TurbAero Aims For a New Turboprop Engine for Small Airplanes

At Sun 'n Fun 2022, an Australian company called TurbAero was showing off a mock-up of a new, light turboprop engine it proposes to fit into airplanes requiring about 200 HP. Turboprops aren't know for fuel efficiency, of course, but the company is using recuperative heating to deliver fuel specifics somewhere between a piston engine and legacy turboprops. The company CEO, Dave Limmer, explains it all in this AVweb video.

[@bobrogers706]

Congratulations!!! After many decades in aviation this is a great new development. We are still riding behind engines deseined and built before 1950s. Keep up the good work!!!

[@daszieher]

Not really. Many Lycosauruses are slightly more modern. Rotaxes have cleaned up the market on the lower end and are inching forward in the power range.

[@VictoryAviation]

The Marvel-Schebler carburetor design on Cessna 172 engines for example (before finally switching over to fuel injected) was the same design as used on early indy race cars, circa 1911. The design has barely changed in over a hundred years. The FAA requires so much damned money to approve new technology, that aircraft are in some cases 20 years behind automotive technology.

[@daszieher]

@@VictoryAviation well, the basic carburettor works well, especially since the mixture is adjusted by hand. It would be nice, however, to get a normal EFI to work on an aero engine. One could even design one with one channel per cylinder,, achieving all equal EGTs

[@VictoryAviation]

@@daszieher It exists. It’s called a FADEC system. Unfortunately because of how over the top the FAA is with approving technology, there are many incredible systems that require a ton of money to get approved. Meanwhile cars have had similar systems since the 1980’s standard.

[@daszieher]

@@VictoryAviation you got my point 😉

[@kevinking5406]

I REALLY hope this blows up!! This is hopefully going to be wildly successful.

[@5degreenegativerake]

You hope it blows up? Odd.

[@Beef3D]

well if there's one thing I learned about Aviation is that it is an incredibly difficult and competitive industry; what sounds good on paper more often than not does NOT end up being very successful and/or widely adopted at best, or bankrupts the company providing the good at worst.

[@bastystruth]

Fantastic development, I’m looking forward to seeing the first units fly in 2023!

[@Franky46Boy]

Thumbs up for these people and their engine! I hope they'll succeed.

[@daszieher]

I am so happy that a manufacturer finally takes on the challenge of an efficient small turbine with recuperator. This idea has been kicked around, but the recuperator always be posed too big of a challenge to result in a useful product. I'll keep my fingers crossed for this one..

[@loctite222ms]

I saw that concept back in the 1980s. A recuperator adds weight and improves lower power fuel consumption, but limits maximum power. I've been out of the turbine industry a few decades, and I'm sure some things have changed, but basic thermodynamics haven't.

[@soconnoriv]

Thankfully 3D printing has finally made it economical to produce

[@daszieher]

@@loctite222ms as always there ain't no free lunch. One can optimise for peak performance, peak efficiency or a good balance. 😉

[@Big.Ron1]

This will be sweet! I can picture a Carbon Cub with this in it. Yes, now that would be cool.thank you!

[@adambadger]

I remember seeing TurbAero at EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2021. It is a unique design and I hope his company can succeed.

[@BeKindToBirds]

Really cool project. I honestly wish them the best because I have always dreamed of a turboprop aircraft of my own. I have always dreamed of it being powered by Kuznetsov NK-12 I rode on like a motorcycle with wings but this guy seems extremely sensible.

[@alvon911]

Hi Paul, I’m not in aviation but I enjoy your videos. Informative, thought-provoking, and I like your sharp wit.

[@skenzyme81]

Best wishes to them, but it will be a miracle if ANY paying customer gets one of the experimental turbines installed into a flying aircraft. It will take second, larger, miracle for them to refine that design and raise the capital to get that engine certified. It will require a third, greater still, miracle for that certified engine to be sold at a price and efficiency such that total lifecycle costs are less than DOUBLE similar piston power. All that said, "saints" have been canonized in Aviation before. Good luck TurbAero!

[@silasmarner7586]

Agreed, and the calculations will have to be on a) acquisition (spendy), fuel consumption - (>piston..so far) and maintenance (probably better than pistol).

[@skenzyme81]

@@silasmarner7586 Cheap. Efficient. Durable. Choose any two. 😅

[@BLAMBERRY]

Don’t know if you listened to the man speak-it seems as if certified aircraft are not the target application.

[@Walterwaltraud]

Probably true; but if with JetA1 availability and FADEC it's insurable, there will certainly be some market for it. Check out piston engine prices in the Malibu range...

[@JustaPilot1]

Ahhhh, it's been said and I'll say it again. Not.For.The.Certified.Market

[@Ulbre]

The TurbAero journey started in 2008 when founder, Dave Limmer wanted to install a 100hp turbine engine in his own Lightning Bug experimental aircraft. Following a global search he realised that there were no commercially available options, so he set about designing and building his own. In 2015, he successfully ran his 100hp proof of concept engine. Having recognised the opportunity to introduce turbine engines into the light aircraft market, in 2016 Dave established TurbAero in conjunction with his brother Andrew, to pursue his dream of delivering a family of clean-sheet design, fully-optimized, fuel-efficient turbine engines to the light aircraft market. Dave has been a professional pilot and aviation manager in both the military and civil sectors. He completed 16 years as a pilot in the Royal Australian Air Force followed by 21 years as an Airline and Corporate Flight Department Captain. A passionate pilot and builder himself, Dave has been actively involved in recreational aviation including undertaking the development of several Experimental Category kit aircraft.

