The icing on the lebkuchen? I’m with Martin Scherrer, head of flight operations and training for Diamond Aircraft—and we’re climbing away in the new Diamond DA50 RG. We’re speeding towards Diamond’s EU home of Wiener Neustadt, Austria, just south of Vienna, but we have cameras on board the DA62 that’s chasing us. We plan a couple of special stops along the way—those mountains keep soaring up ahead—the German Alps. It would be so wrong not to twirl a couple of turns around a chateau—Neuschwanstein, that inspired a Disney castle, for one. We’ll also tuck into the deep valley that hosts Hallstatt, on the edge of Hallstätter See, often voted the prettiest town in the world for its postcard-envy setting.

But the view from above ranks as the most stunning. As we fly over Salzberg, I can’t help but hum a few bars from the Sound of Music… with a twist: “I am sixteen going on seventeen… time to get my pilot’s license…”

Delivered

While the sweet and swift retract has been type certificated under the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) since September 2020, FAA validation came nearly to a halt during COVID. The company has delivered 38 into EASA-land while awaiting certification stateside. Diamond anticipates that to come through this summer—and one of the production models departs soon for a U.S. tour in coordination with that milestone.

READ MORE: Diamond Aircraft Receives FAA Type Certification on DA50 RG

No small part of the validation process lies in the ac- ceptance of the new Continental CD-300 jet-A burning diesel engine under the DA50 RG’s complex cowl, which looks as though an engineer blew globes in hot glass—fiberglass—and stuck them in place to shroud the massive powerplant. We’ll see glimpses of that engine during our walkaround, but during our visit to the production line a couple of days later we’ll get to contemplate its intricate architecture as it sits on serial numbers 40 and 41 about to leave the line for flight testing.

The FADEC-controlled CD-300 is the largest Continental diesel in the series to make it to EASA certification—and all 560 pounds of it comprise a substantial percentage of the DA50 RG’s empty weight. It potentially creates a long view down the nose for the pilot—but instead of being in the way, I found it helped me gauge my sight picture both during high work and landings.

WATCH: We Fly the Diamond DA50 RG

For pilots seeing the big CD-300 for the first time, it takes a moment to orient yourself. The CD-300 is liquid-cooled rather than air-cooled. Plus, a diesel engine is self-igniting, meaning there are no magnetos—so the combustion chambers must be heated to a certain temperature and maintain that baseline in order to light off. From the aircraft flight manual: “The bypass cooling circuit (cabin heat exchanger) is always active. The short cooling circuit is active at low cooling temperatures.” This ensures that a cold engine will warm up quickly, and also creates a safety benefit, using coolant rather than exhaust gas. When the coolant temperature reaches 183 degrees Fahrenheit, the external cooling circuit is activated by a valve.

Look at the large intercooler radiators on the nose and follow the orange ducting to that system inside—indicating that the CD-300 features a turbocharging system as well, driven somewhat traditionally by exhaust gas collected from a manifold. Excess gases bypass the turbine via a FADEC-controlled wastegate. A pressure sensor behind the compressor allows FADEC to calculate the correct position of the waste gate’s valve.

Diamond has had a long path to certification on its retract—15 years—because of the issues plaguing early engine partner Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, which originally produced the Centurion line from which the CD-300 was derived, generally speaking. Thielert went public in 2005, but by 2008 had declared bankruptcy, with its founder Frank Thielert jailed during the fracas. Centurion Aircraft Engines formed from that basis, and Continental Motors purchased those assets, bringing the 300-hp engine in development under the CD-300 moniker.

And there are interesting times ahead as the CD-300 enters service beyond the EU. The in-family engine OEM Austro Engines has had success in the DA42 and DA62, and we noted a couple of operational distinctions between the AE330s in the DA62 when we flew it.

A. The Garmin G1000 NXi suite features ESP and a blue Level button in the lower center of the instrument panel, which returns the aircraft to straight and level on autopilot, maintaining pitch and roll modes when pressed.

B. The fuel system is unique to the DA50 RG and sup- ports the operations of the CD-300 diesel engine. It draws from the left wing tank through a mechanical feed pump into the injectors, which deliver only a portion of that fuel to the combustion chambers. The unused diesel returns via a common fuel line to the right tank, or as determined by the fuel selector position.

C. The load level is managed by the power lever, which meters fuel required, controls prop pitch and feathering, and adjusts the twin turbochargers in accordance with demand, given the altitude and flight condition.

D. The front seats can recline somewhat, but proper pedal position is adjusted electrically on a long rail that accommodates a wide range of pilot sizes.

E. The optional flight management system keypad tucks into the center armrest console and must be stowed for takeoff and landing.

Fuel System

It takes a dedicated system to deliver fuel to a CD series engine, one that’s plumbed and pumped quite a bit dif- ferently than the standard left-right-both (sometimes) that gasoline engines in light singles use. There’s a tank in each wing, but instead of thinking of them as left and right, they are the main and the aux.

The powerplant draws fuel from the main tank in the left wing through an electrical feed pump to the engine-driven mechanical pump into the injectors, which deliver only a portion of that fuel to the combustion chambers. The unused diesel returns via a common fuel line to the main tank via the aux tank for heat exchange, or as determined by the fuel selector position. Normal on the fuel selector draws from the main; the Emergency position takes fuel directly from the aux tank. The Off position cuts off the fuel supply entirely.

Since you’re drawing from the main and only returning part of that fuel to that tank, a fuel imbalance will grow beyond the airplane’s ability to maintain lateral balance. Before the 9-gallon limit, the pilot turns on an electric transfer pump to move fuel from the right wing to the left—but not during takeoff and landing.

Flight Controls

My overall impression of the airplane’s handling finds a good balance between the nimbleness you desire for hands-on flying—to tackle a crosswind, for example— with the stability to make it quite comfortable on a long cross-country flight off the autopilot.

The length of the stick and its connection to the rest of the flight control system may have a lot to do with this. I move regularly between aircraft that utilize a yoke and one with a center stick, and find little transition time is needed for me—but the yoke-controlled aircraft is more of a cross-country machine, while the one in which I use a stick is highly maneuverable.

The stick in the DA50 RG is also a bit taller than the one I usually fly with, putting the push-to-talk trigger-style button and electric trim split rocker switch a wee bit of a stretch for my short thumb if I rested my left arm on my leg. It took me a couple of flights to find the sweet spot—and maybe because this was an almost-confirming prototype, it explains why the stick in the DA62 I also flew during my visit felt a bit shorter and thus just slightly easier to find that spot on.

However—when we got out of the cross-country mode on my first flight from EDNY to LOAN and into a bit of stationkeeping, I really appreciated the stick and its direct feedback—in a straight line to the control cable bellcrank rather than the up and down movement of the yoke. These are fine details, but I think a clear reason why some pilots prefer a given airplane over another.

