• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

TURBO PROP CUB

sj

Staff member
Northwest Arkansas
TURBOPROP 'CUB' IN DEVELOPMENT (From AOPA)
Years ago futurists predicted that one day all of us would use turbine engines in our single-engine aircraft. Now, a 200-horsepower turbine engine has been developed and is on display aboard an airframe similar to a Piper Cub's. The $30,000 engine, built by ATP (Affordable Turbine Power) of Osceola Mills, Pennsylvania, is already flying on a Vans RV-4 and a helicopter. After a planned $5 million certification effort, it will be available to the general market. Until then, it will be offered to the experimental crowd. The engine weighs only 150 to 180 pounds and burns 13.3 gallons of Jet-A fuel per hour (when running at reduced power and 180 hp). The company obtained the patent for the engine in January and hopes to begin deliveries to the experimental market in July. For information, visit the Web site.
 
I looked at it at Sun&Fun, it was impressive. But what about the fuel burn, 13 gallons an hour! not good

Tim
 
I wonder if we would see an airspeed increase with that engine. Wondering if will offset the 13.3 gph burn rate.
 
At 13+ gallons per hour it does discourage just going out and having fun. But, I can't wait to here what speeds are being turned in at 12-16 thousand feet. It should off set the fuel consumption. I can't wait to see and here one on a cub. Pretty soon at New Holstein we will dominated by turbo props.
 
To me, the extended nose just looks bad; furthermore, I have some reservations regarding stability about the vertical axis. There is no way that you would not have all kinds of yaw problems. The engine is short but I guess it is the accessories and exhaust that push it so far out.


Bill
 
This is something that excites me !!!! I've never paid any attention to the rules and regs involving experimental planes but may have to start learning. What rules would one have to live by to fly one of these both in the US and Canada??
Mike
 
12-16 thousand feet? My gawd! A Cub? :-? The only time mine sees those altitudes is when it's still 500 AGL......
 
$ & cents

94SUPER18 said:
At 13+ gallons per hour it does discourage just going out and having fun. But, I can't wait to here what speeds are being turned in at 12-16 thousand feet. It should off set the fuel consumption. I can't wait to see and here one on a cub. Pretty soon at New Holstein we will dominated by turbo props.
OK but what does Jet A1 cost per gallon? Gaurantee its still going to be cheaper to run but you won't get as far. Other thing to keep in mind is if you look after the engine its TBO will make it very cost effective over time also. Not sure the SC is the right application for this engine but cheap turbines are going to dominate the engine scene soon. Man this would be good in a C180!
 
I think some of the major points would be:

What is the TBO?
How often are hot section inspections required?
What does a new set of turbine blades cost?
Who is qualified to work on this engine?

One of my friends told me something about putting a 1000hp radial from yugoslavia (or some other country) on a beaver because they were better on fuel than the pt-6 (its just what i was told).

Looks like a great idea but to make it affordable and a reasonable specific fuel consumption rate at cub flying altitudes will be tough.

Now..... If you put one of these on a lancair, it might be just the ticket!

Anybody know what altitude the 13gph was at?

Tim
 
behindpropellers said:
I think some of the major points would be:

What is the TBO?
How often are hot section inspections required?
What does a new set of turbine blades cost?
Who is qualified to work on this engine?

5000 TBO, 7.500 $ overhaul costs.

Apparently....

Fuel consumption is related to power so if you can reduce power for cruise down to 150 hp you would reduce consumption to around 10.5 gals/hr.
You ain't going to make a cub go any faster anyways so you might as well relax :wink:
This engine can also run on Diesel so the fuel cost becomes much more acceptable but whats A-1 cost anyways?
Only thing I'd be concerned with would be keeping foreign matter out of the intake but they use Walter turbines here on Cresco Ag aircraft working in pretty dusty conditions and it doesn't seem to be an issue.
 
Turbine Cub......

I saw one of these engines installed on the Smith Supercub display. It looked fine. The guy there said that it used 18 gallons per hour, not 13, and that the TBO should be around 10,000 hours. Wouldn't make any sense for me. I doubt I would fly a SC much more than 400 hours per year, and I am almost never in a place that sells jet fuel. That $30,000 will weed out most guys also. I don't find anything wrong with the Lycoming engines, so why mess with a good thing?

Mike
 
Re: Turbine Cub......

CptKelly said:
I saw one of these engines installed on the Smith Supercub display. It looked fine. The guy there said that it used 18 gallons per hour, not 13, and that the TBO should be around 10,000 hours. Wouldn't make any sense for me. I doubt I would fly a SC much more than 400 hours per year, and I am almost never in a place that sells jet fuel. That $30,000 will weed out most guys also. I don't find anything wrong with the Lycoming engines, so why mess with a good thing?
table.jpg


You are right of course but for anyone looking at a new engine its an option worth exploring. As I said before I suspect the SC is not the right aircraft for this engine but for someone doing a lot of hours in say a C180 or C172 it would be a sensible solution to a very expensive engine overhaul with an uncertain future ie. the phasing out of 100LL
 
Those fuel flows and rpm's don't seem appropriate to a turbine, which generally run at one (or close to one) rpm. Maybe this one operates some other way, but turbines burn fuel at prodigious rates.

