With something like an RV, it’s now has the horsepower to fly at redline. You now can go as fast as the airplane can effortlessly. Have a Bearhawk fly effortlessly at gross. If you are not flying fast or at gross, you are wasting performance money.

A Turbine Cub on a sunset flight is not much cheaper to fly than a Barron doing the same thing. Cheap flying is not what a turbine does well.
 

TFF

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2010
Messages
14,349
Location
Memphis, TN
They are probably too powerful for an aircam without airframe work.

A friend of mine tried to buy one of the prototype engines with cash twice, and he has had plenty of face time with the designer, no engine. He literally had cash.

Looks like more of a copy of the Delta Hawk than clean sheet. We will see who has real money to spit out the first 50 without a profit for testing. No one ever wants to make that important step. If it was WW2 you could pitch an idea and let the gov pay the development costs. The gov would pay for the first 1000 test articles, and there would be a chance to sell 10,000 in two years. The accountants have a hard time letting go of 50 engines for $30,000 when on the books they technically cost a million a piece, unless they got a contract for 1000 for sure.
 

Latest posts

Top