[@loctite222ms]

Seems like a Pratt and Whitney pt6 is close (900-1000hp) to that class. That first ran in 1960. Lycoming had the LTP-101. I'm pretty sure there are others. So, he's starting from scratch building something other companies have been working on for decades. I wonder how much an airworthy engine will really cost. I don't think $85k is realistic. Oh it's only 100hp? I misread that. Still don't think he's going to manage to sell them for $85K.

[@E9X330]

@@loctite222ms this engine is 200hp, the proof of concept was 100

[@loctite222ms]

Their optimism is impressive.

[@ashsmitty2244]

We are all behind you, we want it on our aircraft.

[@bruceburns1672]

As an Australian aged 72 I'm shocked to see something like this being manufactured in OZ after watching all our manufacturing shut down since the Whitlam debacle .

[@Juicefpv]

Saw this years ago at a trade show in Sydney. I was more interested in the 3D printer tech that they were advertising. Great to see them get a great product to market

[@jimydoolittle3129]

Can’t wait to see it ready and running 👏 seems a good idea for the RVs ✈️

[@jtropfenbaum7931]

RV 8A

[@matthayward7889]

After watching this, the recommended video was AVwebs “ why new aircraft engine ideas rarely succeed” 😂 Good luck to them though!

[@ezragonzalez8936]

Yet another fantastic hardrive engine!

[@byloyuripka9624]

whelp, going to have to read about recuperators.. my intuition tells me you would want the coldest charge possible fed to the boom boom part to maximize thermal expansion? chew time

[@demagescod9657]

Yeap, Im seeing it the same way. Something here makes no sense.

[@TomM-jh8lx]

You want cold air BEFORE compression not before combustion. This is heating air AFTER compression and before combustion.

[@austinwilliams9592]

@@TomM-jh8lx how is that any different?

[@TomM-jh8lx]

@@austinwilliams9592 It takes more work to compress hot air than cold air. This is why you see intercoolers in between compression stages. For example, having an intercooler after a supercharger and before the intake into a piston engine as the pistons themselves will undertake further compression before burning the fuel. In a turbine engine, the recuperator is positioned after all the compression has occurred right before the air enters the burners. By transferring waste heat from the exhaust to the compressed pre-burner air, you are reducing the amount of fuel required to heat up the air to the desired turbine inlet temperature (TIT). Simply, TIT multiplied by the mass of air determines the power output of a turbine engine. Recuperators are common in large land based gas turbine applications where mass and size are not an issue.

[@1965wazza]

I had the same observation, as thermodynamic efficiency increases with deltaT?

[@Factory400]

Deliveries in 2024? That seem extraordinarily ambitious! From first start of a prototype to deliveries in 18 months. I hope they succeed. If they do, I will be in line after they have a few hundred installed with enough fleet hours to see if they stay together. Good luck TurbAero! Get one of these in the early versions of the DarkAero One.

[@banon7853]

As with Tesla, prototypes are easy production is hard. When you can buy one of these for the price of a piston engine they’ll have a business.

[@MisterUnicornFL]

Not with Jet-a at $12 a gallon.

[@kCI251]

@@MisterUnicornFL Jet A is about 10 percent less than 100LL in the US

[@larz46north18]

200hp at 800' c . sounds good Dave. perhaps try that engine powering a big water pump at EGT 810'c for 4 hours then check the stators section and N1 turbine.

[@Blackcloud_Garage]

Glad to see them trying and taking a chance. It's nice to see some new tech come along to give alternatives to engine tech from the 30's/40's.

[@aerotuc]

investors in Australia please support this .

[@yellow6ird]

Perfect for the DarkAero 1.

[@bernardputersznit64]

My Mechanical Engineer 'Organ' PLUMPS just watching this :-)

[@yellowboeing6030]

Good luck with your endeavor! Hope it works out. Regarding piston to turboprop conversions, wondering if there’s going to be CofG issues because turbines tend to have lower weights than pistons.

[@FortMcgiggens]

Simple fix is moving the engine forward like they do in a turbo otter.

[@dodgecummins6181]

So far it’s heavier than piston. That’s a worse problem to have.

[@CrossWindsPat]

@@dodgecummins6181 well its heavier than a 110hp rotax lol. Anything making 200 hp is a 6 cyl and it will weight less than a 6 cyl.

[@axelgautrot1804]

There's also the french company Turbotech, who's project is already flying and is being sponsored by SAFRAN.

[@acefighterpilot]

Not sure I'd pay $80k to get near enough the same weight and power as an IO-360. However, I would happily pay $40k for a 200hp certificated Rotax.

[@randyrohe]

Heaven forbid someone try to innovate...

[@ABC-rh7zc]

Reliability?

