APU as engine

Morne

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
699
Display Name

Display name:
Morne
Random thought bounced through my head recently- has anyone ever taken an APU and shoehorned it into a light aircraft? What sort of headaches/hassles/nightmares could one expect from such a project?

Might be fun for an experimental.

No, I am not about to run out and do it. Just curious.
 
Some of the big transport APU's are said to be variants of GA jet engines, but I can't remember the details.

Random thought bounced through my head recently- has anyone ever taken an APU and shoehorned it into a light aircraft? What sort of headaches/hassles/nightmares could one expect from such a project?

Might be fun for an experimental.

No, I am not about to run out and do it. Just curious.
 
This has been done, mostly for experimental helicopters. I have also seen a Vari-Eze with a chopped APU engine. There are some challenges with this (e.g. how to govern the engine).
 
There was a group a few years ago trying to get an APU variant mounted in an RV. I think they had a flyable test plane, but couldn't get the fuel burn where they wanted it for it to be practical. I saw them at Oshkosh and it seems like a good idea, but I don't think anyone has proven the practicality of it in small planes with limited fuel carrying capacity.
 
There was a group a few years ago trying to get an APU variant mounted in an RV. I think they had a flyable test plane, but couldn't get the fuel burn where they wanted it for it to be practical. I saw them at Oshkosh and it seems like a good idea, but I don't think anyone has proven the practicality of it in small planes with limited fuel carrying capacity.

Fuel burn for a turbine is ever a thirsty affair. The Silver Eagle 210 turbine conversion drinks 20gph @ FL230! You just have to accept that and add auxiliary tanks as appropriate.

Alternately, you could take something like the old Cessna 337 and replace just one of the engines with a turbine and delete the other. Then you'll have 128 gallons on board already.
 
Fuel burn for a turbine is ever a thirsty affair. The Silver Eagle 210 turbine conversion drinks 20gph @ FL230! You just have to accept that and add auxiliary tanks as appropriate.

That's the problem with the RV's - not a lot of extra room for fuel. Out of the 'box', it can haul 40 gals usable. Add wing-tip aux tanks and you add another ~14 gal I believe. That's just about enough to get you from taxi to half-way down the runway on takeoff roll in a turbine.

On top of that, most folks aren't comfortable flying small SE planes into the FL's where a turbine can really stretch its legs.
 
On top of that, most folks aren't comfortable flying small SE planes into the FL's where a turbine can really stretch its legs.
Why is that, do you suppose? I L-O-V-E altitude...
 
Why is that, do you suppose? I L-O-V-E altitude...

I agree. I've had the IO-360 powered RV-7A up to 17,500' and the only reason I stopped there was because I didn't have the O2 mask with me - only the cannula. On a trip from Vegas, I could have gone from Santa Fe, NM to central Iowa in a little over 3 hours in the RV at 13,000' due to the strong tailwinds up high. I never fly cross-country less than 9-10,000' if I can help it - I would go higher all the time if my wife didn't hate the cannulas so much.
 
Random thought bounced through my head recently- has anyone ever taken an APU and shoehorned it into a light aircraft? What sort of headaches/hassles/nightmares could one expect from such a project?

Might be fun for an experimental.

No, I am not about to run out and do it. Just curious.

Lots of them, have fun.
 
Random thought bounced through my head recently- has anyone ever taken an APU and shoehorned it into a light aircraft? What sort of headaches/hassles/nightmares could one expect from such a project?

Might be fun for an experimental.

No, I am not about to run out and do it. Just curious.

Well, the 0-290G was an APU which was used in more than a few homebuilts.

Innodyne tried to make a go of it using a turbine APU. They made lots of promises and projections about specific fuel consumption and never hit the numbers they forecast. They were convinced that an altered fuel delivery system was the key to succes. It appears that their project is defunct. Here's an old AvWeb article:

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/briefs/190287-1.html
 
This has been done, mostly for experimental helicopters. I have also seen a Vari-Eze with a chopped APU engine. There are some challenges with this (e.g. how to govern the engine).

The Helicycle is the big user of the Solar T62. Cool helicopter. Aftermarket mods for the Rotorway and Mini-500 too.
 
Fuel burn for a turbine is ever a thirsty affair. The Silver Eagle 210 turbine conversion drinks 20gph @ FL230! You just have to accept that and add auxiliary tanks as appropriate.

