Cascade Aircraft Conversions, LLC (CAC) pioneered safety and performance improvements in the AG Aircraft industry since 1999. CAC’s legacy started with converting unreliable radial-powered AG planes to powerful and reliable turbine power. Today CAC continues to enhance operators’ safety and productivity while lowering cost of operations. These improvements always start with CAC’s legendary Pressure Cowl but also include total conversion packages to upgrade aircraft to more powerful engines.
CAC continues to leverage its vast experience by developing and building performance and safety improvements for the experimental aircraft audience. Our first collaboration with Turbine Motor Conversions (TMC) has created the Murphy Moose “Beast” conversion. This transformation took this unique experimental aircraft from its leaky, high-maintenance and unreliable M14 radial to the incredible reliability and performance provided by its featured Pratt & Whitney PT6A-20 turbine engine.
That's correct. Any aircraft that gets converted to floats incurs extra weight and drag penalties in exchange for water operations with even some capabilities on open snow fields or emergency landings in dry agricultural fields. Many of the back country areas these planes were designed for feature many more water landing areas than potential landings on unobstructed field. Additionally, this particular footage entailed initial video of the just-installed float configuration and Ken always approaches new testing with conservative caution. This T-Moose can achieve an average best rate of climb of around 1200 feet per minute on floats but 2500 feet per minute or better without the floats. Visit our channel to watch more aggressive climb performance on floats compared to the shallow take offs in this video in addition to videos showing off the T-Moose's outstanding water performance.
Thanks for sharing your experience! Did your unit use the turbine Stallions? I believe some of them were turned into gunships. Or was your unit more involved with recon using the slower-flying but longer endurance Helio Couriers?
I made over 50 skydives out of a Helio Stallion (N5779N) back in the late 80s in Texas. It would take 12 skydivers up 13,000' very fast. Those were the salad days.
Thanks for stopping by. Love your channel's content as well! Keep an eye out for some turbine-converted Murphy Moose float operation footage on this channel in the near future. We'll eventually get some float footage of the turbine-converted Helio Courier H-800 once all of that work has been completed.
Such an amazing plane! My dad owned several Helio Couriers which are so much fun! He considered buying a Stallion back in the 1970s but it was during the oil crisis a this plane can definitely burn some fuel. But, what a performer!
We are looking to push performance over the top while maintaining a bit more reasonable fuel consumption with turbine conversion of a Helio Courier H-800 and eventually other Couriers. The gross weight of a Courier is almost 50% less than a Stallion which will greatly enhance the fun factor. That said, the Stallion sure is a neat plane and it was a special treat for it to visit.
Definitely no reasonable way to depart from the general profile of a turbine-powered aircraft. Although lighter per unit of power output, these longer turbines are often dramatically longer than the recip powerplants to be replaced. It can present a W&B challenge for sure when finalizing the conversion design.
That is funny 😀, but the title actually was "For Experimental and Certified Aircraft" - we work on both. The T-Moose and the new Helio Courier experimental projects are examples of the former reference while we have traditionally worked on nearly every model of Thrush and Air Tractor agricultural aircraft. I'll have to talk to our guy who put this vid together to maybe improve the font for better readability.
Good Analogy! Although this Moose can't haul as much as the larger aircraft, it essentially has the same SHP as the larger plane with faster cruise, etc. In the hands of experienced and good pilots, the extra power-to-weight ratio can be considered valuable insurance in difficult unexpected flying conditions.
Good Analogy! Although this Moose can't haul as much as the larger aircraft, it essentially has the same SHP as the larger plane with faster cruise, etc. In the hands of experienced and good pilots, the extra power-to-weight ratio can be considered valuable insurance in difficult unexpected flying conditions.
Apparently it's theoretically possible but there are many challenges and not recommended - The PT6A-20 is ignitor (spark) driven which Jet A is designed for. Diesel has higher oil content and is intended for compression ignition (no spark). Although there was no mention of the modifications applied, I read about an AG operator running a PT6A-34AG on diesel and apparently the quantity of smoke produced was quite intense and there were doubts about the long-term effects on engine integrity. PWC does allow the PT6A-20 to be operated on all grades of avgas for up to 150 hours per overhaul cycle (essentially in an emergency.) I've read about some operators adding lubricant (oil) to avgas to help ensure lower impact on the long-term PT6A maintenance/overhaul program. Being a bush plane, it's good to know you have at least one alternative option in a pinch.@@jimgolden9666
@@cascadeaircraftconversionsGood stuff! Don't laugh too hard, but I'm looking at converting a Duramax with a PSRU with a huge fly wheel to soak up the spikey power pulses and swing a prop. Would like to ground run it for six months before actually building a plane around it. I was looking at something similar to a Helio Courier...which is pretty similar to your Moose but with slats. I've got all the data that Dr. Koppen used in the 40's to design the Helio. Because the engine is heavy, it'd end up looking more short coupled, like a Beaver, but if the power pulses could be tamed down to not destroy a prop (I was thinking two big helical gears, rather than spur gears, to dampen more as well as make the thrust of the gears pull toward the engine to offset the thrust of the prop), I think it could be a pretty neat bush plane that would run on off road diesel, on road diesel, or Jet A. And it should be cheaper than a turbine. All that being said, it's hard to beat a PT-6! You guys did a great job with this!