[@wenkeli1409]

Vibration,/noise, fuel availability are the two other factors I can think of, in addition to reliability

[@Ichibuns]

Big difference between a turbine and piston is the altitude that power is available. With the same horsepower, a turbine will fly much higher and achieve a much faster true airspeed. I'm betting fuel usage per mile will be similar to a 200 hp piston. You'll just get to the destination quicker which increases your bladder range. I think $80k is low balling it. I doubt it'll be able to hit the market for under $100k-$120k.

[@toldt]

I'd pay $80k if it could replace an IO-550

[@karlwilliams8208]

Outstanding!

[@jjohnston94]

80 to 85 thousand. I guess that's good news, in a way. I was expecting a million.

[@av8tor261]

He's a good talker and provides lots of estimated principles. I'm not knocking "proof of concept" but, in my 30+ years of aviation, mostly engineering and QA. However, I'll believe it when I see it. I'll buy two units when they have 1000 hours of incident free flight time. I do wish TurbAero the best.

[@wenkeli1409]

Yep, I'm hopeful but will wait and see.

[@deel152]

I would take an engine like this over a supercharged Rotax engine. This will provide the power of a Turbine gas engine with a combination of using prop. Simple clean efficient, Robust, powerful and reliable!!

[@2Phast4Rocket]

It would be a great engine if they manage to build a real working unit.

[@av8tor261]

You nailed it. I'll believe it when I see it fly.

[@kalancosta7650]

It’s not like it’s hard, model RC planes already have turbines lol

[@2Phast4Rocket]

@@kalancosta7650 exactly. Just scale it up a bit, they can put it on a commuter airliner

[@av8tor261]

@@kalancosta7650 LOL butt you ass is not in a R/C airplane. LOL

[@Auger3504]

No good plan goes unpunished. Experience and history shows they will be lucky to have this thing in production in 2-3 years, not the 18 months he is thinking. Assuming they still have working capital, it might be even longer than that. Great idea, and good luck.

[@soconnoriv]

Funny how suddenly two different manufacturers (TurbAero and TurboTech) have designed turbine engines with exhaust heat exchangers at around the same exact time. My only guess is that the invention of laser-sintering has finally enabled this technology to be manufactured at an affordable enough price, in small turbines that is. I wonder if GE and Pratt will follow and include exhaust heat exchangers in new engine models. The PT-6 series is due for an overhaul; and I’m not just talking about slapping a FADEC on it.

[@andreask9382]

For an engine that hasn’t even run yet, a delivery timeline of 2024 is…ambitious, to say the least. We shall see.

[@machinesandthings7121]

2034 would be more realistic. But they'll need alot of cash to make it work...

[@glennwatson]

Australia's CASA is far more conservative normally then the FAA so that's a challenge.

[@rkan2]

This project in reality is probably a 100m$+ after it would end up as a product, I doub't they have that kind of money... Military has that kind of money at that's why it already exists in that space.

[@RM-el3gw]

thought the same. Add two years on top of that, best case scenario... And likely much more expensive as well.

[@singleproppilot]

If you want an engine that screams like a banshee and sucks down Jet A like no tomorrow, and money is not a factor, then buy a used Allison / Rolls Royce 250 and bolt it on the front of your experimental. At least you can be confident that it’s a well-developed, proven reliable design. And when it comes time to do maintenance, you can get parts for it, if the sticker shock doesn’t give you a heart attack. For this company to just jump feet first in to a market segment that’s been dominated by one company for decades and think they’re going to outplay the leaders is, at best, naive optimism.

[@cyrilmeynier5688]

Could it also be used as an APU for an airliner?

[@adamrmc100]

This would be a great success if they did it for a 500+ hp engine. The cool factor notwithstanding, I fear not enough owners will be tempted to spend twice as much in purchase/overhaul cost for saving 50 lbs engine weight and $20/hr on fuel, over other 200hp engines. This recuperation technology sounds like it could be a real edge in the right power category. Use it to compete with the TIO-540, PT6A and TPE-331, and that would be a game changer if it is mostly better in terms of power-to-weight, cost and efficiency; then you could see lots of owners looking to upgrade their aircraft.

[@michaelharris679]

From just an engineering standpoint there's a lot of reasons this makes sense. I'm very skeptical that the capital and market is there, but I'm pretty interested. I'm also curious how the pressure loss vs heat exchange efficiency vs weight trade-offs work out. If this was possible/manufacturerable in the GA market right after WW2, these would be ubiquitous.

[@alexp1329]

If they are able to get this going. The engine may have a place in military UAVs.

[@TRabbit1970]

The production version of the engine hasn’t run in a test stand, but you’re talking deliveries in the next couple of years? Right. I’ll believe that when the Gemini and Higgs Falcon engines are flying and have proven their reliability and performance. It would be fabulous if you can do it, though. You won’t be getting near enough heat with materials that wouldn’t drive the engine price up into the quarter million range, though, so you’ll still be at least double the fuel consumption of an IC engine.

