Car engine FAA certified for airplane use

[Cy Galley]

>
>> > Hans Conser wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Page 18 Feb issue of Flying:
>> > >
>> > > "FAA Certifies Auto Engine Conversion
>> > >
>> > > In November the FAA granted type certification to the Thielert
>> > Aircraft
>> > > Engines (TAE) TAE 125-01 four cylinder aviation diesel engine. The
>> > > model is a diesel automotive engine, made by DaimlerChrysler, which
>> > TAE
>> > > converts for airplane use by adding a gearbox and other aviation
>> > > specific parts.
>> > > The certification for the engine, known as the Centurion 1.7, is the
>> > > first of its kind for the FAA. The approval surprised many industry
>> > > observers because it entailed producing an engine with parts that the
>> > > manufacturer (DaimlerChrysler) would not verify. But the FAA was
>> > > surprisingly willing to work within this restriction and allowed
>> > > Thielert to verify, through a combination of component testing, parts
>> > > validation, test stand runs, and ongoing testing that the engine, and
>> > > the parts that make it up, meet an acceptable level of safety.
>> > > To our knowledge, the certification of the engine also entails
another
>> > > first, the approval of a powerplant with a timer before before
>> > > replacement (TBR) limit--1000 hours or 12 years, whichever is
>> > > first--with no overhaul allowed. When the engine reaches one of
those
>> > > milestones the owner must replace it with a new engine. The company
>> > is
>> > > working toward a 2,400 hour TBR, and will pro-rate replacement
engines
>> > > from the beginning at the 2400 hour figure.
>> > > Thielert plans to offer an STC for retrofit installations of the
>> > engine
>> > > in Cessna Skyhawks. Diamond is developing its Twin-Star light twin
>> > > around the Centurion 1.7 engine, and OMF is working on a diesel
>> > version
>> > > of its two-place Symphony."
>> > >
>> > > Perhaps it is time to certify the 13B.
>> > >
>> > > Hans
>>
>>Al Gietzen wrote:
>> >
>> > Hum-m-m; kind of puts Lycoming and Continental on notice, doesn't it?
>
>

[Dan Thomas]

Thielert already has a 2400 hour TBR in hand for this engine. And they
have an STC for the 172 N and P series airplanes, as well as some
Piper models, but last I heard they were having some troubles with a
shortage of vendor-supplied items. They didn't specify what those
items were, but I imagine it has to do with engine mounts or radiators
or something. I hope it isn't the engine manufacturer being stubborn.
The 1.7 is a 135 HP engine. It produces more static thrust than
the original Lycoming it replaces, although that's through a CS prop.
The HP is rated at 2300 RPM, which is why the airplane's performance
isn't affected by the lower HP. At the 2700 RPM of the Lyc so much
power is lost to the much higher propeller drag that the 135 at 2300
is able to match it.
It burns a bit over 4 GPH of diesel or Jet A, and fuel savings
over the life of the engine we have figured at about $40,000 CDN. The
engine's cost is about the same as a factory reman Lyc O-320, but I
imagine the initial installation would add considerably to that.
Go to http://www.centurion-engines.com/

Dan


"Cy Galley" > wrote in message news:<UA0Rb.22152$U%5.168426@attbi_s03>...
> >
> >> > Hans Conser wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > Page 18 Feb issue of Flying:
> >> > >
> >> > > "FAA Certifies Auto Engine Conversion
> >> > >
> >> > > In November the FAA granted type certification to the Thielert
> Aircraft
> >> > > Engines (TAE) TAE 125-01 four cylinder aviation diesel engine. The
> >> > > model is a diesel automotive engine, made by DaimlerChrysler, which
> TAE
> >> > > converts for airplane use by adding a gearbox and other aviation
> >> > > specific parts.
> >> > > The certification for the engine, known as the Centurion 1.7, is the
> >> > > first of its kind for the FAA. The approval surprised many industry
> >> > > observers because it entailed producing an engine with parts that the
> >> > > manufacturer (DaimlerChrysler) would not verify. But the FAA was
> >> > > surprisingly willing to work within this restriction and allowed
> >> > > Thielert to verify, through a combination of component testing, parts
> >> > > validation, test stand runs, and ongoing testing that the engine, and
> >> > > the parts that make it up, meet an acceptable level of safety.
> >> > > To our knowledge, the certification of the engine also entails
> another
> >> > > first, the approval of a powerplant with a timer before before
> >> > > replacement (TBR) limit--1000 hours or 12 years, whichever is
> >> > > first--with no overhaul allowed. When the engine reaches one of
> those
> >> > > milestones the owner must replace it with a new engine. The company
> is
> >> > > working toward a 2,400 hour TBR, and will pro-rate replacement
> engines
> >> > > from the beginning at the 2400 hour figure.
> >> > > Thielert plans to offer an STC for retrofit installations of the
> engine
> >> > > in Cessna Skyhawks. Diamond is developing its Twin-Star light twin
> >> > > around the Centurion 1.7 engine, and OMF is working on a diesel
> version
> >> > > of its two-place Symphony."
> >> > >
> >> > > Perhaps it is time to certify the 13B.
> >> > >
> >> > > Hans
> >>
> >>Al Gietzen wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hum-m-m; kind of puts Lycoming and Continental on notice, doesn't it?
> >
> >

[Big John]

Cy

Wonder how they are going to prevent miss-fueling 172's with two types
of engines? Have different nozzles like used for unleaded gas in
automobiles or???????????

If I had a 172 with a Lyc or Con, I'd stand and watch each fueling to
be sure I got the correct fuel when the Centurions start showing up..

