• 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!

Turbine Super Cub

I don't mean to rain on the parade, but I sincerely believe in my heart that the turbine Cubs will have some pretty serious stability problems about the vertical axis, ie in Yaw. You already get a little of that issue on floats, look at all the planes that require extra (or larger) vertical stabilizers when on floats. If you really want this to work well, it seems that you would want the nose arm to remain the same or you would need to lengthen the tail arm. I may be way off base but in general if it doesn't look right it won't fly right and a long snout just looks wrong to me. Some of you guys with turbine Beaver or Otter time jump right in here and straighten me out. Did they have to change anything on those planes after the turbine conversion?

Respectively submitted....

Bill
 
Power

Looking at their web site I noticed the engine had to turn up to 3050 RPM to get 600 lbs of thrust. I remember one of the Cub guys on a previous post was getting 580 lbs of pull or call it thrust out of a 180 hp Cub. The difference was the turbine is drinking 16.6 gallons per hour at 3050 RPM. Crash
 
Bill Rusk said:
Some of you guys with turbine Beaver or Otter time jump right in here and straighten me out. Did they have to change anything on those planes after the turbine conversion?

Respectively submitted....

Bill

Seems like every turbine beaver I've seen has had a substantially larger tail installed as a part of the conversion.
 
Re: Power

Crash said:
Looking at their web site I noticed the engine had to turn up to 3050 RPM to get 600 lbs of thrust. I remember one of the Cub guys on a previous post was getting 580 lbs of pull or call it thrust out of a 180 hp Cub. The difference was the turbine is drinking 16.6 gallons per hour at 3050 RPM. Crash

Just a comment Crash

What you are quoting is what fuel that might be consumed in about the first 60 seconds on takeoff, not at cruise. Again, I am not that aware of the turbine powerplants suitable for the Cubs, only what what we flew on the Porters. As I recall, the porters ran much higher than 3050 on takeoff and lower inflight. Needless to say, I could be wrong since it has been many years.
 
ATP Turbine....

The way I understand it, the ATP Turbine only has a prop control to control the thrust, NO THROTTLE CONTROL. This engine runs at 100% N1 all the time, continuously. Its fuel control is automatic, and varies itself according to how much thrust one decides to dial in. However, no beta range or reverse is provided, all one can get is zero thrust. This setup gives instant thrust on demand-which is good, however, on landing, this gives very little engine drag. I view this as fine on takeoff, but on landing, one better be really careful and practiced due to the loss of engine drag. Look before you leap. If I am incorrect, someone please correct me.

PT6 Lover,

Mike in NC
 
Re: ATP Turbine....

CptKelly said:
The way I understand it, the ATP Turbine only has a prop control to control the thrust, NO THROTTLE CONTROL. This engine runs at 100% N1 all the time, continuously. Its fuel control is automatic, and varies itself according to how much thrust one decides to dial in. However, no beta range or reverse is provided, all one can get is zero thrust. This setup gives instant thrust on demand-which is good, however, on landing, this gives very little engine drag. I view this as fine on takeoff, but on landing, one better be really careful and practiced due to the loss of engine drag. Look before you leap. If I am incorrect, someone please correct me.

PT6 Lover,

Mike in NC

Probably true Mike. I understand the basic engine is an APU engine and that is the way they operate. I agree on the prop control for instant thrust since it saves the time for spool up. That was hard to get used to on the Porters.
It surprises me that there is no beta though. What a loss. That reverse on our Porters, wheel or float, was a great help and needless to say on the Twin Otters.
I look forward to reading more from those that work around that turbine. All new since I left aviation.
 
Beta range.....

Ernie,
We used beta range and reverse everytime we made a landing. The reverse feature on our U-21's would cut our landing roll quite significantly. This effectively made our KingAir clones, a pea patch plane, as well as a 250 knot traveler. We didn't have any problems landing on dirt strips shorter than 2000 feet, and we could leave that strip, at gross or worse, every time. This was all in a war zone, SE Asia.
I am not certain why reverse wasn't integrated in the ATP engine prop. Looks like it would be much more effective if beta/reverse was available.

Mike
 
Re: Beta range.....

