Turbine Super Cub

If im correct, this engine would not have any lag time or spool up time. It is not a split turbine such as in a garret or a PT-6 engine. It is a single shaft turbine, like in the C-130 Allison Engine. It should be ran at 100% through all phases of flight, thus when you shove the power in all you are doing is changing the pitch of the prop. We have this on the Herc, and boy, you talk about instant thrust!!!!

Would be great on a bush plane!!

Turbine Cub

Here are some specks on the Innodyn Turbine over hone design,gear section...10,000 HR,S TBO ,oil filter -special for Turbine( MIL.),igniter-spark(auto),alternater-Nippon,starter-Nikon(Hitach),Computer-Chevy,2-lipp seals(#-buy local), injection-Bosch ,prop -NSI (2 plade) CAP-2000,turbine oil -BP-G-331 8.00@8.00 A Quart every 500 HOURS , Engine Inst.--Tach,EGT-to adjust eng. RPM, Engine-ceramic ball bearings (4)? , Annual inspection -look over turbine blades with scope , fuel pumps -hot rod store 50 PSI .Just about everything you can by locally .

any pictures or videos of FLYING turbine supercubs yet?

flattopplayr said:

If im correct, this engine would not have any lag time or spool up time. It is not a split turbine such as in a garret or a PT-6 engine. It is a single shaft turbine, like in the C-130 Allison Engine. It should be ran at 100% through all phases of flight, thus when you shove the power in all you are doing is changing the pitch of the prop. We have this on the Herc, and boy, you talk about instant thrust!!!!

Would be great on a bush plane!!

Click to expand...

That is the way our guys flew our PT-6 Porters. Not sure about the Astazou powered though. I never flew one with that engine. Having that instant power from porp settings as you stated while going into a bush strip sure felt good.

There are a few things that we should look at more closely on this engine. Before I say anything further, I'll say I am a huge fan of turboprops - especially the direct drive configuration. I am, however, very skeptical of any new company, and want to hear more positive remarks about this powerplant than negative before I give Innodyn close to $50k - not to mention, trust my life behind it.

I was speaking to a gentleman who did some work for Innodyn. He is no longer with them, and was open to talking about the engine. I seeked him out because I am very interested in purchasing an Innodyn for an experimental Maule airframe. His comments were that the engine was a well designed piece of machinery, but was far from ready to fly safely. He said the fuel control unit was not to their satisfaction the last time he worked on it ( a couple of months ago). He also said the prop would not respond properly - It essentially got "stuck" in a particular pitch, and the only way they could correct it was to slow the engine rpm. I am sure those are just the growing pains of the engine development that will one day be worked out. I have been told by Innodyn, however, that it is up and flying with no problems...so go figure. All I know for sure is that they still aren't delivering an engine.

The other issue is the prop. As I understand, the NSI prop is designed for fast aircraft and has a high speed airfoil. It is also a composite prop. There are pages and pages of threads on this website about the benefits of a long borer prop. The NSI is 74" with a 79" in the works...Also pages of threads on prop material - it seems that most are not in favor of composites for the back country.

So for what its worth, I hope I am wrong about this engine. I sure would like to see it in use on a back country aircraft.

Someone correct me if I am wrong and I am just learning about this engine but isn't the basic structure the same unit used as an APU in ground power units and aircraft installed? Needless to say, that does not include prop and am sure the fuel control system would be different since in an APU, it is either inop or at a fixed RPM.

I have talked to one guy at Innodyn who was very open with me when talking about the PT-6 Porters compared to what they were working on and flying.
I got the impression the basic engine was sound, it was the accessories that needed worked on. On our PT-6 Porters, we had a serious problem with prop controls frosting up in the winter. They would freeze up and go from taxi power to full reverse (or just the opposite) with no warning. We had lots of damage on two Porters at Kotzebue because of that. First time I had seen what an aircraft looked like when eaten up by a prop.

geoffmeyer said:

The other issue is the prop. As I understand, the NSI prop is designed for fast aircraft and has a high speed airfoil. It is also a composite prop. There are pages and pages of threads on this website about the benefits of a long borer prop. The NSI is 74" with a 79" in the works...Also pages of threads on prop material - it seems that most are not in favor of composites for the back country.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't trust an NSI prop as far as I could throw it.....oh yah...don't have to as they throw (blades) themselves!

what happens if the battery shits the bed and your in the middle of nowhere? can you start a turbine without a battery?

supilot said:

what happens if the battery !&$# the bed and your in the middle of nowhere? can you start a turbine without a battery?

