Yes and in Europe jetfuel cost almost HALF of AvGas, and AvGas is being phased out, so sounds to me this engine will be way CHEAPER per flown mile than any current piston engine.
It's great to see people having a passion about something and then trying to make it work. It may end up going nowhere, or it may end up revolutionizing general aviation. Best of luck to you, Berni
1. Bring back the moustache Paul! 2. Cool idea. Hope it works out for them - it would certainly afford the aeronautical engineers of the future a whole new world of creative freedom to design cool kit for us to fly!
Without an operational prototype, it would be difficult to ascertain the BSFC. Even with CFD, surprises appear. I'd guess that 20% more fuel flow would be the best they could do, and likely, over the course of a flight, somewhat worse overall.
Well, that's not too bad all things considered. The fuel burn will lead to lower range but at the same time it's a bit cheaper than avgas. It's almost worth it just for the simplicity, and initial cost will definitely be a deciding factor.
Well if AVGAS is 80% more expensive (which it is in large part of Europe for example) then this is still a huge win. Plus let’s not forget the enormously better reliability. Still many accidents with broken down piston engines.
@@Ibrahimarm also it sure would be nice to not have that crude piston chugging contraption out front begging to explode. I wonder how much they think it will weigh?
@@friedclutch97 Most aircraft noise is the prop so it will still sound the same once you lift off. Engine noise in a piston plane is a lot louder at idle. Also, they're pretty reliable so long as you take care of them.
Interesting project. Also gotta give a shoutout to Turbotech (French startup by former Safran employees). They've developed their own regenerative engine and have achieved some impressive efficiencies (around 19l/h for 130hp). Right now, they are working with JMB-Aircraft to develop a certified production version of their VL3 ultralight aircraft with a turboprop.
Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented." Most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal.
12 gph of Jet-A1 is better (for me) than 10 gph of 100LL. In the UK Jet-A1 is about half the price of 100LL (£1.36 vs £2.31 per liter) and that's not accounting for availibility and future-proofness. For US readers, 3.785 liter per USG.
For sure but don't buy a quarter million dollar power plant for the fuel burn, you buy it for the safety. It burning so little is just an added bonus. Someone who could afford this probably doesn't care about burning 30% more fuel.
I'm curious to know the comp ratio to arrive at that fuel flow. That's my biggest issue with the PT6As on our King Airs. If Pratt Canada updated the turbine section with CMCs to allow a higher comp ratio and ITT the fuel burn would improve. I doubt a small company like TurbAero can afford the investment in ceramics though.
Hi dieselyeti, high pressure ratios and temperatures are not compatible with recuperator technology. However, recuperator technology offers better fuel efficiency enhancement for a given cost than the higher temps and pressures. As a result of lower temps and pressures, we can avoid the use of exotic materials such as ceramics etc.
@@TurbAero you are in the midst of an additive manufacturing runup - cmc and other exotic materials, that were expensive 10 years ago, are starting to come down in price significantly thanks to ease of manufacture.
Pressure (not compression) ratio in these small turbines is effectively limited by the single-stage compressor, rather than materials in the rest of the engine. The PT6A compressor has one centrifugal stage plus four axial stages, so it is capable of a much higher pressure ratio if the rest of the engine can handle the resulting temperatures.
Even with a bit more fuel burn it'd be worth it to get away from the leaded stuff. Not even a prototype yet? I thought they were further along than that.
Look at Czech JMB Aircraft with their turboprop powered VL3 Ultralight using a TP-R90 from the french Manufakturer Turbotech. It ist also brand new and shall be comparable with a Rotax 915 iS.
@@RM-el3gw From what they have shown so far, it is pretty much up there with modern piston engines. In an interview JMB's spokeswoman said that the turboprop version is pretty much identical in speed and consumption to the piston version. It's just slightly down in power compared to the piston version, but that is compensated by the improved aerodynamics. The final version could actually be faster with potentially up to 160hp according to JMB. And it does look really pretty.
I think this guy missed the point on why the lanceair guys went to a 700 hp turbine over a 300 hp piston. They didn’t want a appropriately sized engine. Car guys call that hot rodding.
They have that same setup year after year. What is taking so long? I understand production hell, but if you are struggling to this much to make a prototype, will anyone ever see a production engine?