READ MORE: The Diamond Aircraft Story Continues to Evolve

The idea came home to me the next time I got into the TB-30 model I sometimes fly—that direct control gives confidence in both aggressive and finely-tuned maneuvering flight. In the DA50 RG, it’s somewhat dampened by the aileron actuation—and a bridge between worlds.

Therefore my final assessment makes sense—that if you are looking for a solid performer that makes you feel like you’re still flying an airplane rather than pushing buttons and managing systems, the DA50 RG will resonate with you.

Diamond aircraft take their DNA from the gliders that formed the core product line when the Austrian OEM first launched its H36 then the Super Dimona HK36 in 1980 (see “The Diamond Story”). One out- come? Advanced aerodynamics in the wings add significantly to the DA50 RG’s excellent low-speed handling characteristics and reduced approach speeds.

For example, the DA50’s flaps consist of two pieces—an inner part attached to the center wing, and the outer part to the wing itself. The sections are independently pushrod controlled, and they slide out and back to produce two tiered channels for the air to flow through, ensuring adhesion to the upper surface of the flap along with the increased camber for the wing overall.

Cross-Country Cruising

The DA50 RG has been one of the first new single-engine retracts to hit the category—with the Pipistrel Panthera also currently seeking approval beyond EASA—since the FAA granted type certification to the Mooney Ovation 3 in 2007. Besides looking great, there’s one solid reason to put the gear in the wells—speed.

In cruise, that speed comes to call. The airplane has an operating altitude maximum of 20,000 feet, but most pilots will flight plan below the oxygen-required flight levels—so it’s a good thing that the DA50 RG finds a sweet spot at 10,000 feet msl, where it easily makes its 172 ktas book speed. We conducted formation work for much of our 2.3 hours from EDNY to LOAN at lower altitudes, like 7,500 feet, and ticked off true airspeeds between 160 and 167 ktas at 90 percent load.

Diamonds burn diesel for reasons of efficiency and economy—as well as the ability to source fuel virtually anywhere—and so we also pulled the CD-300 back into economy mode. At 60 percent load, 5,500 feet msl, and ISA plus 8 Celsius, we made 156 ktas, above book—and using 10.1 gph. Pulling back to a loitering speed of 119 ktas and 45 percent load at that altitude and condition, and fuel flow drops to 7.9 gph. Our precise Austrian friends have built on this efficiency philosophy throughout their model lineup, and the DA50 RG fits right in.

On Landings

Sight picture on landing feels straightforward not only for a pilot transitioning up the Diamond food chain, but also from other four-seat fixed-gear aircraft like high- wing Cessnas and the PA-28 series. With a substantial engine out front, you have cowl references to use while determining your height above the runway (the DA50 RG definitely sits tall on its gear) without cheating a glance to the side. I found it easy to find the mains for a normal landing, as well as during the specialty take- offs and landings we performed.

Approach speeds fall firmly where you’d expect them to in the category, and the runway at Wiener Neustadt—a VFR-only airport at 896 feet msl—is 1,067 meters (3,500 feet) long, which the airplane handles easily, flaps or not.

In fact, the no-flap landing demonstrates the power of the flaps, but also the general characteristics of the wing itself. Maintaining a higher approach speed of 94 knots indicated (versus 85 kias with takeoff flaps and 77 kias with full flaps) translates into more runway used—but still comfortably within touch-and-go territory on that 1,000 meters of pavement with a ground roll near book of half the runway distance (1,700 feet) at our lighter takeoff weight (roughly 3,950 pounds, about 500 pounds below the max takeoff weight of 4,407 pounds).

A short-field landing test with full flaps easily placed us with a ground roll of less than 600 feet—the 17 knots less for VREF plus good hydraulically actuated disc brakes combined to improve pilot confidence when taking the DA50 RG into airports of modest scale.

Haul the Whole Fam

We had four healthy adults and a week’s worth of show gear on board the DA50 RG on our departure from EDNY—along with full tanks. There was no compromise required. And the three seats across in the back made for a very comfortable ride for our colleagues enjoying the Alpine traverse. This was one of the more surprising revelations of flying the new model. The time to market with the right engine has meant time for Diamond’s engineering to dial out really important parameters—and the loading capability is one big one.

There is a combination of compartments in the rear cabin to work with, up to 198 pounds total.

For pilots completely satisfied with the DA50 RG’s range and carry-all flexibility, it could certainly prove a worthy companion for a long relationship. But with its honest low-speed handling enticing you to hand-fly more often, and a landing attitude common to both previous aircraft and what you might step up to—say, the Epic E1000 GX, Daher TBM, or Piper M-Series turboprops—it sets the stage for more real piloting to come. 

DIAMOND DA50 RG

Price, as tested: $1,237,650
Engine: Continental Diesel CD-300
Propeller: MT Propeller MTV-12-D/210-56, wood with composite coating, three-blade constant speed
Horsepower: 300 hp maximum power, 272 hp maximum continuous power
Seats: 5
Length: 30.31 ft.
Height: 9.69 ft.
Wingspan: 44 ft.
Wing Area: 176.85 sq. ft.
Wing Loading: 24.91 lb./sq. ft.
Power Loading: 14.69 lb./hp @ 300 hp
Cabin Width: 4 ft. 2.8 in.
Cabin Height: 4 ft. 2.4 in.
Max Zero Fuel Weight: 4,189 lb.
Max Takeoff Weight: 4,407 lb.
Empty Weight: 3,175 lb. (depending on options) Max Baggage Weight: 165 lb./33 lb.; 198 lb. total separated into 4 areas/compartments Useful Load: 1,232 lb. (depending on options) Max Fuel: Usable: 49; Total 51.5 USG
Max Operating Altitude: 20,000 ft.
Max Rate of Climb, MTOW, ISA, sea level: 786 fpm Economy Cruise Speed at 60% Power: 156 ktas, 2,300 rpm, ISA, 10,000 ft., 10.1 gph
Max Cruise Speed: 90% Power: 172 ktas, 2,300 rpm, ISA, 10,000 ft.
Max Range: 750 nm with 30-min. reserve
Stall Speed, Flaps Up: 71 kcas @MTOW
Stall Speed, Full Flaps: 58 kcas @MTOW
Takeoff Over 50 Ft. Obs: (ISA, sea level, MTOW) 2,408 ft.
Landing Over 50 Ft. Obs: (ISA, sea level, max landing wt.) 2,224 ft.

This article first appeared in the June 2023/Issue 938 of FLYING’s print edition.

