carusoam Posted May 24, 2019 Report Share Posted May 24, 2019 I know a resource if you want an intercooler...? -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted May 27, 2019 Report Share Posted May 27, 2019 (edited) Someone mentioned Turbines... Why ohh why isnt someone trying to figure out how to put THIS on a Mooney. https://pbs.cz/en/our-business/aerospace/aircraftgines/turbopropgine-pbs-tp100. Yea, not as much power as a rocket or Acclaim... but turbine smoothness, reliability and simplicity up to FL290 Plus, it is pretty light weight and would probably shed some LBS off a 6 cylinder engine setup. Maybe 200? 250 Hp... reasonable fuel burns that wouldn't even really necessitate the long range tanks. At 75 gallons of 100LL, A Mooney with 75 gal tanks has 435 lbs of fuel. However if you fill those same tanks with Jet A you have 500 lbs. That engine at 170 hp in cruise flight will burn about 150 lbs per hour (.9 lb per BHP per HR) so with 500 lbs you have just less than 3 hours + reserves. If you had 105g tanks that's 700lbs of fuel.which would give you a solid 4 hours + reserves. Cost wise for the fuel, remember that jet A is a bit less spendy so fill up cost would be less. The 310 HP turbo Moonies are definitely a bit more efficient, but Turbines are so fun. Edited May 27, 2019 by Austintatious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 27, 2019 Report Share Posted May 27, 2019 Because somebody did this... in 2008. https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20080731006257/en/Rolls-Royce-Explores-Future-RR500-Turboprop-Applications-Mooney All it will take is a stack of money and some STC writing skills... AKA the Rocket Engineering approach... Best regards, -a- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 how much does the RR engine cost? Looks good too... a bit more fuel efficient as well... although that is probably at higher power settings.. Turbines seem to go down a lot in BSFC at lower power settings. That is a lot of power and it could get a lot of people into trouble. The nice thing about the engine I posted is that there would not be any nasty surprises due to putting a ton of extra power onto the aircraft. There are already mooneys with over 300 Hp on them, so a 250 HP turbopro would likely be a safe bet. Some of the turbopro Lancairs have had some nasty mishaps due to the extra torque. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mooney in Oz Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 Turbine - Simple operation, light weight and generally more reliable than pistons but can be biiiiiiiiiig $$$$$$$$'s if sudden, unexpected (or expected) maintenance is required. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 Generally speaking, turbines... operate most efficiently at WOT.... Are Great for high altitude long cruises... wear and OH cost can be similar to an IO550, when spread over the hours used... incredibly expensive IF it breaks... Selecting a smaller power plant becomes problematic for shorter fields and longer climbs... For the Long Body, a 250hp engine would have a bit of extra T/O roll, longer than the Bravo... As far as high power and it’s associated high torque goes.... tail design and pilot training are important... hard to tell what the experimental crowd does in this case... Overpowering the tail’s ability... probably will lead to departure from controlled flight, until the excess torque is back in control... PP thoughts only, not a CFI or turbine driver... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncuyle Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 13 minutes ago, carusoam said: Generally speaking, turbines... operate most efficiently at WOT.... Are Great for high altitude long cruises... wear and OH cost can be similar to an IO550, when spread over the hours used... incredibly expensive IF it breaks... Selecting a smaller power plant becomes problematic for shorter fields and longer climbs... For the Long Body, a 250hp engine would have a bit of extra T/O roll, longer than the Bravo... As far as high power and it’s associated high torque goes.... tail design and pilot training are important... hard to tell what the experimental crowd does in this case... Overpowering the tail’s ability... probably will lead to departure from controlled flight, until the excess torque is back in control... PP thoughts only, not a CFI or turbine driver... Best regards, -a- One expects that if it is possible to shove a 300hp TSIO-520 into a mid-body (particularly the already nose-heavy K model) and end up with something that flies, shoving a lighter 250hp turboprop in would not result in something that overpowers the rudder. If one were inclined to try a long body (like, a Bravo), the weight difference of the big bore engine and the turboprop offers an opportunity. I looked up the weight for the TIO-540 and the first Lycoming doc that came up indicated that it's a ~600 pound engine. That little turboprop is listed as 140 pounds. You could reduce max gross by 400 pounds, still gain some UL, probably break even on FF payload, and probably not lose much takeoff performance. If a 300hp version becomes available, you could boost gross back up and have a Mooney with an actually useful useful load. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gsxrpilot Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 I'll volunteer my 252 for that little 250hp turboprop. It actually might work to stick that little engine on the nose of an RV-14. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaylw314 Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 (edited) The Wikipedia site suggests development for the RR500 was stopped in 2012. The suggested cruise fuel flow was 240 for pph, or about 50 gal/hour(?) Edited May 28, 2019 by jaylw314 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted May 28, 2019 Report Share Posted May 28, 2019 Compare that FF to 310hp at 27.2 gph (STC) or preferred around 29gph... extra ROP cooling for extended climb... Not bad if your climb only lasts a few minutes. The FF comes under control with the low density air aloft... What TAS can we expect with that 300kts? We need to keep an eye on Vne as well... the Long Body has a Vne just below 200kias... Best regards, -a- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted June 5, 2019 Report Share Posted June 5, 2019 (edited) On 5/28/2019 at 1:22 PM, johncuyle said: One expects that if it is possible to shove a 300hp TSIO-520 into a mid-body (particularly the already nose-heavy K model) and end up with something that flies, shoving a lighter 250hp turboprop in would not result in something that overpowers the rudder. If one were inclined to try a long body (like, a Bravo), the weight difference of the big bore engine and the turboprop offers an opportunity. I looked up the weight for the TIO-540 and the first Lycoming doc that came up indicated that it's a ~600 pound engine. That little turboprop is listed as 140 pounds. You could reduce max gross by 400 pounds, still gain some UL, probably break even on FF payload, and probably not lose much takeoff performance. If a 300hp version becomes available, you could boost gross back up and have a Mooney with an actually useful useful load. That is a TON of weight loss... to put it into perspective, the weight savings of 460 lbs is about 15% lighter! The only problem I see is balance. Certainly anything in the tail that could would need to be relocated to the nose ( batteries ECT) and even then the cowl might need to be lengthened to put that light engine further forward. In any case, weight savings go a LOT further for aircraft performance than power increases. A Mooney that is 400 lbs lighter with 250 Hp would likely perform pretty close to a 300 HP mooney at the heavier weight 3200 lbs /300 hp = 10.6666 lbs per HP 2740 lbs/ 250 hp = 10.96 lbs per Hp a negligible difference of .3% the whole thing makes a lot of sense to me. and to reiterate .... you would have reasonable fuel burns that wouldn't even really necessitate the long range tanks. At 75 gallons of 100LL, A Mooney with 75 gal tanks has 435 lbs of fuel. However if you fill those same tanks with Jet A you have 500 lbs. That engine at 170 hp in cruise flight will burn about 150 lbs per hour (.9 lb per BHP per HR) so with 500 lbs you have 2:45 + reserves all things being equal. If you had 105g tanks that's 700lbs of fuel.which would give you a solid 4 hours + reserves. Cost wise for the fuel, remember that jet A is a bit less spendy so fill up cost would be less. You would DEFINITELY need to get high to get any kind of economy, which means Oxygen Edited June 5, 2019 by Austintatious 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johncuyle Posted June 6, 2019 Report Share Posted June 6, 2019 On 6/5/2019 at 9:50 AM, Austintatious said: That is a TON of weight loss... to put it into perspective, the weight savings of 460 lbs is about 15% lighter! The only problem I see is balance. Certainly anything in the tail that could would need to be relocated to the nose ( batteries ECT) and even then the cowl might need to be lengthened to put that light engine further forward. In any case, weight savings go a LOT further for aircraft performance than power increases. A Mooney that is 400 lbs lighter with 250 Hp would likely perform pretty close to a 300 HP mooney at the heavier weight 3200 lbs /300 hp = 10.6666 lbs per HP 2740 lbs/ 250 hp = 10.96 lbs per Hp a negligible difference of .3% the whole thing makes a lot of sense to me. and to reiterate .... you would have reasonable fuel burns that wouldn't even really necessitate the long range tanks. At 75 gallons of 100LL, A Mooney with 75 gal tanks has 435 lbs of fuel. However if you fill those same tanks with Jet A you have 500 lbs. That engine at 170 hp in cruise flight will burn about 150 lbs per hour (.9 lb per BHP per HR) so with 500 lbs you have 2:45 + reserves all things being equal. If you had 105g tanks that's 700lbs of fuel.which would give you a solid 4 hours + reserves. Cost wise for the fuel, remember that jet A is a bit less spendy so fill up cost would be less. You would DEFINITELY need to get high to get any kind of economy, which means Oxygen That fuel consumption is brutal, though. 170hp would get you, what 190 knots or so up high? That's only 500 miles range on 70 gallons. Even with JetA being a bit cheaper, you're still nearly doubling your fuel bill. You're also doubling your fuel stop frequency. This assumes there's self-serve Jet-A at your field. I don't think my field does, so Jet-A is actually more expensive and you have to wait around for the truck. Short hops of less than 150 miles become really painful due to being way out of the efficiency curve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted June 6, 2019 Report Share Posted June 6, 2019 I am not so sure you wouldn’t do 200 knots at 180 or higher. Remember, the airplane will be quite a bit lighter. So perhaps 550 miles? That being said, you are correct it would be a hit in range, absolutely. But could still fit some typical mission profiles. with ER tanks you are up to roughly 800 miles. But with turbine smoothness and reliability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aviatoreb Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 6 hours ago, Austintatious said: I am not so sure you wouldn’t do 200 knots at 180 or higher. Remember, the airplane will be quite a bit lighter. So perhaps 550 miles? That being said, you are correct it would be a hit in range, absolutely. But could still fit some typical mission profiles. with ER tanks you are up to roughly 800 miles. But with turbine smoothness and reliability. Also it will be more aero right? The nose will be narrower and pointier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Austintatious Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 30 minutes ago, aviatoreb said: Also it will be more aero right? The nose will be narrower and pointier. Good point, however I am not sure if that would make it more aerodynamic or not. Certainly much smarter people than me have considered something like this. So perhaps it's non existence is an indicator there is something I dont see. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carusoam Posted June 7, 2019 Report Share Posted June 7, 2019 Expect smooth curves that allow air to pass easily will be more aerodynamic than flat plates... essentially air in front of a flat plate gets displaced extra inches away, costing more energy... Really bad aero, causes eddy currents and air has to pass by or around them as well... really goofy aero includes compressing air before it can move away... compressing air takes energy. go with narrow and pointy when able... Best regards, -a- 2 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.