My little company is working on a small scale affordable (first priority) turbojet as well…design as well…seeing model jets…we realized that with appropriate parts…it is possible…so we gathered aerospace engineers, CNC guys, a mechanic, and me the test pilot…so we are working on a small affordable turbojet/ turbofan…for general aviation that’s not ridiculously priced…this company will definitely beat us to it…but it’s time for jet engines for the general aviation market that the middle class pilot can afford…that obviously is safe…someone will eventually figure it out…materials engineering move forward…that’s what it will take…to break that barrier…
Love hearing about this but it seems like they keep saying the same thing year after year with the prototype just a year out, waiting in parts. Unfortunately until I see it I won't believe it.
5 years so far with several more to go. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. It is simply how long it takes. Anyone that believes that this technology has been around for 60 years now, which means that a development program should be finished in a year simply does not understand the complexity of a development program for a clean-sheet designed turbine engine. Remeber that this engine must be reliable, last a long time, not fail and can perform in all corners of the operating envelope for the engine and in all corners of the operating envelope for the aircraft and in all environmental conditions that an aircraft will fly in. We could design and build one in a year that runs, but noone should ever fly behind it.
@@TurbAero really hope you guys can pull this off. It would be an absolute game changer. Piston engines in GA aircraft is annoyingly still there with less reliability and added complications.
Fletcher went turbo prop years ago. Prior to that it was the flat 8. Same airframe. I'm I missing something here? If GA was going to use Turboprop it would have happened years ago. The issue with gas turbines is they are hungary when taxing or waiting for the go ahead for takeoff. Efficiency comes in when they are at high load.
I’m nearly but not quite so pessimistic.. Computational fluid dynamics modeling has gotten a lot better and a lot cheaper over the years. And precision automated manufacturing has also gotten a lot cheaper. The two combined could offer significant improvements over the old Solar T62 APUs back in the day. Remains to be seen what they deliver.
My Zlin 242 will tanker 60 gallons. So on paper at ~12 GPH I've got 30 minutes on you. Of course, the the Cheetah's form drag is considerably better than the 242's. So you'd fly farther and faster.
The memoclause you are looking for is Purple Unicorn. By the time this POS hits the market my guesstimate is it will be way north of $300K. I’ve been doing aviation for almost 40 years and every one of these pop ups have been abysmal failures. The only chance is the available additive manufacturing processes, that could make the difference. Still, at best, $200-$300K!
There is a reason turbine engines are $350k+. While I hope they are successful, until it is flying for a few years it is all vaporware. Deltahawk, Innodyne, Eggenfellner, etc. They promised great efficiency and "see you at Oshkosh next year with an experimental running and certified the year after", but then reality set in. I have been flying for 35 years and turbine technology has changed little since then other than some computerized control that reduces pilot workload. The diesels have pretty much been a flop and Rotax has been a leader in true fuel injection/ignition in certified engines, but too little HP. TAT turbo has been a leader in TN, but other than that, it is hard to beat a good ole piston engine. Bolt a turbo on a IO-390 and run 150 HP at 18k burning 11 GPH or so and you have the same performance on a $50k budget.
Cirrus and Bonanza are the real market for these things. If they can get them to make 260 HP at 12000ft on 20 GPH, they will sale a million of them...fuel burn any higher than that and it becomes a range/payload issue...
They had a running prototype 6 years ago. Not decisively better than aeromentum pistons, 5x more expensive. We need turbofan engines. 15kg, 100kg thrust
It's actually TurbAero, which is a shortening of our full company name Turbine Aeronautics Pty Ltd which is too much of a mouthful. TurbAero is easy to say.
Pros of a Turbine: Muuuuch higher reliability since there so many less moving parts that an ICE and of course the bad ass sound! Just with that, a turbine will always win
Depends on the era of the underlying technology.. Turbines of the 1950s weren’t so reliable.. If these guys are planning to use the same materials as back then the reliability may not be so great..
@@matthewprather7386Precisely not .. Not only is materials technology advanced but CNC and 3D printing of metals means it's possible to do so much more.
Hi Hugocraft. Engineers with gas turbine engine design experience would certainly understand why we do not have a prototype running after only 5 years, particularly with delays associated with Covid thrown into the mix. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. We are running pretty well at par for the course with where we are at in our development program. We hate that it's taking so long, but a clean-sheet recuperated gas turbine engine for aircraft is simply a very complex piece of equipment with incredible design challenges.
In order to be viable, a "small turbine" would need a fuel consumption rate lower than 12 gph and THAT'S not likely for a Turbine, not even one with slightly more parts than last year's plastic display model.
TurbAero Last year they said they had an RV7 they were building as the test bed aircraft. They even started a few videos about it. Now they're saying RV14? What gives?