[@gregkarson]

If they can deliver on the performance and the price point, this could be a real winner. As always- Is there REALLY a market? Can this potential market sustain a price shock in the cost of Jet-A? But boy it's dripping with cool. 😎

[@Tharkunify]

This will be fantastic if they can stay the course and get it certified. It's relatively small and lightweight, will eliminate the need for a turbo (on piston), and uses jet fuel. I can see it on a future Diamond, Tecnam, or RV. Would also be great on trainers since the single lever operation and turbine procedures would be more in line with commercial jets etc.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

I know the cost of certifying engines, and it's way beyond "eye watering". If they started with [US] $100,000,000.00 in the kitty, they'd run out long before it was FAA/EASA certified. GE spent well north of two billion USD on the GEnx engine, a decade ago when a billion was still good money.

[@bwalker4194]

Also, completely wrong target group of 200HP engines in my opinion. People in this category fly your basic homebuilt through small Pipers and Cessnas. They typically have defined budgets and monetary constraints. A more appropriate plan would be to scale this engine up to 300-350HP. Now you’re targeting people who already have pressurized aircraft, far less monetary restrictions, and are used to engines that already cost upwards of $100,000. Their fuel burn, if not allowed to run LOP is not too far off a well-designed turbine.

[@dermick]

So true - but there is no competition in the small (200hp) engine market. I suspect his final target market will be the military drone manufacturers.

[@Ulbre]

maybe you should actually watch the video, or pay more attention, as he stated the types of aircraft they were targeting and there was no mention of pipers & cessnas!!!!!

[@tokiomitohsaka7770]

@@Ulbre I actually agree with walker. $85,000 for an engine that’s only 200 HP isn’t an easy sale for smaller aircrafts because most of that market is on smaller budgets. I suppose that if they scale up their production that price will go down by the time of their second generation to provide a lower cost which would make it attract a wider clientele.

[@fartingfury]

@Ulbre De Folie I think that's probably a distinction without a difference: The video does mention Velocity and Vans, which are around the size of Pipers and Cessnas, depending of course on which models you take.

[@stix7662]

“Recuperative heating” is the same basic technology that was used in the Chrysler turbine car engine of the ‘50’s and early ‘60’s to cut SFC to something a bit more efficient and cost effective over the fuel burn of a typical turbine engine…

[@Mike_Costello]

Loved Jay Leno's video breakdown on his Chrysler Turbine. It'll spin the wheels with torque loading the gearbox even.

[@UncleKennysPlace]

Yep; they even used two on the later models. I'll guess that their BSFC is closer to any other small turbine than an O-360.

[@jeffwalther3935]

A high-production, state-of-the-art turbo prop engine designed from zero to replace 4-6 seat suitable GA aircraft IS the greatest "next thing" in aviation technological history. Such a feat has to be started from scratch as patents of all types prevent profitable developments every step of the way. Nevertheless, while the additional up-grades are so big in consideration of any and all aircraft design in total, GA aircraft airframes and support systems and many procedures too must eventually up-grade to standardize the turbo-propeller in true high-performance GA expectations and real and reasonable needs of pilots today, all things considered. THEREFORE, this business venture is very exciting, right on the money, aviation-wise and can capture the infinitely BIG market awaiting whoever delivers the golden GA turboprop, like the Merlin engine, to the long overdue and enormous GA community. Go, TurbAero Go!

[@earlgreystoke3324]

So...how much have you invested in TurbAero?

[@jeffwalther3935]

@@earlgreystoke3324 I'm not a financial investor. I don't and never have had any discretionary income, so little so, I've no experience, necessary knowledge, temperament, discipline, etc., i.e., all the personal tools required to have, hold, or spend, shop, speculate, gamble, etc., do any portion of finances, so have not invested in any type of business venture under any circumstances. Investment, etc. is quite alien to me. I think I'm inadvertently allergic to it and have NEVER liked any portion of it, in self or others, at all.

[@jeffwalther3935]

@@earlgreystoke3324 P.S., sorry, " . . . NON-discretionary . . ." funds is what I meant to say.

[@dennisharrington6055]

Thanks.

[@tomdchi12]

I wish them luck and it will be nice when they have a prototype that can spin up, then even nicer when they have something that can fly.

[@johnlonguil4157]

I’ll let you put one on my Socata TB-10 for your certification test if I can keep the engine in the plane

[@gmcjetpilot]

