Jump to content


Photo

Turbine or diesel


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 Mooneyjet

Mooneyjet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 05:28 PM

Hey guys does anyone know about a turbine conversion on the old mooneys that in my books would make it the ultimate hot rod, how about a diesel conversion just getting ideas .



#2 Skywarrior

Skywarrior

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 335 posts
  • LocationDouglasville, GA
  • Reg #:N9140Z
  • Model:M20M

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:17 PM

Would be a waste with a turbine - airframe can't handle high airspeed.


Diesel would be cool, though.



#3 KSMooniac

KSMooniac

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,646 posts
  • LocationWichita, KS
  • Reg #:N11MH
  • Model:M20J

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:29 PM

Neither exist today.  A diesel is intriguing and could be very practical, a turbine...notsomuch.  


Before the economic implosion, Mooney was supposedly partnered with RR to develop a Mooney with their small turboprop engine, but their motivation was as an export option to areas without 100LL, and it was going to be optimized for cruising in the teens instead of the flight levels, and likely would have been no faster than the Acclaim, but a lot more expensive.


There are turbine conversions for the 210 and A/B36 Bonanza available, and they're not big sellers as far as I know.  The knock on them is the fairly limited range compared to their un-modified versions.  On a long trip with a fuel stop their speed advantage can be negated by the non-turbine version skipping the fuel stop.  They do look cool, though, and that is worth a lot to some people.



#4 N4352H

N4352H

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,905 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 06:37 PM


Quote: Skywarrior


Would be a waste with a turbine - airframe can't handle high airspeed.


Diesel would be cool, though.




Nor enough fuel to fly anywhere, even with Monroys. I think if they can bolt on something like a reliable, low cost, tested version of a 200HP Thielert.....they'd hit it out of the park.



#5 aviatoreb

aviatoreb

    1981

  • Members
  • 2,612 posts
  • LocationKPTD
  • Reg #:N10933
  • Model:81' M20K Rocket

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:14 PM


Quote: Mooneyjet


Hey guys does anyone know about a turbine conversion on the old mooneys that in my books would make it the ultimate hot rod, how about a diesel conversion just getting ideas .




I read that delta hawk aero-diesel engines - which has been "oh so close to certified" for years has been contemplating their ~200hp turbo diesel for Mooney.


 


http://www.deltahawkengines.com/


http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml


 It is currently supposedly being certified for the Cirrus SR20.  In a Mooney M20J (and maybe a k?) - it says 65% of 200hp power on 7g/hr or 11g/hr at 100%.  That would make for some amazing endurance and some good speed.  Should be good speed too - I misplaced the reference but as a turbo diesel it has good high - like mid teens - (but not very high) altitude performance.


It is n aeronautical purpose built simpler than most diesel - From their website:



TECHNICAL OVERVIEW



The DeltaHawk engine is a two-stroke, piston-ported (loop scavenged), dry sump, pressure lubricated, diesel-cycle piston engine. It is a liquid-cooled, turbo-supercharged, direct-drive, V configured monoblock engine. The engine is designed to develop rated horsepower at 2700 rpm burning Jet A, Jet A-1, JP-5, JP-8 or diesel fuel.


That's my bet on what we will be hanging on our noses 10-15 years from now as avgas goes into the sunset.




#6 stevesm20b

stevesm20b

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 247 posts

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:18 PM

They already is a turbine Mooney. It's called a TBM850.



#7 xftrplt

xftrplt

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 303 posts
  • Location2G4, Oakland, MD
  • Reg #:N888BC
  • Model:M20K/231

Posted 08 May 2012 - 07:21 PM

Quick Exam on (certified) Aviation.


Which term doesn't belong?


a.  Reliable


b.  Low cost


c.  Tested version of a 200HP Thielert


 



#8 N601RX

N601RX

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 2,270 posts
  • LocationTroy, Al
  • Model:M20F, 601

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:32 PM

The Mooney is the only non turbo diesel that we own.  My car is a diesel Jetta with over 350k miles and still gets over 50mph on the hi way.  Absolute zero problems and very little preventive Maint.  My wife has a new Passat that is getting in the high 40's. 



#9 BorealOne

BorealOne

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 282 posts
  • LocationSomewhere in the North
  • Reg #:C-GJOG
  • Model:Ovation

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:44 PM

Keep your eyes out for the results of this recently announced partnership towards a big-block version of the already certified and in production Austro diesel engines used in the Diamond DA-42 twin...


http://www.steyr-motors.com/news/news-single/steyr-motors-and-austro-engine-form-development-partnership-for-280hp-6-cylinder-aircraft-engine/b3cba3e7eddf7ed04ee7fd0811f582aa/


 


 



#10 jetdriven

jetdriven

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 5,769 posts
  • Locationtexas
  • Model:1977 M20J

Posted 08 May 2012 - 08:56 PM

The fuel specifics of a turbine are about twice as bad as a piston engine, ~.8-1.0 BSFC vs a .39-.42 for a LOP gasoline IO-360 or big bore Continental.  Someone is developing a 200HP turbine engine, and its 18 GPH.