Thank you for the praise and your project ideas - which are always welcome. For one example of a diesel-powered working aircraft, (if you haven't already) see the twin-turbo V12 diesel on an Air Tractor - ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-8zykwnETUlk.htmlsi=_cvx0LAH70DP92-M . It's a cool concept and we once even took a casual look at getting involved in similar projects. But with the ever rising cost of that particular "aircraft grade" diesel and the AG industry demand for larger aircraft (needing far more power,) we didn't see a good ROI on navigating FAA time/cost issues for smaller aircraft (c'mon - FAA guys are required to actually go into the office at least once a week ;) Your keep-it-more economical approach is a great idea if it could be pulled off. However, that V12 AG bird doesn't have to perform at any real altitudes, so high-altitude temperature issues are not an issue for the diesel fuel (an issue that has contributed to lack of diesel recip. solutions in the aviation world.) Unfortunately, the AG world (at least in N America) has psychologically forever left the recip. engine world behind - deeming any/all solutions too unreliable for their commercial use. One of your biggest challenges that would likely dramatically increase the realistic cost of the project is the PSRU. We have seen some fantastic working conversion ideas out there that have ultimately experienced reliability issues with "add-on" gear-reduction units. Getting a "aviation-grade" PSRU designed and built for that application might prove challenging to say the least. One of the huge factors for Ken @ TMCX choosing the PT6A-20 was the decades-proven reliability of not only the powerplant itself, but its aviation-designed and produced (built-in) reduction unit. Many don't realize that the gear-reduction section in turbine turbo-props is likely a large portion of the value of the engine. For the experimental market's low-hour usage, the "relative" low cost of heavily-used but still quite reliable -20s, and the uber-dependable turbine - this solution definitely made the most sense despite the somewhat steep fuel costs. I love the idea of diesel power as much as you do - especially the versatility and economy. With the serious advancements in electric-motor driven vehicles like EVs and hybrids, it surprises me that few have explored power with a diesel-electric solution for land or maybe even air. I wish you the best in possibly transforming your ideas into reality. Aircraft conversion work is very rewarding indeed.@@jimgolden9666
Similar idea for sure - Murphy Moose aircraft had been upgraded to turbine power long before Draco was born - but only very few. While Draco was awesome for pushing the absolute envelope of performance, the concept behind the TMCX T-Moose is of a more practical nature: Upgrade the capable airframe with a lower-cost used PT6A-20 and create a process that remains quickly duplicatable while maintaining maximum affordability. To address the likely operating conditions of a typical Murphy Moose, TMCX and Cascade Aircraft Conversions designed an engine mount, composites and panels with proper air filtration specifically for this aircraft rather than cobbling something together with an existing King Air mount. With emphasis on strength, safety and durability of the design rather than compromising for the sake of squeezing another drop of performance, this transformation allows a wide-range flexibility in T-Moose versatility to include general, back-country and float operations. The way we see it, the TMCX T-Moose maximizes the potential of the original designer's vision for this aircraft.
The LS3 option is a great idea and likely a great option with its foundation based on a well-established and capable powerplant. Pros - in addition to excellent performance, the overall cost is lower and the LS3 powerplant is far more reliable than an M-14 radial. Cons - there may be some questions about the reliability and/or longevity of the gear-reduction portion of that complete package - more time and more running units will help establish that determination. PT6A-20 turbine Pros - The PWC turbine turbo-prop - especially the -20 - is the ultimate in reliability with the gear-reduction portion of the powerplant part of the integral design and sharing the decades-proven reliability in numerous platforms. With reliability comes the highest-levels of real-world performance - especially best rate of climb up to as high as you want to go. Once at altitude, this turbine is barely working to keep the Moose moving at maximum cruise. Unless you are working a turbine hundreds of hours a year in commercial applications, these engines are extremely low maintenance as well. Cons - A bit more fuel usage when power isn't being maximized (it can be argued that at peak performance, you are getting every bit of performance out of extra fuel burn plus JetA is often lower cost.) Biggest Con - entry price. Although these used engines are worth every bit of their price tag, for some owners that figure is too steep.
