TurbAero TA120TP 120hp Turboprop engine 

You can only run a turbine on other fuels if it’s calibrated for the other fuels, they all have a different specific gravity.

Thanks Donald. We appreciate your support.

I think that their time frame have been reduced by allot. With Electric option advancing at light speed, cheaper, less maintenance, they need something fast to recoup in the GA category. I expect Electric to take make serious in roads in GA planes within 10 years.

@@sebastientoussaint5461 Two major problems with that. First is weight. The storage capacity needed for long flights will add tremendous weight to the planes, and second is cost. New planes are already so expensive as it is, that having an all electric Cessna 172 will cost north of a million bucks. Even conversion kits will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then a 1972 Cessna 172 fully converted to electric will cost 100K or more.

@@Rico11b Battery capacity is improving by allot with some good promising tech coming. I understand your point, but when Tesla started, no one taught that today you can drive 300 miles on Battery. So I do think they will need to come up with this fast I will join your concern that this might be abandon.

@@sebastientoussaint5461 Battery capacity is progressing, but not anywhere near the requirements of GA. We will need about 15x more energy density in batteries to get competitive with chemical fuels. We can maybe squeeze out another 0.3x out of lithium batteries. If we keep with batteries, we'll need to throw out lithium ion as a candidate, and start over. Also, Teslas don't have to lift their weight using energy the way that aircraft do, so they just threw more batteries (and weight) at the problem. They can afford to be very heavy. It's just not a great comparison.

@@ryanmcgowan3061 I think you 15x more energy is for Comercial transportation to be feasible. For GA you can start 500w/KG. Remember you can only go so far without having to pee on a bottle for GA.

Did that ever happen?

@@michaelcarniel9086 Hello Michael. Our Europa owner is waiting for the engine development program to be completed and for his engine to be delivered. It is still his intention to install the engine in his aircraft.

😂😂🤣🤣💀💀

Hi Peter. The design of our clean-sheet 200hp turboprop engine is substantially complete with individual components currently being prototyped and tested. We hope to have the new engine on the stand in or around June, assuming our component testing doesn't result in any substantial design change. Although we have some components already delivered to us, our 200hp engine is still technically vapourware. However, if you are interested in seeing a rendering of our engine, please look at our website www.turb.aero. Even since that rendering on our website was completed, we have made some modifications. For example, the fuel rail that sits a distance off the casing has now been modified such that it sits flush on the casing, thereby reducing the diameter of the engine and reducing the risk of it catching on things while the engine is being installed. The gearbox shown on the rendering is also quite long to facilitate a mechanical prop governor, fuel pump and oil pump. On the prototype, we will be using using a shorter gearbox where the engine will use an electric prop, fuel pump/s and oil pump. This will save weight and make the engine more compact.

Thanks for your interest Meister.

Shannon Wittman Hi Shannon. Thanks for your comments. Our launch engine will actually be a 200 hp clean sheet turboprop so we can give you 80hp extra. Our engineers have pretty well finished the design of the -200 which we are currently prototyping, and are now looking at doing a clean sheet 120hp variant, incorporating lessons learnt in the -200 development program. I’ve seen their conceptual design and the -120 is going to be very neat. Compact, efficient, light, low maintenance and reliable. I am personally very eager to see our 120hp engine come to fruition.

can't wait to see it operational

@@TurbAero I wish I could afford one of the 200 HP engines.. I know where I can get piper Cherokee that would be a great platform for it..

@@TurbAero Well, any news? We are waiting for any new information ... and keeping fingers crossed, hoping for new engines for our small planes

@@JenkiPatrol Hi Jenki. We are certainly making progress. Not as fast as anyone including ourselves would like but that is the nature of a complex engine development program. We currently have the manufacturing and sourcing of components for our prototype 200hp engine underway and if you keep an eye out on our RU-vid channel over the next month or so, you will start to see some of those components being fabricated. We expect the component manufacturing/sourcing process to take at least 6 months, up from our original estimates but the world's supply chain has been badly hit by the pandemic and we are feeling the effects of that in our own program. Thanks for your interest and we appreciate your words of support.