The BSFC of a Centurion 2.0 isnt much better, around .38.  To get that it takes a turbocharger, water cooling, a gearbox, electronic fuel injection, a myriad of hoses and wires, and a gearbox overhaul (?35 grand) every 300 hours.  It is flat-rated to 155 HP, so you must fly it between 10-20K to realize the efficiency and cruise power advantages of the design.


Oshosh 2011 had the SMA 230 HP direct drive diesel engine on display.  For 230 HP is looked massive, complex, and expensive.  It is. SMA claims a BSFC of .365 and a 2,400 TBO.  That's still around 10 GPH.   It is available now for 75K plus installation, and it wouldnt be a good replacement for a 200 HP IO-360, but rather, might replace the already superb IO-550 in an Ovation.  No takers, obviously.


Continental's TD-300 is a copy of that, one was present as well.  Neither of the sales staff had any idea about them, and no timeline, nothing really.   A nice conversation piece.



#11 jerry-N5911Q

jerry-N5911Q

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 463 posts
  • LocationSan Rafael, CA
  • Model:M20C

Posted 08 May 2012 - 09:17 PM


Quote: jetdriven


The fuel specifics of a turbine are about twice as bad as a piston engine, ~.8-1.0 BSFC vs a .39-.42 for a LOP gasoline IO-360 or big bore Continental.




Well, I also have a JetProp with a PT6A-21 in a Mirage airframe.  With the old Lycoming 350 HP engine it would do 215 KTAS at FL230 on 22 GPH.   That's more fuel than the POH calls for, but the fuel flow was essential to keep the CHT in the green.   The turbine will do 215 KTAS on 25 GPH at FL230, so it is not twice as bad in practice, it is 10% worse in that example.   And JetA is cheaper per gallon. 


Forced low by ATC, yeah, it is a drag to burn 25 GPH at 160 KTAS at 5000 feet.   That's why we climb as high as possible on most flights.  


Too bad the turbine engine costs so much to buy because it sure is smooth, powerful and reliable. 



#12 aviatoreb

aviatoreb

    1981

  • Members
  • 2,612 posts
  • LocationKPTD
  • Reg #:N10933
  • Model:81' M20K Rocket

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:45 PM


Quote: jetdriven


 Someone is developing a 200HP turbine engine, and its 18 GPH.




Who?


Anyway folks, yes there have been false starts and expsive current offerings in diesel and turbo diesel.  That doesn't mean it must always be that way.  It might be the wave of the future and inexpensive (relatively - after all we are talking airplane) if it becomes the dominant technology.



#13 Shadrach

Shadrach

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,823 posts
  • LocationKFDK
  • Model:1967 M20F

Posted 08 May 2012 - 10:55 PM


Quote: jerry-N5911Q



Quote: jetdriven


The fuel specifics of a turbine are about twice as bad as a piston engine, ~.8-1.0 BSFC vs a .39-.42 for a LOP gasoline IO-360 or big bore Continental.




Well, I also have a JetProp with a PT6A-21 in a Mirage airframe.  With the old Lycoming 350 HP engine it would do 215 KTAS at FL230 on 22 GPH.   That's more fuel than the POH calls for, but the fuel flow was essential to keep the CHT in the green.   The turbine will do 215 KTAS on 25 GPH at FL230, so it is not twice as bad in practice, it is 10% worse in that example.   And JetA is cheaper per gallon. 


Forced low by ATC, yeah, it is a drag to burn 25 GPH at 160 KTAS at 5000 feet.   That's why we climb as high as possible on most flights.  


Too bad the turbine engine costs so much to buy because it sure is smooth, powerful and reliable. 




Wasn't the Lyc in the Mirage supposed to be run LOP per the POH?  I've been told by 2 different sources that most of the problems with that engine came from owners that did not know any better, running "near" POH power settings but "just a little richer to be on the safe side"...



#14 jerry-N5911Q

jerry-N5911Q

    Lives Here

  • Members
  • 463 posts
  • LocationSan Rafael, CA
  • Model:M20C

Posted 08 May 2012 - 11:54 PM


Quote: Shadrach


Wasn't the Lyc in the Mirage supposed to be run LOP per the POH?  I've been told by 2 different sources that most of the problems with that engine came from owners that did not know any better, running "near" POH power settings but "just a little richer to be on the safe side"...