Watch the video starting at 3:05. He basically says that the goal was the RV-14 all along, but they settled on a 7 since they couldn't get a 14. Now they have a 14 kit available, they're going to use it.
It's a great concept, and the optimist in me wants to believe they can make it happen. However, the timeline keeps getting pushed out, and they just initiated another effort to raise capital. Coffers are drying out. Fold by 2025. I hope I'm wrong, but lets just say I won't be one of the people who gives them a $20,000 blank check.
Hi trauma. This is definitely not an easy gig, either technically or financially. Turbotech spent more than 8 years developing their recuperated 130hp turboprop; Heron engine spent more than 8 years developing their 130hp traditional turboprop. We are 5 years into the development program for our 200hp recuperated turboprop, so we are pretty well par for the course for this type of development program. As a pre-revenue company, we have carried out a capital raise every year for the last 4 years. This is a typical pathway for pre-revenue companies, particularly for those who have long development programs to bring their product to the market. We are a very determined team at TurbAero but there are definitely many challenges that must be overcome to make this business a success. We appreciate the support of the folks that see what we are doing as a great concept. We will be doing our darnedest to make it happen.
It doesn't seem like there's much benefit to the RV-14. I'm already often darn near close to Vne with my 390 at around 11 gph. So I usually end up running around 8 gph anyway.
“Not accepting any money from anyone until we have a running engine.” LOL They didn’t mention that they sent out a email just a week ago to everyone on their email list asking for shareholder investment!
Hi Mike. We will not be taking any customer's money until there is much more certainty around our ability to deliver. This is for the protection of the customers. The offer to participate in our capital raise is being made only to "accredited investors" which is a term that has a clear definition. BTW, this initiative was at the request of several of our followers who approached us to ask if they could be involved.
Love the idea, hate the name. Turbaero almost hurts to pronounce out loud. A name is important to overall company morale, culture, and visibility. Think names like rockwell, grumman, lockheed. Does anyone there have a cool last name lol? As far as the engine itself I cant gather much from this video but the size and shape appears to be a centrifugal compressor. I think this is smart to keep costs down, cost of maintenance way down, and its only a 200hp engine which is easily achievable without lots of complex stages. Fuel efficiency is not going to be as high as it would have been if it were an axial spool but I think its worth it to have much cheaper up front costs and maintenance costs. I wish these guys luck!
I wish this guy the best of luck, but man that is a tall order. Developing an aero engine takes cubic money and the potential market seems small. I can't see anyway you could make a profit on an $85,000 engine unless you sold thousands
Hi Bob. Thanks for your support. You are pretty well correct with all your observations. The military and certified markets with their strict requirements but commensurately higher margins, combined with the expansion of both our product range and product applications will help our business achieve the success we are aiming for. But we really want to start by offering a great product to the experimental market first.
I swear I see these guys at the various shows saying they are building the prototype as we speak and are a year away from flying every year for the past 15 years. No such thing as an affordable certified turbine
Using the internet wayback machine it seems that the first websites started to appear back in 2018. In 2020 they had pretty similar page as it is today. So they have been trying to crack this for many years indeed. Will see how it goes and when it becomes something that can be put to the real flying airframe?
Total carbon emissions are directly the result of fuel consumption... which is higher for any small turbine than any piston engine of the same size. Of course any lead in fuels in the 21st century is ridiculous and should not be tolerated.
Sell it for about the same amount of money as a comparable horsepower piston engine, or convince insurance companies it's better to run one of these than a piston motor. If you can do that, they will sell.
The answer for small aircraft engines is a double(2) rotor engine.....one rotor for intake and compression and an adjacent rotor for ignition, expansion and exhaust. Advantages over a piston engine....simple rotating action, fewer moving parts, less stress on the moving parts, no continuous start and stop energy draining action and a longer expansion action for more efficiency.
@@JustSayN2O Mazda was a single rotor, which lead to a lot of inefficiency, as the single rotor had to perform all 4 cycles. Splitting the cycles into two separate parts makes for a much simpler engine. The compressed fuel/air would be contained in a chamber above the 2nd rotor, until ready to be ignited.
