Cessna Anticipates AvGas Demise

[Larry Dighera]

CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#196294)
Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine
with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at AOPA Expo
in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to offer the
diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight testing. "The
Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown airplane ever with
more than 43,000 delivered and this option further expands the market
due to the worldwide availability of Jet A fuel," said John Doman,
Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales. Cessna will install
the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory under the supplementary
type certificate already held by Thielert.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#196294)
> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine
> with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at AOPA Expo
> in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to offer the
> diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight testing. "The
> Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown airplane ever with
> more than 43,000 delivered and this option further expands the market
> due to the worldwide availability of Jet A fuel," said John Doman,
> Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales. Cessna will install
> the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory under the supplementary
> type certificate already held by Thielert.

Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate the
demise of AvGas? One would think if they really did anticipate the demise of
AvGas they would start producing ONLY diesel powered 172s.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Larry Dighera wrote:
>> CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#196294)
>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
>> engine with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at
>> AOPA Expo in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to
>> offer the diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight
>> testing. "The Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown
>> airplane ever with more than 43,000 delivered and this option further
>> expands the market due to the worldwide availability of Jet A fuel,"
>> said John Doman, Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales.
>> Cessna will install the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory
>> under the supplementary type certificate already held by Thielert.
>
> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate the
> demise of AvGas?


They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.

Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate
>> the demise of AvGas?
>
>
> They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
> There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.
>

Oh you bunyip you, does Jet-A derive from some other extinct creature?

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> > "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> > :
> >> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate
> >> the demise of AvGas?
> >
> >
> > They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
> > There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.
> >
>
> Oh you bunyip you, does Jet-A derive from some other extinct creature?

Turbo-dinosaurs.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> :
>>> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate
>>> the demise of AvGas?
>>
>>
>> They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
>> There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.
>>
>
> Oh you bunyip you, does Jet-A derive from some other extinct creature?
>
>
>

I'm not extinct yet!

Bertie

[Stefan]

> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine

I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain why
they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the pilots
start to recognize that there are modern engines around which burn less
than half the fuel.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Stefan wrote:
>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
>> engine
>
> I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain
> why they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the
> pilots start to recognize that there are modern engines around which
> burn less than half the fuel.

Are you saying the Thielert turbo diesel burns half the fuel? Wow!!!

[[email protected]]

On Oct 5, 10:42 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> Stefan wrote:
> >> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
> >> engine
>
> > I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain
> > why they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the
> > pilots start to recognize that there are modern engines around which
> > burn less than half the fuel.
>
> Are you saying the Thielert turbo diesel burns half the fuel? Wow!!!

A bit more than half. The 135 hp Centurion burns around 4
GPH in cruise. And that's Jet-A, which costs considerably less than
100LL.
The avgas supplies threaten to dry up because the
refineries don't want to bother with it. Avgas constitutes something
like 1% or less of the gasoline market, and carries hundreds of times
the liability. Would you bother with it under those conditions?

Dan

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Oct 5, 10:42 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> Stefan wrote:
>>>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
>>>> engine
>>
>>> I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain
>>> why they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the
>>> pilots start to recognize that there are modern engines around which
>>> burn less than half the fuel.
>>
>> Are you saying the Thielert turbo diesel burns half the fuel? Wow!!!
>
> A bit more than half. The 135 hp Centurion burns around 4
> GPH in cruise. And that's Jet-A, which costs considerably less than
> 100LL.
> The avgas supplies threaten to dry up because the
> refineries don't want to bother with it. Avgas constitutes something
> like 1% or less of the gasoline market, and carries hundreds of times
> the liability. Would you bother with it under those conditions?
>
> Dan


Apples and oranges Dan, the engine that is going in the new Skyhawk is a
turbocharged 155HP. What does it burn?

[Matt Whiting]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
> :
>
>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>> CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#196294)
>>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
>>> engine with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at
>>> AOPA Expo in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to
>>> offer the diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight
>>> testing. "The Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown
>>> airplane ever with more than 43,000 delivered and this option further
>>> expands the market due to the worldwide availability of Jet A fuel,"
>>> said John Doman, Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales.
>>> Cessna will install the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory
>>> under the supplementary type certificate already held by Thielert.
>> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate the
>> demise of AvGas?
>
>
> They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
> There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.

I've never seen the exact count of Avgas dinosaurs vs. Jet A dinosaurs.
Can you tell us how many there were of each specie?

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Oct 5, 12:46 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Oct 5, 10:42 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >> Stefan wrote:
> >>>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
> >>>> engine
>
> >>> I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain
> >>> why they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the
> >>> pilots start to recognize that there are modern engines around which
> >>> burn less than half the fuel.
>
> >> Are you saying the Thielert turbo diesel burns half the fuel? Wow!!!
>
> > A bit more than half. The 135 hp Centurion burns around 4
> > GPH in cruise. And that's Jet-A, which costs considerably less than
> > 100LL.
> > The avgas supplies threaten to dry up because the
> > refineries don't want to bother with it. Avgas constitutes something
> > like 1% or less of the gasoline market, and carries hundreds of times
> > the liability. Would you bother with it under those conditions?
>
> > Dan
>
> Apples and oranges Dan, the engine that is going in the new Skyhawk is a
> turbocharged 155HP. What does it burn?

Dunno that. The original Thielert STC was for a 135 hp engine
in a Skyhawk. Less than the original engine, and a little less
performance because of that, but it generated that hp at about 2300
propeller RPM instead of the Lycoming's 2700 so that less hp would be
lost to drag.
See http://www.centurion-engines.com/

Dan

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 18:23:29 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine
>
>I'd rather say that Cessna is anticipating the difficulty to explain why
>they still sell engines with 50 year old technology, once the pilots
>start to recognize that there are modern engines around which burn less
>than half the fuel.

I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
AvGas, but I have no idea of the failure modes nor expected TBO and
other performance, operational, and maintenance issues. What should a
pilot expect to find has changed in the Thielert engine equipped C-172
other than higher power available at altitude, increased range, and
fewer refueling options?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 5 Oct 2007 13:46:06 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
<wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>:

>the engine that is going in the new Skyhawk is a
>turbocharged 155HP

How will that affect useful load compared to the 180 HP equipped
C-172S?

