flyvulcan

US

To be honest, we aren't interested in comparing our range to the larger turboprops. They are not in our market. We need to be able to have added value over our competition which is the Rotaxes, Jabs, D-Motors, UL Powers etc in the 100hp region and the legacy engines in the 200hp region. The only other turboprop development at the moment is the PBS Velka offering and ultimately, as long as we can provide reliability and outstanding product support, we believe that our larger engine will be competitive against the PBS product. Yes, definitely adaptable for small helicopters and we see this area as one that will have a lot of interest in our product. Our gearbox designer already has a 90 degree gearbox for a similar application for small helo's so we do anticipate selling some into that market.

Hi Ben, The TA200TP model is being developed in parallel but 6 months behind the TA120TP. The -200 will produce a minimum 200hp for take-off and be optimized for 160-180hp cruise. The -200 may be offered in a 250ish hp version as well. The -200 will use a larger gas generator/power section but the gearbox and accessory drive will be common to all power plants. We are anticipating that the -200 will sell for around US$45k, so on a par with a new IO360. The Tucanos, Blackshape Primes, CubCrafters, Sling 4, Arion Lightning etc manufacturers were extremely interested in our -200 engine. While at Oshkosh, we had an offer from a group of enthusiasts who personally owned Vans RV model aircraft and also aviation related companies to develop and offer firewall forward kits for the RV range of aircraft. We anticipate that such packages will be developed for most of the more popular kit aircraft, both for the -120 and the -200 engines. Weight and balance considerations are very important due to the significant weight differential between the turboprop and the legacy piston engines.

We had a long chat with the Tucano rep at Oshkosh. Unfortunately, we couldn't make it to see the owner when he was visiting you just after Oshkosh. Our engines would go nicely in your aircraft!!

We anticipate the price tag to be in the vicinity of the Rotax 914 price. The PBS Velka TJ100 jet is a simple single stage compressor/turbine with not a particularly high pressure ratio. It is the core engine for their 240hp turboprop engine which was advertised at last years Oshkosh as a firewall forward package for RV10 aircraft at US$110k. PBS have reportedly spent about $20m on the development and certification of their turboprop engine. Our gas generator if configured as a pure jet would have approximately half the thrust as the TJ100 jet engine. We intend to have higher pressure ratios and also, recuperation that will enhance the fuel efficiency of our engine. Time will tell how it all works out...

Thanks Bex. Done

I added this post to another thread but it was suggested I start my own thread about my engine so here it is: Perhaps a realistic alternative to a Rotax will be the engine that I have been developing and am in the process of launching. It is still at least 2 years away for first deliveries but we are making steady headway to that target. The engine shown in the above video is our Proof of Concept engine. It uses a gas generator designed by us but for cost reasons, off the shelf components were used for the interstage, power and gearbox sections. These OTS components are by no means optimized. Indeed, our computer analysis determined that the power turbine section would be offering significantly lower efficiency than needed which proved to be true - the good news is that the design optimization program will result in a power turbine that will deliver the required performance to meet the target specifications. The POC engine is shown on its dyno in the video and the video is of an early test run that validated the theoretical analysis that had been completed on the POC engine design. The engine is only being run to around 70% gas generator capability in the video. The entire engine is undergoing a full redesign, based on the results of our testing/analysis and also to incorporate some technical innovations that will significantly enhance fuel efficiency and reliability/TBO to achieve our target specifications. The anticipated specs for the commercial engine are T/O power 120hp, optimum cruise power (best SFC) 100-110hp, installed weight <120lbs/54kgs, fuel burn at 100hp around 8gph. The prop will be a constant speed unit and engine/prop will be controlled by a single lever (very simple). The engine's ECU/FADEC will automatically ensure no engine limits are exceeded and will also offer full data acquisition to facilitate engine health monitoring. Here are some additional details that I provided in answer to some queries on the other thread. Answering in no particular order, unrecuperated, the best SFC that we would likely get for this small scale turbine engine is around .60 lbs/hp/hr. If recuperated, we could be close to .55 lbs/hp/hr (so 100hp optimized cruise power setting = 55 lbs/hr @ an sg of 6.76 lbs/gal for JetA = 8.1 gal/hr). We plan to recuperate to get the SFC down. So its not sipping fuel at 100hp but at the same time, the Rotax 912iS etc. cannot run continuously at 100hp but the 914 at 100hp isn't burning that much less fuel. The Rotaxes only start to sip fuel at their lower power settings. Ultimately, we'd like to get the TBO out to 3000+ hours. Given the simplicity of the design and the lower acquisition/manufacturing costs for exotic and conventional materials these days, we anticipate an overhaul cost of around US$5-6000, so probably less than the cost to overhaul the Rotax at 2000 hours. Routine maintenance is expected to be significantly less than for a piston engine. The actual materials to be used, the cooling requirements and the need for ceramic coatings on the hot section components is being investigated by our engineers as part of the optimization program for the design. Ceramic coatings may not be required but if it is, a number of recently developed cost effective solutions are available. The addition of a recuperator to our base design will result in the usual re-analysis of all components and that exercise is about to be commenced. Material requirements will be identified as part of that process. Current power turbine/NGV assembly cooling on the POC engine is from bleed air tapped from the compressor. We did a low-key introduction of our engine to the experimental/LSA airframe manufacturers at Oshkosh last year. It was an interesting experience observing their attitude change from our initial introduction where we advised them that we were developing a small turboprop engine (skepticism/disbelief) to when we showed them the video and explained where we were at in our development program. The excitement that was evident from the manufacturers was validation to us that there is a strong desire for such a product and the offers of support from those manufacturers in the form of test airframes to flight test the engine in as well as offers to provide airframes as demonstrators for the engine was very pleasing for us. A number of leading manufacturers expressed their desire to work with us through the development program such that when the engine was ready, they would have designed a totally new airframe to take advantage of the distinctive features of the engine, i.e. low weight, small size, low frontal area etc. Dave