Anyone comparing fuel burns on 200hp engines clearly don’t fly single engine IMC often. I will gladly burn 20% more fuel to safely operate at night and in IMC single engine. Low IFR Also everyone’s looking at just engine cost. Your forgetting most turbines have 50% higher TBO
Any similarity to this Argentinian Turbine? ruclips.net/video/blt-jSWzsSI/видео.html About microturbines, they say Reynolds number is an unsurmontable hurdle, never, never never an small turbine will have a good fuel economy. In spite of this, Airbus is producing near Constanza Lake (Bodensee) a target drone with two microturbines. A PulseJet would do same task, at a much reduced purchase cost. Saved weight will allow for a bit more fuel, to compensate the bad fuel economy of a PulseJet Blessings +
What's the invention: a cheap turbine. What's different: it's cheaper. What are you doing different to make it cheaper: we'll make it cheaper. How are you making more horse power than other small turbines: we'll make more horsepower because that is what is needed. What if the existing turbines become as cheap as yours and match your power? Can't happen, we will always be cheaper. How are you using less fuel: some new heat exchanger that the others never bothered looking at.
Heat exchangers have been around for a long time, they were always just really big, on the powerplant style turbines, and maybe large marine applications. They're just trying to make one smaller & lighter. We'll see, I just want to see a ying prototype. I definitely think they are going after the wrong market to start, I would have aimed for the 260-300hp market first.
@@kazansky22 You must be living under a rock…you can make heat exchangers that are more efficienct with 3d printing using processes like what velo3d has to offer.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
An affordable turboprop is like fusion power, always just another 10 years out.
Keeping the dream alive
There is a French one that flies today, has been tested in the VL3
@@experimental_av name? VL3?
Affordable is the key word. There are always the PT6, RR 250, and TPE331, but they cost mega bucks.
@@armdude2000 can't post links, search for 'VL3 turbine'
RIP Paul’s mustache
12gph turbine? That's pretty insane. I hope they are able to meet that projection.
Check out the Turbotech TP-R90 fuel burn.
Plus you'd be burning Jet-A, cheaper than avgas & far more available, especially outside the US.
Yes and in Europe jetfuel cost almost HALF of AvGas, and AvGas is being phased out, so sounds to me this engine will be way CHEAPER per flown mile than any current piston engine.
@@andrewmorris3479 This is "only" 130hp rather than 200. Granted its fuel burn is very good at about 6 gph (US) per hour (19 l/h)
@@FasterLower And it’s running and can be purchased.
Big respect for not offering pre orders and allowing free reservations
It's great to see people having a passion about something and then trying to make it work. It may end up going nowhere, or it may end up revolutionizing general aviation. Best of luck to you, Berni
Wake me up when they have a running engine (at least) and preferably flying on an airplane with real-world numbers.
1. Bring back the moustache Paul!
2. Cool idea. Hope it works out for them - it would certainly afford the aeronautical engineers of the future a whole new world of creative freedom to design cool kit for us to fly!
Without an operational prototype, it would be difficult to ascertain the BSFC. Even with CFD, surprises appear.
I'd guess that 20% more fuel flow would be the best they could do, and likely, over the course of a flight, somewhat worse overall.
Well, that's not too bad all things considered. The fuel burn will lead to lower range but at the same time it's a bit cheaper than avgas. It's almost worth it just for the simplicity, and initial cost will definitely be a deciding factor.
Well if AVGAS is 80% more expensive (which it is in large part of Europe for example) then this is still a huge win. Plus let’s not forget the enormously better reliability. Still many accidents with broken down piston engines.
@@Ibrahimarm also it sure would be nice to not have that crude piston chugging contraption out front begging to explode. I wonder how much they think it will weigh?
@@friedclutch97 Most aircraft noise is the prop so it will still sound the same once you lift off. Engine noise in a piston plane is a lot louder at idle. Also, they're pretty reliable so long as you take care of them.
No, @@manitoba-op4jx, any significant improvement of efficiency after production starts is unlikely, since the efficiency is determined by the design.
Interesting project. Also gotta give a shoutout to Turbotech (French startup by former Safran employees). They've developed their own regenerative engine and have achieved some impressive efficiencies (around 19l/h for 130hp). Right now, they are working with JMB-Aircraft to develop a certified production version of their VL3 ultralight aircraft with a turboprop.
Awesome !!! I love these pioneers 💪🏼
Personally skeptical, but if you can make your engine perform as expected and on budget, that would be cool.
Charles H. Duell was the Commissioner of US patent office in 1899. Mr. Deull's most famous attributed utterance is that "everything that can be invented has been invented." Most patent attorneys have also heard that the quote is apocryphal.
Sounds very promising. Both power wise and fuel burn, price seems reasonable. Keep pushing and make this happen. 😊
Seen this in an article of plane and pilot. Looks great especially with 100LL on it's way out the door.