Here's what Lycoming says:


TIO540AE2A ENGINE IN NEW PIPER AIRCRAFT MALIBU MIRAGE


"Lycoming recommends that a cruise setting of 65%
power be used for typical flight profiles. This power setting
corresponds to 2400 RPM, 29 in. Hg. manifold pressure.
Recommended TIT is 1650°F or 100 degrees richer than peak
TIT whichever is less."


Source:  Lycoming document SSP400 Rev. 1


 



#15 jetdriven

jetdriven

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 5,769 posts
  • Locationtexas
  • Model:1977 M20J

Posted 09 May 2012 - 12:07 AM

The Continental TSIO-520BE was supposed to run LOP, at 15-17 GPH.



#16 Mooneyjet

Mooneyjet

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 09 May 2012 - 08:18 AM

At diesel conversion might be feasible if a guy was starting from scratch. Very true with regards of non experimental aircraft it seems like they gouche you for every certified part



#17 1964-M20E

1964-M20E

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 1,398 posts
  • LocationNew Orleans
  • Model:M20F

Posted 09 May 2012 - 09:13 AM


Quote: xftrplt


Quick Exam on (certified) Aviation.


Which term doesn't belong?


a.  Reliable


b.  Low cost


c.  Tested version of a 200HP Thielert


 




 You forgot


d. all of the above


:-))


 



#18 DaV8or

DaV8or

    Won't Leave!

  • Members
  • 3,057 posts
  • LocationDiscovery Bay, CA (Byron C83)
  • Reg #:9289M
  • Model:1966 M20F

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:35 AM

The problem with conversions, either turbine, or diesel, is high cost. In the case of the turbine, a small, suitable turbine like the RR engines, cost about $500,000. That doesn't include the prop, motor mounts, cowling, new instruments, engine controls and modifications to the fuel system. The diesel conversion would be much cheaper, but in no way cost effective. Even if say Delta Hawk, were able to match the price of a brand new Lycoming IO-360, you still have to buy a new prop, new cowl and baffle system (needing paint of course) , new motor mounts, firewall forward kit and some sort of mods for the fuel system. Then of course all the labor to do the conversion. For the few bucks you save on fuel, not worth it.


Faced with this option, 90%+ would go with a new gas engine. Only if there were no more gasoline available (not likely) would some consider the diesel. However, in this case, a lot of people would simply sell their planes for whatever price they could get and quit flying.



#19 aviatoreb

aviatoreb

    1981

  • Members
  • 2,612 posts
  • LocationKPTD
  • Reg #:N10933
  • Model:81' M20K Rocket

Posted 09 May 2012 - 10:57 AM


Quote: stevesm20b


They already is a turbine Mooney. It's called a TBM850.




True enough - but I think the dreaming is about a turbine M20 conversion of some sort.  I tend to agree with the folks that it would be too much for the airframe.  If the factory ever got interested again, with some kind of strengthening plus pressurization it would be super.  Otherwise, I suspect that the acclaim and the rocket are as much power as you would ever want to hang in front of an M20.



#20 aviatoreb

aviatoreb

    1981

  • Members
  • 2,612 posts
  • LocationKPTD
  • Reg #:N10933
  • Model:81' M20K Rocket

Posted 09 May 2012 - 11:26 AM


Quote: DaV8or


The problem with conversions, either turbine, or diesel, is high cost. In the case of the turbine, a small, suitable turbine like the RR engines, cost about $500,000. That doesn't include the prop, motor mounts, cowling, new instruments, engine controls and modifications to the fuel system. The diesel conversion would be much cheaper, but in no way cost effective. Even if say Delta Hawk, were able to match the price of a brand new Lycoming IO-360, you still have to buy a new prop, new cowl and baffle system (needing paint of course) , new motor mounts, firewall forward kit and some sort of mods for the fuel system. Then of course all the labor to do the conversion. For the few bucks you save on fuel, not worth it.


Faced with this option, 90%+ would go with a new gas engine. Only if there were no more gasoline available (not likely) would some consider the diesel. However, in this case, a lot of people would simply sell their planes for whatever price they could get and quit flying.




A diesel becoms more worth it in an environment where all avgas burners are grounded due to no more avgas and maybe no mogas.  Could happen someday.  That saves the rest of the airframe from obsolecense/junk/useless status in such an environment.  There are parts of the world already now where you cannot get avgas.  Also, I would guess in such a day and age, that diesel engine options could get more numerous and less expensive.  It is right that someone is starting the push now and I applaud them.  It is not right to make assumptions that things will stay the same as they are now, forever.  


 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users