@@user-ju3ns2cz1u Indeed both versions are fantastic. Data and real-world info is still being gathered to possibly attempt a direct comparison. For a macroscopic comparison at this point, it is probably safe to say that the LS3 Bull Moose is probably a bit more economical to put together and easier on the fuel when flying with the ability to use pump gas. Although ultimate power output of the two power plants is close, the aviation-specific PT6A-20 turbine can deliver more usable torque more of the time and it shows in ultimate performance figures with a gross takeoff roll of less than 320 feet and observed maximum climb rates as high as 3500 fpm. The -20 can also propel the T-Moose at maximum cruise all day long (smooth air permitting) while operating at dramatically less than maximum performance (i.e. not working very hard.) Once an operator has made a turbine investment, the rear-world maintenance costs and time-spent are very low. The T-Moose will likely cost a bit more to initially invest in and does burn more gal/hr of Jet A (albeit at a competitive cost per gallon) in all phases of operation. And although LS3 powerplants have good reliability history, the complete PT6A turboprop power solution has proven to historically offer the best dependability and reliability overall.
Thanks for the reply . So you think the ls3 rate of climb for example won’t compare? Just curiousness. Love both these options. For different reasons. So cool. Thank again
@@user-ju3ns2cz1u Although the LS3 is a fantastic package with amazing performance and is all around a bit more economical, YES - observed data from the turbine T-Moose shows higher performance in every power-related category. The key to better performance is related to the size of propeller that the PT6A-20 can swing (this particular version mostly pulled with an Avia 93" 3-blade) versus what the Bull Moose is actually running (a Hartzell 83" 3-blade.) Many future T-Moose aircraft will use a similar Avia 99" 3-blade propeller for even more pull. The ability to swing the larger propeller with dramatically more static thrust and climb performance is due to the available, usable "real-world" torque of the PT6A-20 turbine. This particular (non-float) T-Moose has successfully tested with an aluminum Hartzell 104" 3-blade propeller as well. With any of these aircraft, you do reach a limit on propeller clearance depending on tire size or floats, so then you switch to more moderate diameters with 4 or even 5 blades. The current TMCX, LLC T-Moose operating on floats is happily pulling with the Avia 99" 3-blade prop.
See the detailed reply to @user-ju3ns2cz1u - different set of pros and cons for each solution - both solutions appear to offer more pros than cons compared to standard M14 power.
Also not inspiring to the wallet: $20K - $30K to go retrieve the Murphy Moose with the M-14 that decided to consume over 6.5 quarts of oil within 30 minutes of take-off and begin a spiraling climbing temperature to overheat even with power cut and descending. The extra adrenaline and heart rate while eventually emergency landing on a gravel road in SE Montana just as the chip detector light comes on - Priceless (like the Visa commercial.)
Yes - we will soon perform testing with an Avia 99" 3-blade propeller on floats, although we will also test the performance of the 93" as well. We have already performed some testing with 104" propeller setups with excellent results, and some owners may choose to go that route.
www.murphyair.com/moose/ has some data although take off data they posted was for lightly loaded. Full gross take-off roll was about 300 ft. @ 4100 ft density altitude. Cruise is 160mph indicated just under caution all day long @ 25 gph and at higher altitudes up to rated ceilings (with actual cruise speed much higher.) Endurance depends on configuration (different wing tank options). I would check TMCX facebook page for more info facebook.com/search/top?q=tmcx%3A%20turbine%20motor%20conversions
The PT6A-20 easily pulls this T-Moose along at the edge of the yellow IAS of 160 mph all day long under any and all density altitude conditions with very low power/torque settings - I believe Ken said in the 50-60% range. More importantly while doing so, the -20 stays nice and cool and ever-so-smooth and reliable.
We had 10-15 headwind on take-off and the deck angle was ridiculous. I think the two of us and the Moose got off the runway with about a 120 foot rollout.
There will be several propeller options for the T-Moose but the Avia V508H/93B/A is a great option for those with less experience in tail-draggers or need less emphasis on the shortest-possible take-off ground runs. Desire to run smaller wheels or operate land-only (no water) are other variables that make this prop size ideal.
That would be Ken Meines of TMCX (Turbine Motor Conversions) who is the primary contact for these. Cascade Aircraft Conversions LLC is just the R&D Engineering & Production support for TMCX. The one in this video was the first and we now have a second in the hangar getting transformed by TMCX (and CAC.)
