200 HP TurbAero Jet Engine Will Cost $85,000

JOIN mojogrip.net/mvp
Here are some more details on the Turbaero TA200TP Talon turboprop engine.
As of now, Turbaero team plan to start testing on a prototype engine by the end of 2021. This will be done to get and prove the real world performance numbers on the Talon.
turb.aero
The TA200TP Talon engine is also single leaver controlled and will have over steer and over heat protection; meaning you can't damage the engine by over riding it.
This 200 hp turboprop engine is set to hit the market in a few years. The projected price point is set at $85,000.
A200TP Talon specs
Take off power - 200 hp
Maximum continuous power -190 hp
Optimum cruise power at 10,000’ - 180 hp
Specific fuel consumption - 0.56 lbs/hp/hr
Fuel flow @ 150hp @ 10,000' - 12.6gph / 47 litres p.h.
Installed weight - 270 lbs / 123 kgs
TBO Target - 3000 hrs
Single lever power control - Yes
Start your aviation journey here pilotarm.com/aviator-signup/​​
Manage your aircraft with COFLYT coflyt.com/mojogrip
My Merch www.bonfire.com/store/mojogrip/

[@AirplaneFreak1000]

Why are so many people in the comments section so negative towards this. Clearly some of yall have never flown a 2 or 3 hour cross country sat behind a io360. Now do that regularly. The fatigue due to the vibrations is insane. Imagine having a small 4 place plane operating with turbine smoothness and quietness. And dont forget. Less points of failure. I hope this succeeds this is what the GA market needs. Remember when everyone was against automation and computerization in the ga market until players like diamond took the leap of faith and now anyyyyyone would kill to fly a da42 or 62.

[@8literbeater]

I disagree with pretty much all of that. I routinely do 6 or 8 hours a day behind a noisy piston engine, and it really isn't a big deal. I'm still against a lot of the automation, but mostly the touch screen nonsense, specifically. Diamond aircraft are hideous abominations. I don't care if I ever fly one really. This turbaero engine would be really cool though.

[@misham6547]

Problem is that it will burn a lot of fuel, turboprops are extremely inefficient below 500bhp

[@Stanislav_Sikulskyi]

"We are not going to fill up your mailbox with a bunch of junk" - sweetest words ever :)

[@davem5333]

Dreamware. Until it actually flies, it's all Hope's, wishes and dreams.

[@GrizzAxxemann]

Isn't that everything that gets designed, tested, refined, and perfected?

[@dirkhamilton2709]

@@GrizzAxxemann Sadly, in aviation most dreams never actually get built.

[@leeway777]

@@dirkhamilton2709 Vaporware.

[@zutrue]

In the TALKING stage, it can do anything and everything.

[@Trump985]

I think this engine if they get it built would be practical for homebuilts/experimental aircraft but for certificated aircraft I don’t see them getting this engine certificated at least not before they go broke trying I’m excited about the idea but not holding my breath

[@ramenhausten]

I hope they make a 250. Version soon and that this is successful AF

[@jwholmes2]

Efficient recuperators are heavy, that's why they have only been used in terrestrial applications. It will be interesting to see if they can actually get this to work, be reliable, and deliver the promised efficiency.

[@thatguythatdoesstuff7448]

At the promised price point, which is my biggest doubt.

[@danbudd8874]

Bravo can't wait to see this engine in Action in 2023

[@thisismagacountry1318]

I'd stuff it in a Sling High Wing or Risen V tail with max fuel tanks.

[@tomdchi12]

I hope they bring Mike out when these are running IRL on the test stand to follow up!

[@alexandrenazario7857]

Fantastic Mik... Good Job...

[@Papaondas]

what a milestone go turbaero go

[@JE-pn5zw]

The M1a1 Abrams agt 1500 has a huge recouperator it preheats fuelaircharge and cools exhaust. Preaty cool.

[@Robert-mn8gc]

Gee l sincerely appreciate the way u r presenting Ur vision. Xcellent. How much have u derated the HP on your Turbo Prop engine. Hope down the track 👣 u guys bring out a 250 & 300 hp engines . Don't fly myself. Would ❤2 . But out of my Budget . Look 4ward 2 hearing how u folk continue going 4ward . Good luck 👍

[@andreask9382]

I‘ll believe it when I see it fly.