[Vaughn Simon]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
> AvGas,

Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which weight
and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.

Vaughn

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote:

> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
> > AvGas,
>
> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which
> weight
> and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
> per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.

Which weighs more, a pound of Jet-A or a pound of Avgas?

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

Roy Smith > wrote:

>In article >,
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
>> > AvGas,
>>
>> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which
>> weight
>> and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
>> per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.
>
>Which weighs more, a pound of Jet-A or a pound of Avgas?

Can't tell you :)

However, I know that my fuel tanks hold 38 gallons. What is that
weightwise for 100LL and Jet-A?

Ron Lee

[M[_1_]]

On Oct 5, 6:41 pm, "Vaughn Simon" >
wrote:
>
> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which weight
> and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
> per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.
>

It's pretty close, but Jet A should have slightly higher BTU per pound
due to larger average hydrocarbon molecules in jet fuel.

The biggest difference is that the diesel engines have higher thermo
efficiency than gasoline engine, therefore their BSFC is quit a bit
lower. It burns less pound of fuel per hour to produce the same
horsepower on a diesel engine. Another factor, which only has to do
with economy, is that we pay for fuel in volume (gallons), not
pounds. If Jet A and 100LL are both $4 per gallon, you get more
pounds of jet A with that $4. These two factor combined, diesel
powered Cessna would burn about 30% less $ worth of fuel per hour at
the same power output, assuming JetA and 100LL cost the same per
gallon. That's quite significant. These days it seems that Jet A is
consistently less per gallon than 100LL.

BTW, the 135HP Thielert has a CS prop so that it can put out 100% of
rated power during takeoff and climb. That should produce about the
same horsepower as the 160HP C-172 with a fixed pitch prop.

It's really about time for Cessna to wake up to the fact that the low
end GA is being slowly strangled partly caused by the use of 100LL in
GA fleet. As a fuel, 100LL has this strange economy that the less the
overall consumption, the higher the price delta between 100LL and
autofuel. Remember 100LL requires special handling in the entire
chain of manufacturing and distribution, and it's not transported by
pipeline in the U.S. That largely fixed infrastructure cost has to be
amortized over a ever shrinking pool of consumption. We already see
the average price gap between 100LL and autofuel widen in the last few
years to something more like $1.30 - $1.50. It's going to get worse.
The low end GA, which is most sensitive to the fuel price, is getting
squeezed because 100LL is the only fuel they can use at most airports,
except for a few lucky ones that can use autofuel STC and have access
to ethanol free autofuel.

[[email protected]]

..
>
> I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
> AvGas, but I have no idea of the failure modes nor expected TBO and
> other performance, operational, and maintenance issues. What should a
> pilot expect to find has changed in the Thielert engine equipped C-172
> other than higher power available at altitude, increased range, and
> fewer refueling options?

The lower fuel burn comes not from the higher energy of Jet-A, but
rather from the higher compression ratio which converts a higher
percentage of the energy to useful work. Diesel comes closer to an
ideal Carnot cycle than gasoline.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Matt Whiting > wrote in news:bvzNi.196$2n4.15991
@news1.epix.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> Larry Dighera wrote:
>>>> CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
>>>> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#
196294)
>>>> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel
>>>> engine with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at
>>>> AOPA Expo in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to
>>>> offer the diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight
>>>> testing. "The Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown
>>>> airplane ever with more than 43,000 delivered and this option
further
>>>> expands the market due to the worldwide availability of Jet A
fuel,"
>>>> said John Doman, Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales.
>>>> Cessna will install the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory
>>>> under the supplementary type certificate already held by Thielert.
>>> Am I missing something? Where in that story does Cessna anticipate
the
>>> demise of AvGas?
>>
>>
>> They'd have to be pretty stupid not to anticipate it.
>> There were, after all, only a certain number of dinosaurs.
>
> I've never seen the exact count of Avgas dinosaurs vs. Jet A
dinosaurs.
> Can you tell us how many there were of each specie?
>

at least five. I think you'll find that's accurate


Bertie
> Matt
>

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:41:50 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> wrote in
>:

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
>> AvGas,
>
> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which weight
>and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
>per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.
>
>Vaughn
>

Okay. The point is, that there should be a commensurate increase in
range.

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
>>> AvGas,
>> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which
>> weight
>> and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
>> per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.
>
> Which weighs more, a pound of Jet-A or a pound of Avgas?

It depends on how much you pay for it. As you need to subtract the
weight lost from your wallet from the fuel to get net weight per pound.
:-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 01:41:50 GMT, "Vaughn Simon"
> > wrote in
> >:
>
>> "Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> I like the idea that there is more energy per pound in Jet A fuel than
>>> AvGas,
>> Whoa! There is more energy in Jet A per GALLON. Depending on which weight
>> and BTU averages you are using, Jet A and Avgas come out pretty close on BTUs
>> per pound. Remember, Jet fuel is heavier than gasoline.
>>
>> Vaughn
>>
>
> Okay. The point is, that there should be a commensurate increase in
> range.
>

That depends. Most diesel engines weigh more than similar power gas
engines. So, you may well have less fuel capacity to stay within weight
limits.

Matt

[kontiki]

M wrote:
> Another factor, which only has to do
> with economy, is that we pay for fuel in volume (gallons), not
> pounds. If Jet A and 100LL are both $4 per gallon, you get more
> pounds of jet A with that $4. These two factor combined, diesel
> powered Cessna would burn about 30% less $ worth of fuel per hour at
> the same power output, assuming JetA and 100LL cost the same per
> gallon. That's quite significant. These days it seems that Jet A is
> consistently less per gallon than 100LL.
>

Its also true that the federal taxes on JETA is significantly higher
than AVGAS, thus the price you actually pay is not a lot less than
AVGAS.

[kontiki]

wrote:
>
> The lower fuel burn comes not from the higher energy of Jet-A, but
> rather from the higher compression ratio which converts a higher
> percentage of the energy to useful work. Diesel comes closer to an
> ideal Carnot cycle than gasoline.
>

How much better fuel economy and efficiency would result
if modern internal combustion designs were made easily
available to the GA fleet (versus diesel engines) ?