We are working on it. The 120hp clean sheet design will follow on after the 200hp variant which we are focussed on at the moment.

Hi Craig. We are getting there, albeit slow and steady. We are currently prototyping components for our first 200hp engine. However, it will be early next year before all components are ready.

250hp version gotta debut at $50k or so. At that price they will be sold out for years

And the 2,000 hour TBO for piston engines is just a rule of thumb. If you take care of it (e.g., lean properly), piston engines can go 3,000+ hours before needing to be overhauled.

@@jayphilipwilliamsaviation Depends under which part you're operating. Part 91, as long as it passes annual, you're good. Part 135, TBO is a hard stop. That said, in 30+ years of flying, I have NEVER encountered an airplane with a 2,000 hour TBO piston engine that made it anywhere near 3,000 hours - at least not without at least one top overhaul, seals and other repairs that collectively likely exceeded the cost of overhaul.

Thanks Barry. The POC engine that is shown in the video is pretty basic compared to our clean-sheet 200hp commercial engine that we have under development at the moment and which has been designed by a very talented and experienced team of engineers. After over 2 years of solid design and analytical work on the new engine, we are currently prototyping and testing individual components for the 200hp engine with the aim of having that engine running around May/June (all going well). I know my engineers are keen to get on to the 120hp variant that would suit your -12 admirably, but we need to get the 200hp to market first. Our 120hp and 300hp variants will follow as soon as possible after the 200hp launch engine.

In more simple terms, they need that commercial line going and making mo nay’ lol.

Hi Russell. Yes, traditionally, small turbine engines have a high specific fuel consumption. Indeed, our proof of concept engine shown was very thirsty. However, there is affordable technology available to address this problem. For our commercial engine which is currently under development, we are incorporating this technology that will bring the specific fuel consumption well down on previous small gas turbine engines to being fairly close to existing piston engines. In consultation with kit aircraft manufacturers and also, through consumer consultation on enthusiast websites, our target maximum sfc will be acceptable in the target market.

If by "fairly close to existing piston engines" you mean within 10% (SFC), you'll soon be very wealthy.

How many Vikings do you get for that price? You must have a specific purpose in mind.

Huh? The common Rotax 912uls TBO is 1500 hours. The newer ones are 2000. Many older models can be upgraded to 2000 hours.

Hi Noah. When you say that the last tangible update was 3 years ago, have you subscribed to our newsletter through our website (www.turb.aero)? We are putting out quarterly newsletters to keep folks advised of what is going on with the program. Things are certainly happening slower than we would like but we are making steady and positive progress. To design a recuperated (not done before in this sized engine), clean-sheet 200hp turboprop engine is a significant and complex undertaking. The resource requirements in terms of knowledge, experience, manpower, computational capability and plain old money are absolutely huge. It is a significantly larger undertaking than I thought it would be when I started on this project all those years ago. However, we are making very credible progress and we are well on our way towards achieving our goal of providing a fuel-efficient turbine engine to the recreational aircraft community. At our current rate, we expect the 200hp engine to run Q1 of next year. That's too long from our perspective but that is the reality of this complex development program. Scepticism is a valid reaction as several attempts by others to do what we are doing have come and gone with no tangible result, and we are certainly taking longer than planned. The important thing from our perspective is that we get to the finish line and achieve our goal. In 12 months, I hope to be able to assuage your scepticism by posting the video of the 200hp running successfully and be able to show that we are well on the way to delivering the product. In closing, thanks for watching the video. It shows that folks are interested to get turbine technology and for us, that is important.

Hi Paul, 100lbs of JetA @ 6.8 lbs/usg is equal to 14.7 usg per hour at 200hp. Throttle back to 75% power i.e. 150hp and the burn is around 11.0 gph.

Hi SY Sublime. It is not on our radar to offer this engine in turboshaft configuration. That's not to say it wont happen, but we do not have the intent at this stage to pursue a turboshaft variant, unless we become convinced that there is a market to justify the development costs. The helo companies that we are in discussions with have been considering the engine in it's stock configuration.

