Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Dynamic Stability and Performance Implications of Piston-to-Turboprop Engine Modernization of a Light Aircraft for General Aviation Cover

The Dynamic Stability and Performance Implications of Piston-to-Turboprop Engine Modernization of a Light Aircraft for General Aviation

Transactions on Aerospace Research
Volume 2024 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)
By: Ewa Marcinkiewicz  
Open Access
|Sep 2024

Figures & Tables

Fig. 1.

The I-23 Manager driven by a low-power piston engine and a 2-blade propeller.
The I-23 Manager driven by a low-power piston engine and a 2-blade propeller.

Fig. 2.

Side, front and top views of the aircraft after transition to the turboprop version, designated I-31T.
Side, front and top views of the aircraft after transition to the turboprop version, designated I-31T.

Fig. 3.

Comparison of the top views of the two engine-variants of the aircraft, with the difference in the XY-cross-section surface area shown in green.
Comparison of the top views of the two engine-variants of the aircraft, with the difference in the XY-cross-section surface area shown in green.

Fig. 4.

Comparison of the side views of the two engine-variants of the aircraft, with the difference in the XZ-cross-section surface area shown in red.
Comparison of the side views of the two engine-variants of the aircraft, with the difference in the XZ-cross-section surface area shown in red.

Fig. 5.

Plot of derivatives of static pitch stability coefficient as a function of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Plot of derivatives of static pitch stability coefficient as a function of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 6.

Comparison of derivatives of lift coefficient with respect to rate of change of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Comparison of derivatives of lift coefficient with respect to rate of change of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 7.

Changes in derivatives of pitching moment coefficient with respect to rate of change of angle of attack as a function of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Changes in derivatives of pitching moment coefficient with respect to rate of change of angle of attack as a function of angle of attack for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 8.

Variation in derivatives of the dimensionless lift coefficient (Cz) with respect to pitch rate (q) for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Variation in derivatives of the dimensionless lift coefficient (Cz) with respect to pitch rate (q) for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 9.

Changes in stability pitching moment coefficients with respect to the pitch rate for the aircraft driven by piston and turboprop engines.
Changes in stability pitching moment coefficients with respect to the pitch rate for the aircraft driven by piston and turboprop engines.

Fig. 10.

Comparison of side force coefficients variation with respect to sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Comparison of side force coefficients variation with respect to sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 11.

Differences in total values of rolling moment coefficients with respect to sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Differences in total values of rolling moment coefficients with respect to sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 12.

Graph showing the change of aerodynamic derivatives of yawing moment coefficients with sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Graph showing the change of aerodynamic derivatives of yawing moment coefficients with sideslip angle for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 13.

Top view of a simplified external geometry of the turboprop aircraft, with two characteristic points for the minimal static stability margin marked: the aft CG and N (for stick-fixed configuration) points.
Top view of a simplified external geometry of the turboprop aircraft, with two characteristic points for the minimal static stability margin marked: the aft CG and N (for stick-fixed configuration) points.

Fig. 14.

Assessment of short period for the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Assessment of short period for the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 15.

Comparison of eigenvalues corresponding the phugoid mode of the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Comparison of eigenvalues corresponding the phugoid mode of the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 16.

Dutch roll mode stability for the I-23 Manager and the I-31T.
Dutch roll mode stability for the I-23 Manager and the I-31T.

Fig. 17.

Assessment of rolling motion of the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Assessment of rolling motion of the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 18.

Analysis of spiral stability of the piston and turboprop aircraft.
Analysis of spiral stability of the piston and turboprop aircraft.

Fig. 19.

Evaluation of Phugoid mode characteristics according to ICAO Recommendation [13]. Comparison of results for the general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Evaluation of Phugoid mode characteristics according to ICAO Recommendation [13]. Comparison of results for the general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Fig. 20.

Evaluation of Short Period mode in regard to recommendation of Military Specification MIL-F-8785C [49], by assessment of Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) [13]. Comparison of results for the chosen general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Evaluation of Short Period mode in regard to recommendation of Military Specification MIL-F-8785C [49], by assessment of Control Anticipation Parameter (CAP) [13]. Comparison of results for the chosen general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Fig. 21.

Evaluation of Dutch Roll mode with reference to U.S. Military Specification MIL-F-8785C [13,49]. Comparison of results for the chosen general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Evaluation of Dutch Roll mode with reference to U.S. Military Specification MIL-F-8785C [13,49]. Comparison of results for the chosen general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Fig. 22.