The post We Fly: Diamond DA50 RG, the High-Performance Retract That Shines appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

To understand what’s going on with the performance improvements from the more powerful Pratt & Whitney PT6 engines involved, you need to know that there are two fundamental measures of power. The most basic measure of power—and the one listed in the airplane specifications—is the maximum shaft horsepower (shp) of the engine. The other element in the power equation is how much power the engine can potentially produce at sea level on a standard 15 degree Celsius day, which are the international standard atmosphere (ISA) conditions.

SHP Delivered to the Prop

The TBM 850, for example, has a limit of 850 shp. That means the airplane is approved for 850 shp to be delivered to the propeller. A shaft horsepower is essentially the same as horsepower developed by a piston engine, or an electric motor, for that matter. Horsepower is a measure of power, or torque, over a unit of time. We could accurately call the power delivered by an aircraft piston engine shp because the power is being delivered to the shaft that drives the prop. But because there are other measures of power output for a turbine engine, we specify for turboprop engines that shp is power delivered to the prop.

The shp of a turboprop engine is restricted by the strength of the gearbox that drives the propeller, and by the ability of the airframe and other components to handle the thrust developed by the prop. So the maximum amount of power—thrust, actually—that a turboprop engine is approved to produce at any time on a specific airplane is stated in shp and is a certified limitation.

Okay, that’s the same as in a piston-powered airplane where engine power is a certified limit. But in the case of turboprop engines the actual turbine engine can produce more power than the maximum certified under many atmospheric conditions. And thus the confusion.

Power Output Limited by Temperature

The power output of a turbine engine, jet, or turboprop is limited by internal temperature, pressure, and the rpm of its rotating components. If the temperature is too hot the crucial engine parts will break, or melt. If the pressure is too great the parts can break, or the entire engine case can even fail. And if the rotating components spin too fast they will at some point fly apart with explosive force.

As pilots we monitor these parameters to operate a turbine engine. The temperatures inside a turboprop vary from one section of the engine to another, but in the PT6 we monitor, and limit, the interstage turbine temperature (ITT). The rpm is also monitored, but instead of a gross number of revolutions—which is typically more than 30,000—we see a percentage of allowable rpm. There is no direct measure of engine pressure on a PT6 as there is on many large jet engines that use engine pressure ratio (EPR) as a measure of power output, but if the rpm and ITT are within limits the internal pressure of the PT6 will be, too.

There is another turboprop value—torque—that is also measured and reported to the pilot, and that is really just another way of measuring shp. The engine actually twists against the resistance of the propeller and the twisting force is measured and shown as a torque value. Torque is the limit of power the airplane can actually use, while temperature and rpm are limits on how much more or less power is available from the engine.

The PT6’s Free Turbine

The PT6 is a free turbine engine, meaning the components of the turbine engine that actually generate the power are not physically linked to the propeller. The part of the engine that burns the fuel and makes the energy is called the gas generator, and the section that transforms that energy into shp is called the power section.

Air in the PT6 flows from rear to front. A compressor section in the aft part of the engine draws in air and compresses it through several stages. The hot compressed air enters the burner section where fuel is injected and ignited. The rapid expansion of the burning fuel-air mixture generates a powerful gas that forces its way forward over a turbine wheel. The turbine is connected directly to the compressor wheels to spin them and thus sustain the process. This rotating section is called N1.

As the expanding gases continue their rush forward toward the exhaust they force their way past another turbine, and this one is connected to the gearbox that turns the propeller. The gearbox is both complex and sturdy because it must reduce the many thousands of revolutions of the power turbine down to the 1,500 to 2,500 rpm that a propeller can effectively use. The rpm of this section is called N2 or prop rpm.

The power potential of the gas-producing section of the engine is totally dependent on the density of the air it is operating in. When air is dense—on a cool day at sea level, for example—the turbine section loafs along. The compressor has plenty of air to work with, so it feeds the burner section its maximum charge of air using only low rpm and relatively low compression ratios. But when the air is less dense, at high altitude, or when air temperature is above ISA, the compressor struggles to ram the same air charge into the burner. The air is hotter exiting the compressor and burns hotter. The compressor must spin faster to do its work. And at some point the density of the air available to the compressor just isn’t enough for it to deliver the full charge of air into the burner before reaching the rpm limits, or the temperature limits, or both.

Reaching the Thermodynamic Limit

When the engine reaches its limits of temperature or rpm it is at its thermodynamic limit. Thermo, obviously, being temperature, while dynamic refers to the rotating speed of the components. That’s why you’ll see that a PT6 will have a limit of, say, 850 shp in the TBM, but have the thermodynamic rating of about twice that. The difference between the low and high power ratings is called flat rating, or de-rating. I like the term flat rating best because it accurately describes what is happening. The airplane and engine gearbox can only take so much shp, so the engine is capped at that value. Its power is held flat.

But the magic of flat rating is that you can use the extra thermodynamic power to increase climb and cruise speed. As the airplane climbs into less dense air there is plenty of margin in the compressor section to keep packing a full charge of air into the burner before rpm and temperature limits are reached. Just as a turbocharged piston engine continues to make full power as it climbs, the flat-rated PT6 delivers full-rated power at altitude by having the margin to increase rpm and ITT. The result is higher climb rates and true airspeed.

It wasn’t always this way with the PT6. An early version of the engine in the Beechcraft King Air 90, for example, couldn’t make full-rated power on the runway if the air temperature was hot, or the airport elevation high. Gradually Pratt & Whitney improved the design and materials of the engine to make it ever more powerful, even though certified shp remained the same. And over the past several years, versions of the PT6 are almost twice as powerful even though the external size and shape is about the same.

Flat-Rating Wins

This available increase in thermodynamic power is what makes the engine conversions of existing airplanes so attractive. The new engines fit right in the space of the originals, are limited to the same maximum power to the propeller, but produce that power to a much higher altitude or air temperature. The results are many, many knots of increased cruise speed, much higher climb rate, and often a fuel flow increase that essentially matches the speed increase so range remains about the same. It is not a free lunch because the new engines are more expensive, but it is as close to a free speed increase as there is in aviation.

The reason newer PT6 engines can produce more power is better materials to withstand higher temperatures and pressures, and much improved aerodynamics that make the compressor and turbine more efficient. The same improvements have taken place in all turbine engines, but it’s so remarkable in the PT6 because the engine has been used on the same airframes for more than 40 years.

I hope this explains flat rating, shp, thermodynamic power, and why turboprop airplanes continue to gain in climb and cruise speed. Flat rating puts power in the bank that you can draw on when conditions are less favorable. I think that’s something we can all appreciate these days.

The post Rating a Turboprop’s Power appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

The battle of limited supply versus high demand is spilling off the roadway and onto the runway. The price volatility confronting pilots at the pump at general aviation airports has provoked some uncertainty when it comes to travel plans. “The primary driver of the price volatility has been supply disruption,” Muneed Ahmed, director of trading and logistics for Avfuel, a global supplier of aviation fuel and services to the general and business aviation markets, told FLYING earlier this week. 