12 gph of Jet-A1 is better (for me) than 10 gph of 100LL. In the UK Jet-A1 is about half the price of 100LL (£1.36 vs £2.31 per liter) and that's not accounting for availibility and future-proofness. For US readers, 3.785 liter per USG.
For sure but don't buy a quarter million dollar power plant for the fuel burn, you buy it for the safety. It burning so little is just an added bonus. Someone who could afford this probably doesn't care about burning 30% more fuel.
Great, encouraging interview.
So, who's going to be the first to put one in the front of a C-152?
Would love a pair of these for my twin comanche, 400hp at 10000ft would be amazing!
65K would be such a sweet spot
I'm curious to know the comp ratio to arrive at that fuel flow. That's my biggest issue with the PT6As on our King Airs. If Pratt Canada updated the turbine section with CMCs to allow a higher comp ratio and ITT the fuel burn would improve. I doubt a small company like TurbAero can afford the investment in ceramics though.
Hi dieselyeti, high pressure ratios and temperatures are not compatible with recuperator technology. However, recuperator technology offers better fuel efficiency enhancement for a given cost than the higher temps and pressures. As a result of lower temps and pressures, we can avoid the use of exotic materials such as ceramics etc.
@@TurbAero you are in the midst of an additive manufacturing runup - cmc and other exotic materials, that were expensive 10 years ago, are starting to come down in price significantly thanks to ease of manufacture.
Pressure (not compression) ratio in these small turbines is effectively limited by the single-stage compressor, rather than materials in the rest of the engine.
The PT6A compressor has one centrifugal stage plus four axial stages, so it is capable of a much higher pressure ratio if the rest of the engine can handle the resulting temperatures.
Would be fun to put in a classic Mooney.
52 gallons at 12 GPH, though. Not great.
Sky high dreams on a sea level budget.
Even with a bit more fuel burn it'd be worth it to get away from the leaded stuff.
Not even a prototype yet? I thought they were further along than that.
Good spokesman. Well done. Hope they succeed.
If they could develop & offer a 300 hp engine (285-325) for $100k...I'd be a customer in a NY minute.
Bring back the moustache :D
That engine could be a great or only option for a light jet APU.
Look at Czech JMB Aircraft with their turboprop powered VL3 Ultralight using a TP-R90 from the french Manufakturer Turbotech. It ist also brand new and shall be comparable with a Rotax 915 iS.
is the fuel burn any good compared to a similar power piston?
@@RM-el3gw From what they have shown so far, it is pretty much up there with modern piston engines. In an interview JMB's spokeswoman said that the turboprop version is pretty much identical in speed and consumption to the piston version. It's just slightly down in power compared to the piston version, but that is compensated by the improved aerodynamics. The final version could actually be faster with potentially up to 160hp according to JMB. And it does look really pretty.
Here some details ruclips.net/video/dBVBoMF2wsg/видео.html
(english starts at 5:30)
I think this guy missed the point on why the lanceair guys went to a 700 hp turbine over a 300 hp piston. They didn’t want a appropriately sized engine. Car guys call that hot rodding.
They have that same setup year after year. What is taking so long? I understand production hell, but if you are struggling to this much to make a prototype, will anyone ever see a production engine?
My little company is working on a small scale affordable (first priority) turbojet as well…design as well…seeing model jets…we realized that with appropriate parts…it is possible…so we gathered aerospace engineers, CNC guys, a mechanic, and me the test pilot…so we are working on a small affordable turbojet/ turbofan…for general aviation that’s not ridiculously priced…this company will definitely beat us to it…but it’s time for jet engines for the general aviation market that the middle class pilot can afford…that obviously is safe…someone will eventually figure it out…materials engineering move forward…that’s what it will take…to break that barrier…
How is this different / better than the already available Turbotech from France?
I'd be all over this!
Running engine vs certified production is one great leap.
The whole key is higher itt and durable compressor .Hotter burning better fuel consumption.
same abstracts, over and over ! - give us a date when engine will be running on test bed !
Love hearing about this but it seems like they keep saying the same thing year after year with the prototype just a year out, waiting in parts. Unfortunately until I see it I won't believe it.
They been developing this for 40 years....
