A quick 20 minute hop from our old airport to our new hangar home. In this video I fly and explain some of the performance features of my single engine experimental turboprop airplane.
3:32 "Climb straight ahead up to 800 feet" ... 4:28 "there's 400 feet, left turn" ...but I'm jealous of that power, performance and AIR CONDITIONING! :)
Thanks! Hand flying was a necessity when I first got the plane as the previous autopilot was not very useful. Even with the new autopilot I'm never in a rush to turn it on unless necessary.
@@RyanFerris-r8i originally it was approved to FL310, but when RVSM was implemented the builder lowered it to FL280. We've only had it up to FL230. It is doing about 320 TAS at 36 GPH. Upper design limit is .56 Mach, so theoretically that would be the limit at FL280.
It all depends on which tradeoffs you're willing to accept. I plan at about 8.1 MPG (36 GPH) at max power which is approx. 290 TAS at 17,500'. A typical flight of 283 NM takes about 57 minutes and burns about 35 gal of JET A. In a Cherokee the same flight at 120 TAS would take 2:22 and burn about 22.4 gal of AVGAS. The TurboProp gets me there almost 1:25 quicker and only costs $19 more in fuel. (35 gal x $3.70 = $130 Jet A as opposed to 22.4 gal x $4.95 = $111 AVGAS). If you run the numbers for an SR22T at 193TAS & 16.5GPH LOP it'll burn about 26.3 gal for the same trip which is $9 less in fuel and arrives 30 minutes after mine. Hope that helps.
Those are the numbers I was looking for. I assumed it would be very close when considering speed. I also assume this only works on longer flights. 50 mile hamburger run would not fair so well with turboprop.
Turbines are different than piston engines. Piston engines will ingest the fuel/air mixture together basically via a siphon effect. Turbine engines suck in a lot of air but they don't mix the fuel with it ahead of time. The fuel actually needs to be injected into the combustion chamber under pressure. The engine-driven fuel pump is a gear-type fuel pump which requires a certain amount of head-pressure to operate effectively without cavitating. With my specific engine, operation is not guaranteed above approximately 9,000 ft without the Boost pump providing positive pressure to the engine-driven pump. I rarely, if ever fly that low, so out of habit and procedure I leave the electrically driven boost pump on at all times
@@tobberfutooagain2628, no the builder of the plane initially had a V8 engine as the powerplant. He did the Walter conversion about a year or so after that. The conversion happened many years before I purchased the plane.
That plane is your “personal airliner “! What a sweet machine !
That's pretty much why we got it. Believe it or not it saves us both time and money.
3:32 "Climb straight ahead up to 800 feet" ... 4:28 "there's 400 feet, left turn" ...but I'm jealous of that power, performance and AIR CONDITIONING! :)
'Best laid plans...' Should've said up to 800' if there's any hiccups. Thanks for watching!
Great vid! its nice to see a fast mover hand flown the whole way! your the real deal... talk about things happening quickly! 😅
Thanks! Hand flying was a necessity when I first got the plane as the previous autopilot was not very useful. Even with the new autopilot I'm never in a rush to turn it on unless necessary.
I saw my hagar. LOL. Nice video.
looks hot in there!
It was!
What is your service ceiling? What speeds and fuel flows are normal up there?
@@RyanFerris-r8i originally it was approved to FL310, but when RVSM was implemented the builder lowered it to FL280. We've only had it up to FL230. It is doing about 320 TAS at 36 GPH. Upper design limit is .56 Mach, so theoretically that would be the limit at FL280.
I was considering a turboprop but the fuel consumption is outrageous. I'm trying to find out how the actual MPH compare between piston and turboprop.
It all depends on which tradeoffs you're willing to accept. I plan at about 8.1 MPG (36 GPH) at max power which is approx. 290 TAS at 17,500'. A typical flight of 283 NM takes about 57 minutes and burns about 35 gal of JET A. In a Cherokee the same flight at 120 TAS would take 2:22 and burn about 22.4 gal of AVGAS. The TurboProp gets me there almost 1:25 quicker and only costs $19 more in fuel. (35 gal x $3.70 = $130 Jet A as opposed to 22.4 gal x $4.95 = $111 AVGAS). If you run the numbers for an SR22T at 193TAS & 16.5GPH LOP it'll burn about 26.3 gal for the same trip which is $9 less in fuel and arrives 30 minutes after mine. Hope that helps.
Those are the numbers I was looking for. I assumed it would be very close when considering speed. I also assume this only works on longer flights. 50 mile hamburger run would not fair so well with turboprop.
@@dvsmotions Def NOT! especially since my hangar is 50 miles away. :D Easier math I use is 6 hours of interstate driving equals 1 hour of flying.
Once engine is started , what’s the reason for keeping the fuel pump on ?
Turbines are different than piston engines. Piston engines will ingest the fuel/air mixture together basically via a siphon effect. Turbine engines suck in a lot of air but they don't mix the fuel with it ahead of time. The fuel actually needs to be injected into the combustion chamber under pressure. The engine-driven fuel pump is a gear-type fuel pump which requires a certain amount of head-pressure to operate effectively without cavitating. With my specific engine, operation is not guaranteed above approximately 9,000 ft without the Boost pump providing positive pressure to the engine-driven pump. I rarely, if ever fly that low, so out of habit and procedure I leave the electrically driven boost pump on at all times
What kind of motor, Walther?
@@tobberfutooagain2628 yep, Walter M601D
@@jugshangar573 - thank you. Just comparing performance numbers… did you do the conversion?
@@tobberfutooagain2628, no the builder of the plane initially had a V8 engine as the powerplant. He did the Walter conversion about a year or so after that. The conversion happened many years before I purchased the plane.
@@jugshangar573 - 👍🏻
Are you a pilot for purple by chance?
Yep