*Sorry I got $20 on another vaporware paper engine that will never go into production. "Recuperator" technology, 3D printing, "micro channels"? Cough. Yeah, sure 3D printed parts handle what temperatures? He even choked on his own words. Sounds like sales pitch and deposit mining, in which you will never see your deposit again or an engine.* They had promised to be flying by now and still showing the same plastic mock up as they have for years. THINK. What small turbines used in real small SE turboprops aircraft that have flown? P&W PT6, Alison 250 (now Rolls-Royce M250, US Military T62, T703), Garrett TP331 (formally Air research now Honeywell). Look at them. There is no simple Turbine and none that have the same fuel efficiency in the 200HP range and maintenance cost as a piston engine. If you have the money you would not bother and go buy -Pilatus PC-12, Piper M500/M600, TBM 700 to 900, Epic E1000, Cessna Caravan 208. Before the recent inflation many older models were less than $1M. Their new *Recuperator* technology (funny name, and not new. Engines of all kinds, steam, reciprocating, turbines, have been using heat exchangers and energy recovery systems for 70 years to increase efficiency). They can not defy physics and thermodynamics. Aircraft turbines today use many technologies to make them more efficient, but not a "Recuperator" is not one of them. Variable vanes, multi stage turbines, multi spools, etc. If going turbine you really need to be in the 450HP and above range to justify it. Not may GA kit planes can handle 450HP (a few can). Small turbines are APU's or a novelty. Many of these micro jets (not turboprop) use on planes like Sonex Aircraft SubSonex Jet come from a drone or RC model engines, with fairly low thrust, and they have TBO's of a few 100 hours. Even if they got this working it would need to be overhauled frequently. You ARE FAR better buying a used Single Engine turbine plane already flying if you must have turbine and have $$$$$. Before the current inflation a used TBM700, or Turbine Piper or Cessna was well below a million. Now everything has been artificially inflated due to US Gov printing money like water and committing energy suicide. Thanks Biden. Turbine? You gain lighter more compact package for HP (again in the 450 HP and up range). You have much higher HP potential beyond a piston engine, but way more HP than a small GA plane can use. To use excess HP the idea is fly very high, and this means pressurization (or uncomfortable pressure O2 masks). Again better off buying a certified SE turbine. You gain in theory more reliability, but fuel economy? No. The P&W PT6 is de facto engine for SE Turboprops and burns 50 to 70 GPH at $5/Gal. There is no free lunch. Turbines are expensive to buy, overhaul and feed fuel. A PT6 min HP is about 500 HP, and just the engine, outright, if P&W would even sell you one is $1M. An overhaul if they find bad parts is half the price of an engine, 100's and 100's of thousands for a routine overhaul. So these guys have cracked the code in cheap turbines suitable for GA plane sizes and budgets? Serious doubts. Good luck.

[@sircrapalot9954]

Your skepticism is certainly justified. I think the reason they're targeting around 200 HP is because recuperators just don't scale well with larger engines, hence IGV/CGV's, multi-staging, spools, etc that you see on aircraft turbines. TurboTech has a lot to prove. I hope they're successful -- a Jet-A burning economical 2-seater with low noise, higher performance at altitude, comparable range and better reliability than a piston would be neat. I hope there's a market.

[@notj5712]

Still no accessory case on that mockup...... Interested to see how they get around that oversight.

[@Ulbre]

I think you're confusing it with a piston engine that needs starter motor, alternator.......this has all that covered

[@notj5712]

@@Ulbre Not there it doesn't. I've worked on enough turbines to know, and have known that since my first day in A&P school.

[@coolhari2000]

Ignore the nay sayers, these guys love their 1950's technology & will say 'it still works'. Happy to see this project & i for one will line up & buy it.

[@ultraveridical]

Turbines are 1950s' technology. This one looks especially like something out of 50s, structure wise.

[@andreask9382]

You won’t because there will be nothing to buy.

[@Ulbre]

Totally agree Mr Hari, he even stated that they were only able to do it because of modern technology (3D printers) but all the naysayers are rambling on about what it cost Rolls Royce back in the 50's. I hope you are enjoying your ultimate adventure :)

[@edmondthompson1523]

Very interesting and promising.

[@Baribrotzer]

The recuperator is an old idea - it was used in the Chrysler Turbine Car, the Ford Turbine Truck, and I think the Rover Turbine from even earlier - but it's new in turboprops. Not sure why. Maybe the added weight and complexity weren't seen as worth it. Or, the gains in efficiency didn't matter, because any customer who could afford a turboprop in the first place wasn't going to worry about fuel costs.

[@CrossWindsPat]

I think its your last point. If your dropping half a million on an engine, I doubt burning 10 GPH more really bothers you...

[@SR-bh5jd]

Wonder about power recovery for rejected landings.

[@z987k]

How so?

[@Pilot.Lindsay]

I want One for My Saratoga.

[@socialghost87]

Question is.. why use this engine instead of TP100?

[@troysgt]

So excited to see this!!! Dreaming of an experimental with a turboprop!!! Hey @mikepatey, just kidding, no where near enough power for him. Maybe for his wife or kids though.

[@warrenmassey4029]

Hi do you make anything a bit smaller. _ 160 hp ?.

[@brianb5594]

Maybe this company will make it happen. Jet-A for all! 😊

[@demagescod9657]

Doesn't raising intake temp just reduce the amount of power the engine can produce? I don't understand how feeding the engine hot air helps.... with power OR efficiency.

[@loctite222ms]

That's correct increasing the inlet temperature decreases power. If fact take-off power, etc. get derated at higher inlet temperatures. There's a maximum turbine inlet temperature that limits things.

[@TomM-jh8lx]

Increasing intake temp BEFORE compression occurs reduces power/efficiency. The recuperator takes the wasted heat from exhaust and transfers it to the air AFTER compression before combustion, thus increasing efficiency.

[@swarajsandhu]

If they can get this done and keep it at that price range they will struggle to keep up the demand.. i think this will be extremely successful

[@AustNRail]

$85 000 for a light sport aircraft engine is out of the ball park when you can get a Rotax for around $22 000. Become competitive on the price point even $45 000 would make a difference and the upgrade would be relatively painless.

