Anyone want a jet?

Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum

Help Support Homebuilt Aircraft & Kit Plane Forum:

KC135DELTA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
112
I have followed PI for several years. I was quoted at $300,000 for 2 engines and all associated monitoring and FADEC hardware needed for an install.

It is planned to be a certified engine.
 

batesjoe

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
33
Location
Alamogordo
If the claimed specifications are accurate, this would be an attractive engine option for the venerable BD-5J. Something like 30 lbs lighter and 50 lbs thrust more than the TRS-18 engine originally installed. Add to that better fuel specifics and better range, I imagine it could be a fun concept for the right person.
 

batesjoe

Active Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
33
Location
Alamogordo
Another thought for the pocket rocket BD-5 turboprop is the engine used in the Konner helicopter. The TK-250 engine is 110 lbs in weight and 250 SHP and a SFC of somewhere around 0.72. That would also be quite a flying Lambo.
 

SVSUSteve

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2007
Messages
3,904
Location
Evansville, Indiana
.....and endless amount of a-holes....right ?
If you mean that as a slight at me, you're dead on. Insofar as I am intolerant of Ponzi schemes and delusional thinking that misdirect scarce money and resources, I guess to the true believers I am an a**hole. However, I am proud to be a realist even if it gets me labeled with such pejoratives.

Here is the GE engine guru SUVSteve calls f-cake
Anytime someone gets addressed as a "guru", it makes me think that the person doing the addressing- and probably the person being addressed- has started treating their pet project less like a scientific and engineering endeavor and more like a religious mission with cultish devotion.
 

autoreply

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
10,775
Location
Rotterdam, Netherlands
Price Induction
go to performance section

Anyone have any idea of the price of such an animal. This is truly in the heart of the size that is needed for personal transport single pilot stuff. Single for 2 seat, two engines for more.
I recall about 80K euro's from the Aero.

Let's first wait until it's flying. Until that time, an AMT Titan or similar...
 

Jay Kempf

Curmudgeon in Training (CIT)
Joined
Apr 13, 2009
Messages
4,421
Location
Warren, VT USA
I recall about 80K euro's from the Aero.

Let's first wait until it's flying. Until that time, an AMT Titan or similar...
80k is probably a marketing number for one part number. I am guessing by the time you add controls, fuel system controls, electronic package, then you would be near 100k by the time you had an installable thrust system in your shop ready to install. But still for those fuel consumption and thrust numbers that is the best thing that has ever been built in that size. No one has ever built a higher bypass system for that thrust range that I know of. Not really sure it has a market for large numbers but I hope I am wrong. Jets are just so much simpler than reciprocating engines that they should be available en masse by now.

Another question/observation: they are marketing the thing as fitting into a range of .3 Mach. But the numbers they are talking about in terms of mass flow and tail pipe velocity means that it could power something significantly faster than that. Let's say just for a guess that they have calculated the inlet air velocity at .3 Mach. If so why couldn't a very clever person design an inlet duct that slows air down at some higher airspeed to keep the inlet conditions happy. That way you get high speed and low inlet pressure. Assuming you have managed airframe drag accordingly that could make a pretty efficient cruise machine by better using the turbine at it's design RPM and flow conditions but getting more airspeed out of it. What this is is sort of a subsonic super cruise configuration for that particular condition. Should make 300+ mph cruise quite possible for the right airframe. Cruise for this engine is north of 200 lbs of thrust. That's quite a bit of drag budget for a small airframe.
 

KC135DELTA

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
112
80k is probably a marketing number for one part number. I am guessing by the time you add controls, fuel system controls, electronic package, then you would be near 100k by the time you had an installable thrust system in your shop ready to install. But still for those fuel consumption and thrust numbers that is the best thing that has ever been built in that size. No one has ever built a higher bypass system for that thrust range that I know of. Not really sure it has a market for large numbers but I hope I am wrong. Jets are just so much simpler than reciprocating engines that they should be available en masse by now.

Another question/observation: they are marketing the thing as fitting into a range of .3 Mach. But the numbers they are talking about in terms of mass flow and tail pipe velocity means that it could power something significantly faster than that. Let's say just for a guess that they have calculated the inlet air velocity at .3 Mach. If so why couldn't a very clever person design an inlet duct that slows air down at some higher airspeed to keep the inlet conditions happy. That way you get high speed and low inlet pressure. Assuming you have managed airframe drag accordingly that could make a pretty efficient cruise machine by better using the turbine at it's design RPM and flow conditions but getting more airspeed out of it. What this is is sort of a subsonic super cruise configuration for that particular condition. Should make 300+ mph cruise quite possible for the right airframe. Cruise for this engine is north of 200 lbs of thrust. That's quite a bit of drag budget for a small airframe.
I talked to them about this specifically. They claimed that there is no real "limit" other than staying subsonic, however for practical application purposes they designed them for mach .338 in terms of exhaust velocity (unmixed turbofan).

In other words the faster you go above .338 the thrust falls off exponentially to the point that they aren't really practical for high speed applications.
 

Aviator168

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2012
Messages
2,275
Location
Brookville, NY. USA
I think an efficient mini-turbofan/mini-turboprop is possible. I was looking at JetCat's turboprop addon years ago and did a revisit yesterday. I found the SFC (0.464 not that much more than a piston engine) to be interesting.
JetCat USA Turbines
 

BBerson

Light Plane Philosopher
Joined
Dec 16, 2007
Messages
15,534
Location
Port Townsend WA
I think an efficient mini-turbofan/mini-turboprop is possible. I was looking at JetCat's turboprop addon years ago and did a revisit yesterday. I found the SFC (0.464 not that much more than a piston engine) to be interesting.
JetCat USA Turbines
Check your math.
The 55 pounds static thrust from a piston four stroke requires about 10 hp. (.5lb fuel per hp per hour=5lbs or .83 gallons)
The 55 pounds static thrust from this turboprop requires 8oz per minute x 60= 480 oz or 3.75 gallons per hour

4.5 times more than piston engine, from my calculation.
 
Top