• READ MORE: Will GA Have a Fuel Problem?

“Currently, jet-A inventories in the U.S. are at one of the lowest levels since 2000,” he said. 

However, a past crisis helps put the current situation into perspective.

‘The Party Is Over‘

In the U.S., fluctuations of fuel supply levels—no matter how short lived—can be potent enough to conjure ghosts of energy crises past. In the fall of 1973, the U.S. was slapped with an Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) oil embargo that forced the entirety of the nation to atone for its dependence on foreign oil. 

The crisis was potent enough to spur the creation of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), a complex of underground storage caves in salt domes along the coast of Texas and Louisiana. 

“The 1973 oil embargo underscored the need for a strategic oil reserve,” said Michelle McCaskill, spokesperson for the Defense Logistics Agency, which purchased the first fill of crude oil for the SPR. “The SPR is a strategic asset for the U.S., serving as an emergency storage reserve for crude oil and fuel. It is the largest emergency supply of oil in the world, holding up to 727 million barrels of oil.”

The stockpile is a form of insurance meant to keep the sepia-toned memories of car lines with anxious drivers awaiting rations of fuel stretching around city blocks at bay. The shortages of the 1973 fuel crisis meant drivers had to reprioritize and reconsider non-essential travel. 

On the nation’s runways, the story was no different.  

“The PARTY is over,” a FLYING staff report said in January 1974, less than three months after the embargo began. “The day of plentiful inexpensive fuel has passed and we have been thrust suddenly into an era of expensive and scarce fuel.”

1973 Crisis

In the early 1970s, cheap fuel was everywhere. It was a fairytale time for travel, and an era that gave birth to aircraft like the fuel-hungry Concorde, an airplane that legendarily burned 2 tons of fuel just while taxiing out to the runway. 

The embargo, which ran from October 1973 through March the following year, hit everywhere across the U.S., especially in aviation. Fuel prices at GA airports went up and rationing set in.  On November 26, 1973, the Presidential Administration proposed that GA fuel supplies would be slashed by up to 50 percent, sparking a run by aircraft owners to sell, FLYING reported at the time. 

At airports, the FAA made efforts to save precious fuel by minimizing ground delays. Air traffic controllers were instructed to clear flights along direct routes when possible and to offer vectors to eliminate airway doglegs. Gate-hold procedures were in place at all major airports, and IFR aircraft were told to stay parked until it was time to fire up engines for takeoff. There was even a short-lived FAA ban on Sunday fuel sales at FBOs. All were efforts to conserve every drop of fuel.

“After one FAA center chief outlined the steps being taken to help conserve fuel, he said there just wasn’t much else they could do other than turn the thermostats down to 68, douse the unnecessary lights and form car pools,” one FLYING report noted. 

• FROM THE ARCHIVES: March 1974 Fuel Report – More Expensive Than Scarce

The industry, manufacturers in particular, were forced into a period of introspection. Prior to the crisis, 1974 had the hallmarks of a banner year of sale for aircraft makers, “but the fuel shortage clouded the crystal ball,” according to one FLYING report in March 1974. Cessna, for example, was forced to lay off 2,400 workers and downgrade sales projections for the year from 9,000 aircraft to 6,600—yet still a healthy number compared to current production figures.

“Even though all manufacturers will no doubt take a long and critical look at new airplanes [which are expensive to develop], there is no indication that research and development efforts are dropping off the line,” FLYING reported. “In fact, the development of more fuel-efficient airplanes might spur greatly increased R&D efforts in many places.”

NASA Innovations

If anything, the fuel crisis that began in 1973 underscored the adage that necessity is the mother of invention.

“There’s a real realization in the United States that this emphasis on higher, faster, and farther in flight” needs to be tempered with more fuel efficient initiatives, such as that occurring in the automotive industry, Dr. Jeremy Kinney, associate director of research and curatorial affairs at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., told FLYING in a recent interview.

The fuel crisis gave way to innovation, with NASA taking up the challenge of making the airplane and the jet engine more efficient, Kinney explained. During the decade-long Aircraft Energy Efficiency program, NASA set a goal of reducing fuel consumption by 50 percent, through initiatives that improved internal components of engines. It also focused on designing a new engine from the ground up with the goal of decreasing fuel consumption and increasing cruise speeds.

Other advances stemming from the program included lighter materials for aircraft structures, and wing modifications, which moved the industry into earlier applications for realizing potentially significant fuel savings, the General Accounting Office told members of Congress.

“NASA was working with industry,” such as Pratt & Whitney and General Electric, “and looking at configurations of these engines and how that actually influences what the manufacturers put into their engines into production,” Kinney said. “The idea is to create a new engine, so you’re no longer using these classic engines like the JT3D and the JT9D…because they’re taking advantage of the materials, the construction, the combustor and turbine design, as well as the controls,” such as full authority digital engine control, or FADEC—now found on many modern piston and turboprop powerplants.

“That is a part of the result of this work, to make everything more efficient,” Kinney said.

It was technology aimed at minimizing fuel burn that would later contribute to the development of the world’s largest turbofan engine, the GE90, Kinney said. About two decades later, General Electric’s high bypass turbofan jetliner engine would go on to debut on a Boeing 777.

In the Advanced Turboprop Project, which came along later in 1978, NASA researched how to increase efficiency of what was essentially a propeller-driven turbine engine by about 30 percent, Kinney said. 

In the age of jet engines, reverting back to propellers in the name of innovation was a bold concept. 

“The energy crisis of the early 1970s served as the catalyst for renewed government interest in aeronautics and NASA launched this ambitious project to return to fuel saving, propeller-driven aircraft,” according to a NASA document detailing the history of the program. “The Arab oil embargo brought difficult times to all of America, but the airline industry, in particular, suffered and feared for its future in the wake of a steep rise in fuel prices. NASA responded to these fears by creating a program to improve aircraft fuel efficiency.”

Research involved 15 university grants, more than 40 industrial contracts, and research at four NASA research centers. The advanced turboprop concepts were so successful that the NASA team won the National Aeronautic Association’s top award, the Robert J. Collier Trophy, in 1987. 

“It amounts to a reinvention of the technology, especially for short and medium routes,” Kinney said. “This particular project was so ambitious because it was about inventing a new type of powerplant,” he said.

Despite the technological success, the turboprop revolution that many foretold was coming never happened because of the lack of public buy-in. 

