Just started my PT6-20 U206F project. Airframe and money dropped off, engine to be supplied by me Jan 1st. Luckily the engine is sitting in my garage already. Any one have experience with the Soloy 206? The increased HP should alow me to remove the wing extensions so I can get the plane into a 40 x 40 barn while carring the same weight off a little strip. Would it be cheaper just to build a new barn? Not as fun.

Never seen one with a PT6, and always thought it would be a much cooler bird with one on there than the noisy @$$ brand "A" or "G" ones I have seen...
What flavor PT6?
Sounds like a hoot, Take care, Rob

I am assuming this plane is going to get reregistered as experimental?

A PT-6 on a 206? Whoaa! I wasn't aware that there's an stc for that.

I have flown two Soloy converted 206s and they are rocket ships.

The big down side to ANY turbine conversion on one of these airplanes is fuel capacity vs burn. The Allison engine on the Soloy conversion burns 26 to 28 gph if I recall, which is ten gph more than the stock engine.

The PT-6-20 is more like 35 or more gph, so you're looking at a two hour endurance with a minimal reserve, assuming you start with full 92 gallon tanks in a G model. If its an F, less fuel capacity to start.

Gross weight is also an issue. The only GW increases for these engines is the wing extensions, either the Wing X or the Flint tanks, I believe, unless the stc for the PT 6 includes a higher GW. The Soloy conversion doesn't for the 206. That was one of the mistakes that Soloy made when the modified the 206. SHould have gone to 4000 lbs like they did on the 207 conversion.

MTV

I will use the -20. Range is an issue for some but for my normal opps its just up and down. I think the float 206 guys dont really need range but would like the increase power for takeoff, cruise and LL Avgas avalability. I am shooting for full STC approval. Target date Jan 2011. I want to only ask 350 hp from the 579hp engine. Pratt claims .68lb/hp/h linear. If you pulled the power lever back to 140kt cruise the burn would be 200hp = 200 hp/.68 * 6.7 = 20.3 gph. Flints offer the 200lb GW increase. My wing Xs dont have a GW increase (Stock 3600lb with a 1750 payload) but with the piston I didnt want more weight in the plane just a better wing.

Did you do any off field ops with the Soloy? If so how was the performance improvements for Takeoff and climb vs the piston brother? Did you need the range?

The only Soloy converted 206s I flew were amphibians. Range and payload were significant factors there.

Takeoff and climb performance are nothing short of stunning, compared to ANYthing.

Soloy's proof of concept aircraft was a 185. He never stc'd it, but that was the airplane that proved the viability and reliability of the gearbox. That thing was absolutely an amazing performer.

The PT-6 is also heavier than the Allison in the Soloy.

It will be interesting to see if you can turn that theoretical fuel burn into reality. Keep us posted.

MTV

Skydive,
I don't mean to be a parade rainer but you got excess time on your hands this winter or just feeling board?
I know what your after because I did it but jeez your looking a big mountain in the face on this one.
Here's some thoughts for you.

They already have that, pretty much; Pilatus Porter, Cresco, PAC 750 XL, Single Otter, Short Caravan, Kodiak, Soloy 206, TurboTech 350 horse piston (bad, but it's there). So you're kinda re-skinning the cat and the poor thing is kinda wore out now. You're in the 6 to 10 place world and most of those have the option of hauling more if necessary to make more money.

If you're gonna do it you might as well look into a 207 instead (which brings you even closer to a Caravan) to offset the added operational costs. Might as well haul more if you can for the same engine purchase costs, maintenance costs, fuel burn and certification investment.

You are figuring the cruise burns. We both know that it isn't going to be throttled back on the way up. It'll be pulling every bit of power I pulled in some tired -20 Porters and Otters and will burn the same fuel. Probably 40-45 gallons an hour average holding it to 680 in the climb.

Overall -20's are gettin' old and tired. I've done cheaper hot's on my -34 than you can do on a -20 due to the air cooled vanery. Watch using the old shit 'cause it looks cheap on the front end. Pre-Century Garrett's are cheap too and there's a reason!

The Cessna airframe is fairly durable overall (my 180 has almost 9000 hours on it and looks good) but watch putting lots of pony's on them and working the snot out of them. Those rivets start working faster than you think.
I used to fly jumpers in a 195 with a 450 horse R-985 on it and we had some issues. Not major but the occasional re-buck of some rivets.

You may look into a Brazilian Cessna 195 that had a Garrett put on it. If you can find them they might give some input into problems they had either up front or long term. I saw pic's of that thing like almost 20 years ago. Probably crashed it by now, looked WAY TOO FUN!

There is a 400 horse Lycoming IO-720 conversion certified on Cessna Ag Trucks and Ag Husky's. I don't know the finer points of firewall differences but you might look into that as your possible H.P. instead. But like I said, if you're going to 13,500 with this thing you'll be down to around 350 at the top anyway, less if it's wasted.