[@nzsaltflatsracer8054]

"Recuperator" fancy word for a heat exchanger.

[@deSloleye]

I can't see how it will actually help. You can use a regenerator, but your back work ratio (ratio of the compressor work to the total output work) is increased if you're heating the gas and increasing its pressure. An intercooler might be more useful here.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

@@deSloleye Actually, regens have been used to good effect, usually on Earth-bound machines.

[@deSloleye]

@@UncleKennysPlace yeah they do save a bit of fuel where you get high effectiveness of the heat exchanger. It will be interesting to see how they implement it.

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

Not a fancy word, it describes the thermodynamic function like intercooler does.

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

@@deSloleye work to compress the gas is increased if the gas is heated BEFORE being compressed. A recuperator heats the already compressed air so that does not affect the compressor work. On the other hand the potential for heat exchange is less as the air is already hot from compression.

[@sinjhguddu4974]

Now that's one fine looking engine!

[@flexairz]

Yes, but its missing whole lot of stuff around it. Show me an installed one, then I will believe it. This has been in 'development' for at least 5 years.

[@YouPube_X]

Stick it on the veloce 600 if that thing ever see’s the light of day

[@23aviatorguy]

These engines may be a game changer if it lives up to the hype. You would have to modify the cowling on most airplanes for the air intake and exhaust I assume.

[@thealzp]

Pls explane what is "game changing" ? IO390 210hp 310lb 9.5gph (at 65%) 35000$ TA200 200hp 270lb 12.5gph (at 75%) 85000$

[@fortcrafterbossbehold9027]

@@thealzp Reliability and that every pound of weight makes a big difference...

[@thealzp]

@@fortcrafterbossbehold9027 390 is not reliable ? 1 pound is big difference ? TA200 maybe good in its niсhe , but not a game changer.

[@fortcrafterbossbehold9027]

@@thealzp A 390 is extremely reliable I am aware it's no shitty Rotec radial or smaller Rotax, but no piston engine can hold a candle to turbine engines due to their comparative complexity. This WOULD be a game changer if it wasn't for its hideously extreme price, it needs to come down to $45-55K mark to make it worth...

[@thealzp]

@@fortcrafterbossbehold9027 but it costs 85k not 45-55k. That's the reason.

[@johngreene0129]

From the screen shot, I thought, “that’s a hell of a ceiling fan!”

[@mattc.310]

Thanks for the upload. It will be interesting to see how it progresses. Fly safe.

[@Dragonrc.]

I'm such a cheerleader for these guys, if they can make a 200 and 250 HP that gives fuel burn similar to the pistol, sign me up wait I already am!

[@russellesimonetta3835]

Turbine solutions was at oshkosh years ago with a 250 hp turboprop in a rv10. Wonder what happened to that???

[@Lukas-zt5jo]

They went belly up before ever producing a production model engine

[@TatoDwisusanto]

Like no. 8, top markotop Muantabe from Jakarta Indonesia 👍.

[@hustlinsteaks5320]

I'm excited

[@collinator68]

I wonder if one could swap a couple of these into a cheap piper Aztec? That would be cool!

[@ediflash6955]

Nice engine N nice airplane 👍

[@iaf010]

Brayton Cycle Engine. The size shown is unbelievable. This is pie in the sky thinking unless they have developed some new heat exchanger that you could carry in your pocket.

[@okhera1]

Very Nice!.

[@timotb1]

If you can prove an equivalent I0-360 power under 13gph, I'm on board.

[@ZachSwena]

Innodyne tried this and even made it to flight tests a over a decade ago. They weren't able to make similar efficiency claims, I home this project makes it to market. Will 3D printing and materials advances allow this to work?

[@kazansky22]

I think its the recuperator technology that is the big difference.

[@ZachSwena]

@@kazansky22 that is marketing terminology. I believe it is a problem that can be solved, but many have tried and failed in the past. Hopefully this time is different, for the sake of the investors.

[@RobertGarcia-mr8fc]

you think they are using the built pressure in the heads to build boost like nissian enginesso that it can be reburnt

[@zapfanzapfan]

Well, anything that gets rid of leaded fuel is a good thing.

