Incredible new turboprop engine for light a/c

[mora]

Originally posted by Wolfala
Maybe Mora,

BUT - try flying on 100 LL in your country when it is $13.00 a gal for 100 octane. You can't do it for very long - and Kerosene, Diesel or JP, or Jet A doesn't require the complex refining of 100 LL - so while the burn rate maybe higher, the operating costs are less in the long term.

I think that a Diesel is a better choice to you too because of the price and fuel economy. 100LL is around $7/gal here and a non-taxed(not for road use) diesel is $2,5/gal. Jet A is probably around the same.

"The Thielert engine uses ordinary diesel fuel, Jet A1 kerosene or a mixture of these. The fuel economy is much improved from the old engine: the endurance of the aircraft was increased from 4 hours to no less than 8 hours. More advanced silencer design and a modern three-bladed adjustable-pitch propeller reduce the noise of the aircraft very efficiently."

http://www.pelastamalmi.org/en/news/new_equipment.html

[Chairboy]

Something else, don't forget that there's a higher time between overhaul.  A 2000 TBO is typical on a reciprocating engine, while Innodyn claims 5000 TBO on theirs, and they say they'll perform the overhaul for 1/3rd the purchase price, which works out to slightly cheaper then a reciprocating overhaul.

Not too shabby.

I like the fact that the turboprop is like a goat and will run on anything.  They advertise that it will use Jet-A, Kerosene, and Diesel.  They're testing to see if it will run on biodiesel, plus it could probably use mineral oil, cooking oil, whatever's laying around.  That appeals to my post-apocalyptic future planning.  Wait, people don't say that anymore.  Um, it appeals to my conservationist, alternative fuels side.  There, that's better.

Funny thing about biodiesel, you know that it's not all Birkenstock wearing hippies using it, and that there are plenty of end-of-the-world types watching that technology VERY closely.

[Maverick]

Chairboy,

TBO is only part of the situation. There likely will be at least 1 or more "hot box" inspections that require a medium to "heavy" teardown of the engine. The combustion chamber will need to be inspected and other routine maintenance such as turbine cleaning.

On the face of it, the concept sounds nice. On the other hand since power will be rated to comparable to the recip the only real advantage in performance will be the ability to maintain power up into the flight levels. Of course that means oxy for the occupants but the higher alt "could" give you greater speed depending on how long and how much fuel it took to get there.

[LePaul]

I've followed the turbines and such closely for years.  The BD-5 was developed with a mid-engine design, based on a engine that wasnt available yet.  So if there has been any such new, light, powerful, etc engines come out, the BD-5 enthusiasts have been on the edge of their chair wondering if THIS was the one to use.  

It'll be cool to see how this engine pans out.  Or others.

[mora]

I wonder why a turboprop burns more juice than a Diesel? You'd think that constant burning would deliver better efficiency?

[Chairboy]

Turbines are completely different beasts then recips, so you can't make a comparison between the two for efficiency.

Maverick, good points.  The Innodyn website claims that the engine needs 500 hour oil changes with complimentary inspection, but their language suggested that this would be similar to what would happen during an annual anyways.  

Of course, it's not being sold/flown in the real world yet, so there's no real world data to back any of this up yet, but it's definately worth watching.

I thought the BD-5 was a turbine aircraft, while this is a turboprop, so that might be why there isn't a big ruckus.

Check this out, some guy used turbines built for R/C Jets to power his plane:
http://www.amtjets.com/gallery_real_plain.html

[LePaul]

There are three versions  of the BD-5.  Recip, turboprop and jet