New Aussie Turboprop engine (200 HP) introduced at Sun 'n Fun

[turboplanner]

17 minutes ago, Geoff_H said:

I assume they are all at Cruise; automtive engines are usually compared in brake specific fuel consumption which generally is expressed as a 'U' shaped curve. A manufacuturer gearing a vehicle to run along the bottom of the U will be able to show, and the customer will find less fuel consumption than another manufacturer who doesn't do that exercise. 

[onetrack]

Raikhlin Engine Developments (RED) are producing a 500HP compression-ignition V12 engine, which is all-alloy, runs a full FADEC system, runs twin turbos and intercooling, weighs just 370kg, and which burns Jet-A1 at a rate that is 50% lower than the equivalent HP turbine engine.

This engine has been type-certificated since 2014 and is slowly gaining traction as a viable alternative engine choice in the 500HP range. The RED A03 in the Beaver looks like a great fit, with exciting performance.

All that remains is for this engines reliability, and good manufacturer support, to become proven. So many "new revolutionary" aircraft engine manufacturers appear to want end-users to be their test bed, and when problems arise, manufacturer support evaporates.

The technology and the people behind the RED A03 engine all come from F1 racing engines, and they have a track record in the F1 field. If they can enlarge their product line to include smaller HP engines, they just might find there's substantial demand for their engines.

 

https://red.theweblogics.com/engines/

[Geoff_H]

What is an "equivalent gas turbine". The BMW B 58 engine gets 340hp out of 300lb weight....the state of the art (Merc get 400hp out of same ).. but there are many gas turbines less and some more.  Modern engines, modern gas turbines are similarly developed.  We need to compare similar with similar.

[Geoff_H]

What is the weight and bsfc of the RED engine.  I can't find a reference to it.

[onetrack]

The weight is quoted in the link below as "800 lbs" (362kg) and "best BSFC" is quoted as 0.349 LBS/H/SHP. This is for the "base engine".

 

When turbine aircraft engine comparisons are involved, I would presume RED are making comparisons to the most popular medium-sized aircraft turbine, the PT6 - which is commonly rated in the 500-550HP range.

 

https://red.theweblogics.com/product/red-a03-000-series-base-configuration-550shp/

 

 

[Geoff_H]

Pt6 is a brilliant design.  It was designed many years ago.  Has a very high bsfc.

 

[Thruster88]

I believe  the power turbine (just that 300mm disk thingy) in a pt6 cost about $120k. It is an extremely reliable engine.

Edited April 11, 2022 by Thruster88

[onetrack]

The biggest PT6 turbine, the PT6A-68B, commonly fitted to aircraft such as the Pilatus PC21 and the Embraer EMB-314, produces 1600SHP for 269kgs in mass.

However, the PT6A-68B has a BSFC of between .518 in cruise to .583 at takeoff.

 

Interestingly, the race is on to seriously redesign and upgrade the PT6 with CMC's in the turbine blades, to produce some staggering turbine improvements - on every measurable level.

Testing has shown a redesigned PT6, utilising CMC's, code-named the SF-1600, has produced a long range cruise fuel consumption reduction of 30%, a power increase of 28%, and a weight reduction of a seemingly unbelievable 68%. 

In addition, it's stated that, "Incorporating advanced material and manufacturing technologies" in the manufacture of the SF-1600 would also result in reduced cost of manufacture of the engine.

If this holds true for any production version of the SF-1600 (currently slated for 2025), then those turbine developments using CMC's are going to make any reciprocating aircraft engine developments look distinctly stone age.

The important information for the PT6/SF-1600 turbine comparisons are on pages 13 and 14, in the link below.

 

https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/education-and-careers/university-students/design-competitions/1st-place-undergraduate-team-the-university-of-kansas.pdf?sfvrsn=bcf213fc_0

 

The EASA type certificates, containing all the vital specifications for the current PT6 range, are in the following link.