Click to expand...

Guess you could carry a booster pack with you. Dead battery on the turbine would be a lot less inconvient than an empty pressure tank to start your M14P radial !! Mind you I guess if you worked at it your could hand swing the M14P or do the old rope trick if you dared!

FixedWing said:

Jacob Papp said:

check out the 368kb video in this link.

http://www.atpcoinc.com/Pages/Requests.html

I dont think this power plant will have trouble spooling up quick enough.

Click to expand...

Yes, I saw that video. Pretty impressive. Can you imagine a Cub making a sound like that in some valley or on a small pond somewhere? Hmmm... music to our ears but I wonder if everyone will appreciate it? It might not be a good thing if too many of these turbine Super Cubs are around. In fact, I wonder if noise will be an issue?

As for the spool-up, I would think zero-load would be one thing, but how quickly will it spool up with a load? If you watch the fuel flow figures it takes a little while before those go up. I would think that is an indication of the load they are putting on the engine.

Still, it sounds like one of the design criteria for this engine is quick spool-up. I'll be very interested to hear the results once these engines are in the hands of end-users who can report their findings.

Stephen

Click to expand...

Stephen, if you would like a refresher, PM me. You have lost the concept of turbine prop engines (as compared to full jet and recip) no matter what the aircraft and how they are flown. We had Porters with three different engines and each one was flown different. I only flew the PT-6 powered.
I keep reading so many people thinking that a Turbine engine in a cub is flown the same as a recip and that is not true. I spent some time talking to one of the owners of the company that is making the engine work in the Cub and with all the hours flown and after comparing what he is doing with the Cub, it is flown almost exactly as I flew our PT-6 Porter.
I just hate to see you guys going off on a tangent about this engine/aircraft combination. Once the prop and accessory's are worked out, the engine will really be an unbelievable performer in the Cub.

Ernie

AlaskaAV said:

Stephen, if you would like a refresher, PM me. You have lost the concept of turbine prop engines (as compared to full jet and recip) no matter what the aircraft and how they are flown. We had Porters with three different engines and each one was flown different. I only flew the PT-6 powered.
I keep reading so many people thinking that a Turbine engine in a cub is flown the same as a recip and that is not true. I spent some time talking to one of the owners of the company that is making the engine work in the Cub and with all the hours flown and after comparing what he is doing with the Cub, it is flown almost exactly as I flew our PT-6 Porter.
I just hate to see you guys going off on a tangent about this engine/aircraft combination. Once the prop and accessory's are worked out, the engine will really be an unbelievable performer in the Cub.

Click to expand...

I'm here to learn Ernie.

Is it just me or is anyone else noticing how long it seems to be taking to bring a supposedly finished product to market? So much hype. Now so little airplane. I for one would love to know what is going on and what a reasonable timetable looks like.

Stephen

FixedWing said:

AlaskaAV said:

Stephen, if you would like a refresher, PM me. You have lost the concept of turbine prop engines (as compared to full jet and recip) no matter what the aircraft and how they are flown. We had Porters with three different engines and each one was flown different. I only flew the PT-6 powered.
I keep reading so many people thinking that a Turbine engine in a cub is flown the same as a recip and that is not true. I spent some time talking to one of the owners of the company that is making the engine work in the Cub and with all the hours flown and after comparing what he is doing with the Cub, it is flown almost exactly as I flew our PT-6 Porter.
I just hate to see you guys going off on a tangent about this engine/aircraft combination. Once the prop and accessory's are worked out, the engine will really be an unbelievable performer in the Cub.

Click to expand...

I'm here to learn Ernie.

Is it just me or is anyone else noticing how long it seems to be taking to bring a supposedly finished product to market? So much hype. Now so little airplane. I for one would love to know what is going on and what a reasonable timetable looks like.

Stephen

Click to expand...