CptKelly said:
Ernie,
We used beta range and reverse everytime we made a landing. The reverse feature on our U-21's would cut our landing roll quite significantly. This effectively made our KingAir clones, a pea patch plane, as well as a 250 knot traveler. We didn't have any problems landing on dirt strips shorter than 2000 feet, and we could leave that strip, at gross or worse, every time. This was all in a war zone, SE Asia.
I am not certain why reverse wasn't integrated in the ATP engine prop. Looks like it would be much more effective if beta/reverse was available.

Mike

I am not that familiar with the U-21s Mike but they can't be much different than the Bandeirante 110s we flew many years ago. Talk about a fast aircraft also and not really all that good on short field but we didn't need that on most flights anyway. Passengers loved them.

I figured the ATP would have the reverse prop and it sure looked like it in the photos but than again, I am not familiar with the engine other than in an APU and even than, not all that much. When over the fence in a PT6 Porter, the N1 would be brought up to say 80 % and the prop power cut back. The prop would change pitch a lot faster than the PT6 would spool up so more or less, instant power. Come in at ground fine on a three point and once it felt right, full reverse and I mean that bird would stop on a dime and give a nickel's change. Better never try it with a main gear landing though. :cry: We were also French Astazou powered, which flew a lot different from the PT6s, as well as one recip, 09Z, a useless aircraft really, way underpowered. Needless to say, our Twin Otters were PT6 and our Sky Vans were Garrett Air Research which was flown different although I never flew one but rode in many.

When I saw the article about the turbine powered Super Cub, I started thinking of an aircraft like SJ's, and a beautiful one it is, on amphib floats and how great a turbine would be there. That is assuming the prop was full reverse of course. Talk about easy to dock. We had one PT6 powered Porter on amphib floats that we used in the Katmai area out of King Salmon, Alaska. Taxi up to a beach at a remote fishing camp, turn it around, pull the water rudders and just back it up to the beach. As you increased the power to back up once at the shore line, you could power lift the tail up enough to get several feet up on shore. Never any damage to the floats but there may have been a plate installed on the back bottom of the floats though, not sure. Time to leave? Passengers step from dry beach onto the floats (the aircraft will not rock because of ground support so less chance of someone falling off), board the aircraft and off you go. One person could dock real easy even at a dock and that is a 10 passenger aircraft or at least ours were.

I have mentioned it before elsewhere but the thing that really got to me when I first started working with the Porters, one of our pilots took it up to 7,000 AGL over a 4700 foot runway at Dahl Creek on a downwind at mid field. By the way, Dahl Creek was uncontroled so please don't try this at home. He never went past the other end of the runway and never got over 90 knots in a vertical dive and only made one 180 degree turn and landed half way down the runway. I watched his use of beta in that dive and what an odd feeling. He would pull it in and out to show me the difference and how the aircraft would react. By the way, did I mention the operator's manual said not to do that in flight? I have to admit though that this Porter pilot was probably the best natural light aircraft pilot I have ever met or flown with. Kotzebue will know who I am talking about. He was the one that taught me the ins and outs of flying the aircraft. I have seen this pilot land and stop an empty Porter in about 100 foot and lift off in less than 200 foot, once with the Governor (who was a pilot himself) of Alaska on board and at Dahl Creek. Of course that 650 shp out front really helps. :wink:

Picture coming in on final in a Super Cub, turbine powered say at 85% N1 with just enough prop to hold a steady airspeed, over 100 foot trees and at normal fence speed. Once clear of the trees, drop the nose real fast, crank in just a touch of beta to hold speed back until ready to flare and than increase power and you bring the nose back up at stall speed but under power and set it down three point and immediately go into beta again and since you were already at 85% and on a 2000 foot runway, you sill might have 1500 foot left. Well, gee, a guy can dream can't he? Bush flying in a turbo Super Cub, a pilots dream, right?
 
Re: ATP Turbine....

CptKelly said:
The way I understand it, the ATP Turbine only has a prop control to control the thrust, NO THROTTLE CONTROL. This engine runs at 100% N1 all the time, continuously. Its fuel control is automatic, and varies itself according to how much thrust one decides to dial in. However, no beta range or reverse is provided, all one can get is zero thrust. This setup gives instant thrust on demand-which is good, however, on landing, this gives very little engine drag. I view this as fine on takeoff, but on landing, one better be really careful and practiced due to the loss of engine drag. Look before you leap. If I am incorrect, someone please correct me.

