Diesel for Diamond DA40?

[Paul kgyy]

Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
Lycoming IO360.

[Greg Copeland]

On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
> in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
> Lycoming IO360.

Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC, the
diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.
Didn't they just get it increased from 1200hrs to 1500hr or something
like that? On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
higher for the same HP rating.

Overall, aside from diesel fuel prices, I don't see a big advantage
especially once you multiply the diesel fuel price by %120 to compare
what it would cost you to travel the same distance via 100LL. Once
you add in the engine reserve for a 1500hr (IIRC) engine versus a
2000hr engine and the extra fuel required, one has to wonder if the
diesel price per gallon is worth it in the big picture.

Are you sure you still want diesel power?


Greg

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Greg Copeland" <> wrote

> On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.

I think you have that backwards. Diesel fuel has a higher energy density
than 100LL. You burn less fuel per HP produced.
--
Jim in NC

[Michael[_4_]]

Greg Copeland schrieb:
> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
>> in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
>> Lycoming IO360.
>
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC, the
> diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.
> Didn't they just get it increased from 1200hrs to 1500hr or something
> like that? On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.
>
> Overall, aside from diesel fuel prices, I don't see a big advantage
> especially once you multiply the diesel fuel price by %120 to compare
> what it would cost you to travel the same distance via 100LL. Once
> you add in the engine reserve for a 1500hr (IIRC) engine versus a
> 2000hr engine and the extra fuel required, one has to wonder if the
> diesel price per gallon is worth it in the big picture.
>
> Are you sure you still want diesel power?
>
>
> Greg
>
Ups, I guess you have never seen a modern diesel. You are comparing a
1940 avgas dino vs. a 2000 diesel. For comparison take a look at

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA40 (Soory, it´s german)

The diesel has 30 kg more weight and thus 30 kg less pay load. But it
takes only about 15 liters per hour vs. 27 liter per hour for the avgas
dino. This means for a 3 hour trip or more you have more usable payload
in the diesel powererd DA40.


Michael

[Chris W]

Greg Copeland wrote:
> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
>> in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
>> Lycoming IO360.
>
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting.

I'm don't know how the weight of the diesel for the Diamond compares,
but you are wrong on the the fuel weight issue. Well it is heavier per
gallon, but you can go much further on a lbs of diesel than you can on a
lbs of gas. If you fill the tanks to the top you will have less useful
load but if put in the amount of diesel that it would take to go the
same distance you could on gas, there would be fewer lbs of fuel in the
tank. Which also means if you need the extra range, going diesel is
like adding larger tanks. You are right that there is more energy per
lbs of gas, however, diesel engines more than make up for that because
they are more efficient than gas engines.

The way I see it the only disadvantage to diesel, and it is a huge
disadvantage, is the lack of proven engines to pick from.




--
Chris W
KE5GIX

"Protect your digital freedom and privacy, eliminate DRM,
learn more at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm"

Gift Giving Made Easy
Get the gifts you want &
give the gifts they want
One stop wish list for any gift,
from anywhere, for any occasion!
http://thewishzone.com

[[email protected]]

On 22 May, 05:37, Greg Copeland > wrote:
> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>
> > Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
> > in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
> > Lycoming IO360.
>
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC,

> On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.

It seems that you do not recall correctly.
Quite a lot of people disagree with these numbers.
Chevron for example seem to think that the
difference in enengy density between kerosene and
aviation gasoline is rather smaller than either of
your figures. The inherent efficiency of the
diesel at part throttle does the rest.

http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/EvelynGofman.shtml

Everyone else that I have read on the subject
(other than yourself) seems to reach the
opposite conclusion regarding range/payload.

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
> in the U.S.?
>

As far I know, it's not. Best to call Diamond, though. They might have
changed their policy with the introduction of the DA-42.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Greg,

> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid.

But it's still ancient. ;-)

> Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot.

The fuel contains more energy, too, so you need less. In all, we're talking about a few pounds. In
the case of the DA-40, look at the specs.

> IIRC, the
> diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.