I had a long conversation with one of the guys at Innodyn not long ago. We were talking about how the Cub would operate compared to the Porters. They have one test aircraft flying and it is working out real good but as usual, many fine tunning problems. Sure takes a long time to get something new approved in aviation. Wonder how long it took to get the Beavers and Otters approved.
He couldn't give me an approval date of course. Kind of like "when it is ready".
I just hope I am still around when it is certified. To me, that will be the ultimate bush aircraft for Alaska. A poor man's Porter?

just buy a porter,for the amount of money your going to spend on this thing,you'll at least get a bigger plane. theres a guy over in monroe, wa. that overhauls them (jim perry,seattle aviation). if any thing he could give you some insight on porters or helio couriers or even widgeons. oh and by the way, im still holding my breath.

I hope Innodyne pulls it off and brings their little turbine to market. All of our piston engines will be instant antiques. Well, really they're antiques now. We'll just finally have to admit it.

SB

SB said:

I hope Innodyne pulls it off and brings their little turbine to market. All of our piston engines will be instant antiques. Well, really they're antiques now. We'll just finally have to admit it.

SB

Click to expand...

The guys from Innodyne really believe it will work. The basic engine is solid and the Cub frame is solid as we all know. Now it is just getting the mounting hardware finalized and then getting the correct control systems worked out and than the big thing, the prop. I understand that is were the holdup is now. Getting the prop to work with available boxes to work together. We also have to understand Innodyne does not have the financial backing as New Piper and Cessna does.

As Aeronca1 said, buy a Porter but what bush pilot needs a ten passenger aircraft to play around with. Just think of the insurance costs per seat.
I wonder what a wide body Cub with barn door flaps and leading edge slats would do with Innodyne power. Fence at 30 mph and flare at 25 mph? Land into a 25 mph headwind, ground roll zero. Interesting idea.

Hey y’all,

Wanted to resurrect this thread and throw out an idea I have. What about throwing a PBS TP-100 turboprop on the front of a Carbon Cub EX-3? Is this just madness to even conceive? You’d have 241 SHP and 1200 lbs of Thrust to work with on a wet engine weight of about 156 pounds. Cruise fuel burn is around 18 but I’m sure you could pull it back to 14-15 GPH. Max takeoff is 36 GPH. Obviously this would offset the weight savings behind the two engines.

The real concern I believe is how much fuel could one realistically add to this kit? How much would you need? Would 60 gallons enough to play for a little while or would you need 80 to really make it work?

The gas gas generator of this engine is the TJ-100 used in the SubSonex and FLS Microjet. There’s over 25 million in R&D behind these engines and I think the TP-100 would make a nice addition to the Carbon Cub.

Does anybody know the weight of the new CC363i engine? Thanks!

A turbine on a tail wheel airplane is not what one would think is best for short field performance. I had a couple Siai Marchetti 1019's, one had to be pretty careful on how much beta you put in to land short. Big long nose sticking out with engine forward, leverage of the beta sure does want to move them in a 180 end swap. The tail blanks off and you lose rudder control pretty fast when the fan is pushing forward and no nose wheel to contain the thrust in a straight line. Comes around pretty fast.
And of course fuel capacity in a small cub wing might be an issue. The 1019's had external wing tanks to add another couple hours of range. Fun airplanes, but not as short field as one would think.
John

john schwamm said:

A turbine on a tail wheel airplane is not what one would think is best for short field performance. I had a couple Siai Marchetti 1019's, one had to be pretty careful on how much beta you put in to land short. Big long nose sticking out with engine forward, leverage of the beta sure does want to move them in a 180 end swap. The tail blanks off and you lose rudder control pretty fast when the fan is pushing forward and no nose wheel to contain the thrust in a straight line. Comes around pretty fast.
And of course fuel capacity in a small cub wing might be an issue. The 1019's had external wing tanks to add another couple hours of range. Fun airplanes, but not as short field as one would think.
John

Click to expand...

Haha, tell that to DRACO! I totally understand what you are saying though. I wouldn’t be looking to land in the shortest distance possible, but am looking for an alternative engine choice that would work within the design of the EX-3 without too much modification.

Draco rig may not be as affected as it is a bit heavier aircraft, but I will bet he has to be very careful on how much beta to get into on landing short. Still a tailwheel with prop was out front, leverage is pretty big when tail/tailwheel is not doing you any good in holding directional control.