[@av8bvma513]

Drinking game: Down a shot each time he says "...recuperator..." and a Triple-Shot when he says "...3dprinted..."

[@lcprivatepilot1969]

Would love to put one that has been derated to 150-HP in a Piper Tomahawk!

[@tsclly2377]

PT-6 training required.. Not fan .. as there are tight operational procedures for those types of engines and I've noted that the OV-10 went with the direct drive Allisons that improve over decoupled power turbines.. I've invested in Liquid Piston that should have much more conventional attributes and should be acrobatic worthy...

[@Dragonrc.]

Im on the follow list, I dont have deep pockets but hopefully this is something that takes over GA and I can put one in an RV 10 some day!

[@skyking6989]

I hope it works but countless people have tried alternative engines for GA aircraft. I pray this works. GA aircraft need new engine technology

[@GrantOakes]

Marketing spec goals but just wait and see if they can come even close to those targets. I'll bet the SFC will be around .75 Lbs/hp/hr as opposed to .45 for gasoline piston engines.

[@CrossWindsPat]

wow pretty wild that they want the air hotter. Almost anythig that burns fuel and air wants cooler air for more power. Turbines are just a completely different animal...

[@jeffwalther3935]

I am overjoyed at the new idea of applying a aircraft makeover up-grade with these new turboprop engines designed specifically for light GA engines installed in existing suitable aircraft with reciprocating engines for entirely NEW and refined, yet old and tested features and systems to be so further refined, and all synchronized to yield a new aircraft of astounding capability JUST by this change to turboprop and refined systems. I've seen a few pioneer makeover companies that do such things for owners. Their products are magnificent new performers, e.g., the Omaha Silver Eagle, Cessna 210. Here they can just about double every performance consideration in the process without buying a completely new airframe, company, etc. AND have all the fun and exhilaration of an entirely new and surprising aircraft at a fraction of the cost in time, money, effort, risk, training, etc. Turbopropulsion and high-performance props are the waytago in GA, for all good intents and purposes. This engine can make it ALL happen, Go TurbAero, go!

[@njackofalltrades6214]

Cost?

[@seoceancrosser]

Will need to be extremely more reliable than its piston counter part to justify that cost.

[@z987k]

Traditional turbines are. And they normally go 4-8 times the hours between overhaul. That gets the fixed costs per hour way down, but is that worth it to the typical private pilots that doesn't even manage 1000 hours in their life? I mean what good is a 7000 hour TBO when it'll only fly 800?

[@UncleKennysPlace]

GE's new Catalyst gas turbine (PT6 competitor) also uses 3-D printing, to reduce parts count and expensive machining. GE is projecting a 15% increase in fuel economy, which is huge. But this new engine weighs as much (actually, more) as a R-R 300.

[@flodurpups9846]

Yes, i am fully with you. I remember at rhe Ge turbo engine used in piper 400 ls. 1000ps each with only 60 gallons, hour. But the mostly advantage engine development looks to hybrid jet a fuel. Combination of. Power fuel efficiency and electric take off.

[@skenzyme81]

Given the promising development of the RED A03 diesel engine (its already receiving certifications), it seems more likely the V6 version of that engine, the A05, will be certified long before this gorgeous little turbine. And at significantly lower lifecycle operating costs! God bless TurbAero, but there is no way they will be able to manufacture turbine blades that can get hot enough to be efficient enough to make this little wonder go. Ceramic coatings? Nope. Titanium? No way. Single crystal castings? LOL. The manufacturing infrastructure to make efficient turbines is beyond most nation-states. Unless TurbAero has some stunning IP they're not letting on about, this will not make it past the first flying prototypes.

[@rkan2]

I think it is certainly possible - it has been done already in many applications... But this should be a hundred million+ project, which I doubt they'll be able to afford. Rolls Royce Model 250 is similar and inflation adjusted that project cost 60m$ 60 years ago. The modern version costs like 300k$.

[@daszieher]

Horses for courses. That's what the recuperator is for. Bring the efficiency up despite having a much lower TIT

[@skenzyme81]

@@rkan2 Well said. There is always a substantial gap between completing the digital design for a product and actually building it, but aerospace may be the most extreme case of this - turbines especially. Rocket engines are hard, but until SpaceX they were mostly single use and and bespoke. The quality implementation standard for a multi-use certified product with tolerances that account for variation over series production ALWAYS means the manufacturing process will mature slowly (and expensively). The TurbAero team comes across as skilled and capable, but they don't look like a company that has even 5% of the capital that will be needed to see this engine offered in anything built by Cessna.

[@skenzyme81]

@@rkan2 just look at that TINY reduction gearbox on the front of the "Talon" engine. Printing the gears for such a device isn't a thing yet. They will have to outsource this part to an aerospace machining company and it will be EXPENSIVE.