5 years so far with several more to go. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. It is simply how long it takes. Anyone that believes that this technology has been around for 60 years now, which means that a development program should be finished in a year simply does not understand the complexity of a development program for a clean-sheet designed turbine engine. Remeber that this engine must be reliable, last a long time, not fail and can perform in all corners of the operating envelope for the engine and in all corners of the operating envelope for the aircraft and in all environmental conditions that an aircraft will fly in. We could design and build one in a year that runs, but noone should ever fly behind it.
@@TurbAero really hope you guys can pull this off. It would be an absolute game changer. Piston engines in GA aircraft is annoyingly still there with less reliability and added complications.
Fletcher went turbo prop years ago. Prior to that it was the flat 8. Same airframe.
I'm I missing something here?
If GA was going to use Turboprop it would have happened years ago. The issue with gas turbines is they are hungary when taxing or waiting for the go ahead for takeoff. Efficiency comes in when they are at high load.
I’m nearly but not quite so pessimistic.. Computational fluid dynamics modeling has gotten a lot better and a lot cheaper over the years. And precision automated manufacturing has also gotten a lot cheaper. The two combined could offer significant improvements over the old Solar T62 APUs back in the day. Remains to be seen what they deliver.
Even at high load a turbine this small is still not efficient.
Replacement for an o-320 and/or o-360?
Would love to see this on the front of my AA-5A Cheetah with 52 gallon tanks 😉
My Zlin 242 will tanker 60 gallons. So on paper at ~12 GPH I've got 30 minutes on you. Of course, the the Cheetah's form drag is considerably better than the 242's. So you'd fly farther and faster.
Is it bad, I really want to put this on the front end of my Swift and keep the OG cowl on it? I feel like that’s the ultimate crossover
Could this eventually be an option for something like an SR22?
BTW, your A/V is out of sync.
The memoclause you are looking for is Purple Unicorn. By the time this POS hits the market my guesstimate is it will be way north of $300K. I’ve been doing aviation for almost 40 years and every one of these pop ups have been abysmal failures. The only chance is the available additive manufacturing processes, that could make the difference. Still, at best, $200-$300K!
There is a reason turbine engines are $350k+. While I hope they are successful, until it is flying for a few years it is all vaporware. Deltahawk, Innodyne, Eggenfellner, etc. They promised great efficiency and "see you at Oshkosh next year with an experimental running and certified the year after", but then reality set in. I have been flying for 35 years and turbine technology has changed little since then other than some computerized control that reduces pilot workload. The diesels have pretty much been a flop and Rotax has been a leader in true fuel injection/ignition in certified engines, but too little HP. TAT turbo has been a leader in TN, but other than that, it is hard to beat a good ole piston engine. Bolt a turbo on a IO-390 and run 150 HP at 18k burning 11 GPH or so and you have the same performance on a $50k budget.
Cirrus and Bonanza are the real market for these things. If they can get them to make 260 HP at 12000ft on 20 GPH, they will sale a million of them...fuel burn any higher than that and it becomes a range/payload issue...
Even if they took 100 percent of the new GA market, there are less than 2000 new GA airplanes sold each year.
@@singleproppilot For sure...it was just a figure of speech...
The 'stache! How? Why? OMG 😂
That was a shocker 😅
What happened to the stache?! 😱
They had a running prototype 6 years ago. Not decisively better than aeromentum pistons, 5x more expensive. We need turbofan engines. 15kg, 100kg thrust
Yea, if the Czech company ever get the their tiny turbojet running for 2000+ hours and strap a fan to it they would jumpstart a whole segment.
Wait, where did Paul’s mustache go?
So what's the over/under on how long till this company drops off the radar?
Their logo says TURAERO and not TURBO AERO. Check that. Why the discrepancy?
It's actually TurbAero, which is a shortening of our full company name Turbine Aeronautics Pty Ltd which is too much of a mouthful. TurbAero is easy to say.
Pros of a Turbine: Muuuuch higher reliability since there so many less moving parts that an ICE and of course the bad ass sound! Just with that, a turbine will always win
Depends on the era of the underlying technology.. Turbines of the 1950s weren’t so reliable.. If these guys are planning to use the same materials as back then the reliability may not be so great..
@@matthewprather7386Precisely not ..
Not only is materials technology advanced but CNC and 3D printing of metals means it's possible to do so much more.
@@thewheelieguy possible, but there’s no guarantee a low buck turbine will get that tech - the point I was making.
The ONLY reason I’d get a kit plane, is TurbAero!
I would buy one
I still don't understand why they don't have a prototype turbine running yet
Making prototypes is expensive and hard?