I am dreaming about designing and building my own 4 seater experimental. This engine really ticks my boxes of what I want.

I wish someone would build a 350hp version... I know where there is a Piper PA31-350 in parts minus the firewall forward, instruments, seats, and landing gear. This engine would make that a heck of an experimental plane!

"but it won’t be out for a while." You weren't kidding.

@@SolarWebsite We didn’t quite think it would be 3 years but I can now say that it will be coming soon… We are currently cutting metal on components for the prototype of the 200hp engine and aim to have it on the test stand at the start of next year.

Hi Nick. The development of this engine was discontinued many years ago to focus on the 200hp engine which is currently being prototyped. When we get back to the 120hp engine, it will likely be a clean sheet recuperated design which will be heavier than the simple engine displayed in the video, but will be much more fuel efficient.

Hello dambatta. The development of this specific engine has been discontinued to focus on a clean sheet 200hp engine (see www.turb.aero). You can contact us through that website. We also have a Facebook page if you are on Facebook. We plan to get back to a brand new clean sheet 120hp engine in due course.

You are correct. Our commercial engine, which is a clean sheet design offering significant improvements in many areas over the POC engine shown in the video, has a single stage compressor and turbine for the gas generator, and a single stage power turbine driving the prop through the reduction gearbox. We are currently prototyping and testing components for our 200hp launch engine (very exciting for me to see hardware!) and intend to have it on the test stand in the near future. There is definitely light at the end of the tunnel for us with the 2 years of full-time design work coming to fruition.

Hi Robert. Covid-19 has affected our program by forcing many of the suppliers of our major components to close down temporarily. This is frustrating for us but we cannot do anything about it. I have no doubt that we will have the prototype 200hp engine running a bit later this year and when we do so, I shall definitely post the video on our RU-vid channel, along with the actual results of our testing.

Agreed 100%! Our clean sheet 200hp Talon engine will have the constant speed prop system, controlled automatically by our Power Control Unit (FADEC + prop controller).

William R Yes, indeed we are launching with a 200hp turboprop. Due to the significant differences between the basic proof of concept engine shown in the video and what our commercial product needs to be, we have undertaken a clean sheet design, but we chose to make it 200hp and not 120hp. We decided to launch with the 200hp engine for commercial reasons, but we will follow up with the 120 about 6-9 months after the 200. The design is progressing extremely well and the performance results are looking very promising.

that's the perfect range and what i'm been waiting for as well. would love to try to mount this to a motorcycle crank or small car

We are currently prototyping and testing components for the 200hp engine. Things have slowed for us due to the impact of Covid 19 on our supply chain but we are starting to get on top of that issue. We are based in Adelaide, Australia.

We are currently focusing on the 200hp engine as our launch product. We anticipate that to be running in Q1 next year.

I am going to be putting the 200hp one into my single seat Lightning Bug to make it a 250 knot aircraft (with some structural improvements on the Bug including a 300 knot wing). I am looking forward to the day that happens! I have a buddy who built and flew a Dragonfly and it flew very well (except in rain!!). Our 120hp engine would go very well in the Dragonfly. Keep an eye on our website (www.turb.aero) for progress. The website is being overhauled at the moment and the new site will be up and running by the end of March. It will be a lot neater and more informative as well. We will post regular updates on the new site to keep you turbine heads informed.

Our 200hp launch engine is undergoing development at the moment. We anticipate first deliveries of that engine during Q2 2020. We the anticipate that the 120hp engine will be around 6 months behind the 200hp engine. The 120hp would suit the Kitfox.

What would be the fuel consumption on these things?

@TheSkeptic At an initial cost 80K for the 200hp version it's not likely, I can buy an IC engine and put 8000+ hours on it before I get to the cost of one of these turbines not taking into account any maintenance costs for the latter...

@@hunterjones9822 As more are sold, the cost will likely come down, but you're right, it's too expensive right now.