I really, really hope you are wrong Mike. Taking beta away from a turbine really robs it of so much that would make it so great for a Super Cub.

And I don't really understand what the advantage would be to their going this route? Surely it is just a matter of the ability of the prop to go into reverse position? That should be easy enough to do.

I agree, we are going to need a lot more details about this engine before we can commit.

Query if there are any other turbine engines out there that might be suitable for this application?

Stephen
 
When I went to get the wings I saw the turbine. Looks good. Nick Smith Sr was also involved in the prop design. The warp drive unit did not work. He says the first turbine cub should fly before Oshkosh. They were going to try to get it to the show but don't think all the paper work will be done by then. He does not think stability will be a problem.
Should be interesting.

Bill
 
Bill Rusk said:
When I went to get the wings I saw the turbine. Looks good. Nick Smith Sr was also involved in the prop design. The warp drive unit did not work. He says the first turbine cub should fly before Oshkosh. They were going to try to get it to the show but don't think all the paper work will be done by then. He does not think stability will be a problem.
Should be interesting.

Bill

Anyone have an update on this? My friend who is building an RV is pretty excited about development on their end. I have to admit salivating over a turbine Cub possibility. My own personal Porter would be very cool.

Bugs
 
Stephen,

I'm also very interested in this engine. I've spoken a bit to the owner - charlie - at Innodyn. He says the engine will and does have reverse. If there is any question in your mind, check out the following link. It's a video of the RV on landing.

http://www.innodyn.com/aviation/action.html

The direct drive turbine is a great design for quick response. There is no reason it can't have reverse. The propeller changes pitch into a fine (or negative) pitch while the engine keeps turning at its high rpm. NSI will be offering a 79" 2 blade prop. There are several different reductions available: here is a cut from their webpage...

...Our Turbines are designed for output speeds of 2,000; 2,250; 2,500; 2,750; 3,000; and 3,600 RPM. We recommend the use of 2,750 RPM for fixed-wing aircraft applications....

The controls that will be used for the NSI CAP200 prop are electric. You control the prop blade angle while the FADEC fuel control unit meters fuel to keep the engine speed a constant. There are two engine speeds, and thus prop speed settings. High and low. The low setting is for ground operations and will keep the noise level down.

One thing to consider is the prop material. I think the NSI is a composite. Is a composite prop acceptable for back country use? Since the prop has to be a variable pitch & reverse capable to work with a turbine engine, I don't know if there are any good alternatives. I'd be curious to see what you've heard

G.
 
geoffmeyer said:
I've spoken a bit to the owner - charlie - at Innodyn. He says the engine will and does have reverse.

I wrote to Innodyn asking these sorts of questions but never got a reply so this information is especially welcome. Thank you!

The videos also look quite impressive. I hadn't seen them before.

I really like your description of how the system operates. It really does seem idiot proof. That sort of meets some of the questions raised at the beginning of this thread about how difficult it would be to operate under the stress of STOL conditions. Sounds like it will be almost impossible to damage the engine.

What problems do you see in using a composite material prop?

One thought that comes to mind is the sound. I personally find it an enjoyable sound. But I wonder how loud it will be in real life and whether this sound will be appreciated? Ditto the smell.

I'm also wondering what the criteria might be for choosing different engine RPM's and why 2750 is recommended as ideal.

Stephen
 
I'm not too sure it would be that idiot proof. Innodyn says the FADEC will control the fuel flow so that the engine won't exceed temperature limits. That will help from toasting the turbine. I'm not really sure how it would work if you dialed in too much of a prop pitch though. From what I understand, as you add prop pitch to a coarse setting, the prop & engine rpm will want to slow. The fuel control unit will add fuel to counter this action....what if you add too much pitch? Will the engine just slow down once its maxed out on fuel flow, or maybe the turbine temp will begin to rise & consequently, the FADEC will reduce fuel...? That's a question Innodyn could answer, but I haven't asked them yet.

I agree with the Pilatus PC6 guy - turbine operation is not something to be intimidated about. I think operating & learning the in's & out's of a turbo-charged or even normally aspirated piston is more difficult.