Turbine tail wheel landing with high beta works fine on wheels..... skis not so much, but not an end-swapper, either. Best if loaded.

john schwamm said:

A turbine on a tail wheel airplane is not what one would think is best for short field performance. I had a couple Siai Marchetti 1019's, one had to be pretty careful on how much beta you put in to land short. Big long nose sticking out with engine forward, leverage of the beta sure does want to move them in a 180 end swap. The tail blanks off and you lose rudder control pretty fast when the fan is pushing forward and no nose wheel to contain the thrust in a straight line. Comes around pretty fast.
John

Click to expand...

John, Did your 1019s have locking tail wheels like your Widgeons? If not, that may have been a help. I landed a Seabee on a short ice covered narrow runway. When I put it into reverse it did just like you mentioned. It immediately swapped ends and backed into the bushes. No damage and was quite amusing. This was the Seabee's last flight before being converted to a twin.

I always like to watch the amphib Grand Caravans landing at Greenville Fly in. I think they are into beta about 4 feet above the water. They land mighty short and have reverse gear on floats

jim

No locking tailwheel on the 1019's. Friend had one and thought he would do a really short landing, went into beta at touchdown and found himself spun around 180 degrees, lucky it was a big runway. I tried some very short stuff, heads for the weeds pretty fast if too much beta.
John

The Caravan or the Kodiak can go to beta no problem on floats or wheels, the nosewheel keeps it on track and lots on downforce on the nosewheel. I have a Kodiak and can land it pretty short. Tailwheel if far different when going to full beta.
John

If you are on wheels and grab a handful of reverse, you have now firmly pasted the mains on the ground. This is the time to forget about the rudder and start to use brakes and prop (p factor) modulation to keep things straight. Simply moving the power lever deeper or less in to reverse will command a yaw. Panicking and holding that yaw, or conversely not in adding more if needed can certainly result in a loop.
Ice is the one place I could see this becoming a real handfull.

Take care, Rob

Hi Rob,

I work out of muddy strips a lot. Wet clay, slick as ice. Can't use brakes at all, but still use beta.

Normal full flap landing, dump flaps when the mains touch (flaps on stick trigger), drop tail and beta trying to dig the locked tailwheel into the mud. Beta gently, it will start to yaw around, especially the five blades. When it starts getting to far out of line, you just go back over the gate to blow some air over the rudder straight it out, then beta again. Repeat as necessary.

Rigging the prop on these things is kind of a art. It's really easy for someone to screw it up. But done right a pilot can have it set up to their preference and purpose, like fire or ag work are usually set up different.

I would have beta on any tailwheel plane if it was a option, one more tool in the box

SuperCub MD said:

Hi Rob,

I work out of muddy strips a lot. Wet clay, slick as ice. Can't use brakes at all, but still use beta.

Normal full flap landing, dump flaps when the mains touch (flaps on stick trigger), drop tail and beta trying to dig the locked tailwheel into the mud. Beta gently, it will start to yaw around, especially the five blades. When it starts getting to far out of line, you just go back over the gate to blow some air over the rudder straight it out, then beta again. Repeat as necessary.

Rigging the prop on these things is kind of a art. It's really easy for someone to screw it up. But done right a pilot can have it set up to their preference and purpose, like fire or ag work are usually set up different.

I would have beta on any tailwheel plane if it was a option, one more tool in the box

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree with you anymore doc. Out of 6 strips we own or lease, 1 is paved.... mud I have done, ice in an ag plane I have not. When I have traction, I'm all about the brakes, but having a little mud to deal with won't keep me from using beta / reverse. I will defer to those who have played on ice, but also get what your saying about some mud being tantamount to ice...

In fact, my strip is crosswinded any time the wind is heavy, and I typically use the yaw of the reverse to counter that. In other words it is actually easier to keep it pointed the right way with a healthy amount of reverse.

I haven't really noticed the 5 blades (large frame air tractors) being any worse than a shorter Thrush with a 3 blade, but it makes sense I guess. I do know the 4 blade on a Thrush will take less left xwind than the 3 blade (take off) by a good margin.

Take care, Rob

Pictures of that Turboprop Cub posted earlier on a video. Most Turboprop airplanes have a longer front end or nose on the aircraft because of weight and balance and or longer engine. Something you would have get use to or redesign the airframe so it's not an issue.