PA-18T Super Cub Take-off w/ TURBINE

Turbines are the most reliable motion energy source and these are intended for the experimental aircrafts

Category:

Autos & Vehicles

Tags:

• STOL
• AIRCRAFT
• TURBINE
• PA-18T
• Super
• Cub
• Take-off

[njomok]

This are some details about the turbine used: a)Innodyn 165TE; b)165 Horsepower.

[SenorSpode]

This plane and its turbine engine was featured generically in a Kitplanes magazine article on the viability of turbine power for homebuilts/small aircraft.

[njomok]

can you give some details? magazine date and number; author of article. Thanks

[njomok]

This one is a 165hp and burns 7gph for every 100hp... more in next comment

[HunsV]

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]

@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.

[straighttailpilot]

id like to see this thing trying to spool out of a stall on a short field landing.

[beeroosterm]

Ummm....How many Lycomings can you buy for one PA-18?

[bronco8585]

Should have showed the takeoff roll from the beginning! :-(

[bronco8585]

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.

[nurseoneems]

@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).

[schlusselmensch]

@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]

@P51Mstg Depends on the flat rating.

[jabp03]

How easy is it to get jet-A in the bush?

[P51Mstg]

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.