Caravan Honeywell TPE331 conversion

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, I WAS Birddog

Rudy
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1171
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 10:00 am
Location: N. Ont

Post by Rudy »

I found some info on a twinpack Caravan that was called the Soloy Pathfinder 21. It has (had) two PT6-114's. Here's what wiki has to say about it's fate:
Soloy has manufactured one Pathfinder 21 that first flew in 1995 and gained its Supplementary Type Certificate in 1997, but it is believed that the aircraft has not flown since 1999. Soloy was attempting to obtain a conversion certification from the FAA, however, after completing over 80 percent of the certification work Soloy announced that they were halting the entire program. The CEO explained that the FAA requires aircraft with over 9 passengers to have the airframe meet tougher restrictions required by FAR Part 25, which isn't possible since the base aircraft, the Cessna 208 does not meet those requirements. This requirement makes it unfeasable to market the airplane as the expanded passenger cabin is a major reason for the stretch to begin with.

I also did some reading on the Honeywell conversion. Apparently it's flat rated to 850 shp and allows a 360 lbs upgross.
---------- ADS -----------
 
The Hammer
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:46 am

Post by The Hammer »

Soloy Pathfinder 21 is the name of the heavily modified Caravan with 2 engines and one prop. Not exactly new tech. as helicopters have been doing it for decades. (which soloy specializes in) I beleive they gave up because of economics and the Single engine IFR req'ts. ie factory installed powerplant.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Post by snaproll20 »

Dunno why people knock TPE 331 s
PT6 is great, Garrett is great, it just depends what you want them for.
Nobody has mentioned the instant reverse you would get with the 331 compared to the PT6 lull through ground idle.

Sometimes I dream about a Twin Otter with spoilers and a couple of 331 dash 12s.
---------- ADS -----------
 
snaproll20
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:50 pm

Post by snaproll20 »

Dunno why people knock the Garrett.
PT6 and TPE331, both great engines, depends what you need them for.

The 1900 would be a better airplane with Garretts, fuel-wise.

How about the instant reverse of the Garrett on a Caravan?

Sometimes I dream about a Twin Otter with spoilers and a couple of TPE331 dash 12s Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
---------- ADS -----------
 
. .
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2670
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:53 am

Post by . . »

Ali G,



If a wing will not fly because of contamination, it will not fly. It doesn't matter how many horses you put on it. If the wing isn't flying, it is a rocket.


Remember the lift equation? More speed, even on a degraded wing will always produce more lift. So it stands to reason that for an equally contaminated wing, the plane going 15kts faster is producing more lift.

L = Cl * A * .5 * r * V^2

Velocity is the only part of the equation that changes as squared function. So it can be very clearly seen that even small increases in airspeed produce large changes in lift. So with that said it's easy to see that an extra 10-15kts could very well be the difference that allows you to continue flying long enough to turn around or climb/descend out of the ice.

If you were to work the equation, an increase from 100kts to 115kts provides a 30% increase in lift. So as mentioned before, what seems like trivial speed gain would actually be a big help in a poor situation.


Let me ask you this? Where is the danger zone?

The danger zone is very clearly defined in the POH, the caravan has minimum speeds in icing. The extra horespower would help keep you above those speeds.

Also, the 114a is capable of producing more than 675 horsepower if needed in an emergency situation.It is only limited to 675 normally. YOu can get a lot more than 1865 ft/lbs if you need it "to stay out of the danger zone".


For 20 seconds you're permitted to pull 2400ft lbs of torque, you're putting a lot of strain on the reduction gear box on a single engine aircraft in IFR conditions. Sure would suck to lose your reduction gearbox when you're already taking a cruise up shit creek.



Increasing the airspeed 10-15 knots will not really effect the shedding that substantially. But by your logic, blowing them at 130 is better than 110.


That's entirely correct thinking, blowing the boots at 130kts is far more effecive than blowing the boots at 100 or 110kts. Have you ever tried blowing the boots at different speeds in the same icing conditions? Does it not make sense to you that the increased force of more air pulling on the cracked edges of the ice would pull more off?

One way to make the boots more effective is to increase ice-x intervals.

Agreed, fresh icex assists in allowing the airflow to more easily pull the ice from the wings.

Also, you'll let yourself down far less in life if you can expect the least from people. That way you'll very rarely be disappointed.

