PT6-20 Cessna U206

[vpjr 18]

Thank you very much. That looks so cool. I spent some time trying to put the Kodiak nose on the front of some clip art and It looked like crap.

[pilotdave 0]

Ahh, kodiak woulda been a good idea. I started with porters, but they are too boxy. So I went with the caravan (that one isn't using its PT6 anymore!) since I have so many pics of it. But the exhaust is actually from an Epic. Well, a microsoft flight simulator model of an Epic. Didn't even notice I wasn't working with a real photograph until after i was done.
Dave

[vpjr 18]

If or when this goes fwd it would use a King Air 90 cowl. I like how Cessna put the air intake and oil cooler scoops on the side to reduce FOD and having the exhaust exit one side reduces the exhaust in the open door problem. Just found 2 -20s with 0 since hot for $110,000 for the pair. An IO-550N conversion for the F model 206 is $63,000

[pilotdave 0]

Ok, I have located a king air cowl for you, but you're gonna have to repaint it yourself...

Dave

[pilotdave 0]

By request...

Dave

[vpjr 18]

Saw pictures of a 205 converted to taildragger. Saves #40 lbs. But after the 35-40 landings a day possible with the Turbine I think I would want a nosewheel or another pilot.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Quote

If or when this goes fwd it would use a King Air 90 cowl. I like how Cessna put the air intake and oil cooler scoops on the side to reduce FOD and having the exhaust exit one side reduces the exhaust in the open door problem. Just found 2 -20s with 0 since hot for $110,000 for the pair. An IO-550N conversion for the F model 206 is $63,000

I'm confused... at first blush, I'd agree that a King Air cowl would give a cooler looking nose and with the underslung air-intake, gives potential for a cool shark's teeth paint job, but I'm pretty sure King Airs still exhast both sides, not just one side?

Also, don't most 206 turbine converstions plumb the exhasut stacks down and out the bottom... sorta-kinda where the cowl flaps are (were)? At least that's what I thinnk I've seen in pictures.

Not that I go looking for them or anything, but I think I've only ever seen one turbine converstion 206/207 ever in the States. They seem to be more of an oddity here then in Europe. What am I missing?

[vpjr 18]

I would prefer the Caravan style intake and exhaust system. Just the -20 has the exhaust on each side and the King air style cowl provides visibility and location for the air and oil cooler intake. the Soloy has a diffent location for the exhaust. Now the 207 has an extension fwd of the original firewall so Soloy had to create this huge aluminum structure to hold the engine. The engineering would be cost prohibitive. the Soloy mark II looks even better just what is the cost.

[riggerrob 643]

Your photo is of a Soloy conversion, which uses an Allison/Rolls Royce engine that vents exhaust out the bottom.

Sorry, but only a couple of versions of PT6A route all waste gases out a single exhaust, they are installed on Cessna Caravans and Twin Hueys.
That is the primary limitation to installing more powerful turbine engines in Caravans: the exhaust stack configuration.

Note that Kodiak uses - the more common - double exhaust stack configuration and JSPTC jump-masters complained about excessive fumes in the cabin their first season. Last thing I heard JSPTC were working with Kodiak engineers to improve cabin ventilation.

[vpjr 18]

Dropped off my U206F to begin the PT6 -20 conversion. More to come.

[keithbar 1]

sweet

i have on occasion been accused of pulling low . My response. Naw I wasn't low I'm just such a big guy I look closer than I really am .

[mjosparky 4]

Quote

Dropped off my U206F to begin the PT6 -20 conversion. More to come.

Will they have it done in time for next weekend?

Sparky

My idea of a fair fight is clubbing baby seals

[vpjr 18]

My standard answer has been 2 weeks. Best guess is 6 months to mod then 6 months to get the STC. 1 year.

[vpjr 18]

The conversion process is still going forward. The holidays took some of the time but now the engine is off and the controls and instruments are removed. It will have a LCD engine instrument panel from Electronics International http://www.buy-ei.com/Pages/MVPT/MVP-50T_Overview.html . I am posting pictures of the project on http://picasaweb.google.com/VanPrayJr/DropBox# for those who want to follow the progress. Also see the blog and sign up for the news letter at www.aerialtransport.com Rhinoplasty!!

