aviatoreb Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 A 250hp to be certified turbo prop. It claims 18gph cruise. Full FADEC. Seems perfect for an M20 airframe. Not for more speed - but for more reliability. Forget the parachute. Hang an engine that is more likely to keep turning the prop. Or hey, rocket engineering, maybe you would do it for us? And the ability to burn Jet A is important in many parts of the world. I know diesel is coming, and who knows, maybe Mooney is working on that continental 300hp continental turbo diesel seems natural too, but a turbo prop would likely be more reliable. I would sooner fly behind a SEP than a twin piston for reliability. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonal Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 110K affordable god I am so far out of the game. I wish them success though looks like a very nice product 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted April 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 23 minutes ago, bonal said: 110K affordable god I am so far out of the game. I wish them success though looks like a very nice product Well - yeah - compared to a PT6 that is good. This always happens when you look at the new blink products and then compare them to what we have in our own legacy aircraft. When that engine costs more than our own legacy airplane. or if we look at a garmin g500+GTN750 upgrade and say wow that costs 60-70% of the airframe. But that is not fare in a way as it needs to be compared to the whole new product. Which is yes, crazy crazy expensive. On a new airplane, a 700K M20TN, then that is what like 30-50k marginal cost over a continental 6 cylinder? If I were in the market for a 700k acclaim, I would not blink to spend 740k on a turbo prop on the nose with significantly higher reliability. I think this product would make sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbridges Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 28 minutes ago, bonal said: 110K affordable god I am so far out of the game. I wish them success though looks like a very nice product affordable is a relative term. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonal Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 4 minutes ago, rbridges said: affordable is a relative term. Completely agree it's just not the world most of us live in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Hot section inspections can be like a surprise need for an overhaul. A 3,000 hour TBO sounds awfully nice.... make mine 350-400 shp.... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Ugh. $110K for BSFC of .82.... IMO this is another GA answer to a question that no one asked. This engine is less than half as efficient as an Normally Aspirated IO Lycoming and about half as efficient as Continental TSIO520. Turbines are great for power to weight. Why not give it "a pair" and give the operator the option for real power down low and "reasonable" fuel burn in the flight levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DXB Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Very cool even though a bit outside my means too at the moment. Even if I never graduate up to that level, I really do hope innovations like this keep coming, and trickling down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Runaway Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 (edited) IMO, the problem is not acquisition cost, it's lack of pressurization. Turboprops are efficient in the flight levels, especially above FL250. Flying unpressurized airplanes in the flight levels is really uncomfortable for pilots and passengers. I think this thing will burn too much fuel at low altitude to be useful for anything other than a bush plane. Edited April 23, 2016 by aaronsn fat fingers 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtVandelay Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 110K affordable god I am so far out of the game. I wish them success though looks like a very nice product 110K not bad....until I realized it was just for the engine. Why do turbines have those ugly exhausts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piloto Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 18 gph is twice of what my M20J burns. 170kts is only 10kts above of what my M20J cruise. Half the range of my M20J. And small fields with 2,000 ft runways have no Jet fuel but AVGAS because jets do not land there. No way José 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted April 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 19 minutes ago, Piloto said: 18 gph is twice of what my M20J burns. 170kts is only 10kts above of what my M20J cruise. Half the range of my M20J. And small fields with 2,000 ft runways have no Jet fuel but AVGAS because jets do not land there. No way José Ok folks - I hear ya. Actually, most of us here, including me, are not buying one of these - I cannot afford 700 or 740k. But if I had 700k I wouldn't blink to spend 740k on a different engine technology if that is what I really want. 18gph is pretty much on par with what you might be burning in a M20TN, or a Mooney rocket, or a Bravo. So this is not out of sorts even if it is not what many of you L IO360 drivers would consider. The PT6 likes FL25 but some other turbo props like the allison on the nose of the bonanza conversion seems to like mid teens more. I don't know what this one will want, but could be. In some parts of the world, avgas is scarce. I like turbine for the reliability aspect. That would be worth something to me. Mostly I like to look at the new airplanes in the magazines, even the jets, and dream what if. That doesn't take away from it that they are out of my price range, even a turbo prop M20. Somehow it is more fun to look at a turbo prop M20 since I can almost imagine what it would be like since it is closer to my experience. Its just day dreaming but it is cool. ANd yeah, maybe I WOULD get a turbo prop M20 if I had lots of money. In fact, if I had LOTs of money, I would get a turbo prop M20 for the short hops, a TBM900 for the slightly longer hops. A Gulfstream and a copilot for the very long hops. Two or three piper cubs (tundra tires, floats, etc). ANd I guess I will need 3 Sikorsky helicopters just like Mr Trump. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadrach Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 1 hour ago, aviatoreb said: Ok folks - I hear ya. Actually, most of us here, including me, are not buying one of these - I cannot afford 700 or 740k. But if I had 700k I wouldn't blink to spend 740k on a different engine technology if that is what I really want. 18gph is pretty much on par with what you might be burning in a M20TN, or a Mooney rocket, or a Bravo. So this is not out of sorts even if it is not what many of you L IO360 drivers would consider. The PT6 likes FL25 but some other turbo props like the allison on the nose of the bonanza conversion seems to like mid teens more. I don't know what this one will want, but could be. In some parts of the world, avgas is scarce. I like turbine for the reliability aspect. That would be worth something to me. Mostly I like to look at the new airplanes in the magazines, even the jets, and dream what if. That doesn't take away from it that they are out of my price range, even a turbo prop M20. Somehow it is more fun to look at a turbo prop M20 since I can almost imagine what it would be like since it is closer to my experience. Its just day dreaming but it is cool. ANd yeah, maybe I WOULD get a turbo prop M20 if I had lots of money. In fact, if I had LOTs of money, I would get a turbo prop M20 for the short hops, a TBM900 for the slightly longer hops. A Gulfstream and a copilot for the very long hops. Two or three piper cubs (tundra tires, floats, etc). ANd I guess I will need 3 Sikorsky helicopters just like Mr Trump. I think there is likely an equation that would make your turbo recip just as reliable as that turbine for less money, but it would require frequent inspections and more money thrown at routine preventative MX. Knowing what Garretts and Prats cost to overhaul, I just don't see it making sense. If they could put together a 400SHP version in that price range, then maybe. As it stands, they are offering less for more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradp Posted April 23, 2016 Report Share Posted April 23, 2016 Yes it's an underperformer and yes it's expensive. The real benefit is why all those turbine conversions look so funny putting the CG forward... Weight. The dang thing weighs less than I do. A TSIO550 is something like 440 lbs vs this thing at 156 lbs. Presumptuously you could see an increase in useful load from 1049-(108*6)=401 lbs full fuel in an Aacclaim TN to something like 650 lbs full fuel. Let's say you put 64 gals on board (3.5 hrs for this turbine) you'd be up to about 900 lbs. Now that may be the difference that people with $700k see as changing the capabilities of the airplane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.