Hi Niklas. We do not yet have any engines flying yet. Our first commercial prototype is currently under development at the moment and is a 200hp turboprop. It is currently being prototyped with first runs expected early next year. Thanks for your interest. We know we are going to be offering a very exciting product!

Turbine Aeronautics Will be waiting and dreaming 😃👍

Hi Roy. The TBO will be established through testing but we are designing for a minimum TBO of 3,000 hours, so that is the target. In the 150-190hp cruise power range, the specific fuel consumption at 10,000' should be close to 0.49 lbs/hp/hr. So a 150hp cruise at 10,000' should yield a fuel burn of around 10.8 usg / 41 litres of JetA per hour. It will be a similar SFC at lower altitudes. We are hoping to achieve a cost around US$60,000 but that will be dependent on testing/design changes and finalising our supply chain. There are several companies that have expressed the desire to develop STCs to incorporate our engine into existing certificated aircraft. That of course will be dependent on certification having been undertaken on the engine itself. Due to the wide range of potential delivery locations, we are not looking into shipping costs at this stage. You would need to check that out yourself to suit your circumstances. Thanks for your interest. Our new website should be up and running within the next month. Please check things out there. www.turb.aero

@@TurbAero this is awesome news. Looking forward!

@@TurbAero 0.5 is very low for 200 hp, how was that achieved? amazing technology!

@@ChristophePochari Hello Christophe. Recuperator technology is the key to achieving improved fuel efficiency over conventional turbine engines. This technology is very challenging to achieve in compact form that is suitable for aero engine applications but we are pleased with our advances in this area.

@@TurbAero I had assumed recuperation was the method used. How much additional weight does recuperation add? Thanks for the quick reply!

A range extender/hybrid version of our engines is under consideration. However, our focus remains on delivering firstly our 200hp turboprop engine, followed by the 120/300hp versions.

@@TurbAero That would be very interesting and innovative too and a step ahead in ultra light etc. if that is possible, the high reliability practically of two engines and the possibility of run independently or together for takeoff, charge batteries etc. or disconnect when needed and don´t have resistance and power loss and the ability of to do that both engines, the more reliability of an electric engine for “help”, the more reliability of a turbine, a variable pitch blades for increase more the performance and the fuel optimization, maybe 5-6 blades per propeller I have read in ultra light that someone had some apparent improvement, and all in a reasonable and affordable price, and you probably hit a nail on the head. The 200hp turboprop is a dream too.

Or maybe is not the moment yet, and to wait for better batteries etc.

Hi Merc. We have already spoken with Peter and he is aware of our program. We would certainly like to work with him to have one of our engines in the Raptor. A number of our deposit holders are Raptor deposit holders and they are ready to embrace our engine for use in their aircraft.

Been thinking of doing the same, as I'm a little over 1100 in line for a Raptor. Would hope you have something useable by the time they might get around to my build.

I'm sure one of our customers will have the engine installation sorted by the time your Raptor is ready to take an engine.

How Do I become a deposit holders for your Turbine?

@@century21gilmartin76 Hi Gil. Please visit our website www.turb.aero to access our deposit program. We are in the process of overhauling our website significantly and the deposit process will be simplified significantly at that time.

Hello Will. I cannot help you with a gearbox as we have designed a custom gearbox for our new clean-sheet 200hp engine. We will not be making this available until we start delivering our engines. The gearbox on the proof of concept engine shown in the video above is a modified Jet Fuel Starter unit with a 15:1 reduction ratio. It is a Sundstrand unit. You could consider looking at a similar unit. Of course, we added a custom power turbine and input shaft to drive the gearbox, as well as adding a thrust bearing and custom output shaft/propellor flange to the gearbox so there is significant work required to modify an existing off-the-shelf gearbox to suit your application.

Hi Martin, the 120hp engine will definitely not be left behind. It has been a commercial/economic/market driven decision to launch with our 200hp engine but we fully intend to have the 120hp engine as close behind the 200hp that we can. With around 3500 Rotax 912/914s being sold each year, there's definitely room for our -120 in the market. And anyway, I want a -120 to put into my own personal aircraft (a Lightning Bug) so I am incentivized to get the -120 into production!