[@alexandermarchenko479]

Anything that burns diesel seems to be a dead end. IO-360 has been around for decades, costs around 40k new and 25k overhauled and this is expensive already. Neither this tiny turbine project nor RED engine are going to be cheaper or significantly more fuel efficient in terms of quantity of fuel burned. Moreover the overhaul cost of the turbine will likely be over half of the price of new unit while RED is a TBR engine by design. What GA needs is an IO-360 that burns anything that a gas pump sells instead of 100LL or any other special "aviation" fuel which is going to be expensive anyway. This boils down to just a few things: injector return line along with in-tank electric fuel pumps to avoid vapor lock; cylinder coating to be able to withstand corrosive alcohol in fuel; a bunch of sensors and a fail-safe engine FADEC along with electronic ignition to boost efficiency and performance. All these technologies are widely used in automotive world and even in aviation: Rotax burns E10.

[@Bbutler787]

Sounds like EGR from 1980’s Detroit.

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

Yeah, but how many times can it be started before the hot section must be replaced? 5000, 500, 50, 5?

[@DumbledoreMcCracken]

my guess is less than 100

[@daszieher]

It depends on how hard the alloys are stressed on a regular start.

[@TheMottasa]

Fantastic! Now the biggest challenge, get though the endless bureaucracy of the FAA.

[@salmiakki5638]

How can they provide such a big additive manufacturing component at the 80k$ price of the engine?

[@joelneatrour1945]

That's a really good question. Optimistically skeptical.

[@robinj.9329]

The very biggest hurdle to putting a turbo-prop engine in your Bonanza or Skyline is going to be THE PRICE ! Turbines will always cost lots, lots more to manufacture then plain old piston engines. It doesn't matter so much in a Corporation Transport plane because every last cent of the operating costs are a TAX WRITE OFF ! Thus "Daddy War Bucks" essentially flys for FREE !

[@billcoltharp]

My accountant once told me that you can’t have a write off until you have a write on. The deduction doesn’t let you fly for free. It does let you fly on pre tax dollars (at least the portion of your flying that is for business).

[@msmeyersmd8]

200 HP is a good size to start that will work in a lot of smaller airplanes. Even it it has to be derated a bit. I'm not a businessman but I would love to see a parallel development for a 350-400 HP turbine. That would cover virtually all of the piston engined replacement market for singles and twins. I'm guessing that would mean they'd need to design for 500 -600 HP and derate them for for longevity. But what do I know? I'm just a retired 63 yo old man that used to see this type of thing on the cover of Popular Mechanics magazine in the late 1960s. I suspect that the bar for cost of certification is 20+ times too high. 3-D printed Titanium could change things quite a bit. Although there are quite a few ~300+ HP Singles and Twins that might decide to become Experimental? How about a Baron, Bonanza or Duke with reliable 400 HP? Or a Piper Navaho with 450-600 HP per engine. They would have to undercut the derated PT-6 costs significantly to succeed at the 350+ HP range. That would be tough. How about an AeroStar with 400+ HP per side? I always loved the Duke. I pumped 100LL at the airport during college summers. There were a couple Dukes that taxied up for gas 2-3 times during the summer. Duke Drivers Always paid in Cash off of a Gigantic Roll of Bills. Dukes were thirsty. We, the mechanics, the gas pumpers and my boss would always joke that taxiing up n a Duke, close to the hanger, and stopping for fuel...pardon the language. Was like pulling up, unzipping your pants and flopping a giant dick out on the pavement before dragging it to the bathroom. And saying "fill her up". They never asked what the price was. This was 1976-1979. One guy was a large swarthy fellow that my boss told me owned one or more traveling carnivals. And he knew that, at that time, "traveling carnivals" were often used to move illicit products(?) around the country. Maybe Coors beer that wasn't sold in Oregon at that time?😂😂👍🏻 Hence, the several thousand dollar roll of bills to pay for gas. No receipt requested. 😎

[@Stooch]

much better idea than electric vehicles

[@rkan2]

We'll have commercial electric aircraft before this thing is in operation unless somebody pours in 100m$++ in to the development. (Like similar engines for the military)

[@samuelvelez4985]

A 350hp would hit a much bigger market!

[@fillefrans2020]

You have to ask: if this simple device is effective, why hasn't it already been invented and put into engines?

[@zapfanzapfan]

More fuel efficient at partial power? I read a paper on the concept but then it was for installation on a ship, so a liiiittle bit bigger.

[@rkan2]

A similar turbine engine like the Allison / Rolls Royce Model 250 cost 6.4m$ to develop in the 50s and inflation adjusted cost over 60m$ as a program cost. I'll believe in this when they get similar amount (or more) of investment. Inflation adjusted it was also half the price but by todays money a current model costs more than 300k$... I'm sure you could cut the price by half by making equal amounts of such engines (30000+), but you'd still need hundreds of millions in development.

[@bwalker4194]

I wish them luck, in kind of a mostly unicorn and rainbows way. The Recuperator may get the BFSC from .85 down to say .70, which would be stunning, but it is still a continuous combustion engine. If you could tow your plane out to the runway, start the engine, take off immediately and without delay head for 20,000 feet with oxygen mask firmly in place, then perform a completely flight-idle descent, land, shut down the engine and tow it back to your hanger…maybe, just maybe it could work.

[@timi707_1]

i feel like this case would be one of the few where a hybrid electric airplane might make sense, do as much of the >FL20 flying and taxiing on the battery as possible, then turboprop away once at altitude or whenever the bat runs out

[@andrewmorris3479]

I would love to see a feature from y’all on the PBS TP100.