[@moonffyt6884]

How much price????

[@dj2000lbs]

Sounds awesome let's put it on a motorcycle lol

[@EJWash57]

Sooo... It's just a 3-D printed fundraiser - just like I said it was. There is no actual running engine, just a concept.

[@paulkelly4731]

Been going to Oshkosh and Sun and Fun for 30 years. There has always been somebody selling the small affordable turbine dream...and it's just that, a dream... 200hp electrics will beat the small turbine to markets, and hydrogen fuel cell electric planes will rule the market someday.

[@chantereaudominique8855]

What price to add for the propeller? A simple Wooden fixed pitch propeller doesn’t fit.

[@traviseggl3794]

They need to put it on a 100 lb diet. The RR Allison 250B17/F2 used in the Cessna 210 Silver Eagle with 450 hp weighs under 200 lbs dry.

[@davem5333]

But that Allison engine is over $410,000.

[@traviseggl3794]

@@davem5333 Just making a point that it is a heavy pig of a turbine engine for the power that it puts out. The small PT6 series engines that put out over 750 hp are only 335 lbs. This thing is 270lbs, with only 200 hp? The little Allison 250 was developed in the 60s.

[@AndyRRR0791]

@@traviseggl3794 The recuperator is adding the weight. You save in the fuel burn.

[@Parker-di7ef]

I mean even if it matches the same fuel consumption of a comparable piston engine, jet a typically costs less per gallon than avgas. With more and more talks of the long term viability on leaded avgas this might be a very feasible option in the future. Hope to see it fly!

[@NicksStuff]

In his example, it uses 33% more fuel

[@Repuestosgigante]

The biggest problem is the 1000 hour TBO , one of the big benefits of a turbine is the 10,000 hr TBO ,

[@felipealbertofadr]

For Seneca V ?

[@briansantana3157]

Gonna be great for certain markets. Like places where avgas is too expensive. What is the TBO time?

[@23aviatorguy]

I saw a 3000 hour TBO somewhere

[@mhughes1160]

@@23aviatorguy they listed 1000 hrs

[@mhughes1160]

1000 hrs

[@MercFE8235]

1000 hours is where they will start, as any new engine typically winds being around... However, turbines in general have higher TBOs then pistons due to the reduced number of moving parts. 3000 hours is where they hope to be after being able to extend the TBO with good life data.

[@smokerx893]

how responsive is this in terms of power? is it a slow build up? or snappy when you "add coals to the fire?" do they know yet?

[@MercFE8235]

Turboprops are very quick to produce power, as the turbine is already running at a speed that will allow the prop to pitch to a point that bites... Same as a PT-6 or any other engine. They are not redesigning the control of an engine, just the addition of a recuperator.

[@traviseggl3794]

@@MercFE8235 He is talking about throttle response. Lag, or spool up time. The PT6, even in flight idle, has a little bit of lag when the power is applied. The engine is only running at around 60% ng in flight idle. You don't have that instant power when you push the throttle lever forward like you do on a reciprocating engine. The Garrett 331 is a little different story, but I have never ran one.

[@Robert-mn8gc]

$85K usd is crazy money 💰 🤑 💸

[@creativityworld6781]

compare it with PBS turboprob engine

[@mamulcahy]

Sounds like great support!

[@OleDiaBole]

600hp/190kg Czech Walter turbine beats everything. It is tried and tested, cheap as dirt, bulet proof and vastly improved since 70s when it was introduced. Check it on wikipedia Walter M601.

[@RealRickCox]

When they've got an option for 350+ HP, I'll be VERY interested. The 200hp is just a little too small for what I'd want to use in a Lancair build.

[@OleDiaBole]

Buy Walter... It is much cheaper, tried and tested, comes with reductor and prop from factory, It has 600hp out of 190kg engine. Check it on wikipedia. You have all the specs.

[@RealRickCox]

@@OleDiaBole I'm very familiar with the Walter. Lots of Lancair Propjets have them. The down side of these is their availability. They're not easy to come by.

[@OleDiaBole]

@@RealRickCox How about Russian Klimov VK800S? 140kg/800hp. It is extremely modern, and specific fuel consumption is 260 grams per 1 hp. I am not sure about Walter and state of their business, but Klimov, you can go an by one straight from the factory.