[JohnDeere 0]

Quote

The conversion process is still going forward. The holidays took some of the time but now the engine is off and the controls and instruments are removed. It will have a LCD engine instrument panel from Electronics International http://www.buy-ei.com/Pages/MVPT/MVP-50T_Overview.html . I am posting pictures of the project on http://picasaweb.google.com/VanPrayJr/DropBox# for those who want to follow the progress. Also see the blog and sign up for the news letter at www.aerialtransport.com Rhinoplasty!!

Nothing opens like a Deere!

You ignorant fool! Checks are for workers!

[Skydive2 1]

thanks for the updates Van! Looking really forward to seeing the finished product!


Lance

[riggerrob 643]

How much will the conversion change the empty weight?

[vpjr 18]

We will have to see. It is easy to do the quick calcs and say we know but you see how well all those guys at Boeing and EADS do at calculating the numbers. I know that the T34A to C model they added weight to the front end, the Porter they moved it Fwd. I always say put the battery in last to get the CG in. The short figures show it lighter than the piston but after cowl who knows. The individual I am working with spent a lot of money making light weight cowls for other turbine conversions then had to add weight.

[ZigZagMarquis 9]

Thanks for the update, Junior and am looking forward to hearing more on how the progress goes.

I'd be more than happy to be on the second load when she's up and flying.

[riggerrob 643]

Yes, PT-6A usually turns out lighter than the piston engine it replaces.
For example, the first Pilatus Porters were built with Lycoming GSO-480 or IGO-540 piston engines, but when Pilatus installed turbo-prop engines, they had to lengthen engine mounts to balance the airplane.

Most ag-plane conversions also include longer engine mounts.

The most extreme conversion was the DeHavilland factory redesign of the Turbo-Beaver, where they added an entire row of (two or three) seats - forward of the wing - to balance the airplane.

[DemoKarl 0]

Van,
Is this aircraft available for lease?

[vpjr 18]

Not built yet. it is in the initial stages of destruction / build up. Then STC approval. The plan is to have the aircraft out of Mod July, STC Jan 11. Then I will have 1 aircraft for demonstration and offer conversion kits.

[totter 2]

Quote

I always say put the battery in last to get the CG in

Do you plan on using a larger battery, say a Gill G-6381? They way about 70-80 pounds each.
When they converted the DHC-3 single otter to a turbine they moved the battery firewall forward and actually added a second battery, wired in parallel, to keep the airframe in CG.
It also makes for really good starts. With -34s we get 20-22% at spool-up just on batteries.

[vpjr 18]

That is currently in discussion. We will wait for the final configuration W/B to see what we need. Most Skydiving operators have a start cart so I was leaning to lighter weight of 1 battery. Other types of operators like float plane, or Bush flying would benifit more from the 48V system. I want the APU plug on the right side of the engine cowl. Should I isolate the internal battery from the cart or parallel the internal like a king air? I have had a lot of skydivers help pull the plug early on the Otters. I dont know how the 48V system would handle it.

[totter 2]

Quote

I dont know how the 48V system would handle it.

When the batteries are wired in parallel you still only have 24 volts, but you benefit from the increase in amperage.
We can do upwards of 10-12 starts in a day and never use external power.
Like you stated, though, it all depends on weight and balance.

Quote

Should I isolate the internal battery from the cart or parallel the internal like a king air?

I should see if I can copy some drawing for you from the Single Turbine Otter.
The way the Otter is wired you can start the aircraft with External Power plugged in and the Battery ON.
External Power uses the small Pin A to close the relay. The generator comes on line, by its self, after start, but remains isolated from the BUS until external power is pulled.
This gives you the additional boost from external power, for start, but also acts like a Fail Safe if external should fail during start. And unlike the King Air and Twin Otters you don't blow out the electrical system by bringing the generators ON LINE with extrernal plugged in.