:wink:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

If you NEED more power on a Caravan, you're flying it outside it's design envelope.
The Caravan has two really BIG problems. 1. It only has one engine. This is HUGE! It can have 500, 675, or 1000 horsepower. Still, when the engine stops...it's a frikken glider! 2. It is not good in ice. Sorry endless, an extra few ponies in the "bow" ain't going to do anything but create false security, and have pilots going where they shouldn't go. You can quote all the "math" you want, but bottom line is.....if the wing wont fly, you're screwed!
Stay in touch with the fact it is usually flown by fairly low time drivers.
Sorry Cat, but if you need to use the "chop and drop" technique as you describe, you're again, where you shouldn't be?
I wouldn't touch the mod. Fly the airplane the way it was designed to be flown, and you will find the power it came with from the factory will get the job done. If Cessna wants to send it from the factory with a higher gross and more HP, then great.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Ali G
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Staring into the Abyss.

Post by Ali G »

Endless....you still can't see.


Velocity is the only part of the equation that changes as squared function. So it can be very clearly seen that even small increases in airspeed produce large changes in lift. So with that said it's easy to see that an extra 10-15kts could very well be the difference that allows you to continue flying long enough to turn around or climb/descend out of the ice.

I vaguely remember some of these crazy science notions you discuss. Velocity is only part of the equation. You said it. What about the coefficient of lift? How does that react with ice? Does it stay constant with contamination? At some point the Cl starts to decrease (the longer you stay in it)....you won't have enough speed. Hence, no lift.

Where are you going to get this extra 10-15kts from? Overtorquing your new STC 900 hp? It is the same as going transient on the 675. My point is most pilots will set the max cruise power and then later, figure out that they are getting into trouble at 130 kts or whatever. Then, there is nowhere for them to go but 'radar power'.

I am all for more horses, it will be great for the van. However, it won't cure any icing problems.

The danger zone is very clearly defined in the POH, the caravan has minimum speeds in icing. The extra horespower would help keep you above those speeds.
My point, Endless, is that a pilot already had that extra horsepower with the 675. Either way, they will be at the max power setting and will have to go 'Transient' when they get into trouble.

The best thing to do would be to slap that engine in there, limit it to 675, and then there would be alot more 'transient' power to get em out of a shitty situation. That would be helpful. Not the extra 20 knots cruising (which robs us of .1 on our cat lake turn). Or, giving 900hp just for the climb.

I agree with you that blowing the boots at higher airspeeds will result in better shedding.

Here is what I said about the boots
Increasing the airspeed 10-15 knots will not really effect the shedding that substantially. But by your logic, blowing them at 130 is better than 110. They still stink and you shouldn't be back at those speeds in cruise anyway

The danger zone was written by lawyers to pin all responsibility on the pilot. It is there so that the manufacturer and owners won't be liable for icing accidents from here on out. Cessna's largest customers are couriers, so rather than replace their fleet, they can still dispatch at 99% and pile them in too, then they can replace them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Ali G on Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:09 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Booyakasha!
User avatar
Ali G
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Staring into the Abyss.

Post by Ali G »

I totally agree with you, Doc. But I didn't finish typing before you did. :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
Booyakasha!
. .
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2670
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:53 am

Post by . . »

I agree that the coefficent of lift decreases with a contaminated wing, but this still doesn't change what I'm saying.

With the very same amount of contamination on the wing, the plane with the 900hp engine is going the quoted 10-15kts faster and that means it's producing more lift (30% more if you're down to 100kts on the -114a). I'd rather run a single engine plane at max continious and get 900hp for 15-30min then put the -114a to it's transient limit while you're in cloud to achieve the same power. When you're talking about putting the -114a into the transient for awhile you're talking about writing off a very expensive engine. What's a new -114a worth, 500,000 for an overhauled one? With the engine that's actually rated for 900hp you're talking about normal operations.


I do agree that this is not the solution to the caravan's woes in ice. I never stated that this would be the silver bullet, I only said that it would help. I think you could agree with that?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

You keep smoking that weird shit there, endless. It's five o'clock somewhere!
---------- ADS -----------
 
. .
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2670
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:53 am

Post by . . »

Doc,

As usual you shine at proving you're incapable of joining a relevant and serious discussion. It baffles my mind that you can complain about the quality of posts when you can't bring even the slightest bit to the table yourself.

bravo.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
complexintentions
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2186
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2004 3:49 pm
Location: of my pants is unknown.

Post by complexintentions »

I'm with Cat...those TPE331's on MU2's got me into places in BC I wouldn't have tried in anything else...the ability to get down in a hurry is just as important as the ability to go up in mountain IFR...
---------- ADS -----------
 
I’m still waiting for my white male privilege membership card. Must have gotten lost in the mail.
twotter
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:28 am

Post by twotter »

endless wrote:Doc,

As usual you shine at proving you're incapable of joining a relevant and serious discussion. It baffles my mind that you can complain about the quality of posts when you can't bring even the slightest bit to the table yourself.

bravo.
Except experience in the real world.. How long have you been at this business now endless? It seems like only yesterday you were still in school.