“From the beginning, it was the perception of an energy crisis, not a technological innovation, that spurred the idea of the project itself,” NASA’s history of the program recounted in 1998. “As the project progressed, within each technological stage, the engineers used distinctive and creative approaches to deal with the complex web of government, industry, and academic contractors. More often than not, the main question was not does the technology work, but how can we get government, industry, and the public to accept this technology? In the end, it was a socioeconomic issue again which shelved the program. The reduction of fuel prices ended the necessity for fuel conservation in the skies and today the advanced turboprop remains a neglected, or ‘archived’ technology.”

While the application of the project’s findings may have been shelved—and not typically applied to the commuter market—advances in turboprop engines such as the FADEC enabled Pratt & Whitney PT6E series have propelled single- and multiengine GA airplanes to cruise at similar altitudes (up to 31,000 ft), albeit at somewhat slower speeds (up to Mach 0.56 rather than Mach 0.8).

It would be one of many lessons that came from 1973, Kinney said.

“It’s a technology that was on a plateau,” Kinney said. “Unfortunately, by the time they were getting ready to integrate the design and really invest the money in the development of what the system was and how it worked, fuel prices [went] back down and there was no longer a need.” 

The Advanced Turboprop Project was, according to NASA historians, a case study demonstrating “how radical innovation can emerge from within a conservative, bureaucratic government agency.” 

It was also part of a movement in the industry where the collective of academia, industry, and the government were focused on not only surviving the oil crisis of 1973, but thriving on the other side of it.

“It united aviation in a way that they had a goal to work toward,” Kinney said. “There are many different reasons to improve the airplane, and none better than to save money on gas.”

The post How Aviation Weathered the Fuel Crisis of the 1970s appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Linda Deslatte, vice president of commercial programs for Bell joined Safran Helicopter Engines executive vice president of programs Bruno Bellanger in making the announcement. 

“It is our responsibility to support the aircraft of today and the aircraft of the future. It is our responsibility now more than ever to keep innovating and to keep providing better solutions for our customers, our products, and our planet. 

“Our collaboration with Safran is key to that success.”

Bellanger noted that Safran’s engagement in sustainability is based on three main pillars: the pursuit of best efficiency and fuels to use, hybridization to marry a traditional powerplant with an electrical component, and the use of SAF. He anticipated an initial blend of 50 percent SAF, with a target to reach 100 percent in short order.

The 505—Beyond the Jet Ranger

With its origins in the storied 206B Jet Ranger, the 505 uses Safran’s (was Turbomeca’s) Arrius 2R powerplant, with takeoff power at 505 shp (shaft horsepower) and max continuous power at 459 shp. The Arrius 2R is controlled via FADEC (full authority digital engine control). Up front, the 505 panel features the Garmin G1000H NXi integrated flight deck with these flight display options:

• Traffic advisory system (TAS)
• Helicopter terrain awareness and warning system
• Helicopter synthetic vision technology
• Pathway in the sky display

Bell’s 2021 Shipments Spring Back

The five-place 505 leads Bell’s reported delivery figures for 2021 at 63 units, taking the top spot from the 407 series, which sold 54 units in 2020, according to the reports released by the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA) for those years.

Bell’s civilian helicopter models shipped include the:

• Bell 505 (single-engine turbine): 63 units
• Bell 407/407GXi (single-engine turbine): 56 units
• Bell 429/429WLG (twin-engine turbine): 30 units
• Bell 412EP/412EPI (twin-engine turbine): 7 units

With a total of 156 units shipped—plus 7 Huey IIs—the figures represent a positive trend from 2020, which saw 140 total deliveries. That was down from 199 of those four model series shipped in 2019—when the 505 chalked up 101 deliveries. Total billings for Bell in 2021 topped $691 million.

The post Bell and Safran Collaborate on Use of SAF in Bell 505 appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

FLYING took a deep dive into all things Rotax with Phil Lockwood, considered by many to be the resident U.S. expert on their powerplants. 

Lockwood runs the Lockwood Aviation Group based in Sebring, Florida, a wide-ranging company which includes an AirCam kit aircraft division, aircraft supply, and service divisions, a repair facility, the Sebring Aviation flight school, and a Rotax mechanic’s school.

Rotax Engine Development

Lockwood has been in and around the ultralight business since the early 1980s when many users flew with Rotax two-stroke engines. 

“With the two-stroke engines,” Lockwood explained, “if you knew how to maintain them, and knew when they should be overhauled in a preventative way, they could be run quite reliably. Most of the problems were from people who just didn’t know what to do except put gas and oil in them and run them until they blew up. We didn’t even know the TBO of the engines because we didn’t know how long they should or would last.”

As Lockwood worked on nearly every available model of ultralight engine in his early flying years, he said it became evident that Rotax was making the highest quality product. 

• DON’T MISS OUT: Subscribe to FLYING Magazine

“They came on the scene out of nowhere and very quickly were dominating the ultralight industry,” Lockwood said. “Their engineers were putting in the work to produce different configurations to accommodate pusher-type and tractor-type airframes, very well-configured exhaust systems, and all different types of installations. It was pretty clear to me early on that these guys were going to be the leaders they are today.”

Dominating the LSA Market

Lockwood said Rotax is the undisputed leader powering the light sport industry today, with an estimated 80 percent market share in new LSA models sold in the U.S. Other estimates put their market share as high as 90 percent. 

That successful run with their reliable four-stroke engine line started in 1989 with their 80 horsepower 912UL engine, which is still available to purchase. A 100 hp version, the 912ULS, is also available. As the company’s market share grew, so did their product line, and now, OEMs and experimental builders can choose not only the carbureted UL and ULS versions of the 912, they can pick the fuel-injected 100 hp 912iS Sport, the 115 hp 914UL, or the company’s largest powerplant, the 141 hp turbocharged 915iS.

That 141 hp turbo Rotax is now being used in the Sling TSi, with excellent results, according to Lockwood. “The TSi is a very good four-place airplane, and Sling is seeing nearly a 1,000-pound useful load in that model by using the 141 hp Rotax engine,” he said.

Physics and Engineering

How Rotax engines came to be the gold standard with LSA manufacturers really comes down to engineering, Lockwood said. 

“Right from the very beginning, Rotax has been focused on making lightweight engines with great power-to-weight ratios,” he said. “They’ve designed engines that can cruise at 5,000 to 5,500 rpm all day long and go to TBO like that. From the metallurgy to the lubricants they use, it is all designed to allow the engine to run at high rpm.”

Lockwood explained that pure physics is behind the success Rotax has found. 

“You look at a 100 to 125 horsepower Lycomings or Continentals, and the Rotax engines are making that kind of power on about half the displacement, allowing for much lighter and more compact engines,” he said. “Many legacy aircraft engines do not have tight control over mixture cylinder to cylinder, so they must run rich of peak. The Rotax engines are very smart, with dual-path [engine control units] controlling the fuel injection. This allows for fully automated precise control over the fuel mixture which improves fuel efficiency, reliability and longevity providing super-efficient lean of peak operation.”