Big John


On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:21:08 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
wrote:

>
>>
>>> > Hans Conser wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > Page 18 Feb issue of Flying:
>>> > >
>>> > > "FAA Certifies Auto Engine Conversion

----clip----

[Kevin Horton]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:50:51 -0800, Dan Thomas wrote:

> Thielert already has a 2400 hour TBR in hand for this engine. And they
> have an STC for the 172 N and P series airplanes, as well as some Piper
> models, but last I heard they were having some troubles with a shortage of
> vendor-supplied items. They didn't specify what those items were, but I
> imagine it has to do with engine mounts or radiators or something. I hope
> it isn't the engine manufacturer being stubborn.
> The 1.7 is a 135 HP engine. It produces more static thrust than
> the original Lycoming it replaces, although that's through a CS prop. The
> HP is rated at 2300 RPM, which is why the airplane's performance isn't
> affected by the lower HP. At the 2700 RPM of the Lyc so much power is lost
> to the much higher propeller drag that the 135 at 2300 is able to match
> it.
> It burns a bit over 4 GPH of diesel or Jet A, and fuel savings
> over the life of the engine we have figured at about $40,000 CDN. The
> engine's cost is about the same as a factory reman Lyc O-320, but I
> imagine the initial installation would add considerably to that.
> Go to http://www.centurion-engines.com/
>
> Dan
>
It is interesting that they think static thrust is so important. Static
thrust is only important if you are using the aircraft to pull out stumps.
The thrust changes as soon as you start rolling ahead and then the
comparisons of static thrust become meaningless.

There is an FAQ on their web site "In a PA28 or a C172 with a CENTURION
1.7, can I expect the same or better take off, climb and cruise?" They
admit that the climb performance with the Centurion engine will be lower
(due to the lower power output - even with the constant speed prop). And
they carefully don't mention cruise speed at all. I wonder why?

--
Kevin Horton RV-8 (finishing kit)
Ottawa, Canada
http://go.phpwebhosting.com/~khorton/rv8/
e-mail: khorton02(_at_)rogers(_dot_)com

[Cy Galley]

Jet fuel has a larger nozzle. I don't know whether you can fuel a gas 172
with the larger nozzle. I know at one time Beech was trying to get
restrictors in the openings of Bonanzas.

--
Cy Galley
Editor, EAA Safety Programs
or



"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Cy
>
> Wonder how they are going to prevent miss-fueling 172's with two types
> of engines? Have different nozzles like used for unleaded gas in
> automobiles or???????????
>
> If I had a 172 with a Lyc or Con, I'd stand and watch each fueling to
> be sure I got the correct fuel when the Centurions start showing up..
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 04:21:08 GMT, "Cy Galley" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >>> > Hans Conser wrote:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > Page 18 Feb issue of Flying:
> >>> > >
> >>> > > "FAA Certifies Auto Engine Conversion
>
> ----clip----

[Craig]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message news:<W9GRb.167062$I06.1661204@attbi_s01>...
> Jet fuel has a larger nozzle. I don't know whether you can fuel a gas 172
> with the larger nozzle. I know at one time Beech was trying to get
> restrictors in the openings of Bonanzas.
>

Make it even easier to prevent misfueling....go to single point refueling...


Craig C.

[Cy Galley]

I don't understand how single point fueling will do a better job of
preventing using the wrong fuel.

"Craig" > wrote in message
om...
> "Cy Galley" > wrote in message
news:<W9GRb.167062$I06.1661204@attbi_s01>...
> > Jet fuel has a larger nozzle. I don't know whether you can fuel a gas
172
> > with the larger nozzle. I know at one time Beech was trying to get
> > restrictors in the openings of Bonanzas.
> >
>
> Make it even easier to prevent misfueling....go to single point
refueling...
>
>
> Craig C.
>

[Craig]

"Cy Galley" > wrote in message news:<msVRb.177072$na.286827@attbi_s04>...
> I don't understand how single point fueling will do a better job of
> preventing using the wrong fuel.

Going to a single point system requires the use of a special pressure
feed nozzle. The nozzle locks onto a mating recepticle on the a/c.
With this system, all tanks are filled through the single connection.
The system is a bit of overkill ( to put it mildly ) for small a/c,
but we are going to start seeing it soon with the practicality of the
personal jet ever closer.

Craig C.

[Roger Halstead]

On 28 Jan 2004 19:28:24 -0800, (Craig) wrote:

>"Cy Galley" > wrote in message news:<msVRb.177072$na.286827@attbi_s04>...
>> I don't understand how single point fueling will do a better job of
>> preventing using the wrong fuel.
>
>Going to a single point system requires the use of a special pressure
>feed nozzle. The nozzle locks onto a mating recepticle on the a/c.
>With this system, all tanks are filled through the single connection.
>The system is a bit of overkill ( to put it mildly ) for small a/c,
>but we are going to start seeing it soon with the practicality of the
>personal jet ever closer.


I can see it now as every vent in the 172 suddenly squirts fuel 15
feet! <LOL> Thar she blows. Hope no one down wind is smoking.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Craig C.

[Charlie England]

Big John wrote:
> Cy
>
> Wonder how they are going to prevent miss-fueling 172's with two types
> of engines? Have different nozzles like used for unleaded gas in
> automobiles or???????????
>
> If I had a 172 with a Lyc or Con, I'd stand and watch each fueling to
> be sure I got the correct fuel when the Centurions start showing up..
>
> Big John
snipped

I have an RV-4 with a Lyc & I stand and watch each fueling to be sure I
got the correct fuel (type & quantity). Now. Centurion powered 172's or not.

Charlie

[Wright1902Glider]

Hmmm.... I don't suppose that a big yellow "Diesel Fuel Only" sticker like
the one on my Chevy would work very well. Although it has successfully
prevented me from pumping the Duramax full of mogas for nearly a year.

Just a thought,
Harry