These new diesel engines employ the latest of modern technology
in terms of materials and design, where our old Lycomings and
Continentals are basically 75 year old technology. Not a
fair (or even logical) comparison IMHO.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 7:26 am, kontiki > wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > The lower fuel burn comes not from the higher energy of Jet-A, but
> > rather from the higher compression ratio which converts a higher
> > percentage of the energy to useful work. Diesel comes closer to an
> > ideal Carnot cycle than gasoline.
>
> How much better fuel economy and efficiency would result
> if modern internal combustion designs were made easily
> available to the GA fleet (versus diesel engines) ?
>
> These new diesel engines employ the latest of modern technology
> in terms of materials and design, where our old Lycomings and
> Continentals are basically 75 year old technology. Not a
> fair (or even logical) comparison IMHO.

Turbo diesel auto engines get around 50mpg compared to equivalent
gasoline engines that get around 30mpg. That's apples to apples for
you. Diesel is more efficient. Higher compression buns more of the
fuel and captures more of the thermal expansion in the form of
mechanical piston energy. Basic physics.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:49:21 -0000, wrote in
. com>:

>Higher compression buns more of the
>fuel and captures more of the thermal expansion in the form of
>mechanical piston energy. Basic physics.

Diesel engines have a longer TBO than gasoline engines also, don't
they? Given the higher temperatures and pressures, that seems to fly
in the face of basic physics, but I suppose it's a result of lower RPM
operation.

[M[_1_]]

On Oct 6, 6:26 am, kontiki > wrote:

>
> How much better fuel economy and efficiency would result
> if modern internal combustion designs were made easily
> available to the GA fleet (versus diesel engines) ?
>
> These new diesel engines employ the latest of modern technology
> in terms of materials and design, where our old Lycomings and
> Continentals are basically 75 year old technology. Not a
> fair (or even logical) comparison IMHO.


If you have seen the BSFC numbers of the latest and greatest
automobile gasoline engines, they're really not better than a
IO-520. Why? because it's a lot easier to optimize a gasoline
engine for fuel efficiency when it's operated at a narrow RPM range
with little power variation. Automobile engines achieve good fuel
efficiency through electronic engine control only because it's much
harder to gain good efficiency across a much wider RPM range and
throttle setting. From a thermo efficiency point of view, the
gasoline aircraft engines designed in the 50s are very good, if
they're leaned properly (which can be easily done with good fuel
injection and EGT instrumentation), I doubt they can get much better
in fuel efficiency regardless of what electronic you put on them.

Diesel engine has better BSFC because they have fundamentally better
thermo efficiency, not because they have fancy electronics.

[Matt Whiting]

Larry Dighera wrote:
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:49:21 -0000, wrote in
> . com>:
>
>> Higher compression buns more of the
>> fuel and captures more of the thermal expansion in the form of
>> mechanical piston energy. Basic physics.
>
> Diesel engines have a longer TBO than gasoline engines also, don't
> they? Given the higher temperatures and pressures, that seems to fly
> in the face of basic physics, but I suppose it's a result of lower RPM
> operation.

Yes, if properly designed, no, if not (think GMs first auto diesels).
They tend to last longer for a couple of reasons:

1. Diesel engines have to be made much heavier to handle the higher
compression and this tends to contribute to longevity.

2. Diesel fuel is less of a solvent than is gasoline and tends to wash
the oil from the cylinders a little less.

The penalty you pay with diesels is they also tend to be a fair bit
heavier for the same power output.

Matt

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 11:24 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
> The penalty you pay with diesels is they also tend to be a fair bit
> heavier for the same power output.

The Thielert also has maintenance drawbacks. We checked
into getting some for our 172s, and to maintain them you need either
to take them to an approved repair facility, or go to Texas and take a
two-week (IIRC) course in their maintenance. And buy a bunch of
expensive tools. Any major repairs requires a removal of the engine
and sending it to the approved repair people. Can't take the head off,
for instance, and re-ring a piston or do the valves.
There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
it's around 2400 hours.

Dan

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
>
> CESSNA TO OFFER DIESEL SKYHAWK
> (http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/971-full.html#196294)
> Cessna will offer the 172S Skyhawk with a Thielert turbo diesel engine
> with deliveries to start in mid-2008. In an announcement at AOPA Expo
> in Hartford, Conn., Cessna officials said the decision to offer the
> diesel came after extensive market surveys and flight testing. "The
> Skyhawk is already the best-selling, most-flown airplane ever with
> more than 43,000 delivered and this option further expands the market
> due to the worldwide availability of Jet A fuel," said John Doman,
> Cessna vice president of propeller aircraft sales. Cessna will install
> the engines at its Independence, Kan., factory under the supplementary
> type certificate already held by Thielert.


Yup, gotta pay for the new improved NAS.
JetA power GA aircraft are going to pay more taxes per gallon than the 100LL drivers, so UnkaSam wants more JetA
sales...

[Blueskies]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message ...
> On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:49:21 -0000, wrote in
> . com>:
>
>>Higher compression buns more of the
>>fuel and captures more of the thermal expansion in the form of
>>mechanical piston energy. Basic physics.
>
> Diesel engines have a longer TBO than gasoline engines also, don't
> they? Given the higher temperatures and pressures, that seems to fly
> in the face of basic physics, but I suppose it's a result of lower RPM
> operation.

I think those Theilberts are throw away at 1800 hours or something...

[Stefan]

> The Thielert also has maintenance drawbacks. We checked
> into getting some for our 172s, and to maintain them you need either
> to take them to an approved repair facility, or go to Texas and take a
> two-week (IIRC) course in their maintenance.

A new engine needs a new skill set, simple as that. You wouldn't give
your car to a mechanic who has only repaired Ford T engines so far and
have him check the electronics, either!

> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is

And where's the disadvantage? You know exactly what it will cost, and
Thielert even refunds you pro rata, should the the engine not make it to
TBR. A fair deal, I would say.