@@TurbAero Man have you looked at the experimental helicopter market? The 120hp @ 80lbs would be a fantastic combo!

@@mx-127-00 Yes, we will be pursuing the experimental helicopter market. We have had many enquiries from helo builders as well as having some interaction with some of the helo manufacturers. Our commercial 120hp engine will not weigh 80lbs as per the POC engine. This is because we are incorporating recuperator technology to bring the SFC down significantly. The -120 will likely weigh in at around 130 lbs, but that is still a very good power to weight ratio and it will be way more fuel efficient than existing turbine conversions that are currently used in these helo applications.

@@TurbAero I'm about to replace the 85hp Jabiru 2200 in my Skystar Pulsar III with either a Jabiru Gen-4 3300 @120hp or a ULPower 4-cylinder. I Really REALLY wish this 120hp turbine, weighing 130 pounds was available now. If it were brought to market, I'd strongly advise holders of Rotax stock to sell.

@@foesfly3047 Thanks for your support Dennis. While we have shifted the focus for our launch engine to be the 200hp variant (for commercial reasons), the 120hp engine remains firmly on our radar. The preliminary design of a clean-sheet 120hp variant, drawing on the lessons learned from our 200hp engine development program has been completed. I'm looking forward to getting the 120hp design work under way properly and being able to offer an alternative to Rotax.

Hi First Last. Thanks for your comments and encouragement and yes, we are Australian. When comparing specific fuel consumptions (versus fuel flow or the rate at which fuel is used), it must be noted that there are many variables that determine an engines SFC. Power setting, ambient temperature and altitude all affect the SFC for both piston and turbine engines. Another significant factor in comparing fuel flows as against comparing SFCs is the difference in density between the fuels for turbines and the fuels for piston engines. JetA is more than 10% more dense than Avgas, meaning that a turbine can have a SFC 10% higher than a piston, but still be burning the same amount of fuel per hour (you will know this but many of our readers of this post may not so please bear with me for raising the point). In relation to the fuel flow issue, the value proposition of a turbine engine will depend on the operating conditions for the typical mission profile for the helicopter/aircraft and consequently, what the demands are on the powerplant. Low altitude versus high altitude (most helos operate at lower levels but some operate in mountainous regions where the operating density altitude is high); high power settings versus low power settings; etc. Most piston powerplants achieve their best efficiency at low to mid power settings. Turbines on the other hand tend to be optimised at the higher end of the power range. If the traditional naturally aspirated Lycoming/Continental type pistons are considered, yes, at mid-range power settings, they offer a better fuel flow, but take the piston and the turbine to 15,000' and you could find that for the same power, that our turbine may burn less fuel. Indeed, a comparison between a 250hp O-540 engine operating at WOT at 10,000' yields a maximum power available of 176hp with a fuel flow (direct from the Operating Manual for the engine) of 15.6gph, while the 200hp Talon will offer a maximum power of 185hp at the same altitude with a 180hp fuel flow of 14.8gph. So in this operating scenario, not only does our Talon offer slightly more power, it also offers a slightly better fuel consumption. When this is combined with the fact that in most places, JetA is cheaper than Avgas, there is a cost saving on fuel available here. This example demonstrates that someone undertaking the selection of a powerplant for their aircraft needs to determine the typical and common mission profile for their aircraft, and ensure that when comparing powerplant options that they check the performance of the powerplant at their typical mission profile in order to have a valid comparison to determine the optimum solution for their aircraft. But its not all about fuel flow when selecting an engine; size, weight, reliability, safety record, performance envelope, after-sales support, accessibility to fuel, fuel cost etc. are all considerations. Our engines will not be for everyone, but the value proposition will actually be there for some, as evidenced by the interest in our engines. At least it will be an option that aircraft owners can consider. If it doesn't work for them, they can go traditional. If it does work for them, great, we will have a happy customer. As for imperial versus metric units, our engineers work in metric. However, at the moment, 95% of our customers are US based who clearly understand and are familiar with imperial units. We are not being unprofessional, indeed we are being the opposite. Our advertising is directed at the customer base and we do not want to disenfranchise them by using units that they are not familiar with. When we make forays into the European markets, metric units will be offered. I feel sorry for my engineers because they are always having to convert their metric units to imperial to satisfy our marketing team.