[@Eltern10]

@@OleDiaBole Damn that sounds like a sexy engine!

[@AClark-gs5gl]

I would consider one for the following reasons: *reduced noise *reduced vibration *more power at higher altitudes *no shock cooling concerns *the "coolness" aspect "Full fadec *Lower in cost Jet-A *did I mention the "coolness" aspect?!!

[@dieselyeti]

But it's 2x the price of a TIO-360 that makes more power & burns the same amt of fuel.

[@RobtheAviator]

@@dieselyeti 100%

[@JEMPL27]

PBS TP100 (240hp) set the standard for small turboprop, however it cost 165K... Make a video of that engine, Mike.

[@kazansky22]

I think that engine has like a 300 hour tbo or something really terrible.

[@JEMPL27]

@@kazansky22 oh for real? I had no idea. Then, it is not that great of an option, I guess... Thanks for your reply.

[@ovibee4023]

Will this fit on a C-172? LOL

[@lkazanov]

I mean but why? You could pretty much buy two brand new engines for the cost of one of these can you not? And what is the TBO for this motor?

[@YouPube_X]

TBO 3000hrs

[@Williamb612]

And then Wiley Coyote will jump off a cliff while Road Runner decides to watch from below

[@747driver3]

Reliable turbine 300 hp for $85,000 and ill trade in the IO-550 tomorrow. 200 hp is a joke. Fuel flow 33% higher. Cost 2X. Maintenance 10X. And the ridiculously named “recouperator”. Ha ha. Yet one more dream engine that will NEVER pan out. There have been dozens since i started flying.

[@richardtoledo6720]

Very good, but very expensive...

[@amiraghazadeh5820]

👏👏👏❤❤❤

[@mikeausra6950]

TWIN INLINE PROPS COUNTER ROTATING TURBO PROP >

[@rigilchrist]

To get some perspective on the number of hopeful engine launches compared to the tiny number of successes, see Paul Bertorelli's video on the topic.

[@NicksStuff]

It's not that light (and you need a lot more fuel on board) and pretty expensive

[@djatnikasaleh2218]

But according the price it's more expensive than similar piston engine,........

[@austinvenable8841]

Am i going crazy or is the hand shown in the close-ups of a different dude

[@deSloleye]

That's Mike Ojo's hand, not the vendor's.

[@AndyRRR0791]

@@deSloleye There I thought it was M Ojo's grip...

[@Parker53151]

How much does a 200 hp lycoming cost?

[@fallencrow6718]

A io-390 is 32k and 140 kg. So they figure out how to fuck the power to weight ratio (the best part of turboprop and turbo shaft if you want a mini fighter) The pbs tp 100 gets 240hp for takeoff and 190hp cruise at 63kg. Its $160k but its also a alredady flying.

[@JT203L]

85K….. Xdoubt

[@spinnetti]

I don't get the big deal. 2x the price on an unproven design for what exactly?

[@YouPube_X]

Reliability

[@mehmetvural8095]

have a nice day. 0 km. for 2 person. We can go on sightseeing planes for $85,000. thanks.

[@historiadeumsonho9379]

200 HP it's to equip a cessna 172 or PIPER ARROW, most interesting if you put 300 hp/ 250 hp, to equip other planes... 200hp is very low!

[@johncashwell1024]

This is the kind of thing aviation is desperate for to bring it flying to a lot more people.

[@tstanley01]

How does an engine that cost twice as much and burn 40% more fuel for the same power bring more people to aviation?

[@EdwardTilley]

Will this high-efficiency smaller turbine (with a 19 gallons per hour fuel use) have enough power to support: * Air conditioning * Pressurized Cabin for 4 - with Oxygen * Anti-Icing * Autopilot * Retractable Landing Gear

[@kazansky22]

I read somewhere it generates 100amps.

[@arcanondrum6543]

Turboshaft engines are what keep helicopters in the air - that's no small feat. Asking a smaller turbine in a fixed wing to simply spin an alternator is straightforward.

[@TheOwenMajor]

Meh, I don't see its advantages in the experimental world. It's more expensive to buy, more expensive to maintain, more expensive to run, and might produce marginally more power for it's weight. I

[@azcoyote007]

Jet-A fuel in a post 100LL world.

