GA Turboprop

[steveinindy]

So a lot of the pilots won't change because piston engines is sort of an identity to general aviation?

The "older" crowd tends to have a very strong allegiance to what they trained with. It's much the same as how someone who was in the military prior to the introduction of the M-16 tends to have a less rosy assessment of it than someone who has known nothing else. However, economics is the bigger issue. Since most of us pay out of our own pockets to fly, you're going to have to show a major benefit in terms of:
-Fuel economy
-Cost of maintenance
-Frequency of maintenance (what's called "time between overhaul")
-Cost of acquisition
...for most pilots to consider switching to a similar

Also, the need to get a supplemental type certificate (STC) for commercially built aircraft to switch out the engine is a big issue for those flying Cessnas, Pipers, Beechcrafts, Cirri, etc. Establishing an STC is not cheap so.....

Do you think that can change

If someone were to meet all or even most of the above criteria, conceivably yes, especially among those of us who are more attracted towards the "business" end of flying than those of us who just like to smash bugs and bore holes in the sky on the weekends. However, do I think it is likely to happen? No, not really. There will always be those who are the reciprocating engine crowd and then there will be those of us who are the "kerosene club". I happen to fall into the latter since the design I am working on currently will have a turboprop engine.

[S3flyer]

Potential lower cost, lower HP turbine announced at SNF: http://www.avweb.com/news/snf/SunNFu..._206386-1.html

[steveinindy]

Potential lower cost, lower HP turbine announced at SNF: http://www.avweb.com/news/snf/SunNFu..._206386-1.html

Interesting....I have my reservations about whether it will lead to actual production but wish them the best. That said, a turbine in the hands of a low hour/low frequency pilot could be a risk proposition.....

[kjensen]

Potential lower cost, lower HP turbine announced at SNF: http://www.avweb.com/news/snf/SunNFu..._206386-1.html

That is an interesting engine. Will this be THE engine that make everyone change to turboprop? If not, why?

[steveinindy]

Will this be THE engine that make everyone change to turboprop? If not, why?

Cost and all the reasons mentioned before. The fact that not everyone wants a turboprop is going to be the biggest one besides cost.

Any other questions? You seem to be repeating the same ones over and over.

[uavmx]

Interesting.... That said, a turbine in the hands of a low hour/low frequency pilot could be a risk proposition.....

Please justify/elaborate on that statement

I would argue the opposite. You think controlling a Throttle, Mixture and Prop has less risk then a single stick operation (okay, there might be a hi/low speed lever depending on turbine design) in terms of pilot proficiency???

[martymayes]

Rolls Royce seems to be making something that is similar or at least the closest thing to what we are talking about

http://www.rolls-royce.com/civil/pro...aft/model_250/


anybody know what these puppies cost new???

That is the same turboshaft engine Allison has been building for 50+ yrs with a propeller gearbox attached. They are pretty neat as the basic engine can be carried in a backpack. However, they are also very complex and expensive. You're talking ~$1000/hp.

[martymayes]

That said, a turbine in the hands of a low hour/low frequency pilot could be a risk proposition.....

Please justify/elaborate on that statement

I would argue the opposite. You think controlling a Throttle, Mixture and Prop has less risk then a single stick operation (okay, there might be a hi/low speed lever depending on turbine design) in terms of pilot proficiency???

I'd like to hear the explanation as well. Selling pilots on turbine power would be easy, training them to fly a turbine would be even easier.

[steveinindy]

I would argue the opposite. You think controlling a Throttle, Mixture and Prop has less risk then a single stick operation (okay, there might be a hi/low speed lever depending on turbine design) in terms of pilot proficiency???

Here's the kicker. It seems that very few pilots get themselves into serious trouble because of those additional levers. Saying that those additional levers are a problem is pretty sketchy. I'd argue that the fuel tank selector knob causes far more problems.

Note: I say "seems" because we don't have good evidence to say conclusively one way or the other because of the lack of FDRs in GA aircraft.


Also, every turboprop I have ever flown in (TBM 850 and numerous twins) have had three (or more) levers (condition, fuel and throttle) just like a recip. Most of them also have their flap control there....

Selling pilots on turbine power would be easy, training them to fly a turbine would be even easier.

The issue I was getting at with a turbine is the lack of "instant" response like you get with a recip. You have to wait a couple to a few seconds to "spool" it up (at least in the larger engines from what I have been told; I'm not a turbine pilot yet myself so I am just repeating what I was told) before you get the full response. Given how many of us manage to get ourselves into the side of the power curve where we really shouldn't be, it would seem that adding something into the mix that makes recovering from that even less likely (because of the slight delay) isn't necessarily a good thing. However, I think it's a minimal risk and inattentive pilots will be inattentive regardless of what they are flying.

[kjensen]

Cost and all the reasons mentioned before. The fact that not everyone wants a turboprop is going to be the biggest one besides cost.

Any other questions? You seem to be repeating the same ones over and over.

What is the cost of that engine? I assumed that it will be lower cost than what's out there. If that is not the case, then just disregard the question.