BTW, you can probably guess what powerplant I hope to put into the Lightning Bug...

Answering in no particular order, unrecuperated, the best SFC that we would likely get for this small scale turbine engine is around .60 lbs/hp/hr. If recuperated, we could be close to .55 lbs/hp/hr (so 100hp optimized cruise power setting = 55 lbs/hr @ an sg of 6.76 lbs/gal for JetA = 8.1 gal/hr). We plan to recuperate to get the SFC down. So its not sipping fuel at 100hp but at the same time, the Rotax 912iS etc. cannot run continuously at 100hp but the 914 at 100hp isn't burning that much less fuel. The Rotaxes only start to sip fuel at their lower power settings. Ultimately, we'd like to get the TBO out to 3000+ hours. Given the simplicity of the design and the lower acquisition/manufacturing costs for exotic and conventional materials these days, we anticipate an overhaul cost of around US$5-6000, so probably less than the cost to overhaul the Rotax at 2000 hours. Routine maintenance is expected to be significantly less than for a piston engine. The actual materials to be used, the cooling requirements and the need for ceramic coatings on the hot section components is being investigated by our engineers as part of the optimization program for the design. Ceramic coatings may not be required but if it is, a number of recently developed cost effective solutions are available. The addition of a recuperator to our base design will result in the usual re-analysis of all components and that exercise is about to be commenced. Material requirements will be identified as part of that process. Current power turbine/NGV assembly cooling on the POC engine is from bleed air tapped from the compressor. We did a low-key introduction of our engine to the experimental/LSA airframe manufacturers at Oshkosh last year. It was an interesting experience observing their attitude change from our initial introduction where we advised them that we were developing a small turboprop engine (skepticism/disbelief) to when we showed them the video and explained where we were at in our development program. The excitement that was evident from the manufacturers was validation to us that there is a strong desire for such a product and the offers of support from those manufacturers in the form of test airframes to flight test the engine in as well as offers to provide airframes as demonstrators for the engine was very pleasing for us. A number of leading manufacturers expressed their desire to work with us through the development program such that when the engine was ready, they would have designed a totally new airframe to take advantage of the distinctive features of the engine, i.e. low weight, small size, low frontal area etc.

Perhaps a realistic alternative will be the engine that I have been developing and am in the process of launching. It is still at least 2 years away for first deliveries but we are making steady headway to that target. The engine shown in the above video is our Proof of Concept engine. It uses a gas generator designed by us but for cost reasons, off the shelf components were used for the interstage, power and gearbox sections. These OTS components are by no means optimized. Indeed, our computer analysis determined that the power turbine section would be offering significantly lower efficiency than needed which proved to be true - the good news is that the design optimization program will result in a power turbine that will deliver the required performance to meet the target specifications. The POC engine is shown on its dyno in the video and the video is of an early test run that validated the theoretical analysis that had been completed on the POC engine design. The engine is only being run to around 70% gas generator capability in the video. The entire engine is undergoing a full redesign, based on the results of our testing/analysis and also to incorporate some technical innovations that will significantly enhance fuel efficiency and reliability/TBO to achieve our target specifications. The anticipated specs for the commercial engine are T/O power 120hp, optimum cruise power (best SFC) 100-110hp, installed weight <120lbs/54kgs, fuel burn at 100hp around 8gph. The prop will be a constant speed unit and engine/prop will be controlled by a single lever (very simple). The engine's ECU/FADEC will automatically ensure no engine limits are exceeded and will also offer full data acquisition to facilitate engine health monitoring. Cost is expected to be around the same price as a Rotax 914, give or take a bit.

Hi Bex, It looks like you now have the task of bending all the flanges on each rib to attach them to the spar (unless those holes at the spar end of the ribs are to attach them to a spar mounted flange?). If you do not bend them all to exactly the same angle, there will be a discrepancy with their alignment at the leading edge. You probably already have an accurate solution to that potential issue. If not, a potential solution could be to have a separate rib and flange with each flange being bent to 90 degrees and pre-drilled only on the rib face but not on the spar face. The spar face could be back-drilled through the spar mounting holes after clamping the flange to the spar in its required location. Each rib could have a small notch cnc'd into its leading edge which using a taut fishing line or similar could be used to align all the leading edges of the ribs, to then allow the rib to be back-drilled from the pre-drilled spar flange, thereby keeping all ribs in alignment. The ribs could be clamped to the flanges while alignment is carried out and then back-drilled through the pre-drilled flange holes. Just a thought for you but I have a sneaking suspicion that you probably already have this potential (minor) issue resolved. Keep up the great work!! Everyone is finding your journey fascinating and we admire your ingenuity.

Jakej will be able to fill you in on any Dynon products. He is the Dynon man to go to in Australia and spent plenty of time with the Dynon team at Oshkosh. I didn't get to the MGL display so couldn't say whether they have anything new. It was an excellent show (as always) and I was knackered after 6 days of it but very content...

The Fokkers tail plane is about to be boxed up ready for the long voyage back to Australia. When I get back, I'm going to have to drive up from Adelaide and check out my adversary, erm, view your collection...

Shouldn't it read: A young bloke had arranged to pick up his girlfriend on the weekend in his old Ford van, but it broke down and he couldn't make it. He and his girlfriend were both Latin scholars so he sent her a telegram which read "Thus passes the glory of the world". She immediately responded "Why are you telling me when you take a dump?"

I was just eying off their website. Mmmmm...... More food for thought! Thanks Jake. Will drop you an email with my contact details. I'll look forward to catching up there. After Oshkosh, I'll head down to Louisiana to check out the Bugs. I'll be returning to Adelaide permanently after that. My 16 years in the desert is up. Woo hoo!

I thought that the primary aim for this build was to test and validate Bex's construction technique, rather than to build a flyable aircraft. If it happened to result in a flyable aircraft, great. But I think what Bex is doing here is learning how to optimize his building process which he seems to be doing a good job of and he is learning a lot along the way. In the "real" aircraft, he may use different gauge or different spec'd material, he may not have the same number of lightening holes, he may use solid rivets instead of pull rivets etc. If his test sample works with quick to install pull rivets etc, then it bodes well for when he has finalized the design for his aircraft and he conducts the build of his prototype "aircraft" rather than his prototype "construction method test frame". He will likely take on board the suggestions that have been made, in all the areas of design, fabrication and form etc. and consider them on their merits. At the end of the day, thanks to his ingenuity in developing a simple construction technique, combined with his own design input and the input of others, he could possibly come up with a product that works and appeals to the masses. I say Bex, keep at it and forumites, keep making suggestions and inputs (especially HITC whose inputs are extremely valuable).

Hi John, I spoke with you many years ago about your aircraft. I know where she is and I've got some photos of her current state which is a little worse for wear but certainly resurrectable with not too much trouble. I'll pm you with my contact details. Drop me your latest email address and I'll give you all the details. Cheers, Dave

It certainly seemed like a long response time to me as well!! I certainly wouldn't have been hanging around in the aircraft waiting for the Rescue and Firefighting Services to arrive!! What you probably can't make out in the video that I posted is a single very brave lad who rushed in with a hand-held fire extinguisher to fight the fire while the pax were evacuating. He can be seen on other YouTube videos of the event. I hope he got a medal for it because it was a very brave and selfless act. The fire was clearly outside the scope of being put out by his handheld but he still gave it a go.

Vixen's generalization of the Cabin Crew for Australian carriers is pretty well spot on. Their training is generally of a very high standard and the conscientiousness of the CC is generally good. However, this is definitely not the case with overseas carriers. I have attended a number of Emergency Procedures refresher courses in the cabin simulator that were run by my local airline where the performance of the Cabin Crew in relation to on-board fires and general emergencies was abysmal, even after the exercise had been pre-briefed extensively including crew actions. Also, the decision making ability of many of the timid Asian girls was very disappointing, essentially it was non existent. Yet they still all passed their course and continued to fly the line. I would have had very little confidence in their ability to effectively handle an emergency situation. While I am legally obliged to follow the lawful command of a crew member, my professional training and analysis of a situation may certainly dictate whether I choose to obey their command or not. Have a look at this China Airlines B737 fire at Okinawa. The location and extent of the fire bears a strong resemblance to the Singapore situation, i.e a fairly strong fire in the region of the right wing. Note that the first passenger goes down the slides at 00:15, the last passenger appears to go down the slide at 1:45 and the aircraft blows up at 1:55, approximately 1:40 after the first pax evacuated. If this evacuation had been delayed for a minute, the loss of life would likely not have been zero. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tY2HzWCvhw This video, along with the Manchester B737 where not everyone got out after the aircraft evacuation was delayed, along with a number of others are firmly imprinted in my memory and would likely influence my decision whether to risk injuries by evacuating or gamble that the jet won't explode like the China Airlines one did, but that's just me...

Hello Gustav and welcome to our forums and I'll start by saying that you are doing very well with your English! I have a Microair M760 but have not yet installed it into my aircraft and cannot help you with your problem but there have been discussions about the M760 and some issues with it on these forums in the past so hopefully, someone can help you. Cheers, Dave

I'll be there! I'm hoping to rent an RV and park it in Camp Scholler. Planning is underway. It's been 27 years since my last visit... Man I'm getting old...

Me and my Bug partner have 2 Bugs in Adelaide; Milton is building a stock Lightning Bug but fitted with the Jab3300 and a fixed nose gear (possibly reverting to retract later) and then there is my Jet Bug which will be a 2 seater fitted with two 160lbf jet engines. Milton's aircraft will likely be the Aussie demonstrator for the Bug, and is certainly the test-bed for the Jabiru/Camit engine option. My Jet Bug is a one-off for now to fulfil my own craving for a jet, but if it actually works as advertised, then we would consider doing the requisite analysis/testing of the Jet Bug and offer it as a kit. This would be reasonably easy to do, given its commonality of parts with the Lightning Bug. My current engine project was started many years ago to fulfil the requirement for a low profile, powerful engine for the Bug. Although the Rotax and Jab installations still look really good in the Bug, the original cowling with no cheeks just looks plain fantastic and that's the look I want to have with my new engine. With the 80lbs lighter weight and 20hp more power that my engine is planned to have over the 912ULS, the Bug/new engine combo should produce a screamer (hence the need for a 300knot limit redesign for the Bug, the current 225 knot Vmo will not be enough. Here is the clean cowl look that I like. And here is the cowl-cheeked look which is still very good, but less desirable in my eyes. And I guess this is the ultimate look but I do have a penchant for jets... And here's Milton's Jab Bug from quite a while back (it's come a long way since this photo was taken). He's done a great job with the Jab installation which uses a firewall mount in place of the bed mounts to the centre keel for the Rotax. He's also done a very good job with the cowl which blends in very nicely from spinner to firewall and looks really good. He will have a blast flying this 120hp version of the Bug when it's finished and it should go like a scorched cat. Cheers, Dave

Thanks AB for your interest. We are still waiting for the IFA prop from Australian Lightwing. Unfortunately, due to Howard Hughes passing, the team there are still reorganizing. However, my partner in the Bug venture got a call from ALW recently to say that the prop for us was back on their radar so hopefully it won't be too long until we can get it delivered to Lanny. I will be attending Oshkosh this year and afterwards, will be visiting Winnsboro for the first time since we started this Bug venture quite a few years ago. I will finally get to see a completed Bug in the flesh for the first time and will plan to at least taxi the Bug. Unfortunately, my Oz license is not valid since my last flight in Australia was about 15 years ago, and I am in the process of leaving my current job overseas and my annual flight review for that license expires on 30th June. So when I am in the US, I won't have a valid license that will allow me to fly the Bug. Anyway, hopefully within the next few months we shall have some numbers from the Bug with the IFA prop fitted. It will be very interesting to see what we get. BTW, our Australian (Adelaide based) Bug project is progressing very well and at a steady rate. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be finished this year. That will be a Jab3300 powered one (tin hats on but that was the owners decision). With the extra 20hp over the Rotax 912ULS and being able to turn the small prop at 3000 rpm, rather than just 2400rpm from the Rotax, we are anticipating some encouraging performance numbers from it. My Jet Bug is on the back burner for a little while so I can focus on another project that I have on the boil which has a higher priority. If that project comes to fruition, the speed freaks will be very happy! Details will be released in due course but that won't be for a while yet.

Where is the "Like a lot" button?

ICON Aircraft Slows A5 Production to Improve Manufacturing; Shifts Early Aircraft to Regional Flight Centers - ICON Aircraft Their PR release is shown at the above link which gives their take on the situation.