[@ThisMakesMeThink]

@@azcoyote007 this is what i thought right away.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@azcoyote007 100LL ain't going away anytime soon, at least not in North America. As for experimentals I think engines that can take mogas would be the natural default in that world.

[@iancxxx]

This may be an alternate opinion but wouldn't buying a used Garrett or Pratt PT6 turbo prop be cheaper and they have a better track record of reliability? Yeah they consume more fuel but their output is also significantly higher and will get you to your destination faster.

[@TheOwenMajor]

A new PT6, not even close, those are priced in the hundreds of thousands. A rebuilt one, still no, but closer.

[@TheOwenMajor]

As for speed, most aircraft are limited by their aerodynamics, which means sticking an ever more powerful engine isn't going to help as much.

[@iancxxx]

@@TheOwenMajor yes new ones are expensive but there are plenty of pre-owned, rebuilt pt6 with excellent warranty and reliability same holds true for Garrett and other tueboprops that have been in existence for decades with plentiful spare parts.

[@iancxxx]

@@TheOwenMajor that is true for lots of aircrafts speed limited by their aero design. But a let's assume that a particular craft was designed to achieve 170 knots with a Lycoming 300 HP piston engine theoretically if it was replaced by a 600 SHP Garrett turboprop it is not inconceivable that the same craft could go 200 knots max speed.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@iancxxx Sure but that's my point, you aren't getting a whole lot extra speed for alot of extra fuel consumption.

[@femanvate]

A 200lb 200HP turbine engine for $85k that approaches piston efficiencies, operational in 18 months, and currently exists as a plastic model. When does ambition turn into delusion?

[@cristiovanni]

C'mon man, be a little optimistic here. I'm sure they'll get it together by 2040ish and it will cost less than 850k...

[@markmark5269]

I know Dave, the developer, personally, this has not been an overnight thing, I spoke with him at a coffee shop in Australia 6 years ago, and he had been developing years before that. Why they don't have the fully working 120hp on display, I don't know kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHbRYpx5ipt7npI

[@Captndarty]

Speaking of delusional… It’s 270 pounds

[@kazansky22]

They started work over 10 years ago

[@danielcockerspaniel]

Vaporware

[@markmark5269]

I know Dave, the developer, personally, this has not been an overnight thing, I spoke with him at a coffee shop in Australia 6 years ago, and he had been developing years before that. Why they don't have the fully working 120hp on display, I don't know kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHbRYpx5ipt7npI

[@baronpilot2bb]

Deltahawk Diesel has been "ready for production" for 10 years now. Innodyne took my deposit promising a .59BFSC rating. I should have known better since it was a single stage compressor design just like my helicycle. The PWM fuel injection offered zero efficiency improvements. Long story short - what you see is a 3d plastic print of what an engine will look like. Components being tested means that it has never been assembled or run as of 2022. 2023 would appear to be a pipe dream to me for distribution. When the engine is installed on a RV-14 and will show at least the same performance as a 210HP IO-390 and a true fuel consumption can be established I will then be very interested. I truly hope they are on to something here, but I will guarantee you that if P&W could improve fuel economy by 30% or so they would most definitely come up with a "clean sheet" design to sell to BeechCraft for the thousands of planes already in the air and the thousands to be produced. I wish them well, but please show us the inside of the engine with hot and compression sections. A good engineer will immediately tell you if any of these efficiency claims are reasonable. Also, JetA is now more expensive than 100LL. If uncle Joe and Mrs Giggles is in power much longer you will need hamsters and wheel to power your plane. Any fuel will be unavailable.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

This engine cannot get the BSFC that is claimed. Period. The end. My day job involves gas turbines, and we've done a few "clean sheet" designs (LEAP, Passport) recently, and would have done anything to get the specific fuel consumption he is hinting at. The GE Catalyst is clean-sheet, and won't come close to the claims. Neither will the Talon.

[@flexairz]

Correct.

[@traviseggl3794]

Isn't GE projecting around 20% better fuel consumption than a comparable PT6? That would be a great achievement if they can.