20 GPH @ FL230 isn't bad, especially for the speed it's going.

Now check the fuel burn at 5000 ft. That would be the hard part, and why I'll stick with pistons.
 
They call them GTCs because they are Gas Turbine Compressors. They aren't real jet engines, they produce enough energy to Compress a lot of air, and run a generator, that's about all. They don't have a lot of energy left over to drive a gear box and prop.
 
They call them GTCs because they are Gas Turbine Compressors. They aren't real jet engines, they produce enough energy to Compress a lot of air, and run a generator, that's about all. They don't have a lot of energy left over to drive a gear box and prop.

True, they are weak and they are cheap, inefficient as well; however if you must whistle while you burn they are a pretty cheap way of doing low HP by pulling the genset and running a prop shaft provided you have the shop to do all the fabrication work.
 
True, they are weak and they are cheap, inefficient as well; however if you must whistle while you burn they are a pretty cheap way of doing low HP by pulling the genset and running a prop shaft provided you have the shop to do all the fabrication work.

By the time you factor in all the fabrication costs you could have bought a PT-6
 
What I know about turbines could fit into a thimble, and even then would rattle around like a b-b in a freight car. But it seems to be a bad idea to use something beyond what it was engineered to do when put to service in an aircraft.

All I remember about APUs is that the term is too often used with the word "fire" in the same sentence.

My 2 Cents
 
What I know about turbines could fit into a thimble, and even then would rattle around like a b-b in a freight car. But it seems to be a bad idea to use something beyond what it was engineered to do when put to service in an aircraft.

All I remember about APUs is that the term is too often used with the word "fire" in the same sentence.

My 2 Cents

I built a cheap and dirty propane turbine using a kiln burner and a turbo salvaged off a 398 Cat. I never hooked it to anything but I had a lot of regulator left at scary RPM.
 
I built a cheap and dirty propane turbine using a kiln burner and a turbo salvaged off a 398 Cat. I never hooked it to anything but I had a lot of regulator left at scary RPM.

I can't imagine anybody sitting around and suddenly think "Damn, I think I'll build a propane turbine using a kiln burner and a turbo salvaged off a 398 cat."

:nonod::dunno:
 
Tom's engine theory class 101.

The definition of any engine is. "A mechanical device that uses heat and expanding gasses to produce rotating motion."

There are only two types of engines, internal combustion and external combustion. The external combustion is a steam engine, where the combustion takes place in a boiler and the developed energy is used in a different place. The industrial revolution was driven by these engines, and our nuclear generation plants are of this type.

The internal combustion is what we have in common use today where the combustion and resulting energy is used in the same unit.

There are two theories in each type of engines, the piston theory and the turbine theory.

The piston theory uses a piston articulating rod and a crank shaft to produce rotating motion.

The turbine uses vanes to react with the air/heat and produce a rotating mass.

Both theories use the same 4 basic operations to produce and extract energy. intake, compression, power, and exhaust. The difference being the piston engine uses each process one at a time, where in the turbine engine all process are happening at the same time.

The pure turbo jet engine the sole purpose of the turbine is to keep the compressor turning, and only the escaping gasses from the rear of the engine is used to move the engine forward. (simple reaction engine)

This is how the GTC's operate, the turbine is designed only to keep the compressor turning and with just enough more horse power to drive a genset and air-conditioning boot strap blower. Removing the genset and dumping the compressed air will give you more direct horse power to drive a prop reduction gear box, but not much, because when you load the turbine the compressor slows down and when it does the temperature in the turbine rises and you burn it up for the lack of airflow. In order to gain huge amounts of horse power from a turbine engine you must extract horse power from the hot gasses escaping from the rear of the engine by using a turbine that is not attached to the compressor, In other words we have a compressor driven by a turbine that produce the hot gasses and keep the engine alive, and a separate turbine to extract the energy from those gasses to drive a prop reduction gear box. (PT-6 theory)
 
Last edited:
But it seems to be a bad idea to use something beyond what it was engineered to do when put to service in an aircraft.

If folks had followed that concept, we wouldn't have PT-6es driving 1/2 of all turboprops today. The original version was designed to drive compressors along natural gas pipelines until someone turned one upside down and hooked it up to a propeller.

Most of the small turbines are inefficient, but if you can take 80kW off a driveshaft to operate a generator, why can't you use it to drive a propeller ?