Nope, they are scheduled for a 2400 hours TBR (replacement). Granted, at the moment they are
certified to something in the 1000s, but Thielert/Diamond will prorate the replacement cost as if it
were 2400 hours. Going in, you know exactly what that engine is going to cost you. No extras for
surprise to overhauls or anything like that. And 2400 hours seems REALLY decent to me.

> On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher

It's the other way around. Diesel has a higher energy density. It's much less than 20 percent,
though.

> Overall, aside from diesel fuel prices, I don't see a big advantage
> especially once you multiply the diesel fuel price by %120 to compare
> what it would cost you to travel the same distance via 100LL.

Again, you got that wrong. Also, the fuel consumption of that modern, electronically controlled
engine is WAY lower than with the ancient Lyc.

> Once
> you add in the engine reserve for a 1500hr (IIRC) engine versus a
> 2000hr engine and the extra fuel required,

As described above, that's wrong.

> Are you sure you still want diesel power?

Are YOU still sure you want a Lycosaurus? ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-22, Greg Copeland > wrote:
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting.

The Thielert diesel burns about half the fuel of an IO360 with very
little performance loss. I think that's exciting. So you get MORE useful
load because you need vastly less fuel.

> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.

I'm really curious - where did you get these numbers from? The diesel
burns about 50% of the fuel of an O-320, let alone an IO-360.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Greg Copeland]

On May 22, 3:50 am, Dylan Smith > wrote:
> On 2007-05-22, Greg Copeland > wrote:
>
> > Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> > being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> > load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> > double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting.
>
> The Thielert diesel burns about half the fuel of an IO360 with very
> little performance loss. I think that's exciting. So you get MORE useful
> load because you need vastly less fuel.
>
> > 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> > higher for the same HP rating.
>
> I'm really curious - where did you get these numbers from? The diesel
> burns about 50% of the fuel of an O-320, let alone an IO-360.
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute:http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

Okay, seems I stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed a
FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency too.
Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the effeciency
associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather than diesel in
of it self.

Greg

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-05-22, Greg Copeland > wrote:
> Okay, seems I stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
> diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed a
> FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency too.
> Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the effeciency
> associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather than diesel in
> of it self.

I'm not sure that's really true either - in the automotive world
(certainly on this side of the planet) where diesel cars are common, an
equivalent performance diesel powered car has significantly lower fuel
consumption than a petrol (gasoline) powered car. Both are completely
FADEC (most modern cars don't even have a physical linkage from the gas
pedal to the engine any more). Diesel engines are considerably more
thermodynamically efficient.

Even the old mechanical injection turbodiesels will get better fuel
economy than a brand new gasoline car of the same power output. It's
probably why the Prius just isn't selling over here - why spend that
much money on a hybrid, when you can get a diesel car with the
equivalent fuel economy for less money?

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Thomas Borchert]

Dylan,

> (most modern cars don't even have a physical linkage from the gas
> pedal to the engine any more)
>

The Thielert doesn't, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Paul kgyy schrieb:
> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
> in the U.S.?

Not yet. Until now, Thielert has sold their engines only in Europe. They
want to have them near the factory until enough engines have reached
their life lmit to really judge their reliability. Although well
engineered, it's a new engine and they don't want to take the risk of
getting a bad reputantion which would stick. Of course they will
eventually sell to the USA, as soon as they feel comfortable and have
installed a dealer base.

[Peter Dohm]

"Dylan Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On 2007-05-22, Greg Copeland > wrote:
> > Okay, seems I stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
> > diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed a
> > FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency too.
> > Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the effeciency
> > associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather than diesel in
> > of it self.
>
> I'm not sure that's really true either - in the automotive world
> (certainly on this side of the planet) where diesel cars are common, an
> equivalent performance diesel powered car has significantly lower fuel
> consumption than a petrol (gasoline) powered car. Both are completely
> FADEC (most modern cars don't even have a physical linkage from the gas
> pedal to the engine any more). Diesel engines are considerably more
> thermodynamically efficient.
>
> Even the old mechanical injection turbodiesels will get better fuel
> economy than a brand new gasoline car of the same power output. It's
> probably why the Prius just isn't selling over here - why spend that
> much money on a hybrid, when you can get a diesel car with the
> equivalent fuel economy for less money?
>
> --
> Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
> Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