[kontiki]

M wrote:

> If you have seen the BSFC numbers of the latest and greatest
> automobile gasoline engines, they're really not better than a
> IO-520. Why? because it's a lot easier to optimize a gasoline
> engine for fuel efficiency when it's operated at a narrow RPM range
> with little power variation. Automobile engines achieve good fuel
> efficiency through electronic engine control only because it's much
> harder to gain good efficiency across a much wider RPM range and
> throttle setting. From a thermo efficiency point of view, the
> gasoline aircraft engines designed in the 50s are very good, if
> they're leaned properly (which can be easily done with good fuel
> injection and EGT instrumentation), I doubt they can get much better
> in fuel efficiency regardless of what electronic you put on them.
>

Yes, well aircraft engines have a similar problem in terms of
altitude (I know, you have a mixture control) but was also thinking
beyond just the electronics and the methods of injection to
thinhs like pistons, combustion chambers and cams. Those things
have been addressed on most other engines.

But it really doesn't matter because everyone is moving toward
kerosene regardless. Its just one of the several products (as is
gasoline) of the refining process of crude oil.

[Stefan]

Blueskies wrote:

> I think those Theilberts are throw away at 1800 hours or something...

You think wrongly. It's 2400.

[Morgans[_2_]]

<Dan_Thomas_> wrote

> The Thielert also has maintenance drawbacks. We checked
> into getting some for our 172s, and to maintain them you need either
> to take them to an approved repair facility, or go to Texas and take a
> two-week (IIRC) course in their maintenance. And buy a bunch of
> expensive tools. Any major repairs requires a removal of the engine
> and sending it to the approved repair people. Can't take the head off,
> for instance, and re-ring a piston or do the valves.
> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
> replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
> it's around 2400 hours.

Everything but the TBR may be nearly a non issue, if the Thielert has the
kind of no mess reliability I have grown to expect from most diesels. Re
ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may need
often, but a diesel will probably not need until it is replaced.

Only time will tell how they hold up, once they get into the field with
sufficient numbers. I have a feeling they will be impressive.

I also suspect that the TBR thing could change, also. The factory probably
is going to get all of those replaced engines into their shop, and do a
complete tear-down, and inspection and measurement of every part in the
engine, to get a feel for areas that may need improvement, or possibly could
be made lighter.

I look forward to seeing many Thielerts in the air, and hopefully someone
else will get a product into the air, also. The jet fuel burning IC engine
is GA's best hope for the little guy, IMHO.
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

wrote:
> On Oct 6, 11:24 am, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> The penalty you pay with diesels is they also tend to be a fair bit
>> heavier for the same power output.
>
> The Thielert also has maintenance drawbacks. We checked
> into getting some for our 172s, and to maintain them you need either
> to take them to an approved repair facility, or go to Texas and take a
> two-week (IIRC) course in their maintenance. And buy a bunch of
> expensive tools. Any major repairs requires a removal of the engine
> and sending it to the approved repair people. Can't take the head off,
> for instance, and re-ring a piston or do the valves.
> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
> replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
> it's around 2400 hours.
>
> Dan
>

Yes, I'd heard that disadvantage also. However, if Cessna starts OEMing
the engine, I suspect it will become a lot easier to get it repaired.
However, if you are in Last Chance, NV, good luck.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Morgans wrote:
> <Dan_Thomas_> wrote
>
>> The Thielert also has maintenance drawbacks. We checked
>> into getting some for our 172s, and to maintain them you need either
>> to take them to an approved repair facility, or go to Texas and take a
>> two-week (IIRC) course in their maintenance. And buy a bunch of
>> expensive tools. Any major repairs requires a removal of the engine
>> and sending it to the approved repair people. Can't take the head off,
>> for instance, and re-ring a piston or do the valves.
>> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
>> replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
>> it's around 2400 hours.
>
> Everything but the TBR may be nearly a non issue, if the Thielert has the
> kind of no mess reliability I have grown to expect from most diesels. Re
> ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may need
> often, but a diesel will probably not need until it is replaced.
>
> Only time will tell how they hold up, once they get into the field with
> sufficient numbers. I have a feeling they will be impressive.
>
> I also suspect that the TBR thing could change, also. The factory probably
> is going to get all of those replaced engines into their shop, and do a
> complete tear-down, and inspection and measurement of every part in the
> engine, to get a feel for areas that may need improvement, or possibly could
> be made lighter.
>
> I look forward to seeing many Thielerts in the air, and hopefully someone
> else will get a product into the air, also. The jet fuel burning IC engine
> is GA's best hope for the little guy, IMHO.

Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to 4,000
hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last at least
twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs and Contis
lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert needs to at least
double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an overhaul
of a Lyc or Conti.

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 6 Oct 2007 16:42:47 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>Re ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may need
>often, but a diesel will probably not need until it is replaced.

So the diesel is liquid cooled?

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

>> Re ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may need
>> often, but a diesel will probably not need until it is replaced.

> So the diesel is liquid cooled?

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

It's liquid cooled, so no discussion about shock cooling anymore.
It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.
It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
power setting.
and and and... in short, everything I would expect from a modern engine.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to 4,000
> hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last at least
> twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs and Contis
> lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert needs to at least
> double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an overhaul
> of a Lyc or Conti.

According to http://www.centurion-engines.com/ it's currently 24,445
Euros for a replacement engine. Count in the total fuel and maintenance
cost over the life span and do the math.

[Newps]

Stefan wrote:

> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.


A geared engine doesn't eliminate, or even appreciably affect, the
results of a prop strike. You think the Cessna 175's engine is immune
from prop strike damage? Hell, even the turbine 210, whose prop isn't
even physically connected to the engine has prop strike issues. A
friend of mine has one and his pilot geared it up last year.


> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
> power setting.

Does it have an infinite range of prop speeds or is it like the Cirrus
that lets the pilot have two prop speeds?

[Stefan]

Newps wrote:

>> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.

> A geared engine doesn't eliminate, or even appreciably affect, the
> results of a prop strike.

From the FAQ:

4. What happens if I have a prop strike?

In case of prop strike, a costly shock-loading inspection of the engine
is not necessary. Only the propeller needs a repair and the gearbox has
to be inspected. The CENTURION 1.7 has a combined system of torsional
vibration damper and a safety clutch. It decouples the propeller from
the core engine.

>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
>> power setting.
>
> Does it have an infinite range of prop speeds or is it like the Cirrus
> that lets the pilot have two prop speeds?