@@TurbAero I appreciate the detailed reply. As for BSFC, I have considered all variables and my studies indicate and prove turbines to be inefficient compared to piston. This is a comparison of the latest technology though, not of 80 year old versus current. The fact that lycoming and continental are still in business is mind baffling. I realise the majority of keyboard warriors have little engineering knowledge, engineering is my passion though. I have been designing an aircraft to fly at 26000 metres (you can laugh) for several years, but am starting with a simple helicopter first with a HOGE of 13500 metres. Compound turbocharging on a reciprocating engine is in my opinion more versatile and more efficient. Currently though there are no good engine designs on the market. If you become well established, perhaps I could share my designs with you in the future. I will be looking into a partner company in the near future for my helicopter. I hope to have a prototype operating within 6 months. It is far simpler, cheaper, faster and better in every way than what the market has. Does your engine have any issue with running vertically continuously?

@@chippyjohn1 I never laugh at people who aim to explore the boundaries of known technology or who are prepared to innovate with new technology that is theoretically possible but has not yet been achieved. Our current engine (the TA200TP) will run to about 10,000m but power will be just below 100hp/75kW at that altitude which will not be enough for a helo and a fixed wing platform would be a challenge for that power. Our engine should be able to run continuously when mounted vertically, however our helo customers are looking into a horizontal mount orientation with a 90 degree gearbox configuration.

Thanks for checking out our video. We expect to be flying our clean sheet design recuperated 200hp turboprop mid next year. We will shortly be presenting a series of videos that will take our viewers into our component prototyping program which is about to start in earnest. We hope you will come back to check those videos and follow along with us as we bring our new engine to life.

Please bear in mind that the engine in this video was a one-off to test the concept of building a cheap turbine engine. We discontinued the development of this particular engine in 2015 to focus on developing a clean sheet recuperated 200hp engine. That development program for that engine commenced in 2018, once we had formed the company, recruited suitably qualified engineers within our company to undertake the program, pulled together a team of over 20 external engineers to support our program in their area of expertise, and put the appropriate infrastructure in place to support the development program for the new engine. Back to your question, on this original POC engine, at the time of filming this video, it was fitted with an electric variable pitch propellor which was adequate for the testing that we conducted on this engine. It would not have been suitable if we had pursued development of this particular engine as we would have needed a constant speed prop.

@Bill Smith Thanks for your interest. The recuperator is contained within the casing of our engine and in physical terms, it is located around halfway between our power turbine and our exhaust outlet. I can't be more specific without releasing design data which we will not do at the moment.

Hello Ye, The engine shown on the video was a proof of concept engine that we started putting together around 8 years ago and was run around 5 years ago. This engine was essentially a one-off that I intended to put in my own personal aircraft, but was also used as a concept engine to determine whether a cost-effective small turboprop engine was feasible. The engine shown was only run to around 70% of its maximum rpm during testing (so to around 50% of its power) before I shelved the concept of the basic, fuel thirsty but super low-cost engine in favour of developing a fuel-efficient, clean sheet design that would incorporate emerging technology that was under development/research at the time I ran this engine for the first time. With modification. the engine in the video could have achieved 120hp, based on the results of the dyno testing and an analysis that was completed on the engine design at the time, but given that a decision had been made to undertake the clean sheet design for a new engine, there was no point in wasting any further resources in modifying this engine, when it would never achieve the necessary fuel efficiency in its current form to be viable in the market. This engine was retired 5 years ago and all my efforts have been focused on the establishment of a world class design team who for the last 3 years have been working on a clean sheet design for a 200hp turboprop engine. Our engineers are former Pratt and Whitney, Honeywell, Sundstrand, Solar etc personnel who have extensive experience in small gas turbine engine design. We are currently prototyping components for our new engine with a view to having it running early next year. We are aiming for the fuel consumption of our turbines to be very competitive with the existing piston engines. This should be achievable as a result of the technology that we are incorporating into our engines. Although we have shifted our initial focus from the 120hp engine to the 200hp engine, we still intend to develop a 120hp and a 300hp variant of our engine. I hope that early next year, I shall be posting videos of our 200hp prototype engine running on its test stand.

