Keeping the dream alive

There is a French one that flies today, has been tested in the VL3

@@experimental_av ​name? VL3?

Affordable is the key word. There are always the PT6, RR 250, and TPE331, but they cost mega bucks.

@@armdude2000 can't post links, search for 'VL3 turbine'

Check out the Turbotech TP-R90 fuel burn.

Plus you'd be burning Jet-A, cheaper than avgas & far more available, especially outside the US.

Yes and in Europe jetfuel cost almost HALF of AvGas, and AvGas is being phased out, so sounds to me this engine will be way CHEAPER per flown mile than any current piston engine.

@@andrewmorris3479 This is "only" 130hp rather than 200. Granted its fuel burn is very good at about 6 gph (US) per hour (19 l/h)

@@FasterLower And it’s running and can be purchased.

Awesome !!! I love these pioneers 💪🏼

Well, that's not too bad all things considered. The fuel burn will lead to lower range but at the same time it's a bit cheaper than avgas. It's almost worth it just for the simplicity, and initial cost will definitely be a deciding factor.

@@Ibrahimarm they can always improve it once they start selling them

Well if AVGAS is 80% more expensive (which it is in large part of Europe for example) then this is still a huge win. Plus let’s not forget the enormously better reliability. Still many accidents with broken down piston engines.

@@Ibrahimarm also it sure would be nice to not have that crude piston chugging contraption out front begging to explode. I wonder how much they think it will weigh?

@@friedclutch97 Most aircraft noise is the prop so it will still sound the same once you lift off. Engine noise in a piston plane is a lot louder at idle. Also, they're pretty reliable so long as you take care of them.

Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented." Most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal.

For sure but don't buy a quarter million dollar power plant for the fuel burn, you buy it for the safety. It burning so little is just an added bonus. Someone who could afford this probably doesn't care about burning 30% more fuel.

52 gallons at 12 GPH, though. Not great.

Hi dieselyeti, high pressure ratios and temperatures are not compatible with recuperator technology. However, recuperator technology offers better fuel efficiency enhancement for a given cost than the higher temps and pressures. As a result of lower temps and pressures, we can avoid the use of exotic materials such as ceramics etc.

@@TurbAero you are in the midst of an additive manufacturing runup - cmc and other exotic materials, that were expensive 10 years ago, are starting to come down in price significantly thanks to ease of manufacture.

Pressure (not compression) ratio in these small turbines is effectively limited by the single-stage compressor, rather than materials in the rest of the engine. The PT6A compressor has one centrifugal stage plus four axial stages, so it is capable of a much higher pressure ratio if the rest of the engine can handle the resulting temperatures.

My Zlin 242 will tanker 60 gallons. So on paper at ~12 GPH I've got 30 minutes on you. Of course, the the Cheetah's form drag is considerably better than the 242's. So you'd fly farther and faster.

I’m nearly but not quite so pessimistic.. Computational fluid dynamics modeling has gotten a lot better and a lot cheaper over the years. And precision automated manufacturing has also gotten a lot cheaper. The two combined could offer significant improvements over the old Solar T62 APUs back in the day. Remains to be seen what they deliver.

Even at high load a turbine this small is still not efficient.

is the fuel burn any good compared to a similar power piston?

@@RM-el3gw From what they have shown so far, it is pretty much up there with modern piston engines. In an interview JMB's spokeswoman said that the turboprop version is pretty much identical in speed and consumption to the piston version. It's just slightly down in power compared to the piston version, but that is compensated by the improved aerodynamics. The final version could actually be faster with potentially up to 160hp according to JMB. And it does look really pretty.

Here some details kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mqiGddJ-q5jbo5s.html (english starts at 5:30)

Yea, if the Czech company ever get the their tiny turbojet running for 2000+ hours and strap a fan to it they would jumpstart a whole segment.

There is a flying prototype of a turbine VL3!

Depends on the era of the underlying technology.. Turbines of the 1950s weren’t so reliable.. If these guys are planning to use the same materials as back then the reliability may not be so great..

​@@matthewprather7386Precisely not .. Not only is materials technology advanced but CNC and 3D printing of metals means it's possible to do so much more.

@@thewheelieguy possible, but there’s no guarantee a low buck turbine will get that tech - the point I was making.

Making prototypes is expensive and hard?