[@rv6ejguy]

If they can make the recuperator work, the SFC numbers are possible. These are used on stationary and marine gas turbines, lowering SFC substantially. Also used on Chrysler and Rover auto motive gas turbines back in the '60s.The big difference is there is lots of space available on boats and static applications and weight isn't a concern. In an aircraft, space and weight are very important. The challenge is making a compact and efficient HX and that's a hard nut to crack. It all hinges on that aspect.

[@markmark5269]

Hate to burst your bubble Kenny, but the 120hp is doing all they claim it will do, but as mentioned, the packaging with the HX is where a lot of effort is being put .. Why they don't have the fully working 120hp on display, I don't know kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHbRYpx5ipt7npI

[@Jacmac1]

It's interesting, but since it requires more fuel capacity to burn and the fuel is heavier, this is a niche engine. If the engine weight is hundreds of pounds less as a similar power piston engine, maybe it would pan out.

[@dieselyeti]

The Continental TIO-360 makes 220hp at 10k burning the same amount of fuel. More takeoff power, more power at cruise and a lot less expensive. The turbine's numbers don't add up.

[@jayrozario3258]

It must beat the fuel efficiency, power and price of a piston engine or you're just selling coolness. I'll take a converted Mazda rotary for one tenth of the price and get more than twice the power with the same fuel consumption.

[@tomcoryell]

Are there Mazda conversions currently flying? Just curios. Please link to one, I’m very interested.

[@jglenntrnr]

Jay, I think it’s important to also consider reliability and performance (climb and at higher altitudes). I’m not sure it’s just about being cool. I’d pay more for higher reliability.

[@jayrozario3258]

@@jglenntrnr so would I but that's yet to be seen with this engine but I should probably say, even an engine with less than ideal numbers is more than we had and it will likely lead to better cheaper engines. It's definitely welcome. I just want a turbo prop that beats the piston engine. I'm never going to bolt a conversation engine to my own aircraft but it illustrated the difference in performance between a purpose built airplane engine and an automotive engine. You shouldn't be able to take the engine out of my truck and get better numbers in an airplane than just about every aviation engine but you can. Someone needs to keep that reality in view as they build the engine that finally out performs a Honda Civic for weight, power and fuel consumption. Then figure out how to make it affordable.

[@RealRickCox]

@@tomcoryell I'm totally with you! Not sure what has to be different in terms of a conversion, but I'm reasonably sure that Rob Dahm could build an extremely reliable rotary engine that would stand up to just about any kind of abuse you could throw at an airplane.

[@jayrozario3258]

@@tomcoryell Mojogrip Mike did a piece on one. Many builders have created their own. I don't care to learn how to link stuff. I'm busy researching and building my own aircraft. You can find lots of info on the wankel in aircraft. One broke a climb record.

[@nickwulf]

I was surprised when he said $ eight thousand USD I replayed it He just mumbled $80k USD lol

[@mojogrip]

😂

[@DanFrederiksen]

Sounds interesting but they should actually abandon it and do a turbofan instead. Imagine how cool it would be to have small twin jets on Sling size planes. They would need to be pressurized but same size and lower weight. 700km/h, twin engine crossing oceans, smooth quiet at the edge of space. Just sayin :) That would be real freedom. Diamond DA50 need not apply.

[@thomasthumim7630]

😯😎

[@mikemorgan8792]

This is much more the originality reported or mis quoted , I thought it was 8k

[@TheOwenMajor]

You thought a brand new turbine engine was going to cost the same as an experimental auto conversion piston?

[@mikemorgan8792]

Mike did a video on this yesterday and I thought that’s what he said, maybe wishful thinking 🤔 LOL

[@markmark5269]

@@TheOwenMajor The original intent was to make a low cost turbine, then an MBA modern business guy got involved with the company ... enough said ..

[@markmark5269]

The original intent was to make a low cost turbine, then an MBA modern business guy got involved with the company ... enough said ..

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@markmark5269 Well there is no way you are going to make a successful turbine engine selling engines for that cheap. The only way experimental conversion engines get that cheap is because they are pulled off a assembly line that makes hundreds of thousands of them. Best case scenario they still sell under 20 of these a year. At 10 grand profit per unit that is hardly enough to keep the lights on

[@charlespierce3647]

If it were $50k that would be news.

[@superskullmaster]

🧢 they will never be able to hold that price. Plus the turboprop from PBS Velka Bites is more powerful and half the weight.