All of that appears true, and I suspect that the biggest reason that diesel
cars have not really become popular here (in the USA) is that all advertised
fuel economy figures are required to be those from EPA testing. I only
recently read that those numbers are only calculated from exhaust emissions,
that fuel flow is (apparently) not metered, and that gasolene engines do not
actually run on (retail) gasolene for the test. The published/adverttised
data would suggest that gasolene hybrids (such as Prius) will never
completely pay back their price premium without governmental tax
incentives--and that the diesels will pay back their price premium in about
100,000 miles.

However, many small trucks are popluar here with both gasolene and diesel
power and anecdotal information from small truck owners strongly suggests
that the diesel advantage is more that twice the difference which is
officially documented and advertised; and the Thielert numbers suggest that
it is the diesel truck (and automobile) owners who really have the numbers
right. I have not yet made the switch, but plan to do so in the forseeable
future.

Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> Until now, Thielert has sold their engines only in Europe.
>

Actually, they are selling the DA-42 with Thielert engines in the US
and have been for some months now.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Newps]

Greg Copeland wrote:

>
>
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC, the
> diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.
> Didn't they just get it increased from 1200hrs to 1500hr or something
> like that? On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.


When I had my 182 there was all kinds of talk about the diesel that was
going into the plane. The diesels were lighter, not heavier. The O-470
burns about 13 GPH at 75% where the diesel would burn about 9 GPH at the
same power setting. The range of the plane went up significantly. I do
not recall any talk about the loss of useful load due to the difference
in weight of the fuel. If the diesel were 1 pound heavier per gallon
you'd lose 56-96 pounds depending on your model. An irrelevant loss as
you could just leave out that weight of fuel and still be far ahead of
the game weight wise. The real downside was the cost to convert. They
wanted $80K which is a price nobody will pay because the break even
point is still way too far into the future. The TBO, which was really a
TBR and really big bucks, was supposed to start at 2000 hours and make
its way to 3000 and eventually 4000 hours.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> The real downside was the cost to convert. They
> wanted $80K which is a price nobody will pay because the break even
> point is still way too far into the future. The TBO, which was really a
> TBR and really big bucks, was supposed to start at 2000 hours and make
> its way to 3000 and eventually 4000 hours.
>

That was the sma diesel. They haven't really taken off (yet).

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul kgyy]

I checked with Diamond directly, and the diesel version is available
only in Europe.

They (and apparently also Cirrus) are "evaluating their options".

[karl gruber[_1_]]

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message > Okay, seems I
stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
> diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed a
> FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency too.
> Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the effeciency
> associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather than diesel in
> of it self.
>

FADEC won't make an engine run more efficiently. It will make it easier to
manage.

"Curator" N185KG

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Morgans wrote:
> "Greg Copeland" <> wrote
>
>> On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
>> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
>> higher for the same HP rating.
>
> I think you have that backwards. Diesel fuel has a higher energy
> density than 100LL. You burn less fuel per HP produced.

actually the energy density by weight is about the same. However Diesel is
about 0.85 kg/litre, while Gasoline is 0.725 kg/l. So the energy content per
volume per litre/gallon is higher for diesel.

However the important point here is the efficiency of the engine, Diesels
do about 15-30% better. So from the same weight of fuel a Diesel will get up
to 30% more energy to the prop. While most diesel engines are indeed a
slight bit heavier than gasoline engines of similar power output, the weight
of a diesel engine plus fuel for any decent range is less than with
gasoline, hence useful payload is better.

If gross weight is not an issue but fuel tank capacity, a diesel will
extend your range through better efficiency AND the higher energy content
per volume.