The flight school Lockwood operates has been running “nine series” Rotax engines for a long time, he said, and they typically run to their 2,000-hour TBO. “We go 100 hours on our oil change intervals. And as long as you’re using unleaded fuel, we don’t do much to the engines in between the 100-hour service intervals.”

Austrian Quality and Future Developments

While Rotax has factories in China and Mexico that can build the engines for some of their other applications, Lockwood said all their aircraft engines are only manufactured in their Linz, Austria, plant. 

“The build quality of the Rotax engines coming out of Austria is very high. If you ever have a chance to go to the main factory in Austria, do so, because it is very impressive,” he said. 

As to what is in development for the Rotax aircraft engine line, Lockwood only said “they seem to be quite committed to the aircraft engine market. And now they have quite a long history and are continuing to develop new engines. So exactly what is coming? I don’t know. But it appears they’re moving forward with higher horsepower engines.”

Lockwood and His AirCam

It is hard to write about Phil Lockwood without discussing his AirCam kit airplane. Let’s recap quickly how this open-cockpit, twin-Rotax kitplane came into existence. 

After becoming known for his bush flying in the world of conservation and wildlife photographers and filmmakers, Lockwood was approached in early 1993 by a National Geographic photographer and another conservation photographer who asked Lockwood to fly them on missions in the Congo region of Africa. 

“I had done my previous Africa bush flying in Namibia, which is mostly desert with places to land everywhere,” Lockwood said. “These Congo missions were over dense rainforest in the northern part of the country with 100-foot-high mahogany trees and very little opportunity to land. I made some initial drawings of the prototype AirCam using two 64 hp Rotax 582 engines for redundancy; they liked the safety of the two engines, and we completed it in six months.”

Lockwood shipped that first AirCam to the Congo in five DHL shipping crates, and it was so successful, he decided to put more than 22,000 engineering hours into developing the AirCam as a kit. By 1999, he began selling AirCam kits, and the popularity of the design continues today. The first AirCam prototype flown for the Congo missions is now in the EAA Aviation Museum in Oshkosh, Wisconsin.

The post A Deep Dive into Rotax LSA Engines appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

Migration 2022 was held Tuesday and Wednesday this week at the Aerospace Center for Excellence’s Ramos Skylab at the Lakeland Linder International Airport (KLAL) in Florida.

The future was definitively in attendance. The U.S. representatives for Pipistrel—and its EASA-certificated Velis Electro two-seat all-electric trainer—from Right Rudder Aviation participated. And leaders from VTOL startup Joby Aviation’s newly launched flight training organization, Stockton Ballantyne and Cody Cleverly, joined the conversation. 

Pete Bunce, president and CEO of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association (GAMA), and Walter Desrosier, GAMA’s director of engineering and maintenance, laid out the problem statement and the current position the general aviation industry is in during a keynote session Wednesday. 

Redbird’s vice president of sales and marketing, Josh Harnagel, related that, as they approached the event, the Redbird team considered making GAMA’s presentation a breakout session, but the inflection point that the GA industry has come to demanded that all 200 flight training leaders at the conference have a chance to hear the message.

Electric Is the Future, But Unleaded Fuel Is Now

“The most efficient way right now of getting into the air is blowing up dinosaurs,” Bunce said. But the fact is that development toward electric aircraft is not just in the urban air mobility (UAM) space, but also driving up to regional and commercial aviation. He noted how Eviation’s all-electric Alice—which is expected to make its first flight soon—is patterned after a business jet, but with unconventional powerplants. 

Traditional aviation OEMs such as Bell are getting into the game too. And Embraer’s Eve consortium will go public in the next few weeks, with an end-to-end UAM solution proposed, all the way through to a new ATC infrastructure plan to sell into the developing world.

Is Hydrogen the Answer?

Additionally, there are several projects—including ZeroAvia’s—using gaseous hydrogen to power aircraft—and from a potential energy standpoint these hold promise. But as Bunce pointed out, we need the hydrogen infrastructure specific to aviation in order to make those test aircraft operational and economical in the real world.

“[In aviation] we have the tougher challenge,” as far as needing the high potential energy stored in petroleum-based fuels, “and we should be the last ones able to use it—but that’s not the way the world is going,” Bunce said.

SAF Is Jet-A

The industry already has developed several pathways to producing sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) from various sources, with the ASTM involved in this process using as many as 7 authorized roadmaps.

Right now, we can blend only 50 percent sustainable fuel stock into a jet-A formulation, because of the need to add back in aromatics to augment the base feedstock—in aircraft powerplants, it comes down to critical factors such as protecting seals and other components within the engine and system.

There isn’t enough feedstock in aggregate to serve the industry right now either, as Bunce noted.

“We’re trying to break out that piece of the Build Back Better bill to keep Biden’s challenge alive,” he said.  He noted the commitment made by signatories to the National Business Aviation Association (NBAA) last fall to drive to zero emissions by 2050. “The only way to get there is with SAF—new aircraft design won’t get there,” he said.

But he’s excited about the current state of affairs in GA and for aviation overall. “I look at this time in the industry—this has got to be what the dawn of the jet age was like.”

AvGas Is the Key

GAMA’s Walter Desrosier put it bluntly as he continued the presentation: the continuity of the avgas supply is key to the stability of the GA industry. The fuel used by most of the piston fleet, 100LL, contains a specific compound—tetraethyl lead or TEL—to deliver lead’s protective properties to the fuel.

One facility in the world manufactures TEL, and that’s Innospec, Inc., in the U.K. He noted that Brexit helped continue the production of TEL for a while longer because Innospec’s production facility is no longer operating under EU oversight, but the pressure remains intact.

Much of the training fleet—using relatively low-compression engines—can use the UL91 and UL94 unleaded fuels currently entering the market in the U.S. Overall, 67 percent of the GA fleet can use these fuels, and they are essentially drop-in—there’s paperwork and placarding involved, but little else.

But the remaining 33 percent of high-performance aircraft in the fleet require 100LL—and those aircraft will keep flying as long as they’re able. With the average age of the GA fleet at 47 years, pilots hang onto their airplanes, so it’s not like the automotive industry where lead-burning cars could be phased out and converted over a roughly 10-year period. “That transition option is not available to us,” said Desrosier.

Consumption of avgas skews the breakdown even more: 70 percent of avgas consumed needs to be 100LL. “We haven’t found a silver bullet,” that would take us to a drop-in solution, said Desrosier. A “non-drop-in” solution would require at the very least an operational impact, changes to fuel production and distribution, and require FAA certification and approval for each airframe and powerplant combination.