Reminds me of the old saying: Hire them while they are still young, and know everything.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Ali G
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Apr 12, 2006 7:06 am
Location: Staring into the Abyss.

Post by Ali G »

Doc,

You still don't get it. Take some time to think about it.

G
---------- ADS -----------
 
Booyakasha!
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

Hey Ali...."I totally agree with you, Doc."
Then...."You still don't get it...."
Well, which is it?

endless....at least when I disagree with you, I don't go spouting off on a personal level.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Doc on Sun Apr 22, 2007 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
flyinphil
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 570
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:26 pm

Post by flyinphil »

"endless" is in left field. Practical application, ergo experience, is obviously missing in his comments. I am seeing a government pension in his future....
---------- ADS -----------
 
. .
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2670
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:53 am

Post by . . »

Doc wrote:You keep smoking that weird shit there, endless. It's five o'clock somewhere!
Yah you'd never get personal doc. Don't remember what you posted 8hrs before in the same thread. Short and very selective memory i guess.
---------- ADS -----------
 
. .
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2670
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 12:53 am

Post by . . »

twotter and phil,

You don't agree that if the same plane had the same amount of ice on the wings, the plane that was going 10-15kts faster has more lift? The coefficient of lift on both planes would be equally degraded, so the only difference would be speed in the equation. So what part of the equation do you guys not understand?


I never said that the caravan would become some super beast in the ice. I simply said that it would improve it's abilities in ice, and i stand by that statement.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

I say again.

Keep pounding sunshine that more horsepower will make the 'van "better" in ice, and ya know what will happen? Some young guy will actually believe you! He'll enter ice, and stay there...and die. Because "somebody said he could"......no way....learn the immediate one hundred and eighty degree turn! And fly your airplane the way it was intended to be flown.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver »

Sorry Cat, but if you need to use the "chop and drop" technique as you describe, you're again, where you shouldn't be?
Mornin Doc, there are times when the slam dunk is very useful when flying one of these mechanically driven contraptions, especially out here in the mountains.

Try this one....one day Vancouver cleared me for the approach to Terrace I was at 210 and 16 miles from the Kitimat NDB.

We were humpin right along with a GS of over 250 knots.

I had no problem with a slam dunk down and straight in.

We were flying regularly into many airports between Alaska and California and those Garretts hung on a 690B made it a dream machine for start down get down.

And if you came out here I could give you some help getting used to this enviorement if you bring your King Air I could demonstrate how to do this I would feather one and do barrel rolls around you in your KA.....all you would need to do is follow me. Then you could go back to the flat land and teach Endless so you two could be friends. :finga:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Cat Driver on Sun Apr 22, 2007 9:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
twotter
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1481
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 11:28 am

Post by twotter »

endless, you didn't answer my question. How much real world experience do you have?

The only thing more speed will do in icing is give you the ability to turn around and get out of it quicker.. No efficient airfoil=falling out of the sky.. At any speed.

While I think the garrett engine could be a good thing for the caravan, I certainly don't think it will solve it's icing problems.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PT6-114A
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 8:06 am
Location: I love the south

Post by PT6-114A »

We all have to remember doc told us all that he is the only one on here that has any real time the rest of us are all 200 hour wonders and dont know anything. So doc have ater buddy tell us all how is done big guy :finga:
---------- ADS -----------
 
bandit1
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 9:56 am

Post by bandit1 »

A PT6 has plenty ''braking action'' for steep approaches.

Anyone that has flown a Porter will tell you that. However some people cheat with a little beta but it's hard on the gearbox, especially the -20's
---------- ADS -----------
 
ei ei owe
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 793
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 1:39 am
Location: getting closer to home

Post by ei ei owe »

I don't fly the van but have a little time in metros (in both II's and III's). Given that the metro II and III are basically identical on so many levels there's been more than once that we've been in ice and climbed out in the III whereas in the II our best option was to descend. Don't start harping on me about climbing in ice because I know it's usually the best option but at 190 in Manitoba, we can descend to 15000 and melt it all off without a problem. All I'm getting at is for an equal wing (basically) the extra ponies on either side helped us out. I believe that would be the case with the van as well if one were in unforecasted, unreported, got-caught-with-your-pants-down-icing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Everything comes in threes....
Doc
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 9241
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:28 am

Post by Doc »

PT6-114A, I never said anything even remotely like that. I can't help what you read into things.

Cat, I can certainly see the value of that in a 690B. Or a Metro. Been known to get a Metro going down hill really fast into JFK a few times! But then, I don't have to deal with big rocky hills! But if you're at 210, with 16 to go, in a Caravan......ooops.
A 690B vs. a Be20? I've been known to cheat. Win or loose, it would be a hoot!
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”