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> Re ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may
>>> need often, but a diesel will probably not need until it is replaced.
>
>> So the diesel is liquid cooled?
>
> http://www.centurion-engines.com/
>
> It's liquid cooled, so no discussion about shock cooling anymore.

So we prevent a problem that isn't really a problem.


> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.

Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
they still can overheat.


> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.

The engine still stops suddenly unless the gearbox fails or is designed
to fail before any significant acceleration is transferred to the engine.


> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
> power setting.

Yes, that is a nice advantage.

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:47:45 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.

Except in the case of a leak in the coolant system.

In addition to the cooling system, the gearing adds weight,
complexity, and additional failure points, not to mention the
necessity for electric power for the FADEC system.

Don't get me wrong; it may be far superior to the IO-360 with regard
to fuel efficiency and performance at altitude due to the turbo, but I
think we'll have to monitor the use of this engine, and see how it
performs in service over time before drawing any hard and fast
conclusions.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:55:49 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>According to http://www.centurion-engines.com/ it's currently 24,445
>Euros for a replacement engine. Count in the total fuel and maintenance
>cost over the life span and do the math.

And don't fail to factor in the US$1.4138 to the euro exchange rate.

[Larry Dighera]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:29:31 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote in >:

>
>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
>> power setting.
>
>Yes, that is a nice advantage.

What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera schrieb:

>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
>>> power setting.
>> Yes, that is a nice advantage.

> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?

No idea about the Thielert, but the FADEC controlled engine I often fly
just falls back to some default settings. I mean, it had been if it ever
had failed.

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> In addition to the cooling system, the gearing adds weight,

According to Thielert, the complete installation (engine, prop,
gearbox...) weights 66 pounds more than the Lyoming installation. I
guess after about 2 hours of flight this should break even with the
reduced fuel burn.

> complexity, and additional failure points,

My current car is much more complex and has many more failure points
than the car I owned 30 years ago. Yet I have much less trouble with it.
(Ok, 30 years ago, I considered such trouble to be fun. Ever changed a
piston on the sidewalk and in the rain? But that's an entirely different
story.)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:9b58a$470825c7$d9a271ba
:

> Larry Dighera schrieb:
>
>>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen
>>>> power setting.
>>> Yes, that is a nice advantage.
>
>> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?
>
> No idea about the Thielert, but the FADEC controlled engine I often fly
> just falls back to some default settings. I mean, it had been if it ever
> had failed.
>

This is what happens


http://www.megginson.com/blogs/lahso/2007/04/26/da-42-engine-failure/



Bertie

[Stefan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> This is what happens

BS. This is what happens when you don't follow the POH.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 6, 6:03 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 00:47:45 +0200, Stefan >
> wrote in >:
>
> >It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>
> Except in the case of a leak in the coolant system.
>
> In addition to the cooling system, the gearing adds weight,
> complexity, and additional failure points, not to mention the
> necessity for electric power for the FADEC system.
>
> Don't get me wrong; it may be far superior to the IO-360 with regard
> to fuel efficiency and performance at altitude due to the turbo, but I
> think we'll have to monitor the use of this engine, and see how it
> performs in service over time before drawing any hard and fast
> conclusions.

If you go to their website and click on Service Bulletins,
you'll see a long list of things they've already had to deal with.
Probably normal for a radically new engine, but it does make one a bit
nervous about reliability.
http://www.centurion-engines.com/

Textron, who owns both Cessna and Lycoming, has given Cessna
clearance to go shopping for other engines. The Lycoming crankshaft
circus has inflamed tempers enough that even the parent company is fed
up. So now the new Cessna LSA will have the Continental O-200 (yuck)
and the 172 will try the Thielert. Lycoming had better either hope
that the Thielert is a bomb or else get their crankshaft act
together.
Seems to me that I heard that Superior was going to produce
Lyc cranks under PMA rules. I hope they make them better than their
cylinders: http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/1426D6B55173B295862572B1004EC2D4?OpenDocument

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:46484$47082ac5$d9a271ba
:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> This is what happens
>
> BS. This is what happens when you don't follow the POH.
>

Not BS, and you snipped the question.

Waht happens when battery power is taken from the fadec?


This is what happens.


Bertie

[Roy Smith]

Matt Whiting > wrote:

> > It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>
> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
> they still can overheat.

Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong combination of
three different knobs.

[Morgans[_2_]]

<Dan_Thomas_> wrote

> Seems to me that I heard that Superior was going to produce
> Lyc cranks under PMA rules. I hope they make them better than their
> cylinders:
> http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgAD.nsf/0/1426D6B55173B295862572B1004EC2D4?OpenDocument

Seems as though I remember that they are offering to replace them on
Superior's dime, unlike Lyc, though.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
> replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
> it's around 2400 hours.
>

Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it will
cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime overhauls.
If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the new engine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> > It's liquid cooled, so no discussion about shock cooling anymore.
>
> So we prevent a problem that isn't really a problem.
>

No. Read carefully. We prevent DISCUSSION about a problem that isn't a
problem ;-)


>> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.
>
>The engine still stops suddenly unless the gearbox fails or is
>designed
>to fail before any significant acceleration is transferred to the
>engine.

There is no direct mechanical connection between the engine and the
prop, as I understand it. Same goes for the Rotax 912/914 series.

Thielert's website is in English... ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> so with Lycs and Contis
> lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely,

If only! They mostly don't, as we all know. Think midtime top overhauls.
Think crankshaft ADs.

> the Thielert needs to at least
> double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an overhaul
> of a Lyc or Conti.

It's in the same ballpark with 2400 TBR.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?
>

A battery. Yes, in the case of the DA-42, this was implemented lousily,
as someone found out the hard way when he didn't follow the POH. The
system is being changed to prevent fools from...
Other installations are different.

In case you worry about this "single point of failure", your Lyc or
Continental has tons of them, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Larry,
>
>> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?
>>
>
> A battery. Yes, in the case of the DA-42, this was implemented lousily,
> as someone found out the hard way when he didn't follow the POH. The
> system is being changed to prevent fools from...
> Other installations are different.
>
> In case you worry about this "single point of failure", your Lyc or
> Continental has tons of them, too.
>

But not invovling electricity.

Any airplane I've flown that has Fadec has some sort of manual reversion.


Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
>> they still can overheat.
>
> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong combination of
> three different knobs.

What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
statement is simply factually incorrect.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>>> It's liquid cooled, so no discussion about shock cooling anymore.
>> So we prevent a problem that isn't really a problem.
>>
>
> No. Read carefully. We prevent DISCUSSION about a problem that isn't a
> problem ;-)

Ah, but it is then replaced by discussions about loss of coolant and the
dangers therein... :-)


>>> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.
>> The engine still stops suddenly unless the gearbox fails or is
>> designed
>> to fail before any significant acceleration is transferred to the
>> engine.
>
> There is no direct mechanical connection between the engine and the
> prop, as I understand it. Same goes for the Rotax 912/914 series.
>
> Thielert's website is in English... ;-)

The prop is driven by an electric motor? Cool! If it is driven by
gears, belts, shafts or other things mechanical, then there is a direct
connection otherwise the prop won't turn! :-)

The connection may not be capable of transferring high accelerations,
but it is still a direct connection.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
>> There's no TBO. They call it a TBR, where the whole engine is
>> replaced with a new one. I can't put my finger on the time but I think
>> it's around 2400 hours.
>>
>
> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it will
> cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime overhauls.
> If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the new engine.
>

That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.

Matt

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 09:41:05 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote in
>:

>Larry,
>
>> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?
>>
>
>A battery.

Are you saying the battery isn't part of the electrical system? Or
are you saying Thielert equipped aircraft carry an additional battery
dedicated to the FADEC system that is incapable of failure?

[Thomas Borchert]

Larry,

> Or
> are you saying Thielert equipped aircraft carry an additional battery
> dedicated to the FADEC system that is incapable of failure?
>

They carry an extra. "INcapable of failure"? Show me one thing on an
airplane (or anything) that is.

So, in the literal sense you seem to have wanted your statement to be
read: Yes, without electricity, the engine doesn't run. So?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Matt,

> The connection may not be capable of transferring high accelerations,
> but it is still a direct connection.
>

Well, let's get specific rather than semantic: The coupling is
hydraulic, as I understand it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
>>> What powers the FADEC in the event of an electrical system failure?

>>A battery.

> Are you saying the battery isn't part of the electrical system? Or are
> you saying Thielert equipped aircraft carry an additional battery
> dedicated to the FADEC system that is incapable of failure?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEaQO_2Httg
Cessna's New Turbo Diesel 172 Skyhawk (4:25 mark)

"We also have add a FADEC stand-by battery, which allows the airplane to run
for 2 hours. In the event of a total electric failure there's a battery
dedicated just to the engine."


Montblack

[Stefan]

Roy Smith wrote:

> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong combination of
> three different knobs.

Four knobs. You forgot the stick.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>>> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
>>> they still can overheat.
>>
>> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong
>> combination of three different knobs.
>
> What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
> statement is simply factually incorrect.

What part of "not possible" didn't *you* understand? Frankly I don't
know abot the Thielert, but with the FADEC controlled engine *I* fly
regularly (a non-certified engine which isn't sold in the USA), I've not
been able to overheat it, and I *did* try. (Actually I've just tried to
reach the allowed limits, of course.) So yes, it's a reachable goal.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:b7358$47091384$d9a2714f$8838
@news.hispeed.ch:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>>>> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
>>>> they still can overheat.
>>>
>>> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong
>>> combination of three different knobs.
>>
>> What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
>> statement is simply factually incorrect.
>
> What part of "not possible" didn't *you* understand? Frankly I don't
> know abot the Thielert, but with the FADEC controlled engine *I* fly
> regularly (a non-certified engine which isn't sold in the USA), I've not
> been able to overheat it, and I *did* try. (Actually I've just tried to
> reach the allowed limits, of course.) So yes, it's a reachable goal.
>

You try letting the coolant out?


Bertie

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it will
>> cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime overhauls.
>> If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the new engine.
>
> That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.

I pointed you to the numbers. But I understand that you're too lazy to
do the math but want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> You try letting the coolant out?

That would definitely make it easier!

Only you would think of doing that. ;-))
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Matt,
>
>> The connection may not be capable of transferring high accelerations,
>> but it is still a direct connection.
>>
>
> Well, let's get specific rather than semantic: The coupling is
> hydraulic, as I understand it.

Nope. Rubber and a clutch. (friction plates)
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Any airplane I've flown that has Fadec has some sort of manual reversion.

Yes, but when you take off without any charge in your back-up battery, it is
the idiot at the stick bypassing the reversion that is the problem.
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Montblack" <> wrote

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEaQO_2Httg
> Cessna's New Turbo Diesel 172 Skyhawk (4:25 mark)
>
> "We also have add a FADEC stand-by battery, which allows the airplane to
> run for 2 hours. In the event of a total electric failure there's a
> battery dedicated just to the engine."

As I understand it, the battery in the second engine is the backup battery.
You are not supposed to take-off with both batteries drained.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:12:36 +0200, Stefan >
wrote in >:

>Frankly I don't
>know abot the Thielert, but with the FADEC controlled engine *I* fly
>regularly (a non-certified engine which isn't sold in the USA), I've not
>been able to overheat it, and I *did* try.

So, are you saying that the FADEC will command a reduction in engine
power to reduce heating as the high-temp limit is approached?

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>>>> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades
>>>> and they still can overheat.
>>>
>>> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong
>>> combination of three different knobs.
>>
>> What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
>> statement is simply factually incorrect.
>
> What part of "not possible" didn't *you* understand? Frankly I don't
> know abot the Thielert, but with the FADEC controlled engine *I* fly
> regularly (a non-certified engine which isn't sold in the USA), I've not
> been able to overheat it, and I *did* try. (Actually I've just tried to
> reach the allowed limits, of course.) So yes, it's a reachable goal.