[@donaldendsley6199]

and double the cost and fuel burn. Assuming of course TurbAero actually hits their weight and fuel burn targets. But I'm skeptical.

[@jenniferwhitewolf3784]

TP-100??

[@superskullmaster]

@@jenniferwhitewolf3784 yes

[@superskullmaster]

@@donaldendsley6199 23gph cruise (or something like that) for the TP100, but also higher power.

[@FFL3001]

This product does not make sense to me. They're aiming at the value end of the market with a modestly powered, very expensive engine. Its nearest competitor would be the turbocharged Austro engines and the Continental 300-CD. As with the Turbaero they use use Jet-A, have FADEC and perform well in high altitude, but they're cheaper to service and use 25-50% less fuel. Cessna stopped production of their Diesel 172 after 6 months because nobody wanted to pay the premium over the petrol version. That's the market Turbaero is aiming at.

[@JimConnelley]

This is reality now. AI will process the massive amount of uploaded data. Human Analysts will review and rank the trends noted.

[@weofnjieofing]

Engine out failures and associated injuries and death will be a thing of the past with this technology.

[@jamesmabugu7899]

Compelling reason to buy this engine anyone?

[@EJWash57]

It doesn't exist?

[@jamesmabugu7899]

@@EJWash57 am yet to be given one

[@YARCHLRL]

lol... NEVER HAPPENED

[@crammydavisjr5813]

The speed at which he says “it would shut down” frightens me…. Badly. I get that he’s trying to convince me the engine is safe because it will shut down before it does damage to itself, but I don’t want an engine where the manufacturer is convincing me about the ability for the engine to shut itself down… right?

[@MercFE8235]

You would need to understand what an "overspeed" means... In this case, you don't want the turbine, which turns at a multiple of what your prop is, to overspeed and exceed 100% of its rated speed. If it hits 105%, or some other close number, it will shut itself down to prevent shedding pieces in a spectacular event. This would be an emergency type situation where the engine has lost control of itself and overshot its intended speed. Standard function on any turbine engine.

[@davem5333]

FAA regulations regarding the certification of rotating components require that they survive without catastrophic failure a minimum 20% overspeed. I would hope this engine meets a similar standard.

[@apuuvah]

Specific fuel consumption is apalling and specific weight too heavy. At low power the specific fuel consumption gets to be downright catastrophic.

[@TurbAero]

Hello Ari. Did you consider the difference in Specific Gravity of JetA and Avgas when comparing fuel consumptions? It is not valid to compare SFCs when the SG of the fuel types is different. If you care to compare the anticipated fuel consumption at 10,000' of the Talon operating at 150hp to that of an IO-360 operating at 150hp (actually the IO-360 is limited to 70.8% of its sea level rating at 10,000' so about 140hp at WOT at 10,000'), you will find that the fuel consumptions aren't too far apart. However, when the cost of JetA is compared to Avgas, you could be pleasantly surprised to find you have a lower fuel bill with the Talon at those operating conditions. Of course, each aircraft owner will need to determine what his normal mission profile is and do a valid comparison to determine whether they should be considering the Talon as a viable alternative to their powerplant. e.g. the owner may find that his IO-360 is not powerful enough to cruise above 10,000' and has to accept a low cruise speed in his Lancair due to only having a maximum of 140hp available, but the Talon at 10,000' will still offer more than 180hp. The Talon won't work for every one, but it will for some. At least for those, we will offer an alternative to the existing piston engine offerings.

[@NoelyBob]

Why show a nothing, just turn up with the actual running engine

[@markmark5269]

Yup, they have the 120hp running for a while now, I don't understand it either, just leaving them selves open for smart asses to crack "believe it when I see it" jokes about it .. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fHbRYpx5ipt7npI

[@nunyabidness3075]

There’s so many problems with making things smaller why didn’t they do 300 to 350 hp? The 200 hp guys aren’t the ones needing a jet a replacement, they have them already.

[@ckryegrass11]

This thing drinks fuel boys. Better think on it. And the maintenance??? No thank you.

