Innodyn turbines

Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot?

Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine,
so the two factors kind of cancel out for me.

Wouldn't it be really really loud also?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

This isnt entirely a new engine. It is based heavily on the Solar T-62.
What IS new is the fuel control unit. This engine was featured in an
article within the past 2 years in an RV4 as a test bed.

Dave

x wrote:

What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot?

Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine,
so the two factors kind of cancel out for me.

Wouldn't it be really really loud also?

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

Wouldn't it be really really loud also?

Lots of lurking round here taught me
that turbines need frequent (every 500 hrs or so?)
and expensive overhauls


I'm not real knowledgeable on the topice but I had heard just the opposite
that the overhaul period was quite long, that they do need a intermittent
hot section inspections. I'd be curious to hear from someone that works on
them as to their normal average overhaul/maintenance times and how the
maintenance would cost compared to a recip.
John
KR-2 2% complete for the last 8 years ;-)

x wrote:
What would be the pros and cons of turbine power for the experimental pilot?

Turbines are supposed to be more reliable - but this is a brand-new engine,
so the two factors kind of cancel out for me.

Well, reliability was certainly what I was thinking. Big appeal for me
there. Perhaps you're right that the limited track record of this
particular engine negates that advantage, but turbines are just so
stinkin simple.

Wouldn't it be really really loud also?

Dunno. We do know that it would be smoooooth compared to our wonderful
Lycs with their 35lb pistons slamming back and forth.

Hopefully by the time I get around to building an airplane there'll be
plenty of field experience with powerplants such as these.

Oh yeah, though, I misspoke about the RV-10 - I think the power
requirements are too high there.


"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

Lots of lurking round here taught me
that turbines need frequent (every 500 hrs or so?)
and expensive overhauls

Where the heck did you get that? Turbines in general have far higher
TBOs than IC engines - and this co. is estimating 5,000 hours for
theirs, with a cost something like $10K.


Also the US of A would not be the best place
to exploit their advantages to the full
Europe with its expensive avgas
might be a better place
Yet Europe produces several promising diesel
aircraft engines (Thielert, Wilksh, Aerodiesel &C)
but to my knowledge no small turboprops

my 2 eurocents,
KA

Oh yeah, though, I misspoke about the RV-10 - I think the power
requirements are too high there.

No, there's a 255HP listed on their website. I was wondering why you didn't
choose that instead of the 205HP.

http://innodyn.com by the way.

It's interesting that you specify an operating RPM value when you buy your
engine (2000, 2250, 2500, 2750, 3000, or 3600). They recommend 2750 for
aircraft. Seems like you could choose different prop diameter and RPM
combos, depending on your mission (big slow prop vs. little fast prop)?



"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC

This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack of
fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're trading
something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical
reliability...

KB

Not twice. They claim 13gph. That's not too shabby at all. And I'm
never gonna run out of fuel - that is NOT one of my concerns. I worry
about the issues I have no direct control over.


Kyle Boatright wrote:

"Paul Folbrecht" wrote in message
news
Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
205hp turnbine for $30K?

I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
KIS Cruiser.

~Paul Folbrecht
~PP-SEL
~C152 89795
~MWC


This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack of
fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're trading
something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical
reliability...

KB

I pulled this comment (Dated June, 2004) from the RV-list archives:

Quote:
At SNF this spring I asked the ATP guy what speed & fuel burn they are
now getting in their RV-4 now that they have fixed the exhaust angle. He
said that they were burning 14gph at 140 mph. I believe that the hp
required to fly a -4 at 140 mph is well under 100.
Endquote.

Bottom line is that a converted military APU isn't going to have anywhere
near the fuel consumption of a modern turbine like the Allison, and even the
Allison still can't match the Lycoming...

KB


"Richard Riley" wrote in message
news
The operative word here is "claim."

The best that Allison can do with the 250 is an SFC of .61-.67.
That's with four to six-stage axial, one-stage centrifugal
compressors, a two-stage low pressure turbine, and a two-stage high
pressure turbine. If they really think they can get SFC comparable to
piston engines, they're deluded or lying.

On their old ATP webpage they're listing an SFC of down to .46.
That's insane.

In short, yes, it's too good to be true.

On Tue, 06 Jul 2004 02:41:13 GMT, Paul Folbrecht
wrote:

:Not twice. They claim 13gph. That's not too shabby at all. And I'm
:never gonna run out of fuel - that is NOT one of my concerns. I worry
:about the issues I have no direct control over.
:
:
:Kyle Boatright wrote:
:
: "Paul Folbrecht" wrote in
message
: news :
:Anybody have any experience?? Yet?? Is it too good to be true - a
:205hp turnbine for $30K?
:
:I'm thinking of putting one in an RV-10. Or a Glastar Sportsman. Or a
:KIS Cruiser.
:
:~Paul Folbrecht
:~PP-SEL
:~C152 89795
:~MWC
:
:
: This brings to mind the fact that a lot more airplanes crash for lack
of
: fuel than because of mechanical related engine failures. You're
trading
: something like 2x the fuel burn for potentially more mechanical
: reliability...
:
: KB
:
: