Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
GregA
Cryptic bit on price at the bottom. $13000 euros for the 130HP model, but sounds like that is at TBO of 2000 hours, so not clear if that price is for the rebuild or a fresh engine.
I think that is just the estimated cost of a TBO on the 130hp model. It says 10k euros for the 100hp. So by that logic the engines must cost well over 30,000 I would imagine. Plus they are brand new and may have bugs. Still, very promising especially for guys who fly out of high altitude places as you have full power up to 33,000 feet! And the incredible light weight as mentioned before.
Somebody call them up and give them a credit card ;)
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Youtube taxi test video, unfortunately music covers much of the sound.
https://youtu.be/5XPZY1Ec8lc
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
I'd like to see some detailed specs and an internal/airflow diagram. Single stage everything = simple.
From their website for the 100hp version, I added conversions.
Engine type: Turboprop
Compressor: 1-stage centrifugal flow compressor
Turbine: 1-stage gas generator power turbine and 1-stage free power turbine
Lenght: 555 mm (21.85in)
Diameter: 280 mm (11.02in)
Dry Weight: 28,00 kg (61.73lbs)
Maximum Power Output: 100 hp up to 33.000 ft (Flat rated to 33k??? Gotta be an error.)
Air Mass Flow: 0,97 kg/sec
Overall Pressure Ratio: 3,5:1
Fuel consumption: 27kg/hr Diesel (59.52PPH/7.3 = 8.15GPH of DIESEL)
Lubrication: 145gr/hr Turbine oil
Gearbox: Epicyclical, equipped with oil cooling radiator
Number of fuel injectors: 6
TBO at 2.000 hours or 10 years
TBO estimated cost € 10.000
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Av8r3400
If my calculations are right, 27kg/hour is about 7 gph.
Jet A is about 6.72 lbs/ gallon.
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
6.72 lb/gal is correct, I usually just used 6.7 for my calculations.
This means 59.5 PPH is actually 8.85 GPH. That is nearly double the fuel burn of a piston engine of the same HP. The only way to get turbine engines efficient is to get them up to high altitudes, but then you would need to have oxygen.
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PapuaPilot
6.72 lb/gal is correct, I usually just used 6.7 for my calculations.
This means 59.5 PPH is actually 8.85 GPH. That is nearly double the fuel burn of a piston engine of the same HP. The only way to get turbine engines efficient is to get them up to high altitudes, but then you would need to have oxygen.
Yeah but the cool factor is off the charts! Go screw around for 2:45 and use the last :15 to climb like hell before it quits! 🤣
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
rv9ralph
Wheels, as a former turbine mechanic, can you confirm something I heard during my service.
"The only difference between turbine aircraft and turbine pilots is...
When the aircraft is shut down it stops whining."
Is this true?
Ralph
Mom: So Billy, what do you want to be when you grow up.
Billy: I want to be a pilot!
Mom: Sorry Billy, you can’t do both.
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Good one! That definitely applied to me. I never grew up. No worries.
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
PapuaPilot
6.72 lb/gal is correct, I usually just used 6.7 for my calculations.
This means 59.5 PPH is actually 8.85 GPH. That is nearly double the fuel burn of a piston engine of the same HP. The only way to get turbine engines efficient is to get them up to high altitudes, but then you would need to have oxygen.
Quick and dirty is drop the last digit (of the pounds) and add half.
1000 lbs: drop the last digit and it becomes 100, plus half (of 100) is 50 gives 150 gallons per 1000 of jet fuel. Does not work for Avgas or gasoline.
1 Attachment(s)
Re: Turbine Kitfox? Oh yes!
OK, if you're thinking about that turbine, or maybe a Zipper big-bore mod for your 912, here's another option to get some major increased horsepower, as seen in the January, 2018 Sport Aviation! However, it might require some minor engine mount and cowl modification. ;)