Hi Hugocraft. Engineers with gas turbine engine design experience would certainly understand why we do not have a prototype running after only 5 years, particularly with delays associated with Covid thrown into the mix. Turbotech took 8+ years to develop their 130hp recuperated turboprop. Heron engines took 8 years to develop their 130hp traditional turboprop. P&W or GE would take that long as well. We are running pretty well at par for the course with where we are at in our development program. We hate that it's taking so long, but a clean-sheet recuperated gas turbine engine for aircraft is simply a very complex piece of equipment with incredible design challenges.
In order to be viable, a "small turbine" would need a fuel consumption rate lower than 12 gph and THAT'S not likely for a Turbine, not even one with slightly more parts than last year's plastic display model.
I see, Pauls so busy here that he let his mustache do other reviews while he did this one....right? 🤣
How many years into development is GEs new turboprop engine for the new Denali……..
Always a slick salesman.
TurbAero Last year they said they had an RV7 they were building as the test bed aircraft. They even started a few videos about it. Now they're saying RV14? What gives?
Watch the video starting at 3:05. He basically says that the goal was the RV-14 all along, but they settled on a 7 since they couldn't get a 14. Now they have a 14 kit available, they're going to use it.
@@dallenford9592 cart before the horse
It's a great concept, and the optimist in me wants to believe they can make it happen. However, the timeline keeps getting pushed out, and they just initiated another effort to raise capital. Coffers are drying out. Fold by 2025. I hope I'm wrong, but lets just say I won't be one of the people who gives them a $20,000 blank check.
Hi trauma. This is definitely not an easy gig, either technically or financially. Turbotech spent more than 8 years developing their recuperated 130hp turboprop; Heron engine spent more than 8 years developing their 130hp traditional turboprop. We are 5 years into the development program for our 200hp recuperated turboprop, so we are pretty well par for the course for this type of development program. As a pre-revenue company, we have carried out a capital raise every year for the last 4 years. This is a typical pathway for pre-revenue companies, particularly for those who have long development programs to bring their product to the market. We are a very determined team at TurbAero but there are definitely many challenges that must be overcome to make this business a success. We appreciate the support of the folks that see what we are doing as a great concept. We will be doing our darnedest to make it happen.
It doesn't seem like there's much benefit to the RV-14. I'm already often darn near close to Vne with my 390 at around 11 gph. So I usually end up running around 8 gph anyway.
The update is: currently prototyping, hoping for 2024Q1 static testing and a demonstrator by Oshkosh 2024.
The rest is marketing fluff.
Lol every year this guy's funny
WTH Paul, bring the stache back, cmon!!
Only $85,000.00 , god sign me up ! We will never see it, finished price guessing $130,000.00
Hurry up please
When the display aircraft is still held together with Clecos...that's not a great sign.
WHERE IS THE MOUSTACHE?!!
“Not accepting any money from anyone until we have a running engine.” LOL They didn’t mention that they sent out a email just a week ago to everyone on their email list asking for shareholder investment!
Hi Mike. We will not be taking any customer's money until there is much more certainty around our ability to deliver. This is for the protection of the customers. The offer to participate in our capital raise is being made only to "accredited investors" which is a term that has a clear definition. BTW, this initiative was at the request of several of our followers who approached us to ask if they could be involved.
Love the idea, hate the name. Turbaero almost hurts to pronounce out loud. A name is important to overall company morale, culture, and visibility. Think names like rockwell, grumman, lockheed. Does anyone there have a cool last name lol?
As far as the engine itself I cant gather much from this video but the size and shape appears to be a centrifugal compressor. I think this is smart to keep costs down, cost of maintenance way down, and its only a 200hp engine which is easily achievable without lots of complex stages. Fuel efficiency is not going to be as high as it would have been if it were an axial spool but I think its worth it to have much cheaper up front costs and maintenance costs. I wish these guys luck!
Would work well is a streamlined aircraft like a Lancair 360 or VL3.
There is a flying prototype of a turbine VL3!
Cessna 336/337 is a way better testbed for a new engine
Great 👏
I wish this guy the best of luck, but man that is a tall order. Developing an aero engine takes cubic money and the potential market seems small. I can't see anyway you could make a profit on an $85,000 engine unless you sold thousands
Hi Bob. Thanks for your support. You are pretty well correct with all your observations. The military and certified markets with their strict requirements but commensurately higher margins, combined with the expansion of both our product range and product applications will help our business achieve the success we are aiming for. But we really want to start by offering a great product to the experimental market first.
What!? Where is the mustache?
