Peter wrote:
What happened to that engine?
It was used on an aircraft 
in a bad accident
Nope, not since last overhaul
had a severe prop strike / prop blade came off during taxi/flight
Not since last overhaul
not been run for months or even years and is thoroughly corroded as a result
>100 hours p.a. since last overhaul; of course in the central european climate 1-2 months of downtime during winter are almost unavoidable
been overhauled a number of times (crankcases are scrap due to multiple boring, though the main internals should be fine)
maybe, but traceability is not that good that I could still reconstruct history
been badly assembled and shagged itself
the overhaul shop that did it last time doesn’t have a bad reputation. but it’s not a US company, so I guess that’s a dealbreaker for you
Again I hate to sound like a fanboy here but somebody whose engine shagged itself had the steel lab tested and it was 100% perfect.
I tried to get him to go public but was not successful. ..
My view is that these engines are vulnerable to corrosion, and there is a lot of stuff that happens which is kept off the logbooks and not told to the next owner. I know some outrageous examples.
tomjnx wrote:
Fortunately, they don’t have any consumption data in their brochure
here:
http://www.turbinesolutiongroup.com/tsg_TP100.htm
.5 kg/kw/h
and the consumption of the rotax 135hp, turbo?,
I would find the Installation in a C172 interesting as well as a retrofit or – even better – in the new Flight Design C 4 with sleek aerodynamics and a MTOM of 1200kg. Plenty of payload, very roomy,also IFR…. That would be a much better alternative to the US oldtimer-enginestuff for a modern airframe.
anyway
if someone does not want a Rotax 912 of 80 hp, tell me
It will be well received
celtico wrote:
.5 kg/kw/h
So that’s 0.822 lb/hp/h.
While I don’t have data about the 135HP Rotax, according to this, the 914UL consumes about 7.3USG at max continuous power (slightly above 100BHP) (where it is already rather inefficient), so ends up at around 0.43 lb/hp/h.
An IO360 also seems to be around 0.43 lb/hp/h.
As is typical, the turbine comes out at approximately half as efficient. So you need to carry twice as much fuel, which quickly negates any weight saving of the engine at non-pathetic endurances.
tomjnx wrote:
As is typical, the turbine comes out at approximately half as efficient. So you need to carry twice as much fuel, which quickly negates any weight saving of the engine at non-pathetic endurances.
The TP100 is 240 HP, and weighs 71 kg. A comparable Lycoming 540 would have to be a low powered turbo at 500 lbs or 230 kg. So you can bring 159 kg more fuel for the same weight with the turbine. A turbine will be lighter, but less efficient, but also more aerodynamic. And of course it looks and sounds cooler 
Smells better also.
What is the price of gasoline 1L?
and Jet A1 1L?
In Geneva it’s about 2.38€ vs 1.55€ (mineral oil tax and VAT included). If you account for different densities it is 3.54 € / kg for Avgas vs 1.92 € / kg for Jet A1. In real life fuel cost the turbine will win – except for those of us who really think they can set the optimal fuel mixture by looking at the EGT gauge.
I’d assume the Rotax to be happier with Mogas instead of AVGAS, which should be 1.50€ in Geneva. At the gas station, at least.