And of course there is the price issue, in Europe Diesel (or Jetfuel) is
significantly cheaper than Avgas. Some Thielert operators claim a reduction
in overall fuel cost, fuel price times fuel consumption, of up to 2/3 vs.
Avgas.

If I was shopping for a new engine (or a new plane with new engine) I would
go for a diesel.

regards,
Friedrich

[Friedrich Ostertag]

karl gruber wrote:
> "Greg Copeland" > wrote in message > Okay, seems
> I stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
>> diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed
>> a FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency
>> too. Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the
>> effeciency associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather
>> than diesel in of it self.
>>
>
> FADEC won't make an engine run more efficiently. It will make it
> easier to manage.

and thus it will make it run more efficiently than a improperly managed
manually controlled engine.

regards,
Friedrich

[Morgans[_2_]]

"karl gruber" > wrote

> FADEC won't make an engine run more efficiently. It will make it easier to
> manage.

In a way that is true, but at the same time it is as false as can be.

A properly leaned engine at cruise, with well matched injectors, will have
all of the cylinders humming happily along at the most efficient setting,
and lowest fuel flow. FADEC can not improve on that much, if any.

But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
idle, or low power on the ground. You are running much richer than need be,
and not as lean as FADEC would have things set. On the average, us setting
the mixture is wasting fuel, and is inefficient as compared to FADEC. FADEC
will reset the mixture many times per second; as often as is needed. That
is something we can never begin to think about doing.
--
Jim in NC

[Jose]

> But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
> landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
> idle, or low power on the ground.

Most of the time will be spent at cruise (unless you are in the
pattern), so I would not expect that to be all that much.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-05-22, Newps > wrote:
>
> The real downside was the cost to convert. They wanted $80K which
> is a price nobody will pay because the break even point is still way
> too far into the future.

So the question is: where is the break even point? If you account for
the reduced maintenance costs, and you make your own biodiesel at
~$1/gal., would you say the break even point is acceptable?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[BT]

and IIRC what I read.. you can't field overhaul the diesel, it goes back to
the factory and the limit is about 1100hrs.

BT

"Greg Copeland" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy > wrote:
>> Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
>> in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
>> Lycoming IO360.
>
> Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
> being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
> load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
> double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC, the
> diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.
> Didn't they just get it increased from 1200hrs to 1500hr or something
> like that? On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
> 20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
> higher for the same HP rating.
>
> Overall, aside from diesel fuel prices, I don't see a big advantage
> especially once you multiply the diesel fuel price by %120 to compare
> what it would cost you to travel the same distance via 100LL. Once
> you add in the engine reserve for a 1500hr (IIRC) engine versus a
> 2000hr engine and the extra fuel required, one has to wonder if the
> diesel price per gallon is worth it in the big picture.
>
> Are you sure you still want diesel power?
>
>
> Greg
>

[Uli]

FADEC is much more than just controlling mixture. that system is measuring,
monitoring and governing a whole lot of parameters. compared to a human
operating a few levers, FADEC can set all these parameters in a way so the
engine/propeller-combination operates much closer to its optimum.

also, today's engines can only be that economic because of the electronic
system. as an example, fuel injection varies in injection time and the
amount of fuel injected, depending on RPMs, power setting, flow of the mass
of air through the manifold (not just the air pressure in there) and
probably a few more. you cannot achieve this by mechanical or even maunual
solutions.



uli






Morgans wrote:


> A properly leaned engine at cruise, with well matched injectors, will have
> all of the cylinders humming happily along at the most efficient setting,
> and lowest fuel flow. FADEC can not improve on that much, if any.
>
> But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
> landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
> idle, or low power on the ground. You are running much richer than need
> be,
> and not as lean as FADEC would have things set. On the average, us
> setting
> the mixture is wasting fuel, and is inefficient as compared to FADEC.
> FADEC
> will reset the mixture many times per second; as often as is needed. That
> is something we can never begin to think about doing.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Uli" <> wrote

> FADEC is much more than just controlling mixture. that system is
> measuring,
> monitoring and governing a whole lot of parameters. compared to a human
> operating a few levers, FADEC can set all these parameters in a way so the
> engine/propeller-combination operates much closer to its optimum.
>
> also, today's engines can only be that economic because of the electronic
> system. as an example, fuel injection varies in injection time and the
> amount of fuel injected, depending on RPMs, power setting, flow of the
> mass
> of air through the manifold (not just the air pressure in there) and
> probably a few more. you cannot achieve this by mechanical or even maunual
> solutions.

