Turbotech turboprop TP-R90 100kW

Turbotech has built the only 136hp turboprop with a very low fuel burn.

Check all the advantages of flying with the turboprop TP-R90 from Turbotech:

100kW – 136hp
Ultra-light (80kg full package)
Polyfuel
Very low fuel burn 19l/h 5GPH in cruise
High reliability – low maintenance cost

Available from Q4-2021

[PhilipFly]

If you watch the video, at 1:11, you will see a power of 72.88 kW = 98 HP and fuel flow of 32 litres/hour. So it will only produce about 58 HP when burning only 19 litres/hour.
That remains very impressive and is in the same ball park as the Rotax 915iS, producing that amount of power, but the Turbotech TP-R90 has the advantage of burning kerosene.
In Europe, kerosene is less than 1/2 the price of Mogas which the Rotax needs.
If it has turbine reliability and a TBO of 3, 000 hours then that will be an additional bonus.
There are just 2 questions:
1. How soon will it be available to purchase?
2. How much will it cost?

[pekkasiura]

I have been trying to find even one video of this engine running with it's own noise. If I want to hear music on it, I can find it myself elsewhere. Why destroy every video of the engine itself this way?

[gregjennings]

Suggest 180 HP or better for the US market. Maybe STC for the 172.

[j.barbier]

Cette turbine sur le skyleader ul39 albi 😍😍

[soconnoriv]

5 GPH is an impressive number for a 136hp engine. What power setting is the 5 GPH measured at?

[hotironaircraftshop]

This would be great for an RV-3. What's available in the vicinity of 200 HP for an RV-8?

[MikeMike-erkn]

19 lph is very low!
I would imagine this is at altitudes above 10 000 feet? Or even 20 000 feet?

[NewEngineType]

At time 1:02 it shows 1050 g/kwh at 9.58 kw. That is 1.76 LB/HP-hr, which is 4.14 times more than an IO-550 at lean of peak (30%) and 10.35 times more than NET. At time 1:10 it shows 349 g/kwh which is 0.586 LB/hp-hr which is 21.8% efficient. NET would be 3.44 times less fuel/hp in cruise and 2.75 times more at max power. 30%/21.8%= 1.37x more fuel/hp than an Io-550. This is not very good.

[hans-christianstuber]

Fantastic! Congratulations nice turbine

[Federico]

As long as 100LL price is as low as it is in the US hardly any new engine will ever see the daylight after development. I'm hoping this will happen in my lifetime but, unless some GA airplane manufacturer dares to sell one of its models equipped with such new engines (see Continental and Thielert/Austro) these gems will die in the testing facilities. Unless, of course, EU and Asia/Africa come up with an aggressive competition and outprices Cirrus and Textron altogether. Just my humble opinion though.

[ashsmitty]

I don’t understand why these new turbine companies don’t use a bladeless design ie Tesla turbine.

10kg = 200hp.

[j.muckafignotti]

Double the horsepower and I’ll buy one.

[daszieher]

Congratulations!
Now can you make it cheap?
("Rotax-cheap" would already be good enough)

[DanFrederiksen]

80kg isn't light though. Make a turbofan jet engine instead. Infinitely greater potential. Think about it. Smaller for twin config, simpler, lighter, quieter, more reliable, cheaper, faster, cooler. And the record for range belongs to an off the shelf turbofan engine.

[danizweifler]

vid = "available from // reality in Q4 of ? ? = a fairy many history of power plant