I hope someone else answers about the composite prop. I know nothing about props. I've heard that the best is an aluminum one because it can take abuse & then re-shaped -where the composite prop has a protective metal leading edge that is not so reshape-able?? - just a guess though.

I've operated the garrett engines & know how loud they can be on the ground & in the air. The reason is the prop is always spinning at a very high speed. Even when sitting still. I've asked Innodyn about this & they say the engine will run at a lower 1400rpm speed for ground operations. At that prop speed, there shouldn't be much noise.

I'd try to pick the lowest turning engine option, and put the largest diameter prop possible (with reasonable clearance). As of now, the largest prop they have for this engine is the 79" CAP200. At an engine rpm of 2750, the prop tip speed would be .86mach at 2000'msl & 50kts.

Sounds like you & I are interested in the same application of this engine. The majority of their interest is in the RV crowd. I'd be really thrilled to fly this engine if its what they say it is. Lets hope their supercub project proves to be a good performer!

G
 
Ernie,

Not sure about the French powered Porters, but the PT-6 Porter is flat rated at 550 hp, not 650. I suspect the Astazou engine is as well in that application.

As to the larger fins on the Turbine Beaver, note that the Wipaire Turbine Beaver uses the standard Beaver tail. The original deHavilland Turbo Beaver had a 30 inch long fuselage plug inserted into the fuselage to increase cabin volume, and get the engine out front for W & B purposes. With the longer fuselage forward of the center of lift, they then had to increase the size of the vertical tail to compensate. Wip didn't extend the forward fuselage, so increasing the tail wasn't required, and they used a 715 hp engine, I believe.

All this is to say that the size of the vertical tail on these airplanes was dictated by yaw stability, rather than power.

MTV
 
mvivion said:
Ernie,

Not sure about the French powered Porters, but the PT-6 Porter is flat rated at 550 hp, not 650. I suspect the Astazou engine is as well in that application.

As to the larger fins on the Turbine Beaver, note that the Wipaire Turbine Beaver uses the standard Beaver tail. The original deHavilland Turbo Beaver had a 30 inch long fuselage plug inserted into the fuselage to increase cabin volume, and get the engine out front for W & B purposes. With the longer fuselage forward of the center of lift, they then had to increase the size of the vertical tail to compensate. Wip didn't extend the forward fuselage, so increasing the tail wasn't required, and they used a 715 hp engine, I believe.

All this is to say that the size of the vertical tail on these airplanes was dictated by yaw stability, rather than power.

MTV

Needless to say I could be wrong and usually am but as I recall, the PC-6 Porters that we ordered with the PT-6 engines was a model that produced 650 shp but it has been almost 40 years. Side by side with the same load, the PT-6 powered Porters would out perform the Astazou hands down. Forget the one recip we had.
The performance of the turbine Beavers and Otters I have no personal knowledge about other than they are one heck of an aircraft.
One thing about a Porter: do not touch down tail wheel first or you will get several wrinkles in the fuselage just forward of the tail wheel.
 
The last thing I heard....

Guys,
The last thing I heard was that the ATP Turbine was going to be over $30.000, but could be $50000. The cost of the engine doesn't include the prop or spinner either. In order to get one, somebody's going to have to shell out a small fortune. My question is, is it worth it?

Mike
 
Re: The last thing I heard....

CptKelly said:
Guys,
The last thing I heard was that the ATP Turbine was going to be over $30.000, but could be $50000. The cost of the engine doesn't include the prop or spinner either. In order to get one, somebody's going to have to shell out a small fortune. My question is, is it worth it?

Mike

The 185hp Innodyne is $28,500. True, you need to add prop, spinner but you also need to do this for Lyco-saurs. One thing to keep in mind is TBO is 5K. So you get two engines essentially, right?

It still begs the question of whether it's worth it. If I go Lycosaur for my experimental - with initial savings over turbine I can go buy a float kit probably. Of course if you have a love for turbines in general, who can put a price on that? :wink:

Bugs
 
Cost & time

CptKelly said:
My question is, is it worth it?

In general, if it fulfills all of their promises then there is no question it is worth it.