Of course it does much more, but the mixture is a big part of the equation.
One thing you missed mentioning is the timing, on some systems.
--
Jim in NC

[Montblack]

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
>> Until now, Thielert has sold their engines only in Europe.

> Actually, they are selling the DA-42 with Thielert engines in the US and
> have been for some months now.


In Minnesota...

At Anoka County-Blaine Airport (ANE) there is a DA-42, with Thielert
engines. It is owned by a regular poster to rec.aviation, he is also a
member of our local EAA Chapter. He's wants to give Young Eagle rides in his
DA-42. He used to give Young Eagle rides in his Cessna 310. <g>

I hope I get these numbers right.

He said @ 85% power (turbo) he's seeing total fuel burn:

12 gallons/hour ......175kts?
8 gallons /hour .......140kts?

Crap, now I'm guessing. PINGING Cary M !!!


Montblack

[Newps]

Jose wrote:
>> But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
>> landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are
>> at idle, or low power on the ground.
>
>
> Most of the time will be spent at cruise (unless you are in the
> pattern), so I would not expect that to be all that much.
>


A FADEC on a plane like a 182 will save on average 2 GPH, that's huge.
So saying a FADEC in and of itself is not what makes it more efficient
is theoretically true but it is practically true. A human will never be
able to operate the engine at its most efficient, for a computer it is
simple.

[Newps]

Justin Gombos wrote:

> On 2007-05-22, Newps > wrote:
>
>>The real downside was the cost to convert. They wanted $80K which
>>is a price nobody will pay because the break even point is still way
>>too far into the future.
>
>
> So the question is: where is the break even point? If you account for
> the reduced maintenance costs,



Nobody knows that yet. Too many different technologies have come and
gone promising lower costs. When the diesel has proven itself to cost
less in the field I will believe it. Until then it's pure speculation.




and you make your own biodiesel at
> ~$1/gal., would you say the break even point is acceptable?



I don't know. First off putting $80K into a $50K airplane won't happen
for that reason alone. Second the guy who has $80K to put into a 182
isn't the kind of guy who homebrews his own biodiesel. Simple fact of
the matter is $80K is a deal breaker. Get it down to $40K, about the
same as putting a big engine in a 182, and then you've got something.
But at $80K you won't have any market penetration at all. And really at
$40K look how many 300 HP 550's are in 182's now. I wouldn't call it
rare but it's still a fairly small percentage.

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-05-23, Newps > wrote:
>
>> and you make your own biodiesel at ~$1/gal., would you say the
>> break even point is acceptable?
>
> I don't know. First off putting $80K into a $50K airplane won't
> happen for that reason alone.

I used to fly a c172 trainer that was upgraded from the stock engine
to 180HP. Granted it had to be cheaper than a change in engines that
burn different fuels, but how much different?

Here's the breakdown on the diesel upgrade:

parts: $29k
labor: $46-51k

More of the cost is labor. What's the cost of going from say 160HP to
180HP (both burning the same type of fuel)?

I don't expect to see many folks making a lateral change to diesel for
the sake of economy or range, but if someone wants an upgrade in power
anyway, it may be viable to spend a little more and make it a diesel.
The $80k is not exactly a toss-away investment either, because they
can expect to sell the plane for more as well.

> Second the guy who has $80K to put into a 182 isn't the kind of guy
> who homebrews his own biodiesel.