If you're just looking to do this for fun, cool. But if you want to work something and make money without pulling your hair out with the feds and spending an ass load of money on certification for a VERY limited market sales potential, think about this. Take all this time and money and buy a Caravan or Porter and use the rest of the money to go advertise for tandems, sell your ass off and crank some numbers next summer! Pay the bills, have something you can sell to a broad market and spend the rest of the time on vacation.

But let me know how it goes.
My 2 cents.

Sweet looking turbine 195 based in Brazil


...hauling skydivers to 12,000 feet in 9 minutes.


Based in Brazil

I was hoping to see the 195 take off

A Very nicely done conversion.... The cowl looks great. I would love to see the cowling off to see how they shoe horned that motor in there.... Very Sanitary.

I doubt there was much shoehorning at all... you'd be surprised at how tiny a turbine really is

Meet N 754, a Garrett converted Beaver:



Otherwise known as Pinochio..

And, it climbs like nothing you've ever seen.

MTV

I saw this Turbine 206 at a fly-in fishing camp my buddy owns. It has an Allison rated at 420 hp. I didn't see it fly, but my buddy says it performs very well on the amphibs its on. That plane had to have the engine examined and the prop replaced shortly after I took this pic. He was leaving a dock on a windy day, solo, and before the prop could start biting air the wind swung it so that the prop nicked the dock. He completed his flight and noticed some chunks missing from the prop tips. He is getting a new five blade prop. The plane is based in Sudbury, Ontario.

I don't know why the post above cut the nose of the plane off, so here is the nose.

That 3rd blade on the prop is hiding pretty good. it is a 3 blade prop, right?

58Skylane wrote:That 3rd blade on the prop is hiding pretty good. it is a 3 blade prop, right?

Yup, three blade prop.

Those turbines take a while to spool up so that the prop can start to bite air. I know how tricky it can be to get away from a dock on a windy day when you don't have someone holding the strut until the motor fires up. At least with a recip you get instant wind when the motor starts.

Either that or seriously out of balance.

Thanks 58! That's the one. Never even really thought of looking for it on the web. I saw the pics in 1992 or 1993 before I was net savvy. She looks good and seemingly is not wrecked after all! In the immortal words of Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction, "It's the one that says Bad Motherf*#!er on it"!

Notice that the whole wing has been changed on the thing. A more cuffed leading edge, the flaps are MUCH larger and now appear to be fowler, not split and the tips are more squared and flush ends not rounded and tapered. I wonder what they did inside of them that we can't see!

For the one that was wondering about the shoehorning, I can assure you that the little Garrett in there can pretty much be carried under your arm. There's only about three and half feet or so of engine in the front of the cowling. The rest is exhaust augmentor tube and empty space. Notice the expeimental category classification.

Skydive,
After your initial investment of whatever crazy amount of money to get one certified how much are you figuring per copy?
I'm thinking around $200 to $250k depending on the particular airframe and engine combo. I would say the estimated conversion time once a shop got two or three done and got into a flow with all of the pieces sitting there would be around three months with three guys working on it.
Are you planning on using an existing engine mount and making an attatch section or making a whole new setup? If you haven't thought of them yet you might consider Kosola to build your mounts. They have done many one-off custom builds. Good people. If you get the chance take a look at the Mills Ag-Cat turbine conversion. It is basically firewall forward off of a King Air with a small custom attatch section built to mate the Ag-Cat firewall to the rear end of the King Air mount. Might save you some time.
I would really consider the 207 for this after further thought. I believe that the longer fuselage will keep you from having to run with ballast in the tail. No sense carrying extra shit around with you that does no good. Being that you will be going one direction with the pilot only I think it would be really hard to get the engine and batteries close enough to the firewall to not be out of CG forward with only the pilot and fuel. If you've already run the numbers and it works, never mind, but just eyeballing it with what I've flown I'm thinking that forward is gonna be the case.
Another thought with the fueling issue is that you should get a single point fueling system approved while you do the rest of the work now. That'll make it faster and safer than climbing up a ladder to fuel especially when running. The ones in Ag range from really simple to really complex with options to fill one tank at a time and increased venting capacity to prevent stretching the tanks. Start at Turbine Conversions website in Michigan. There's is the complex but thorough model. I'm thinking that you'll be fueling like 8 times in a full day. Saving two minutes per fueling will get you a free load at the end of the day.
You thinking 15 minute turns to 13,500, wheels off to wheels off? Max - 24 heads an hour. Fueling for five loads. With the single point you might even be able to average 15 minute turns over the day if you had a pilot that was efficient about arriving at the spot at the correct altitude EVERY time. He might get the middle loads down to 14 or so minutes and that extra minute would get you your fueling time.
One other thought I had was insurance. In general one point for a Caravan over a Porter is insurance in part due to the nosewheel (and lack of beta-cam) BUT insurance companies sometimes don't like unusual stuff at first. You might check with your underwriter and run some numbers with them on such a project and see how the first five or so years of insurance would be in comparison to a Porter or Caravan. Might still be a lot better but safer to ask.