What Can Flight Schools Do?

In California, the answer has already been forced upon a handful of flight training organizations, including Trade Winds Aviation at Reid-Hillview (KRHV) and San Martin (E16) airports in Santa Clara County. 

But Bunce also mentioned a movement underway at the Santa Monica Airport (KSMO) in the Los Angeles Basin to go the same route as Santa Clara toward a total ban on the sale of 100LL on the field.

There are future fleet solutions in electric aircraft—but they admittedly have limited utility. Pipistrel’s Velis Electro has the endurance for traffic pattern work, but not much else at the moment. FLYING will cover the electric aircraft question in more detail in a follow-on piece to come.

The recommendation for now? Research and proactively source unleaded avgas for those aircraft in the training fleet that can use it now—before the requirement for using it is forced upon the flight school operator.

The post What Will Fuel Our Flight Training Fleets? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

As more airfields adopt this policy, it could cause affect flight plans and significantly impact aircraft owners and pilots, especially those operating high-performance models.

Much like Tesla owners who now plan road trips based on the availability of charging stations along the route, flight plans will need an additional layer of forethought to ensure refueling at an airport still distributing 100LL. 

The stakes are considerably higher with aircraft, as one does not simply pull over and wait for AAA to arrive with a portable charger when reserves dip dangerously low.

How This Happened

Distinguished by its bluish hue, 100LL is the industry standard for reciprocating aircraft engines. For many years, 100LL-powered aircraft deployed to accomplish missions such as flying medical supplies, inspecting power lines, agricultural work, transportation, and serving as a lifeline to remote populations not connected to a road.

For decades, pilots have had very little to think about when they taxi up to an FBO looking to refuel. The choice was simple: 100LL or jet-A. Now, and moving forward, there will eventually be additional choices. Just as necessity spawns innovation, so does competition flourish in the presence of a vacuum. The eventual tabling of 100LL will leave a tremendous void.

FLYING recently reported the Reid-Hillview Airport (KRHV) and San Martin Airport (E16) in California halted sales of 100LL and forced the FBOs on the field to switch to an unleaded alternate, UL94.

UL94 is a 94 octane unleaded avgas alternate option that meets ASTM D7547 specifications and can be a direct replacement for a 100LL solution for some aircraft owners. Manufactured by Swift Fuels, UL94 has been available since 2015 and is an all-hydrocarbon blend. UL94 is safe, FAA-approved, and can coexist in fuel tanks with 100LL without issue.

So, what do you have to do to fly unleaded in compliance?

What to Do Now

The first thing you have to consider is compatibility. Some aircraft engines that operated at a lower compression ratio should have no trouble just popping the cap and topping off the tanks with unleaded avgas alternative. 

Although 100LL and UL94 can intermix with no issues, not everyone has the all-clear to start pumping UL94 straight away. Airframes and powerplant combinations are still type-certificated to run on specific fuels, and to deviate from that will require FAA approval.

How to Use Unleaded Fuel with the FAA’s Blessing

Aircraft OEMs are beginning to accept unleaded avgas and are paving the way using standard approval methods. Service bulletin (SB), service letter (SL), and service instructions (SI) documents are the technical publications that OEMs use to transmit information.

Textron Aviation announced in October 2021 the approval of unleaded avgas in some of their most popular Cessna models. Owners and operators can comply with Textron Aviation Service Bulletin SEB-28-04. The SB describes parts and instructions to install fuel placards for very-low lead and unleaded fuels. No hardware modifications are needed to comply.

Aircraft engine OEMs understand the need for unleaded fuel, and they can sense the change in the wind. Lycoming Engines—a Textron company and one of the major engine manufacturers in North America—published a three-part series of articles addressing unleaded fuels. Additionally, Lycoming issued technical publications supporting the alternatives to 100LL.

Lycoming SI No. 1070AB, “Specified Fuels for Spark-Ignited Gasoline Aircraft Engine Models,” is a resource for identifying which Lycoming engines are approved to run alternate fuels.

• READ MORE: Passion and Purpose Fuel Lives and Aircraft

Service Letter No. L270 identifies extended maintenance intervals as benefits of routine exclusive use of approved unleaded fuels identified in the latest revision of Service Instruction No. SI-1070 for Lycoming engine models. You will also note that this notice states that although approved for the engine, approval for an alternative fuel at the airframe level is also required.

One way to gain approval for the airframe is through a supplemental type certificate (STC). We plan to cover STCs thoroughly in the coming months, but the short explanation is the STC is an approval issued by the FAA to modify an airframe, engine, or propeller. Any entity can issue an STC, including an aircraft OEM, maintenance provider, or third party, granted they have satisfied the requirements set forth therein.

The FAA maintains a searchable STC database and can identify terms like UL94, unleaded fuel, avgas, etc. One can also download the entirety as a .zip file.

The Players

Swift Fuels is the manufacturer of UL94. They have an STC for their fuel and will gladly sell you a copy. Currently, they are running a special introductory offer for their “FOREVER” Avgas STC Certificate for $100 each. While only approved on a select group of airframes and powerplants, it could be a good option for those wishing to transition now to unleaded fuels.

Swift is not the only player in unleaded fuel. Another aviation company is also gearing up to meet the rising demand for unleaded fuel. General Aviation Modifications Inc. (GAMI) in Ada, Oklahoma, is on the verge of a breakthrough in unleaded fuel. Once fully rolled out, may answer the lead question once and for all.

Founded in 1994 by two aerospace engineers, GAMI has made its mission to enhance and optimize fuel delivery systems for aircraft engines. Now, they embarked on their boldest plan to date, developing a direct unleaded replacement for 100LL.

Decades in the making, some of the most recognized names in aviation have aided the development of G100UL high octane unleaded avgas, including Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, which contributed to flight testing in the early phases. When awarded their initial STC in July 2021, GAMI chose the grandest stage to announce approval, EAA AirVenture.

G100UL contains no organometallic additives (like TEL, the tetraethyl lead in 100LL). Nor does it have scavenging agents (like the ethylene dibromide required to scavenge the deposits formed by the TEL in 100LL). As a direct result of this, G100UL burns exceedingly clean, with essentially no deposits formed in the combustion chamber. The result is reduced maintenance, better spark plug health, and increased intervals for oil changes.

Recently, I spent some time talking with GAMI president Tim Roehl. He said GAMI is poised and ready to complete the fleet-wide certification and provide the GA industry with high octane, unleaded fuel. 

G100UL offers tremendous advantages in engine maintenance and higher reliability. GAMI expects to complete the fleet-wide certification around mid-2022 and begin the production and distribution of the G100UL soon. The manufacture and distribution of G100UL will be handled by Avfuel, with a nationwide network of dealers.

What About New Aircraft?