Perhaps that's the case with doctors and lawyers who are private
pilots. However, imagine a full-time flight school owner/CFI, who
might often be stuck at the airport 1-2 hours between student
sessions. It's not worth it to go home during this idle time, so they
might as well use the time to make more biodiesel. They would still
charge the same wet fee as they would for gasoline trainers, but the
diesel savings would directly increase profits. At $3-4/gal in
savings, the school would get $30-40/hr more profit on each flight.
And that's assuming fuel costs don't go up, and doesn't account for
the saving inherent in a diesel reguardless of type of diesel. So how
long does it take a busy school to put ~2200 hours on a plane? Unless
I made some gross error, I'd say in ~2-3 years the engine upgrade
would pay for itself.

The school could even gain some business by offering students
discounts for doing the grunt work of making the fuel, thus gain some
business for those who can't quite budget enough to pay regular
prices.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Newps]

Justin Gombos wrote:


>>I don't know. First off putting $80K into a $50K airplane won't
>>happen for that reason alone.
>
>
> I used to fly a c172 trainer that was upgraded from the stock engine
> to 180HP. Granted it had to be cheaper than a change in engines that
> burn different fuels, but how much different?

Huge. An O-360 doesn't cost that much more new than the 320 it
replaces. Get yourself a field overhauled one and there really isn't
much difference. Those conversions can be done two ways, with a fixed
pitch and with a constant speed. Even going constant speed that's about
a $3K difference.



>
> Here's the breakdown on the diesel upgrade:
>
> parts: $29k
> labor: $46-51k
>
> More of the cost is labor. What's the cost of going from say 160HP to
> 180HP (both burning the same type of fuel)?

Hardly anything. The engine bolts right up. You'll have some labor
installing the prop cable but that's trivial.



>
> I don't expect to see many folks making a lateral change to diesel for
> the sake of economy or range, but if someone wants an upgrade in power
> anyway, it may be viable to spend a little more and make it a diesel.
> The $80k is not exactly a toss-away investment either, because they
> can expect to sell the plane for more as well.


The diesel conversion is still a 230 HP aircraft albeit now
turbocharged. The value will certainly rise but not $80K worth. Not
even close.



>
>
>>Second the guy who has $80K to put into a 182 isn't the kind of guy
>>who homebrews his own biodiesel.
>
>
> Perhaps that's the case with doctors and lawyers who are private
> pilots. However, imagine a full-time flight school owner/CFI, who
> might often be stuck at the airport 1-2 hours between student
> sessions. It's not worth it to go home during this idle time, so they
> might as well use the time to make more biodiesel. They would still
> charge the same wet fee as they would for gasoline trainers, but the
> diesel savings would directly increase profits. At $3-4/gal in
> savings, the school would get $30-40/hr more profit on each flight.
> And that's assuming fuel costs don't go up, and doesn't account for
> the saving inherent in a diesel reguardless of type of diesel. So how
> long does it take a busy school to put ~2200 hours on a plane? Unless
> I made some gross error, I'd say in ~2-3 years the engine upgrade
> would pay for itself.




First off it isn't legal. You got an STC for that biodiesel? Didn't
think so. That mom and pop flight school/FBO located at that nice
quaint airport doesn't sell jet fuel. A very common situation. Now what?

[Justin Gombos]

On 2007-05-24, Newps > wrote:
>
> You got an STC for that biodiesel? Didn't think so.

This was brought up earlier here, and someone said biodiesel doesn't
need to go through any process to get FAA approval. Supposedly the
fuel only needs to meet the standards required by the manufacturer.

I'm not sure what an STC is.

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

[Newps]

Justin Gombos wrote:

> On 2007-05-24, Newps > wrote:
>
>>You got an STC for that biodiesel? Didn't think so.
>
>
> This was brought up earlier here, and someone said biodiesel doesn't
> need to go through any process to get FAA approval. Supposedly the
> fuel only needs to meet the standards required by the manufacturer.
>
> I'm not sure what an STC is.

The engine is certified for jet fuel so that fuel is OK. Now you want
to use a different fuel. You have to prove to the FAA that the fuel you
propose to use meets the engine makers requirement. That alone will
take thousands of dollars and years to accomplish. Now you're going to
tell the FAA your going to be homebrewing this concoction in your own
big vat? No way, no how.