 

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_TCDS_IM.E.038_PT6A-68_issue 01_20161904_1.0.pdf

 

 

[kgwilson]

My mate built a Helicycle and has installed a turbine which is an ex APU from a Chinook helicopter. It has Jet A1 fuel consumption of around 45 lph & revs up to about 45,000rpm. I don't know the weight but it is small

[walrus]

Unfortunately the SF- 1600 is vapourware -  a university student paper project.

 

Its not the grand scheme items that will kill this project, its the details that do them in: bearings  and lubrication, drainage, start ers, gearboxes,  little things that took 20 years of patient experiment to get right.

[Old Koreelah]

8 hours ago, kgwilson said:

My mate built a Helicycle and has installed a turbine which is an ex APU from a Chinook helicopter. It has Jet A1 fuel consumption of around 45 lph & revs up to about 45,000rpm. I don't know the weight but it is small

Those APUs look like they could fit in a 20 litre drum. Fitted high up in the rear “sail” I was told by a RAAF Chinook engineer that they are for emergency use only and never actually tested, because of the likely vibration damage to the airframe. Wonder how long it would last in service as a primary power unit.

[Ian]

17 hours ago, onetrack said:

Interestingly, the race is on to seriously redesign and upgrade the PT6 with CMC's in the turbine blades, to produce some staggering turbine improvements - on every measurable level.

However I suspect that the end result will be a staggering increase in cost far beyond the budget of the people on this list,  exotic materials = high costs.

The PT6A-66 (as used on the Piaggio P.180 Avanti)  has a fuel comsumption of 380g/KW whereas the Junkers Jumo 204 used in the Junkers Ju 86 uses 211g/KW.

As the image below shows as soon as you go below 1000hp your fuel consumption for any commercially available turbine is pretty poor. I've created a red dot which shows what a two stroke compression ignition engine built in WW2 achieved, (Junkers Jumo 204). The green dot is an O235 for comparison.

 

 

[onetrack]

8 hours ago, walrus said:

Unfortunately the SF- 1600 is vapourware -  a university student paper project.

 

Its not the grand scheme items that will kill this project, its the details that do them in: bearings  and lubrication, drainage, start ers, gearboxes,  little things that took 20 years of patient experiment to get right.

I don't believe that view is correct. The project was carried out in response to an RFP (Request For Proposal). RFP's in the U.S. are issued by global corporations and Govt Depts.

The RFP originator is not specifically stated in the document, but the introduction specifically talks about the Swiss Air Force and their desire to upgrade the PT6A in their next generation PC-21 fighter trainer - so we can guess that either or both the Swiss Govt and P&W are likely to be the originators of the RFP.

 

In addition, the proposal is exceptionally thorough, and addresses every single aspect of the redesigned engine, including lubrication. Note also, that the SF-1600 is a redesigned PT6A, not a brand new engine, clean sheet proposal, with no operational history.

Add in the fact that every major turbine engine manufacturer is now looking closely at CMC technologies and proposing to use them to improve current design engines (including the F-35, with the Adaptive Engine Transition Program), and you start to get the idea that CMC's are going to play a very big part in the next generation, redesigned, higher efficiency, more fuel efficient turbines.

 

One has to keep in mind, the American Universities are an important part of U.S. R&D, and are universally funded by the global American corporations, who simply see the Universities as a valuable extension of their own R&D depts.

This is the reason why America leads the world in technological advances - unlike Australia, where University research is largely done on shoestring budgets, and any sizeable amount of money given to them, is usually only from generous individual benefactors.

 

As to Ian's opinion of a "staggering increase in cost", it appears the second major driver of CMC technology use, is not just CMC's ability to handle temperatures of 2400 degrees (around 1000 degrees higher than the best titanium alloys) - but that incorporation of the CMC technology into turbines results in manufacturing cost reductions.

[onetrack]

Ian, there certainly are some major advantages in the opposed-piston diesel engine design. However, the only recent interesting development in this area, the Gemini 100 opposed piston light aircraft diesel, has still not been brought to market, despite being developed around 2006-2008.