Assessment of aircraft handling qualities using the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale (CHRS): Pilot Opinion Boundaries for Roll Rate Evaluation, [13,50]. Comparison of results for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Assessment of aircraft handling qualities using the Cooper-Harper Rating Scale (CHRS): Pilot Opinion Boundaries for Roll Rate Evaluation, [13,50]. Comparison of results for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Fig. 23.

Time to double roll angle in spiral motion. Evaluation of spiral modes in relation to the recommendation given in MIL-F-8785C, [49]. Comparison of results in the high speed range for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Time to double roll angle in spiral motion. Evaluation of spiral modes in relation to the recommendation given in MIL-F-8785C, [49]. Comparison of results in the high speed range for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Fig. 24.

Evaluation of spiral mode in relation to recommendation given in MIL-F-8785C [49]. Comparison of results obtained in the high speed range for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).
Evaluation of spiral mode in relation to recommendation given in MIL-F-8785C [49]. Comparison of results obtained in the high speed range for the selected general aviation aircraft driven by a piston engine (on the left) and a turboprop engine (on the right).

Comparison of data for the aircraft built in two versions: with a piston engine (left column) and with a turbine engine (right column)

the single engine piston (SEP) aircraft – I-23 Managerthe single turboprop engine (STE) aircraft – I-31T
engineModel (Engine Manufacturer / Country)1 x Textron Lycoming O-360-A1A (Textron / U.S.A.)1 x PBS TP-100 (Prvni Brnenska Strojirna PBS / Czech Republic)
Engine typePiston - a four-cylinder, horizontally opposed (boxer), air-cooledTurboprop with a free-turbine
Maximum power134.2 [kW] (180 [HP])180 [kW] (241 [HP])
Nominal (maximum continuous) power134.2 [kW] (180 [HP])160 [kW] (214.6 [HP])
Dry weight131.5 [kg]57 [kg]
propellerPropeller ManufacturerHartzell PropellerMT-Propeller
Propeller ModelHC-C2YR-IBF/F7666A-4MTV-25-1-D-C-F/CFL-180-05
Number of blades25
Diameter1.83 [m]1.80 [m]
Sense of rotation (from a pilot point of view)Clockwise (CW) (in flight direction - to the right)Counter-clockwise (CCW) (in flight direction - to the left)
Propeller rotational speed2700 [RPM]2158 [RPM]
Basic characteristics & Properties2-blade, metal, controllable pitch, constant-speed propeller5-blade; composite, controllable-pitch, constant-speed propeller
Maximum efficiency84.5 [%]78.9 [%]
fuelType of fuelAviation Gasoline AVGAS 100LLKerosene-type fuel JET A-1
Maximum weight of fuel in fuel tanks130 [kg]140 [kg]
Total weight of power system (weight of all elements loaded an engine mount)186 [kg]173 [kg]
Incidence angle of propeller axis of rotation (thrust axis)∗10 [deg]2 [deg]

General specification for the aircraft built in two versions: with a piston engine (left column) and with a turbine engine (right column)

the single engine piston (SEP) aircraft – I-23 Managerthe single engine turboprop (SET) aircraft – I-31T
general characteristicsCrewOne
CapacityThree passengers
Length7.103 [m]7.640 [m]
Wingspan8.944 [m]
Height2.846 [m]
Wing AirfoilNACA 63A416
Maximum Wing Loading115 [kg/m2]
weight & balanceMaximum take-off/landing weight1150 [kg]
Empty weight825 [kg]908 [kg]
CG limits19.8 [%MAC] ÷ 35.0 [%MAC]
performanceDesign Cruise Speed295 [km/h]
Design Diving Speed370 [km/h]
Operating Maneuvering Speed246 [km/h]
Maximum Landing Gear Down Speed184 [km/h]
Stalling Speed, flaps up125 [km/h]
Stalling Speed, full flaps113 [km/h]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/tar-2024-0014 | Journal eISSN: 2545-2835
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Page range: 13 - 42
Submitted on: Jan 26, 2023
Accepted on: Apr 15, 2024
Published on: Sep 11, 2024
Published by: ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Keywords:
flight dynamics,
dynamic stability,
aerodynamic derivatives,
aircraft modes of motion,
equations of motion,
stability criteria
Related subjects:
Engineering,
Introductions and overviews,
Engineering, other,
Geosciences,
Geosciences, other,
Materials sciences,
Materials sciences, other,
Physics,
Physics, other

© 2024 Ewa Marcinkiewicz, published by ŁUKASIEWICZ RESEARCH NETWORK – INSTITUTE OF AVIATION
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 2024 (2024): Issue 3 (September 2024)Next article