Thomas,

There are some smaller turboprops but the economics just aren't there
to put them into mass production. The market is quite small and the
specific fuel consumption of a turbine versus a piston means that if
you put it on your Cessna 210, for example, you can't carry enough
fuel to get anywhere and still put people in the cabin. Plus, the
simple cost of the technology and the metals to handle the heat in a
turbine engine makes it almost impossible to compete with other types
of engines in that horsepower range.

There was an article on the subject of specific fuel consumption and
load carrying ability of turbines in little airplanes in Aviation
Consumer a couple of years back.

For the 100-300 hp range it looks as if going back to diesels, as was
explored in the 1930s, may be appropriate.

All the best,
Rick

"Thomas J. Paladino Jr." wrote in message .. .
I have always wondered why there are no small GA turboprops. It seems like
most of the major problems & maintenance issues associated with GA aircraft
are related to the piston motor, and as far as I can tell, turboprops are
much more reliable, fuel efficient, smoother running and easier to maintain.

So it begs the question, why are there no small turboprops in the 100-300hp
range for use on GA aircraft? I would think that turbine engines of this
size would be relatively easy to produce, and would be ideal for GA
applications. The smoother operation and lower vibration levels would also
ease wear and tear on the entire airframe and avionics components. So what's
the deal? Does turbine technology not translate downwards very well? Would
it be cost prohibitive? Am I entirely missing something?