By the way, the "turbine Cub" that was at Sun N Fun, on amphibious floats, was in precisely the same state of construction that it was in there last year. It didn't look like a thing had been done with it. So, are these guys just going to use this thing as a static display forever?

I was kinda hoping to see it in action this year, since it appeared well along in construction last year, with primarily some systems to add and fabric work.

Oh, well.

MTV
 
The table posted by nocubyet came from Affordable Turbine Power Co., Inc. http://www.atpcoinc.com The site doesn't address (that I saw) Mike's question about HP and I don't know much about this topic. Wanted to post the main page for the site, though, it didn't seem to have much tech. info right now.
 
mvivion said:
Those fuel flows and rpm's don't seem appropriate to a turbine, which generally run at one (or close to one) rpm...
One rpm? Did you mean that turbine instrumentation usually displays rpm as a percentage, up to 100%? The turbine in a single stage engine runs at 10,000 rpm or more, sometimes a lot more.

The ATP engine has a planetary gear reduction transmission, and the chart is presumably showing rpm at the prop flange. 3050 rpm is ok for a race plane, but the prop tip speeds are too high for normal use. 180 hp at 2750 would be more appropriate for a Cub or Cessna. Seems like ATP needs to tone down their rhetoric a little.

Regards,
Steve
 
Steve,

My assumption was that these were prop speeds. If so, as you noted, they's a busy little bee.

Anyway, it would be a kick to see the thing go, even if the fuel flows were huge. The engine can't weigh much, so that gives you a bit more leeway for gas.

As I said, though, it looks like the one they had there is a perpetual static display,

MTV
 
jetcub.jpg


This is the picture from AOPA. Avweb is posting a few as well, though haven't done so yet.
 
mvivion said:
Steve,

As I said, though, it looks like the one they had there is a perpetual static display,

MTV

FWIW....this is NOT the same fuselage nor the same set of floats as last year. Last years cub had a black frame and CLAMAR's floats last year were yellow. Can't see Nick & Nick repainting a frame and these would have been a set of the newer CLAMAR light's that Clair Sceli has worked hard, with expert composite guys, to get the weight down to pretty much the equivalent of alum floats without compromising strength.

Cheers,
Wayne
 
Propellor turning direction?

Hey guys, I just looked at the pictures and the prop looks funny. Like it turns the wrong way. It doesn't look like it's on backwards either. I think I read that ATP makes a pusher version as well. Could they have thrown the wrong prop on for the display? I'm a little low on sleep, so could someone else take a look see?
 
I don't like to post often but this one got me going. The plane at the show last year was delivered to a customer in North Carolina and is ready to fly, check for pictures on our website soon. The floats at the show last year were delivered to a customer in TN. The plane at the show this year is actually a local customers that let us use it for the show and the floats are a set Smith Aviation purchased for our personal use. The Smith Aviation Super Cub that will have the turbine is covered and ready for final assembly, for more information check out our next news letter as I will be featureing it. Mr mvivion, come over and introduce yourself at the Alaskan Airmen's Show.

Nick Smith
 
Nick,

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for the confusion. I went by there a few times last year and this year, but as you know, trying to talk to vendors at these things can be pretty time consuming, so moved on.

Should be an interesting airplane. What is the weight of the turbine, and what fuel flows do these engines run?

I suspect a light engine on the front of an amphib cub would be a pretty cool deal.

MTV
 
Hi,

especially regarding reliability a turbine really shines. But 7.000 $ overhaul seems very cheap for a turbine overhaul.....Anyhow, 5000 h TBO sounds really interesting. And regarding fuel flow....look at prices in germany:

avgas: 7,5 $/G
Jet A1: 6 $/G
autofuel: 5,5 $/G
Diesel: 4 $/G

so Diesel burning turbines would be very interesting fro us europeans..... ;-) Unfortunatly an old piston engine running on auto fuel is would be cheaper. I Guess i should calculate the whole issue over 5.000 h time including overhauls, etc......

Mirko "Psychonaut"
 
Talked to the Clamar float guy while I was checking the turbine out. 26,000 for his amphibs. Too bad they arn't approved. He says he will never get them approved because the experimental market is so good. Is a field approval even possible with these floats, or should I just save up for the 37,000 baumanns
 
Turboprop

Recently was working a landing in intricate terrain in choppy winds, a gust stopped, and I kept on slope (caught it) with a shot of power - standard fare in a Cub. Perhaps this small turbine has quicker throttle response than its larger brothers? Hope so.

Power is as power does.

Bob Breeden
 
Jake,

The reality is that if you have a certified airplane, you'd best plan on certified floats, and probably ones that are stc'd on your aircraft.

Frankly, right wrong or indifferent, field approvals for things like float installations are a thing of the past.

On the other hand, the Baumanns look pretty good, in any case.

MTV
 
Back
Top