But on some of the specifics I do have a cost issue. Innodyn has appointed Firewall Forward as their provider for mounting kits:

Rivers Aeronautical

The cost of this product seems to me to be quite high (their estimated price is US$12,500 on an RV aircraft). This significantly increases the cost of the engine and I am not sure what is really in these kits that justifies the price.

I also see a second, and maybe bigger problem. Rivers Aero is obviously going to concentrate on the RV series first. That will leave people such as us who are probably viewed as a niche part of the market out in the cold.

What I'm wondering is how many people can reasonably be expected to mate the Innodyn turbine to a Supercub? I am specifically wondering if it might make sense for us to form a group to develop a mounting kit for ourselves? This might be the cheapest and quickest alternative.

My personal feeling is that I want to actually have a Supercub in the air and get some sort of pilot report on how it flies before I commit to going the turbine route. But I am hoping that this will happen very soon. :)

Stephen
 
Wasn't it noted by the developer or someone on this site this spring that there was a Cub with the turbine on it either flying, or "imminently" flying? I remember making the gaffe on here of suggesting that the same turbine cub was at S N F this year as last, and the answer was that this was a different cub.

What happened to the one that had the engine mounted last year (2003) at Sun N Fun? Or is this a different engine conversion?

Just curious.

MTV
 
Yeah a turbine engine can burn almost anything, even that expensive bottle of Scotch you have in with your fishing gear, but that doesn't mean you should burn just anything in one. If you burn fuel other than those approved for normal use (Jet A, A-1, B) they fall into the emergency fuel category, you might be able to get home, but start saving for a new engine.

This guy builds Yukons with a 120 hp turboprop option. Fuels ? Diesel, Bio Diesel, Jet A, JP5, JP8 and Heating Kerosene.


http://www.watsongroup.ca

In idea is always good, back when it was an idea. :crazyeyes:
 
In my prior life I worked on the certification of the Garrett engines for Ag operations using Diesel fuels. We found little difference in performance, function and turbine life. Turned out that the jet fuels and diesel fuels were almost indistinguishable chemically, the only cancerns were quality controls for diesel were not regulated by law as were the jet fuels.
 
The arctic grade diesel fuel produced by a small refinery owed by ARCO on the north slope of Alaska at Prudhoe Bay was tested by both Boeing and P&W and found to be the same as Jet A-50 with just a little more sulfur. It was certified for use in all of our turbine powered aircraft.
At 50 degrees below zero on the ground, there were no gelling problems when being used for vehicles and generators and needless to say, none in our aircraft either. There was no limit on the amount we could burn but normally for our 737s, we ran round trip fuel and at times, even defueled into our storage tanks when we could.
 
Turbine

I still would question the ability of a turbine engine on a Cub to work as good as a recip in a tight situation where you need to "blip" the power to get over an obstacle. All the turbine engined aircraft I have ever flown in seemed slow to respond and every thing was done smoothly with long approaches and no jockeying around. Crash
 
Re: Turbine

Crash said:
I still would question the ability of a turbine engine on a Cub to work as good as a recip in a tight situation where you need to "blip" the power to get over an obstacle. All the turbine engined aircraft I have ever flown in seemed slow to respond and every thing was done smoothly with long approaches and no jockeying around. Crash

This is true for jet aircraft. But when you are working with a turbo prop, and I will use our PC-6 Porters as an example, they are flown different.

On approach when there is a sudden need for power for an abort or whatever, you are already at say N1 of 83% and with just a little prop cranked in to keep speed where you want it. Go into ground fine and you have a big airbrake out front. When you need that extra power, there is no spool up time, only the time it takes to change the prop configuration and that starts almost immediately.

Having been around our Porters for several years, recip and turbine, I have to believe the Cubs with a recip and turbine comparison would be the same as our Porters with a recip against a turbine powerplant.
A person has to fly them totally different but there should really be a great gain if performance. Needless to say, a loss of weight but the difference in fuel weight takes most of that away.

Something else to consider about a turbine powered Cub. Fit the aircraft with long legs to keep the prop higher and away from the gravel or other foreign items. A person will be turning the prop at high RPM far longer than with a recip engine.
 
