I’ll take two.
That is 37.5 litres per hour if it was 100LL, which for 100HP is quite a lot, but not bad for such a small jet.
I applaud all these developments, but it’s also very clear to see that to be successful in this endeavor, you need to target the 250-500hp market. That’s where the need is. The need is not in re-engining an old 172’s with a 120hp turbine, the need is in re-engining all the high performance singles and twins.
Peter wrote:
which for 100HP is quite a lot
If the fuel consumption is quoted for the maximum output power, i.e. 100 HP, then it’s in fact VERY little for a turbine engine, a SFC merely 20-30% higher than a comparable piston one. One thing I would expect from a turbine is a much higher TBO, though; on the other hand, 2000 hours for an engine freshly developed from scratch is already a lot.
AdamFrisch wrote:
you need to target the 250-500hp market. That’s where the need is
I’d say it’s both. And in the 250-500 hp range, there are old Allisons and new Rolls-Royces as their successors, plus a handful of less optimal ones like GTD-350 and M-601Z.
Aviathor wrote:
I’ll take two.
you mean, both. Only two exist so far.. miles away from production.
Is the net weight saving (after extra fuel) compared to a Rotax significant enough to justify the increased fuel consumption? Other than in the >300HP market with its ancient lumps of metal barely making TBO, there isn’t exactly a shortage of reliable 100HP engines.
Twenty years ago it was the coolest thing to scale turbines down so they could be used for model aircraft. Now they are scaling model aircraft engines up to power lightplanes…
A 100hp engine that consumes almost 40l per hour has no reason to be in the 21st century.
I don’t think there is any money in GA in the ~100HP arena. I know most of the Rotax engined planes are hardly cheap, going for 100k+, but IMHO almost nobody with say 500k is going to buy one of them. It’s like putting 24 carat gold plated fittings and a €30k bathroom into a council house. Those who can afford a turbine will buy something bigger. Especially with the less than generous Vne/flutter margins of many (most?) of the designs.
The ready market would be the 250HP+ arena.
OTOH these companies might view the US uncertified market as the obvious place to aim for. But again how much of that is below 200HP and the owner has loads of spare money?
Cobalt wrote:
you mean, both. Only two exist so far.. miles away from production.
Actually what I meant was I’ll take one on each wing 
Saw that the pressure ratio was 3.5:1 which is way too small to obtain a good efficiency. The numbers regarding surely must be (way) exaggerated. Modern turboprops has 30:1 to 50:1
The 250+ hp market has had turboprops for ages. Clearly no one except helicopters are willing to pay what it takes. The market for small certified TP GA fix wing, it doesn’t exist, and never has.
For 100 hp microlight and experimental, the market is very different. The “because I can” principle is a driving force there. This principle is non existing in certified GA. Certified GA talks about “mission profiles” and similar stuff that doesn’t go together well with " because I can". Besides, it’s only in the upper few percentages of FW certified GA that has, and is willing, to spend real money. High end TP and biz jets. They already have all they need, and more. Then there is helicopters, and they also have turbines en masse to chose from (turbines that also could be used for FW, but isn’t due to non existing market)
The 100 hp market is very real IMO. The upper end of this market consists of the same people that cruise around in biz jets and high end TP, or turbine helicopters.
