Small(-ish) turbo-props

[Weaver]

There are examples of Gypsy Queen engines being replaced by turbo-props:

The Carstedt Jet Liner 600 was a DH Dove fitted with two 605 hp TPE331 turboprops. The fuselage was stretched by 87 inches.

The Saunders ST-27 was a DH Heron with it's four Gypsy Queens replaced by two 750 hp PT6As. The fuselage was lengthened by 102 inches.

[McColm]

There are examples of Gypsy Queen engines being replaced by turbo-props:

The Carstedt Jet Liner 600 was a DH Dove fitted with two 605 hp TPE331 turboprops. The fuselage was stretched by 87 inches.

The Saunders ST-27 was a DH Heron with it's four Gypsy Queens replaced by two 750 hp PT6As. The fuselage was lengthened by 102 inches.

Is the PT6A the same engines fitted to the Dakota Turbo? If so Alleycat sold the conversion set.

[Weaver]

There are examples of Gypsy Queen engines being replaced by turbo-props:

The Carstedt Jet Liner 600 was a DH Dove fitted with two 605 hp TPE331 turboprops. The fuselage was stretched by 87 inches.

The Saunders ST-27 was a DH Heron with it's four Gypsy Queens replaced by two 750 hp PT6As. The fuselage was lengthened by 102 inches.

Is the PT6A the same engines fitted to the Dakota Turbo? If so Alleycat sold the conversion set.

Yes, I've got one, but that was a new nacelle to fit in place of a wide radial not a narrow inline, so it's tapered from wing root to prop.

There were at least four PT6A Dak conversions, the Basler BT67, the South African Turbo-Dak, the Greewich Aircraft one and the USAC one. The BT67 and the Turbo-Dak, both of which Alleycat covered had very different nacalle shapes. There were also conversions with RR Darts (one with three!) and another with AS Mambas.

[Weaver]

The problem with swapping any turboprop for a piston engine is that the former is much lighter for a given power rating, so something has to be done to restore the CofG by either adding or moving weight forward. With a single-engined design, there's pretty much no option except to stretch the nose to carry the engine further forward, but on twins it's much more useful to stretch the fuselage instead, which gives useful extra volume, especially on passenger aircraft since passengers (and their circulation/comfort space), are a low-density cargo.

[Gondor]

With a single-engined design, there's pretty much no option except to stretch the nose to carry the engine further forward, but on twins it's much more useful to stretch the fuselage instead, which gives useful extra volume, especially on passenger aircraft since passengers (and their circulation/comfort space), are a low-density cargo.

Some passengers have an exceptionally high density though    usually between their ears 

Gondor

[Dizzyfugu]

So does anyone have any ideas where I could find a pair of Astazous or a suitable alternative?

Not Astazous, but I had much success with Russian 1:144 NK-12 turboprops (from/for a Tu-95!) on 1:72 conversions (with single and contraprops), they look quite similar:


:72 Reims Aviation MH.352 "Bastang II"; aircraft "R2118/M" of the Royal Rhodesian Air Force No. 4 Squadron; Thornhill AB, during Operation Sable, late 1972 (Whif/Italeri P-51D conversion) by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr


1:72 Boeing MV-10H "Super Bronco" a.k.a. "Black Pony"; "IP 002 (s/n 18-2002)", USAF 919th Special Operations Support Squadron, 919th Special Operations Wing; Duke Field (Eglin Air Force Auxiliary Field 3, Florida), 2020 (Whif/kitbashing) by Dizzyfugu, on Flickr

[Dizzyfugu]

As an addendum, how about Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-34s from a Twin Otter? The respective Matchbox kit (also as Revell re-boxing) is quite cheap and the engines relatively small.

The FMA Pucará has Astazous, but there's only the Airfix kit in 1:72 (also from Special Hobby, IIRC), but it's rare and relatively expensive these days. The same goes for the Hasegawa MU-2 and the Airfix Shorts Skyvan kits, too.

[PR19_Kit]

Hmmm, yes. And I have bits of a Twin Otter left over from my Rotocrane of a couple of years ago.

Now where did I put them..........................?