Drain the coolant and go flying. Tell me how long the FADEC prevents
the engine from overheating.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Matt,
>
>> The connection may not be capable of transferring high accelerations,
>> but it is still a direct connection.
>>
>
> Well, let's get specific rather than semantic: The coupling is
> hydraulic, as I understand it.
>

I didn't see any details on their web site, but if they use a hydraulic
coupling then that should isolate the prop during a strike assuming
proper design of the hydraulic drive. There is likely though some loss
of efficiency as I don't know of any hydraulic drives that are 100%
efficient.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it will
>>> cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime
>>> overhauls. If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the
>>> new engine.
>>
>> That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.
>
> I pointed you to the numbers. But I understand that you're too lazy to
> do the math but want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

I don't plan to buy one so I have no need to do the math. If you want
to prove a point, you do the math.

Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> Drain the coolant and go flying. Tell me how long the FADEC prevents
> the engine from overheating.

Yawn. Dry the oil and go flying.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

> I don't plan to buy one so I have no need to do the math. If you want
> to prove a point, you do the math.

*I* don't want to prove anything. It was you who claimed that the life
span of the Thielert was too short to be competitive.

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> So, are you saying that the FADEC will command a reduction in engine
> power to reduce heating as the high-temp limit is approached?

I'm not absolutely sure on this, but I don't think so. I think it just
has an extremely efficient cooling system (overkill, so to speak) which
is regulated by FADEC, i.e. reduced to keep the engine temperature high
enough.

Of course I believe that if one really tries, one *will* find a way to
kill the engine. E.g. the POH forbids a sustained power setting of more
than 75%. Or, as others have pointed out, remove the coolant before
flight. Or if nothing else helps, take a sledge hammer.

[Roy Smith]

In article >,
Matt Whiting > wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> > Matt Whiting > wrote:
> >
> >>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
> >> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
> >> they still can overheat.
> >
> > Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong combination of
> > three different knobs.
>
> What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
> statement is simply factually incorrect.
>
> Matt

Taken literally, the statement, "no overheating possible" is indeed
incorrect. But, FADEC still gives you a protection against most of the bad
things people do to engines through poor technique.

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> Drain the coolant and go flying. Tell me how long the FADEC prevents
>> the engine from overheating.
>
> Yawn. Dry the oil and go flying.

So, you finally admit that the FADEC can't prevent overheating.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Roy Smith wrote:
> In article >,
> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>> Roy Smith wrote:
>>> Matt Whiting > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
>>>> Automobile engines have been digitally controlled for two decades and
>>>> they still can overheat.
>>> Yes, but they don't overheat because somebody set the wrong combination of
>>> three different knobs.
>> What part of "so no overheating possible" didn't you understand? That
>> statement is simply factually incorrect.
>>
>> Matt
>
> Taken literally, the statement, "no overheating possible" is indeed
> incorrect. But, FADEC still gives you a protection against most of the bad
> things people do to engines through poor technique.

No question about it. That wasn't the statement made, however.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>> I don't plan to buy one so I have no need to do the math. If you want
>> to prove a point, you do the math.
>
> *I* don't want to prove anything. It was you who claimed that the life
> span of the Thielert was too short to be competitive.

No, I never claimed that.

Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> *I* don't want to prove anything. It was you who claimed that the life
>> span of the Thielert was too short to be competitive.

> No, I never claimed that.
>
> Matt

You wrote:

> Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to 4,000
> hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last at least
> twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs and Contis
> lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert needs to at least
> double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
> overhaul of a Lyc or Conti.
>
> Matt

Of curse I did completely misunderstand you. No, please don't explain.
It gets boring.

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>>> Drain the coolant and go flying. Tell me how long the FADEC prevents
>>> the engine from overheating.
>>
>> Yawn. Dry the oil and go flying.
>
> So, you finally admit that the FADEC can't prevent overheating.

FADEC can't prevent to become a moron, either.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Matt Whiting" t> wrote
>>
>
> I didn't see any details on their web site, but if they use a hydraulic
> coupling then that should isolate the prop during a strike assuming proper
> design of the hydraulic drive. There is likely though some loss of
> efficiency as I don't know of any hydraulic drives that are 100%
> efficient.

I read that a clutch protects the engine from prop strikes, and a harmonic
dampener isolates torsional harmonics. I take that to mean an isolation
rubber dampener, as is common in industrial motors and transmissions.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in news:lX9Oi.32$Mx6.29
@newsfe05.lga:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> You try letting the coolant out?
>
> That would definitely make it easier!
>
> Only you would think of doing that. ;-))

Well, the manufacture hopefully would, but being German they would probably
say "this cannot happen"

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Any airplane I've flown that has Fadec has some sort of manual
>> reversion.
>
> Yes, but when you take off without any charge in your back-up battery,
> it is the idiot at the stick bypassing the reversion that is the
> problem.


It's irrelevant when you're talking design flaw. On that occasion it was
the idiot, but thre's a thousand ways the fadec can be robbed of sparks.
Every airplane I've flown with a fadec, ECU, EEC or whatever, has had soome
sort of limp home capability. This one does not. No electrics, no power.
I've had two Fadec malfunctions in the last four months whihc required a
disconnect and reversion to manual FCU. No big deal. 90 seconds n the
checklist and we were back to bitching about how hard our lives were

Bertie

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>>> Drain the coolant and go flying. Tell me how long the FADEC
>>>> prevents the engine from overheating.
>>>
>>> Yawn. Dry the oil and go flying.
>>
>> So, you finally admit that the FADEC can't prevent overheating.
>
> FADEC can't prevent to become a moron, either.

True, but that wasn't the original claim.

[Matt Whiting]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> *I* don't want to prove anything. It was you who claimed that the
>>> life span of the Thielert was too short to be competitive.
>
>> No, I never claimed that.
>>
>> Matt
>
> You wrote:
>
> > Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to 4,000
> > hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last at least
> > twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs and Contis
> > lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert needs to at least
> > double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
> > overhaul of a Lyc or Conti.
> >
> > Matt
>
> Of curse I did completely misunderstand you. No, please don't explain.
> It gets boring.

Yes, what part of "unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
overhaul of a Lyc or Conti" wasn't clear?

Matt

[Andrew Gideon]

On Sat, 06 Oct 2007 20:03:28 +0000, Blueskies wrote:

> Yup, gotta pay for the new improved NAS. JetA power GA aircraft are
> going to pay more taxes per gallon than the 100LL drivers, so UnkaSam
> wants more JetA sales...

The salespeople at AOPA were really cagey WRT the Diesel 172. As best
several of us can figure, this is for the overseas market.