You do have to gear it down further (many APU generators run at 6000rpm), but in absence of the torque pulses of a Otto or Diesel engine, making a gear or belt drive to get from 6000rpm to 2500rpm is a reasonable task.

In addition to a thirst for fuel, governing the thing seems to be less than trivial. FCUs on aircraft turbines are intricate and expensive pieces of hardware. The APU in contrast just has to spool up to 6000rpm and then stay there until someone flips the switch to 'APU: off'.
 
I can't imagine anybody sitting around and suddenly think "Damn, I think I'll build a propane turbine using a kiln burner and a turbo salvaged off a 398 cat."

:nonod::dunno:


Really? Never would cross your mind?:dunno:

I had the turbo and went down to the pottery supply place in Dallas to get him some burners for a kiln we were building him. As soon as I spotted them I knew had a $18 jet engine on my hands. Never went further to couple it to anything though. It was just mostly a cheap project that provided a few weeks entertainment along with noise and fire. Watching my 9 yo nephew light off a jet engine he helped build was what it was about.
 
Tom's engine theory class 101.

The definition of any engine is. "A mechanical device that uses heat and expanding gasses to produce rotating motion."

There are only two types of engines, internal combustion and external combustion. The external combustion is a steam engine, where the combustion takes place in a boiler and the developed energy is used in a different place. The industrial revolution was driven by these engines, and our nuclear generation plants are of this type.

The internal combustion is what we have in common use today where the combustion and resulting energy is used in the same unit.

There are two theories in each type of engines, the piston theory and the turbine theory.

The piston theory uses a piston articulating rod and a crank shaft to produce rotating motion.

The turbine uses vanes to react with the air/heat and produce a rotating mass.

Both theories use the same 4 basic operations to produce and extract energy. intake, compression, power, and exhaust. The difference being the piston engine uses each process one at a time, where in the turbine engine all process are happening at the same time.

The pure turbo jet engine the sole purpose of the turbine is to keep the compressor turning, and only the escaping gasses from the rear of the engine is used to move the engine forward. (simple reaction engine)

This is how the GTC's operate, the turbine is designed only to keep the compressor turning and with just enough more horse power to drive a genset and air-conditioning boot strap blower. Removing the genset and dumping the compressed air will give you more direct horse power to drive a prop reduction gear box, but not much, because when you load the turbine the compressor slows down and when it does the temperature in the turbine rises and you burn it up for the lack of airflow. In order to gain huge amounts of horse power from a turbine engine you must extract horse power from the hot gasses escaping from the rear of the engine by using a turbine that is not attached to the compressor, In other words we have a compressor driven by a turbine that produce the hot gasses and keep the engine alive, and a separate turbine to extract the energy from those gasses to drive a prop reduction gear box. (PT-6 theory)

Why did I waste years studying thermodynamics when I could have simply read Internet posts...
 
Some folks put them on gliders for unassisted launch. It may be possible to leave them fixed and note stow like normal engines.
 
Why did I waste years studying thermodynamics when I could have simply read Internet posts...

Do you really want me to rationalize why you do stuff?
 
Why did I waste years studying thermodynamics when I could have simply read Internet posts...
Chances are that a diploma from Tom's school of hard knocks isn't as widely accepted in the industry as one from an accredited university.
 
Chances are that a diploma from Tom's school of hard knocks isn't as widely accepted in the industry as one from an accredited university.

Probably not, but there are a lot of sailors that have been thru my engine classes at Whidbey.

Training fleet sailors a was the best part of my job for well over 12 years.
 
I am always happy when the APU works...as an APU:rolleyes:
 
A power plant engineer buddy of mine from my airline days calculated that the APU on the B747 contributes about six pounds of thrust.
 
A power plant engineer buddy of mine from my airline days calculated that the APU on the B747 contributes about six pounds of thrust.


Sounds about right. IIRC the TPE-331 started as an APU for a big jet as well. They told us the same thing about it in the Jetstream, that the exhaust adds a few pounds of thrust.
 
Might be a fun project for a go cart or something




Indy%20Boys%20Jet%20Powered%20Outhouse.preview.jpg
 
Back in the 50s, there was a lot of enthusiasm for small turbines. They were used to power all kinds of equipment, in this case a portable fire-pump.

http://youtu.be/nQGBWCX1tBw
 
Back
Top