Hi Regdor. To be clear, the proof of concept engine shown in the video consisted of many off the shelf components and had not been optimised when it was retired back in 2016. It was not at all efficient and it never went into an aircraft. Our clean sheet 200hp "Talon" design that has been designed for optimisation from the outset is operating outside its optimised power band when at 120hp. Our calculations indicate a BSFC of around 0.60 lbs/hp/hr at this power setting for the Talon engine, but this is subject to validation through testing.

This proof of concept engine was retired a few years ago. It did not go into production as we chose to commence the development of a clean sheet 200hp engine. We will be able to answer your question about the HS overhaul after we have completed testing next year.

@@TurbAero awesome. Good fortune.

@@DumbledoreMcCracken Thanks Dumbledore. We appreciate your support.

Hi FDA. Thanks for viewing our video. This specific engine's development was discontinued to focus on the development of a clean sheet fuel efficient 200hp engine. Please visit our website www.turb.aero to see what this project has become. The last 4 years have been spent designing the 200hp engine which is currently being prototyped.

@@TurbAero thank you for the update! All the best to your new engine launch! Hope to have one some day!

Hi Thomas. The 300hp engine is coming more and more on to our radar with the interest shown by the Raptor and Lancair communities. Certification is also a possibility down track, once we have established our product as a reputable one in the experimental markets and the interest from the certificated market justifies it.

The engine shown in this video which is the (very) basic proof of concept engine weighed in at around 75 lbs. The latest clean sheet design which is a recuperated version to improve fuel efficiency which we have completed the preliminary design for will weigh in at around 120-130 lbs. The 120hp program is on hold while we complete our launch 200hp engine development program. You can see details of it at our website www.turb.aero.

Hi Bevan, A recuperator is a heat exchanger that uses the hot exhaust gases to preheat the air that has come from the compressor before it enters the combustion chamber. To derive a set amount of power, a certain temperature is required at the inlet to the turbine, and lets for this simplified example say that we need 1000 degrees to produce 100hp from our engine. Without a recuperator, the air entering the combustor is say 200 degrees so enough fuel needs to be added to raise the temperature from 200 to 1000 degrees. With a recuperator, the 200 degree air from the compressor is heated to say 400 degrees before it enters the combustor, and now, the temperature needs to be raised from 400 to 1000 degrees, rather than from 200 to 1000 degrees. Less fuel is required to do this. Therefore, a recuperated engine will burn less fuel to derive the same power as an unrecuperated engine. Depending on the efficiency of the recuperator, typically anywhere from 10%-30% gain in fuel efficiency can be obtained. The engine shown in the video does not have a recuperator. It was a basic proof of concept engine. The clean sheet 200hp engine that we have designed is recuperated. The 200hp engine is in the final stages of its design and components are being prototyped now. We still have much to do to get an engine into the market, but we are making steady progress.

It wont be the engine in the video, but we are aiming to offer a suitable (300hp certificated) variant in due course. Your Cirrus would love that!

Addressing the specific fuel consumption issue has been our main priority. At a 150hp cruise at 10,000’, our TA200 should burn around 43 litres / 11.3usg per hour.

@@TurbAero That's fair but still high. The costs of turbines are also a huge consideration, far beyond most GA owners ability. Still I love driving turbine planes as long as I am NOT paying for them:-):-)

@@endwood Nup, you’re wrong. It’s not a high fuel burn. My 0-360 burns 32 litres an hour around 7-8000 which gives me above 110/120 HP. It’s is amazing and will change the industry like the Rotax has. Aircraft will be thought of and designed around this engine.