[@StudioRV8]

The fuel consumption of 12gph (they won’t get that, it will be more like 15gph) won’t make it practical. Cool, but not practical. Turbines do well up high, real high. I burn 7.5-8gal per hour at 8kt DA in my io-360. Turbines aren’t new. The reason GE and the big guys don’t do it isn’t because you need a clean sheet, it’s because there is no market.

[@av8tor261]

Never invest in any concept. $85k will buy you a nice "CERTIFIED" safe airplane to enjoy safely.

[@drush525]

Awful lot of money for only 200 hp.

[@1225KPH]

At what point is your life not worth a certified engine?

[@TheOwenMajor]

If you think "certified" means safe, you are drinking the Kool aid. "Certified" really means "Certification takes way to long these days so here is an engine from 1960" Plenty, plenty of certified aircraft have engine failures.

[@1225KPH]

@@TheOwenMajor You think this piece of plastic is going to be as safe as a PT-6? If the FAA finds out you're on drugs...

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@1225KPH I wasn't referring to this engine specifically. Plenty of well know engine makers make uncertified engines, you think those are dangerous too? I'm referring to the idea that certified engines are automatically safer than uncertified is nonsense.

[@1225KPH]

@@TheOwenMajor Show me the statistics of any uncertified engine with a failure rate equal to or lower than a certified engine.

[@TheOwenMajor]

@@1225KPH Seeing as your making the affirmative statement feel free to show evidence that they fail more often. I find it amazing you think a company like Lycoming makes an experimental engine that fails more often then their certified ones.

[@ryanmcgowan3061]

I would really like to see a 50hp turbine engine made inexpensively that can burn alcohol or biodiesel. Why? Vehicles on average are only using 30-40hp. By running at a constant 50hp, and coupled with a generator, you can charge a modest bank of capacitors with the excess, and when you need 200hp for a few minutes, you have it. Turbines are great at burning whatever fuel you give it, and the energy density of fuels are magnitudes more than charged batteries. With biodiesel or alcohol, you have a carbon-neutral, very high specific energy, renewable source of energy.

[@rob379lqz]

No-no-no. Way less complications than an internal combustion engine, yet so much more expensive? Just go away.

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

A single stage centrifugal compressor that magically beats the BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption; literally lbs of fuel burned per horsepower per hour) of turboprops that have had millions of dollars of R&D and decades of development revisions? I want to believe... but I can't. 150HP on 12.6gph @ 10,000' also isn't *that* good. Turbines claim to fame is that they're waaaay cheaper to maintain than massive radial piston engines, not that they're more fuel efficient. When you're talking about less than 300HP, you can reliably get that from something like a Continental TSIO-550. And for not much more money, you could have a rebuilt PT6 that you can get parts for and have serviced damn near anywhere in the world.

[@TheOwenMajor]

At the 200hp range, I would not say turbines are cheaper to maintain. Maintenance will generally be less often, but when it happens the bill will be much larger.

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

@@TheOwenMajor I said that turbines are cheaper to maintain and more reliable than large radial piston engines, not small horizontally opposed piston engines in the

[@traviseggl3794]

This engine costs 85K. Tell me where you can get an overhauled PT6 for not much over that?? The overhaul costs itself for your engine on a small PT6 start around $200,000 and can easily reach 300. I agree that the engine probably isn't going to live up to it's claims, if it even gets airborne.

[@ParadigmUnkn0wn]

@@traviseggl3794 A beastly PT6A-135 that cranks out 750HP is currently for sale on trade-a-plane for $235k. You never pay asking price. I bet they'd take $150k; there isn't exactly a huge market for these things. I've seen the smaller variants like the PT6A-21 go for around ~$100k. That's not a zero time or freshly overhauled engine, but keep in mind that with the MORE (i.e. maintenance on reliable engines) STC a PT6A can have its official TBO extended to 8000 hours. Most of the used turbines I've seen sell are eligible for, or already enrolled in, the MORE program and are often at roughly halfway to TBO. If you can pickup an airworthy turbine with a couple hundred hours left until the next major inspection/scheduled maintenance you can probably defer that cost for at least a year, probably two at the rate most private pilots fly.

[@rajinbin]

That engine is too expensive, I can get two piston with more power for the same price.

[@SuperYellowsubmarin]

No it won't.

[@acs9787]

I see four exhaust stacks and a very dirty airframe to clean.