Turbines are MUCH more reliable than piston engines and they weigh a lot less. Yes, they drink more fuel, but still at altitude they produce constant power.......
Can someone tell me the point of using a turbine to get 165 horsepower into a Cub when a much cheaper Ly/Con engine will do the same job on half the gas? The whole point of a turbine is to generate massive amounts of power. Look at the Toucan, a prop plane with a 1.5:1 thrust to weight ratio. Adding a turbine and getting 165HP out of it is a joke. Don't tell me someone is going to do this just to get a higher TBO. That's such overkill you might as well kill ants with a shotgun.
@texNoz #5? Sit behind or beside an IO-720 someday.
4000 hours out of a 150/180 horsepower Lycoming is quite routine at the local school, often without a top overhaul. Your case for turbine power is a bit overstated.
You might be right in the not too distant future though.
@HunsV haha..hey, some of us LIKE killing ants with shotguns...but seriously, even on a small turbine the weight savings is significant. I'm guessing a weight reduction of at least 200 pounds...yes tbo and reliability are improved but a major selling point to me would be the 200 pounds saved, the HUGE reliability gain, and the fact that it burns jet-a, which is much more available than 100LL. You also gain all weather capability (no carb ice).
problem with turbines in bush flying is they don't allow for quick changes in throttle which can be a killer if you're trying to put down on a beach or other tiny landing area.
Fuel is widely available as jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel. Turbine puts out solid power when spooled, has less parts, provides performance if you want to add floats and such. Downsides are the weight/balance when retrofitting, high cost, efficiency (Eats fuel at idle) and anticipating the need to throttle up sooner than with piston engine.
It must be a different plane then, although the exhausts are identical. Affordable Turbine Power (ATP) uses the Solar T-62 turbine engine on an all-aluminum Super Cub replica featured in the 8/2004 issue of Kitplanes magazine. Author was John M. Larsen. Interestingly, aeio540 is spot-on about the T-62 specs.
This plane and its turbine engine was featured generically in a Kitplanes magazine article on the viability of turbine power for homebuilts/small aircraft.
I'm wondering what turbine is being used. Probably a modified APU is my guess. There is a KR2 that has a T62 that puts out 160hp and burns about 16gph, I think. Although there seems to be some question on the reliability of such units for continuous power in flight.
The t62 was designed to power generators for days at a time, but at a continuous rpm. Its questionable how they operate at different rpm ranges in aircraft.
id like to see this thing trying to spool out of a stall on a short field landing.
straighttailpilot 6 months ago
Ummm....How many Lycomings can you buy for one PA-18?
beeroosterm 8 months ago
Should have showed the takeoff roll from the beginning! :-(
bronco8585 1 year ago
I'm no expert, but I've heard it's easier to get Jet-A in the Alaskan bush, than it is to get 100LL. I don't know about other areas of the world.
bronco8585 1 year ago
How easy is it to get jet-A in the bush?
jabp03 2 years ago 2
Turbines are MUCH more reliable than piston engines and they weigh a lot less. Yes, they drink more fuel, but still at altitude they produce constant power.......
A turbine Cub would be cool.
P51Mstg 2 years ago 2
@P51Mstg Depends on the flat rating.
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
Can someone tell me the point of using a turbine to get 165 horsepower into a Cub when a much cheaper Ly/Con engine will do the same job on half the gas? The whole point of a turbine is to generate massive amounts of power. Look at the Toucan, a prop plane with a 1.5:1 thrust to weight ratio. Adding a turbine and getting 165HP out of it is a joke. Don't tell me someone is going to do this just to get a higher TBO. That's such overkill you might as well kill ants with a shotgun.
HunsV 2 years ago 8
@HunsV Well, even though I wouldn't consider it, the following are arguments for turbines:
1. More reliable.
2. More available fuel choices.
3. Turbines weigh much less and that equals greater performance even at equal HP.
4. Much greater TBO and much
cheaper/hour on maintenance and TBO compared to the exact same output in a recip.
5. They sound badass and excepting radials, recips don't.. They sound sick and weak.
More than anything, especially in single engines, it's about reliability.
texNoz 2 years ago 4
@texNoz #5? Sit behind or beside an IO-720 someday.
4000 hours out of a 150/180 horsepower Lycoming is quite routine at the local school, often without a top overhaul. Your case for turbine power is a bit overstated.
You might be right in the not too distant future though.
schlusselmensch 1 year ago
@HunsV haha..hey, some of us LIKE killing ants with shotguns...but seriously, even on a small turbine the weight savings is significant. I'm guessing a weight reduction of at least 200 pounds...yes tbo and reliability are improved but a major selling point to me would be the 200 pounds saved, the HUGE reliability gain, and the fact that it burns jet-a, which is much more available than 100LL. You also gain all weather capability (no carb ice).
nurseoneems 1 year ago
Better takeoff performance, better climb performance, better performance at altitude.
flybd5 2 years ago
You're right, but this is a PA-18 with an experimental turbine just see how it performs on an aircraft.
nuclear944 3 years ago 2
for somethin this small, is stick to a small flat 4 or even a tiny, custom built V6 or V8.
Is it me or does this turbo Cub looks like a tiny version of the Pilatus PC-6 Turbo-Porter?
6V92TA 3 years ago
problem with turbines in bush flying is they don't allow for quick changes in throttle which can be a killer if you're trying to put down on a beach or other tiny landing area.
itsumonihon 3 years ago
How many lbs per hour does it burn?
Is it experimental or is it a kit with a STC?
How many hours can you run it before it needs a major overhaul?
propdr 3 years ago
Runs at 100% , speed veries with prop pitch . Just like an Apu, fuel control adjusts to loads .
pardon420 3 years ago
how much did the engine incl. mounting cost? if i may be so blunt.
mpjswart 3 years ago
i adore this little plane!
N9155E 4 years ago
not sure whether I love it or hate it
alaskadrifter 5 years ago
Fuel is widely available as jet fuel, which is very similar to diesel. Turbine puts out solid power when spooled, has less parts, provides performance if you want to add floats and such. Downsides are the weight/balance when retrofitting, high cost, efficiency (Eats fuel at idle) and anticipating the need to throttle up sooner than with piston engine.
SenorSpode 4 years ago
the turbine is a innodyn 205
foohraen 5 years ago
It must be a different plane then, although the exhausts are identical. Affordable Turbine Power (ATP) uses the Solar T-62 turbine engine on an all-aluminum Super Cub replica featured in the 8/2004 issue of Kitplanes magazine. Author was John M. Larsen. Interestingly, aeio540 is spot-on about the T-62 specs.
SenorSpode 5 years ago
This are some details about the turbine used: a)Innodyn 165TE; b)165 Horsepower.
njomok 5 years ago
This plane and its turbine engine was featured generically in a Kitplanes magazine article on the viability of turbine power for homebuilts/small aircraft.
SenorSpode 5 years ago 2
can you give some details? magazine date and number; author of article. Thanks
njomok 5 years ago
This one is a 165hp and burns 7gph for every 100hp... more in next comment
njomok 5 years ago
I'm wondering what turbine is being used. Probably a modified APU is my guess. There is a KR2 that has a T62 that puts out 160hp and burns about 16gph, I think. Although there seems to be some question on the reliability of such units for continuous power in flight.
aeio540 5 years ago
The t62 was designed to power generators for days at a time, but at a continuous rpm. Its questionable how they operate at different rpm ranges in aircraft.
VdzAk 4 years ago