 

It appears the designer of the Gemini 100 engine, Powerplant Developments of the U.K., went under around 2015, and the company assets, including the Gemini 100 design were snapped up by Superior Aviation Beijing in that year.

 

Despite assurances by Superior that the Gemini 100 would be available commercially by 2016, the ominous silence of the last 6 years as regards the Gemini 100 engine, seems to indicate the design is not a viable proposition.

 

 

[Ian]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

As to Ian's opinion of a "staggering increase in cost", it appears the second major driver of CMC technology use, is not just CMC's ability to handle temperatures of 2400 degrees (around 1000 degrees higher than the best titanium alloys) - but that incorporation of the CMC technology into turbines results in manufacturing cost reductions

While I really like ceramics and I hope that you're right in terms of cost, they're a bear to machine. CMCs have been used for combustor and turbine housings however turbine blades are precision components with very high tolerances. The materials being considered are hard like SiC in ceramic matrices often of equal hardness. Very hard compared to metals.

 

I suppose cost is a relative thing, when you're an airline fuel savings may drive their introduction. Ceramic disks are relatively cheap in comparison however I don't see many cars with them.

 

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Ian said:

While I really like ceramics and I hope that you're right in terms of cost, they're a bear to machine. CMCs have been used for combustor and turbine housings however turbine blades are precision components with very high tolerances. The materials being considered are hard like SiC in ceramic matrices often of equal hardness. Very hard compared to metals.

 

I suppose cost is a relative thing, when you're an airline fuel savings may drive their introduction. Ceramic disks are relatively cheap in comparison however I don't see many cars with them.

 

Ceramics failed in the 1980s/90s in both clutch discs and engine components, primarily combustion chamber parts such as piston tops valve tops, valve seals. We've had many discussions on this site about combustion chambers getting too hot and damaging components as a result, and ceramics were going to break through this barrier, but the failure was in installation and servicing; there were just too many hours and broken ceramics during installation. The clutches failed for a different reason; they were designed for almost instant engagement, but the drivers just couldn't adapt to an instant start; they wanted to slip the clutches. In those circumstances the ceramics acted like machine tools and tore up the flywheel face, shortening the life. Today there may be a chance with robotic assembly etc.

[Geoff_H]

GE were experimentimg with ceramics over 10 years ago.  Turbine blades are subject to huge radial forces. With no operational GT yet my money would be that a successful product has not yet been developed.  First to do it will make a lot of money.  In power generation just a few % improvent in efficiency means big bucks.

[onetrack]

The two articles below are 3 years old, but even in 2019, CMC technology was progressing rapidly. The articles and video revolve only around just GE's efforts with CMC, there are numerous other manufacturers putting strenuous effort into keeping up with GE in the CMC field.

 

GE have spent over 3 decades and well over US$1.5B in R&D just on CMC's - so they're not pussy-footing around with this technology. They simply believe it's the next quantum leap in technology, on a par with the move from wood to metal in airframes.

 

GE have taken the exceptionally rare step of establishing a complete chain of supply and manufacturing for their CMC requirements, with 4 new dedicated factories producing CMC materials and parts.

GE have perfected CMC with a molten silicon infusion in the manufacturing process, followed by Vapour Deposition coatings that add durability to the CMC components.

This stuff is cutting edge technology, and it's already in use in current production aircraft turbine engines.

 

https://ceramics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/April-2019_Feature.pdf

 

https://blog.geaviation.com/technology/42869/

 

 

 

[Geoff_H]

Cmc coatings of burners have been around over 15 years to my knowledge.  I have not seen blading yet ,(retired so out of the loop), but may they have.  Both Siemens and GE have ceramic coated burners.  Refurbished burners were more expensive than refurbished blades, for 100MW Gt 10M every 3 years of continuous operation (2011 price)

[Student Pilot]

On 11/4/2022 at 1:59 PM, onetrack said:

The biggest PT6 turbine, the PT6A-68B, commonly fitted to aircraft such as the Pilatus PC21 and the Embraer EMB-314, produces 1600SHP for 269kgs in mass.