Hi Hugocraft. Engineers with gas turbine engine design experience would certainly understand why we do not have a prototype running after only 5 years, particularly with delays associated with Covid thrown into the mix. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. We are running pretty well at par for the course with where we are at in our development program. We hate that it's taking so long, but a clean-sheet recuperated gas turbine engine for aircraft is simply a very complex piece of equipment with incredible design challenges.

It's actually TurbAero, which is a shortening of our full company name Turbine Aeronautics Pty Ltd which is too much of a mouthful. TurbAero is easy to say.

Watch the video starting at 3:05. He basically says that the goal was the RV-14 all along, but they settled on a 7 since they couldn't get a 14. Now they have a 14 kit available, they're going to use it.

​@@dallenford9592 cart before the horse

5 years so far with several more to go. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. It is simply how long it takes. Anyone that believes that this technology has been around for 60 years now, which means that a development program should be finished in a year simply does not understand the complexity of a development program for a clean-sheet designed turbine engine. Remeber that this engine must be reliable, last a long time, not fail and can perform in all corners of the operating envelope for the engine and in all corners of the operating envelope for the aircraft and in all environmental conditions that an aircraft will fly in. We could design and build one in a year that runs, but noone should ever fly behind it.

@@TurbAero really hope you guys can pull this off. It would be an absolute game changer. Piston engines in GA aircraft is annoyingly still there with less reliability and added complications.

Even if they took 100 percent of the new GA market, there are less than 2000 new GA airplanes sold each year.

@@singleproppilot For sure...it was just a figure of speech...

Hi trauma. This is definitely not an easy gig, either technically or financially. Turbotech spent more than 8 years developing their recuperated 130hp turboprop; Heron engine spent more than 8 years developing their 130hp traditional turboprop. We are 5 years into the development program for our 200hp recuperated turboprop, so we are pretty well par for the course for this type of development program. As a pre-revenue company, we have carried out a capital raise every year for the last 4 years. This is a typical pathway for pre-revenue companies, particularly for those who have long development programs to bring their product to the market. We are a very determined team at TurbAero but there are definitely many challenges that must be overcome to make this business a success. We appreciate the support of the folks that see what we are doing as a great concept. We will be doing our darnedest to make it happen.

Total carbon emissions are directly the result of fuel consumption... which is higher for any small turbine than any piston engine of the same size. Of course any lead in fuels in the 21st century is ridiculous and should not be tolerated.

Hi Mike. We will not be taking any customer's money until there is much more certainty around our ability to deliver. This is for the protection of the customers. The offer to participate in our capital raise is being made only to "accredited investors" which is a term that has a clear definition. BTW, this initiative was at the request of several of our followers who approached us to ask if they could be involved.

Using the internet wayback machine it seems that the first websites started to appear back in 2018. In 2020 they had pretty similar page as it is today. So they have been trying to crack this for many years indeed. Will see how it goes and when it becomes something that can be put to the real flying airframe?

The Deltahawk effort is a perfect example of this.

Hi Bob. Thanks for your support. You are pretty well correct with all your observations. The military and certified markets with their strict requirements but commensurately higher margins, combined with the expansion of both our product range and product applications will help our business achieve the success we are aiming for. But we really want to start by offering a great product to the experimental market first.

You must have a really bad piston engine to be afraid to fly single engine IMC.

Yep! '....IMC, single engine, single-pilot, at night, over the ocean with PAX....' FIFY

@@JustSayN2O Mazda was a single rotor, which lead to a lot of inefficiency, as the single rotor had to perform all 4 cycles. Splitting the cycles into two separate parts makes for a much simpler engine. The compressed fuel/air would be contained in a chamber above the 2nd rotor, until ready to be ignited.

And the rotary disadvantages with trying to keep the seals working for any length of time.

I think the difference would be a 3d printed heat exchanger. Small differences in heat exchanger efficiency makes or breaks regenerative cycles.

Heat exchangers have been around for a long time, they were always just really big, on the powerplant style turbines, and maybe large marine applications. They're just trying to make one smaller & lighter. We'll see, I just want to see a ying prototype. I definitely think they are going after the wrong market to start, I would have aimed for the 260-300hp market first.

@@RunesLegacy "3d printed heat exchanger"? You forgot to write "Cryptocurrency, A.I., new and improved". "printed" with what?

@@kazansky22 You must be living under a rock…you can make heat exchangers that are more efficienct with 3d printing using processes like what velo3d has to offer.

​@@arcanondrum65433D printing of high temperature alloys is really a thing in the last 5+ years, literally there are 3D printed rocket motors now.