[@lsx_moe]

I’ll stick with Vikings 195. Less than half the price for a reliable and efficient Honda engine. Turboprops are amazing but I think the only benefit over a conventional piston engine would be the noises that come out of it!

[@zackriden79]

85 k for A 200HP engine thats a hard NA!!!

[@johnpatrick1588]

Turning unpressurized piston craft into turboprops mean sucking on O2 for best performance and economy. Then the fuel quantities on board may not be efficient if the fuel burn is much higher. The 200 hp aviation piston engines are not known to be very troublesome, to begin with. I am all for other and newer options in the marketplace.

[@jtully79]

Not quite accurate. It’s true that most TP engines in production today are optimised for high altitude efficiency however that doesn’t have to be the case. It is entirely possible to design a TP/ gas turbine engine for high efficiency at low altitude. I’m hoping this one meets the goals

[@jeffwalther3935]

Remember what good ol' "Wrong-Way" Corrigan did with his barely airworthy Curtis Robin, a single engine with a water-cooled Liberty WW I-aged military surplus engine as standard. Corrigan just replaced the in-line water-cooled underpowered heavy engine with the lighter and more reliable and robust AIR-COOOLED RADIAL engine, just that and additional fuel bladders and flew nonstop from New York to Ireland and landed safely - to come home to a bigger welcome home homeboy hero than Lucky Lindbergh who ALSO used a high-wing radial engine years before. He did the whole stunt REALLY just to prove the superiority in suitability of the air-cooled radial BUT never could admit such or be subject to felony prosecution. The point is an engine breakthrough like this turboprop is a similar gamechanger. BTW, Douglas "W.W." Corrigan was a top aviation pioneer AND a key employee engineer of the Ryan Aircraft Company that designed and built The Spirit of St. Louis for Charles Lindbergh. It was Douglas Corrigan who, single-handedly, designed and built the entire wing of Spirit.

[@mrvv8337]

The Chrysler turbine used in the cars in cars in the 1950's and 60's used a heat regenerator.

[@daszieher]

And that was it's Achilles'heel.

[@mrvv8337]

@@daszieher No sir. The heat regenerator dropped the exhaust temp to safe levels and preheated the after compression which made combustion easier and more complete. Thus bringing mpg close to a piston engine.

[@daszieher]

@@mrvv8337 yes, that is what it was supposed to do. However, its additional cost did not bring the total system operating costs anywhere close to the TCO of a regular piston engined car.

[@mrvv8337]

@@daszieher It did just what it was supposed to do...be equivalent to a piston engine. The problem was the turbine needed to be better than not the same in fuel economy. Cost would be brought down in mass production which the turbine engine didn't get to take advantage of like the piston engine had for 45 years prior.

[@mrvv8337]

@@daszieher Do a little more research before commenting.

[@kazansky22]

Hey man, if you get a chance could you go back and talk to them about the Rapture Bug aircraft. I'm really interested in that, really small and quick, and hopefully really affordable.

[@timi707_1]

whats the lbs/hp/hr compared to a aviation diesel piston i wonder?

[@williamfahey4092]

Interesting. He mentioned wanting to use it for STOL. A 17 foot long, almost 300# engine costing $80,000. I would imagine the fuel burn would be quite high so the need to carry the extra fuel is going to add unwanted weight. It will be fun to watch this develop but I am not convinced they have the right target market.

[@soconnoriv]

The whole point of the heat exchanger design is to make it more fuel efficient. He specifically said that this engine can be 25% more efficient than non-heat exchanged aircraft. So hopefully, the fuel burn will be on-par with a piston engine, if not better.

[@P51]

$85K seems reasonable. 😂

[@singleproppilot]

Another example of “Hey, let’s try this… again. It’s never worked before, but maybe we’ll get lucky this time.”

[@daszieher]

Well, they are trying something considerably different by developing a custom recuperator. Hey, it's their money on the line. I can afford to be a cheerleader 🤣

[@SheepInACart]

@@daszieher The recuperator is exactly a tech thats been seen time and time again, and failed. It got furthest with Chrysler automotive, who built turbine powered cars to take advantage of multifuel capability, and since adding enough compressor and turbine stages was cost (and production hours) prohibitive, they used recuperators then. They got working road legal prototypes out in what would have been almost production styling, and even had started the marketing to dealers ect (including posters showing the flow order of gas through engine and recuperator and boasting about the latters function)... but the fuel economy was never good enough to compete with downsized engines in the same car bodies so the project got cancelled before they took the major investments to tool up for series production. Technology gets better every year, but thermodynamics hasn't changed much, nor has the fact that piston engines have been so ubiquitous at this exact scale helped turbines retaliative development levels...

[@daszieher]

@@SheepInACart I am not saying that a recuperator is so novel. It is its manufacturing that - according to Turbaero - should make the concept competitive. This is what I'd like to see tried out.

[@paulo7200]

Hey it worked for MRNA vaccines!

[@peterxyz3541]

HOW MUCH???????? I fear the price will be $100,000.00 or more