Above, we discussed the retro fitment of aircraft to accept unleaded avgas. Would it not be simple if an aircraft manufacturer just produced an aircraft type certificated with unleaded avgas?

One manufacturer is paving the way to do just that. Enter the Cirrus SR22T. 

Armed with the Continental Motors TSIO-550-K powerplant, the SR22T is years ahead of its peers concerning unleaded fuels. The TSIO-550-K is already type-certificated for unleaded fuel. Type certificate data sheet No. E5SO states under the section “Fuel:” (Min. Grade Aviation Gasoline) 100 or 100LL per ASTM D910, RH95/130, or B95/130 CIS, ASTM D7592 (UL94).

So, no STC, no modifications, no additional paperwork, just preflight the aircraft, fill the tanks, and go, right? Well, it is not that simple. 

The engine TC lists UL94, but the SR22T airframe: Type certificate data sheet A00009CH lists under Fuel 100/100LL minimum grade aviation gasoline. No mention of UL94. Confusing?

Stay Tuned

Things are far from settled at Reid-Hillview Airport. Nor is the path forward on unleaded fuel crystal clear. There are a lot of unknowns that continue to develop as we dive deeper into this topic. Most will agree that lead is harmful to people, pets, or plants. The question of if it is beneficial for an airplane is also the topic of spirited debate.

Pilots, maintainers, and aircraft owners face some tough decisions when it comes time to transition from 100LL to unleaded avgas alternative. Airframe and powerplant manufacturers face equally daunting choices. The stakes are high. Health, environmental, financial, and other mitigating factors all come into play. Currently, there is no clear answer, although G100UL looks very promising. The only thing anyone can say with certainty is that it will take a concerted effort by regulators, manufacturers, and aircraft operators to work together to find an amicable solution for all.

The post When the Sun Sets on 100LL, Will You Be Ready? appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

GE Aviation has announced a partnership with NASA to develop advanced engine cores for single-aisle aircraft. The move is part of GE’s effort to make commercial flight more sustainable.

GE has been awarded contracts as part of NASA’s Hybrid Thermally Efficient Core (HyTEC) project, totalling nearly $20 million for advanced engine core development. NASA and GE plan to ground test a new engine core as early as the mid-2020s.

“The HyTEC project further expands GE Aviation’s partnership with NASA on the future of flight with our shared commitment to accelerate the introduction of technologies that reduce the environmental impact of commercial aviation and make a step-change reduction in fuel burn,” said Mohamed Ali, vice president of engineering for GE Aviation, in a statement Wednesday.

The focus of this development is to create a more compact and efficient engine core design, including the testing of compressors, high-pressure turbine technologies, heat-resistant materials, and the continued development of ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) to increase fuel efficiency and decrease emissions.

GE has previously been awarded NASA contracts under the HyTEC program in 2020, focusing on next-generation turbofan engines.

“We are grateful for NASA’s confidence in GE Aviation as a partner to co-develop sustainable technology solutions, including new aircraft engine cores and hybrid electric powertrains that are critical elements of our CFM RISE Program,” Ali said.

GE Aviation and CFM International’s Revolutionary Innovation for Sustainable Engines (RISE) program began developing compact engine core designs in June 2021 to bolster technology maturation efforts to increase propulsive and thermal efficiency. The partnership also seeks to create innovations that are compatible with alternative energy, such as hybrid and hydrogen fuels.

The post GE Aviation, NASA Partner to Develop Compact Engine Core appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

An important achievement has been completed in the Catalyst turboprop program: GE Aviation announced Thursday the first flight of its clean-sheet design on a Beechcraft King Air test bed in Berlin, Germany.

The one-hour, 40-minute flight departed Berlin’s Schönefeld Airport yesterday morning after completing ground run tests on September 27.

“The first flight was very successful. I must say, everything went flawlessly,” said Sigismond Monnet, chief test pilot for the program. “We actually flew longer than planned, and the engine performed as we expected. I look forward to proceeding with the flight test campaign and expanding the Catalyst’s flight envelope.”

The FADEC engine is targeted to operate in the 850 to 1,600 shp range, depending on the platform. Its first mount will be the Beechcraft Denali, from Textron Aviation, for which it’s projected to produce 1,300 shp and run on sustainable aviation fuel.

With FADEC, a single-lever power and prop control will allow pilots to operate the turboprop much like a turbofan powerplant.

The development program also illuminates the state of collaboration between FAA and EASA regulatory agencies, with concurrent testing taking place in the E.U. and U.S.

“As the first turboprop ever fully designed, developed and built in Europe in the last half-century, the Catalyst engine is an ITAR-free product also available for military applications,” said Pierfederico Scarpa, vice president of marketing and sales for Avio Aero, GE Aviation’s partner in the project. “In this scope, Catalyst has not only technological maturity, but also outstanding performances being confirmed by an ongoing validation and certification process.”

The news advances the Denali program significantly: “This is a tremendous moment for the Catalyst engine,” said Paul Corkery, general manager of GE Aviation Turboprops. “It is the result of huge efforts by our brilliant team to bring this engine out of the test cell and onto the King Air Flying Test Bed.

“We’re very encouraged by preliminary data from the first flight,” Corkery continued, “and we’re looking forward to continued flight testing on this revolutionary turboprop engine, alongside our launch customer, Textron, that is heading the same way with their Beechcraft Denali prototype.”

The post Catalyst Engine Reaches Big Step appeared first on FLYING Magazine.

In May 2020, Tecnam announced the pending certification of the update to the P2010 series, the P2010TDI. With a 170-hp Continental CD-170 engine up front, the version offers an option for pilots who want the ability to operate on diesel or Jet-A. At EAA AirVenture 2021, the company announced the availability of the four-seat, metal-and-carbon-fiber composite single. The 215-hp original P2010 runs on avgas and remains available, as well as the 180-hp powerplant that uses unleaded automotive fuel. Up front, the P2010 hosts a Garmin G1000 NXi integrated flight deck and a GFC 700 autopilot.

The diesel version burns an average of 5.2 gph according to the company, with a 1,000-nm range (with 63 gallons of usable fuel on board), at about 130 ktas. Continental has delivered more than 6,000 of the 170 hp engine, with more than 1.7 million hours logged in service.

Tecnam also announced the availability of its latest update to the P92 Echo, the MkII, with an increased useful load of 610 pounds in the new version—which was blessed under EASA regulations last fall.

The company featured a much-expanded presence at AirVenture, with a 12,000-sq-ft display area and new members of the team to promote sales and customer service in the US. Industry veteran David Copeland has been named Director of Sales, and Ben Coleman is the new chief operating officer.

The post Tecnam Introduces Two New Model Updates at EAA AirVenture appeared first on FLYING Magazine.