However, the PT6A-68B has a BSFC of between .518 in cruise to .583 at takeoff.

 

Interestingly, the race is on to seriously redesign and upgrade the PT6 with CMC's in the turbine blades, to produce some staggering turbine improvements - on every measurable level.

Testing has shown a redesigned PT6, utilising CMC's, code-named the SF-1600, has produced a long range cruise fuel consumption reduction of 30%, a power increase of 28%, and a weight reduction of a seemingly unbelievable 68%. 

In addition, it's stated that, "Incorporating advanced material and manufacturing technologies" in the manufacture of the SF-1600 would also result in reduced cost of manufacture of the engine.

If this holds true for any production version of the SF-1600 (currently slated for 2025), then those turbine developments using CMC's are going to make any reciprocating aircraft engine developments look distinctly stone age.

The important information for the PT6/SF-1600 turbine comparisons are on pages 13 and 14, in the link below.

 

https://www.aiaa.org/docs/default-source/uploadedfiles/education-and-careers/university-students/design-competitions/1st-place-undergraduate-team-the-university-of-kansas.pdf?sfvrsn=bcf213fc_0

 

The EASA type certificates, containing all the vital specifications for the current PT6 range, are in the following link.

 

https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/dfu/EASA_TCDS_IM.E.038_PT6A-68_issue 01_20161904_1.0.pdf

 

A PT6-67F develops 1700 shp, most 802's are now equiped with them. Makes a big difference from a short strip.

 

A PT6-67F develops 1700 shp, most 802 Air Tractors are now fitted with them. Mkes. Huge difference off a short airstrip.

Edited April 12, 2022 by Student Pilot

[Ian]

1 hour ago, onetrack said:

They simply believe it's the next quantum leap in technology, on a par with the move from wood to metal in airframes.

Wood is actually has a pretty good strength to weigh ratio, generally equivalent to aluminium and used correctly can provide excellent results. For example the de Havilland DH.98 Mosquito, in 1941, it was one of the fastest operational aircraft in the world. 😉 and called the wooden wonder. It also has a much lower radar cross section so you can claim that its stealth.

 

[turboplanner]

So wooden turbo props are the coming thing in recreational aircraft?

 

[Ian]

Maybe :-), not sure about the high temperature properties though if you were using it in a hot sections. The key message was that I don't think that going from wood to metal was a quantum leap, it was just a bit easier to engineer.

 

The key problem with wood as an engineering material is its lack of consistency compared to a metal alloy and the associated fudge factor required when building. Laminates reduce this factor allowing more of an engineered approach and allowed their use in the Mosquito. Rotol propellers for the spitfire were also made of wood in WW2.

Certainly wooden props are far easier to certify than their metal brethren and they don't have the nasty fatigue issues associated with metal props. MT Propellers manufacture their "Natural Composite" line of constant speed propellers. For instance MT-Propeller natural composite blades are certified for unlimited life and can be repaired in the field or at 60+ overhaul shops worldwide.

Australian Hardwoods especially are significantly stronger than traditional northern hemisphere timbers and massively undervalued. For example Grey Ironbark has a tensile strength about 3x that of Oak, the traditional symbol of strength. 

Another less well understood property is dampening which the graph below shows.

 

[Ian]

Back to the topic at hand, I'd be interested to know what the ballpark price is for this engine and it would be great if someone could really upset the current status quo in the current market.

I'd like to understand the SFC figures a bit more, the fuel flow figures are quoted at 150HP however optimum cruise is 180 HP, I don't know enough about recuperators to know how this moves the optimal power settings.

[Geoff_H]

Recupetators duct the exhaust gas over the out of the compressor to heat the air and expand the air. Just like a burner would.  Not as much fuel is then required to heat this heated air to get the gas (air plus products of combustion) to the maximum first stage turbine blades.  Roughly same turbine power, a slight reduction due to exhaust pressure gain from having to pass through the recupetators.  Recupetators usually reasonably heavy having to withstand compressor outlet pressure, they also decrease the gas pressure to the turbine.