I swear I see these guys at the various shows saying they are building the prototype as we speak and are a year away from flying every year for the past 15 years. No such thing as an affordable certified turbine
Using the internet wayback machine it seems that the first websites started to appear back in 2018. In 2020 they had pretty similar page as it is today. So they have been trying to crack this for many years indeed. Will see how it goes and when it becomes something that can be put to the real flying airframe?
The Deltahawk effort is a perfect example of this.
They need to stop going to shows until they have a running engine to bring with.
It can be much more eco-friendly. No lead, better exhaust, lower SOx, NOx, COx emmisions.
Total carbon emissions are directly the result of fuel consumption... which is higher for any small turbine than any piston engine of the same size.
Of course any lead in fuels in the 21st century is ridiculous and should not be tolerated.
Sell it for about the same amount of money as a comparable horsepower piston engine, or convince insurance companies it's better to run one of these than a piston motor.
If you can do that, they will sell.
Quite the bit of spin put on this. Who wouldn't reserve their place in line?
I want to put one of these in a car.🤣
I love just letting this guy talk. Same old B.S. we've heard hundreds of times before. Why even have a booth if you don't have a working power plant?
It's too bad rotary engines are not reliable. Compact, turbine smoothness and piston economy.
* TurbAero.
Another product not happening.
Grow that mustache back forreal
Where stache, this is an outrage
The answer for small aircraft engines is a double(2) rotor engine.....one rotor for intake and compression and an adjacent rotor for ignition, expansion and exhaust.
Advantages over a piston engine....simple rotating action, fewer moving parts, less stress on the moving parts, no continuous start and stop energy draining action and a longer expansion action for more efficiency.
@@JustSayN2O Mazda was a single rotor, which lead to a lot of inefficiency, as the single rotor had to perform all 4 cycles. Splitting the cycles into two separate parts makes for a much simpler engine.
The compressed fuel/air would be contained in a chamber above the 2nd rotor, until ready to be ignited.
And the rotary disadvantages with trying to keep the seals working for any length of time.
Anyone comparing fuel burns on 200hp engines clearly don’t fly single engine IMC often.
I will gladly burn 20% more fuel to safely operate at night and in IMC single engine. Low IFR Also everyone’s looking at just engine cost. Your forgetting most turbines have 50% higher TBO
You must have a really bad piston engine to be afraid to fly single engine IMC.
Yep! '....IMC, single engine, single-pilot, at night, over the ocean with PAX....' FIFY
Achates design diesel fuel efficient powerful.
Any similarity to this Argentinian Turbine? ruclips.net/video/blt-jSWzsSI/видео.html
About microturbines, they say Reynolds number is an unsurmontable hurdle, never, never never an small turbine will have a good fuel economy.
In spite of this, Airbus is producing near Constanza Lake (Bodensee) a target drone with two microturbines.
A PulseJet would do same task, at a much reduced purchase cost. Saved weight will allow for a bit more fuel, to compensate the bad fuel economy of a PulseJet
Blessings +
Deisel engines>turboprop
This will Never ever Be Built..
Paul i will help you ransom your mustache
Concept looking for investors and all the money disappears. Yup!
$85k for a 200 hp turbine? No thanks. I'd rather have a new Rotax.
TurdAero. Complete effing vapor ware. What a disappointment.
What's the invention: a cheap turbine. What's different: it's cheaper. What are you doing different to make it cheaper: we'll make it cheaper. How are you making more horse power than other small turbines: we'll make more horsepower because that is what is needed.
What if the existing turbines become as cheap as yours and match your power? Can't happen, we will always be cheaper.
How are you using less fuel: some new heat exchanger that the others never bothered looking at.
I think the difference would be a 3d printed heat exchanger. Small differences in heat exchanger efficiency makes or breaks regenerative cycles.
Heat exchangers have been around for a long time, they were always just really big, on the powerplant style turbines, and maybe large marine applications.
They're just trying to make one smaller & lighter. We'll see, I just want to see a ying prototype.
I definitely think they are going after the wrong market to start, I would have aimed for the 260-300hp market first.
@@RunesLegacy "3d printed heat exchanger"? You forgot to write "Cryptocurrency, A.I., new and improved".
"printed" with what?
@@kazansky22 You must be living under a rock…you can make heat exchangers that are more efficienct with 3d printing using processes like what velo3d has to offer.
@@arcanondrum65433D printing of high temperature alloys is really a thing in the last 5+ years, literally there are 3D printed rocket motors now.
Noooo, not another one….!