Cost and effficiency. Small turbines are very expensive fuel guzzlers.
Large turbines (airliner size) are efficient but small ones aren't. The
1000hp engines on my MU-2 have a bsfc of .52 and smaller engines would be
even worse. Piston engines are in the .40 area. Diesels are more
promising.

Mike
MU-2


"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?