A single shaft turbine such as the ATP or Garrett are typically running at or near 100% RPM during landing and take off. Thus no spool up time is required. On the Garrett engine, for a power lever slam, the time from minimum power to full power was under .5sec. or in other words just the time to move the Power lever and slew the prop. The time was dictated by the propeller slew rate as the turbine is already at speed. A PT6 or similar free turbine engine will take a little more time because of the gas generator spool up time. A reciprocating engine with a constant speed prop will also be controlled by the propeller slew rate. The propeller slew rate is going to be insignificant in most cases as the average pilot is going to move the power level (throttle) deliberately with haste but not in a slam fashion even in an emergency situation.
 
highroads said:
A single shaft turbine such as the ATP or Garrett are typically running at or near 100% RPM during landing and take off. Thus no spool up time is required. On the Garrett engine, for a power lever slam, the time from minimum power to full power was under .5sec. or in other words just the time to move the Power lever and slew the prop. The time was dictated by the propeller slew rate as the turbine is already at speed. A PT6 or similar free turbine engine will take a little more time because of the gas generator spool up time. A reciprocating engine with a constant speed prop will also be controlled by the propeller slew rate. The propeller slew rate is going to be insignificant in most cases as the average pilot is going to move the power level (throttle) deliberately with haste but not in a slam fashion even in an emergency situation.

Pretty close to my thoughts although I was not around the Garretts that much even though we ran them in our Skyvans. I was not aware the Garretts could move the prop that fast and our drivers really didn't like them. Not enough power they kept saying. I did miss being able to go into feather when shutting the Garretts down as with the P&Ws since it was so much safer for our passengers. For some reason I remember the PT-6s and props that we ran on our Porters could change the prop positions much faster than what was able to be done on our Twin Otters with a different model of the PT-6 but of course, I could be wrong. Something, maybe knowledge, keeps reminding me that we ordered our P&W powered Porters with a different PT-6 engine model than normally used at the time back in the 60s. As I recall at the time we ordered our Porters, there were something like 4 different models of the PT6 engine available at the time but than again, that was 40 years ago and I sure hate to start an arguement over an engine and prop setup on new special order aircraft we purchased so better back out of this one. But after flying them, I suspect I might have some idea of what we were flying.
 
The Skyvans had the Garrett "Century" engines installed which were thermodynamically rated at 715 shaft horsepower. The Skyvan could have used a bigger engine but shorts never went for the larger engine. Later Shorts created the SD360 with the PT6 and dropped the Skyvan. Many Skyvan's remain in service today because that large box with loading ramp could carry oversized cargo and the airplane had a lot of versatility. There was a version of the Porter which had the Garrett engine in it. It was rated at 575 hp and had inflight Beta mode capability. The engine installation was done in Phoenix by Garrett and was produced in production by Fairchild for the CIA for Vietnam operation. It had spectacular performance, able to get into and out of postage stamp sized strips.
 
Stephen - I think you are correct. The cub is on the back-burner at Innodyn and Rivers Aeronautical. Can't blame them. The RV is such a big market. If you want to do this installation yourself, or have someone do it, they will sell the engine and allow you to bypass Rivers Aeronautical. They don't advertise this, but I think they are starting to change their attitude. If you call Innodyn & ask for Charlie, he can tell you more.

This may interest you - all the engines they sell - from 160-255hp are the same weight (188lbs dry). What they are doing is de-rating them, like P&W, GE, CFM...etc. The 255hp engine has a $34,500 price (although they claim the TBO will be the same on all of their engine models, I don't know if I believe that yet. One of the reasons the engines on airliners are purchased de-rated is for improved engine life). The prop, spinner & controls are roughly $6000. You could then spend another $12000 with Rivers, or take it to someone else (which is what I'm doing). The plenum (air flow control) is something else that will probably have to be purchased from Innodyn - they don't have a price on it yet.

It will be hard to beat the power to weight ratio of the 255hp version of this engine, and if it runs as advertised, it should save money in the long run....If you show interest by calling Charlie, I think it will help push their cub project along.

G
 
Interesting Don. I was not aware of the Garrett mod. I knew they were using the Astazou powered Porters in Vietnam. We had a couple and they didn't perform anywhere near our P&Ws and forget the one recip we had, 09Z. It was almost useless for us due to lack of power.
 
Back
Top