Martin Hotze
September 26th 04, 11:54 AM
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 10:49:13 +0100, Peter wrote:
>>> Yes, I think there is a future for diesels. My main (and probably only)
>>> concern is the weight of a diesel versus a standard light-fuel burning
>>> IC av-engine. When the weight of a diesel is comparable to a standard
>>> IC engine, then you'll have a hum-dinger.
>>
>>Diesels are more fuel efficient ( less fuel weight required ) and also don't require a high
>>voltage ignition system. 2 definite pluses.
>
>I think that without the huge price difference between avgas and avtur
>in Europe (caused almost entirely by taxation) nobody would be
>developing diesels for GA.
it might also because of future supply with avgas.
> The retrofit cost is much too high for
>anything below 500-1000 hours/year even given the fuel price saving,
>and nobody would do it for the relatively small fuel efficiency gain
>alone if there was no fuel price saving.
hm, at least here (this is Europe) we think in terms of efficiency and in
saving natural resources.
>The only remaining option, new aircraft sales (i.e. avoiding the
>retrofit cost), are very low in Europe, much too low to support any
>engine manufacturer.
I strongly believe that Diamond made their homework and they know what to
do.
>This, and current reliability issues with the Thielert, is most likely
>why Diamond are offering Lycomings for the US market.
they offer them because the 1) don'twant to sell diesels right now too far
away from their HQ and 2) because of the *very* conservative market in the
US.
> They cannot
>afford the risk of getting the Rotax reputation; in the very
ACK.
>conservative US market reputation is everything and if they have any
>significant engine issues in the USA they will be finished there for
>ever.
the US market means very much, but not all (and as an aircraft builder you
sure want to sell in the US).
But they must have their reasons why they have their north american base in
Canada.
>Peter.
#m
--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)
>>> Yes, I think there is a future for diesels. My main (and probably only)
>>> concern is the weight of a diesel versus a standard light-fuel burning
>>> IC av-engine. When the weight of a diesel is comparable to a standard
>>> IC engine, then you'll have a hum-dinger.
>>
>>Diesels are more fuel efficient ( less fuel weight required ) and also don't require a high
>>voltage ignition system. 2 definite pluses.
>
>I think that without the huge price difference between avgas and avtur
>in Europe (caused almost entirely by taxation) nobody would be
>developing diesels for GA.
it might also because of future supply with avgas.
> The retrofit cost is much too high for
>anything below 500-1000 hours/year even given the fuel price saving,
>and nobody would do it for the relatively small fuel efficiency gain
>alone if there was no fuel price saving.
hm, at least here (this is Europe) we think in terms of efficiency and in
saving natural resources.
>The only remaining option, new aircraft sales (i.e. avoiding the
>retrofit cost), are very low in Europe, much too low to support any
>engine manufacturer.
I strongly believe that Diamond made their homework and they know what to
do.
>This, and current reliability issues with the Thielert, is most likely
>why Diamond are offering Lycomings for the US market.
they offer them because the 1) don'twant to sell diesels right now too far
away from their HQ and 2) because of the *very* conservative market in the
US.
> They cannot
>afford the risk of getting the Rotax reputation; in the very
ACK.
>conservative US market reputation is everything and if they have any
>significant engine issues in the USA they will be finished there for
>ever.
the US market means very much, but not all (and as an aircraft builder you
sure want to sell in the US).
But they must have their reasons why they have their north american base in
Canada.
>Peter.
#m
--
Somehow, some way, the Left trash talks "multi-national corporations" and
"big corporations" as if they were messengers of evil, when, in fact,
corporations represent the ultimate, perfect expression of communal
ownership of capital. (Jay Honeck in r.a.p.)