The salesperson did mention, for example, that 100LL was not to be found
in South Africa. I've no idea whether or not this is true, but it seems
to indicate the target market at which this is aimed.

- Andrew

[Blueskies]

"Stefan" > wrote in message ...
> Blueskies wrote:
>
>> I think those Theilberts are throw away at 1800 hours or something...
>
> You think wrongly. It's 2400.

Ok, so throw away the engine at 2400 hours...

[Blueskies]

"Stefan" > wrote in message ...
> Larry Dighera wrote:
>
>>> Re ringing and doing valves are things that an air cooled engine may need often, but a diesel will probably not need
>>> until it is replaced.
>
>> So the diesel is liquid cooled?
>
> http://www.centurion-engines.com/
>
> It's liquid cooled, so no discussion about shock cooling anymore.
> It's fully FADEC controlled, so no overheating possible.
> It's geared, so a prop strike doesn't affect the engine.
> It's fully FADEC controlled, so always best prop pitch to the chosen power setting.
> and and and... in short, everything I would expect from a modern engine.

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Diamond_DA42_Engine_Fix_AD_In_Works_195091-1.html

[Thomas Borchert]

Blueskies,

> Ok, so throw away the engine at 2400 hours...
>

Yup. You were probably trying to make a point by mentioning it. What is
it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it
>>> will cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime
>>> overhauls. If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the
>>> new engine.
>>
>> That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.
>
> I pointed you to the numbers. But I understand that you're too lazy to
> do the math but want to argue just for the sake of arguing.

Well I missed it. How much is the replacment and how much will it cost?

[Stefan]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>>>> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it
>>>> will cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime
>>>> overhauls. If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the
>>>> new engine.
>>> That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.
>> I pointed you to the numbers. But I understand that you're too lazy to
>> do the math but want to argue just for the sake of arguing.
>
> Well I missed it. How much is the replacment and how much will it cost?

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting wrote:

>> > Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to 4,000
>> > hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last at least
>> > twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs and Contis
>> > lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert needs to at least
>> > double that ... unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
>> > overhaul of a Lyc or Conti.
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>> Of curse I did completely misunderstand you. No, please don't explain.
>> It gets boring.
>
> Yes, what part of "unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
> overhaul of a Lyc or Conti" wasn't clear?

Ah, I finally understand. I've always thought you were insuinating
something by insisting that the Theilert ist only a good deal provided
it is a good deal and repeating that statement over and over. But I
finally understand that you didn't insuinate anything. You just meant
what you wrote: It's only a good deal if it's a good deal.

I don't know how you call such a statement in English, but in German I
call it a "Null-Aussage", a zero-statement. It's only a good deal if
it's a good deal... geezz. Sorry for searching for a message in your
statement.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in
:

> Matt Whiting wrote:
>
>>> > Yes, this may be the case, however the TBR has to get closer to
>>> > 4,000 hours than to 2,400. Most auto and truck diesels will last
>>> > at least twice as long as similar size gas engines, so with Lycs
>>> > and Contis lasting 2,000 hours fairly routinely, the Thielert
>>> > needs to at least double that ... unless the replacement cost is
>>> > equivalent to an overhaul of a Lyc or Conti.
>>> >
>>> > Matt
>>>
>>> Of curse I did completely misunderstand you. No, please don't
>>> explain. It gets boring.
>>
>> Yes, what part of "unless the replacement cost is equivalent to an
>> overhaul of a Lyc or Conti" wasn't clear?
>
> Ah, I finally understand. I've always thought you were insuinating
> something by insisting that the Theilert ist only a good deal provided
> it is a good deal and repeating that statement over and over. But I
> finally understand that you didn't insuinate anything. You just meant
> what you wrote: It's only a good deal if it's a good deal.
>


It's only a good deal if it doesn't land you in the jungle if your diehard
becomes disconnected.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>>>> Ain't that great? Power by the hour. You know in advance what it
>>>>> will cost you to run that engine 2400 hours. No surprise midtime
>>>>> overhauls. If it doesn't make TBR, Thielert will prorate it on the
>>>>> new engine.
>>>> That is great as long as the cost per hour is competitive.
>>> I pointed you to the numbers. But I understand that you're too lazy to
>>> do the math but want to argue just for the sake of arguing.
>>
>> Well I missed it. How much is the replacment and how much will it cost?
>
> http://www.centurion-engines.com/

In US dollars, at current exchange, $34,481 would get a replacement (14 volt
system) engine for a fully run out engine.

That brings the replacement cost for a new Thielert engine prorated to
$14.37 per hour for the Thielert.

If it costs $24,500 for a Lycoming 320 zero time overhaul, (about average
price, it appears) and the engine made it to 2,000 hours, that would be
costing you $12.25 per hour. So that is $2.12 per hour to run the Thielert,
in fixed replacement costs. It would not take much in fuel savings to make
up for that amount, and more.

If your Lycoming did not make it to your 2,000 hour TBO, and needed a top
end and perhaps a jug or two, if it cost you $9,981 to get it done and put
back in, the cost per hour would be even with the Thielert TBR engine.
Considering how many engines need to have the top end done before TBO, that
sounds like a pretty good chance the Thielert would be an even deal. It
could be a really good deal, if it saves a considerable amount in fuel
costs.

This assumes that the Thielert did not need any major work done during its
2,400 hours.

I guess it comes down to faith or intuition, or whatever you want to call
it, that the Thielert will make it to TBR without work being needed, but
part of that fear is taken care of by the prorated replacement policy. Not
forgetting to figure in the fuel costs, it looks like an almost certain fact
that the Thielert could save a lot of money.

I did not factor in the costs of re-engining an old airplane, or increased
costs of putting one in a homebuilt, or increased costs of buying a new
airplane with a Thielert instead of a Lycoming. There were too many
variables to try and apply the application to your situation.

Those are some interesting figures, I think. I did not expect it to be
competitive, but it looks like it could be, depending how much it would cost
to start with.
--
Jim in NC

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:15:53 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >:

>Not
>forgetting to figure in the fuel costs, it looks like an almost certain fact
>that the Thielert could save a lot of money.

How does the difference in horsepower (135 HP vs 180 HP) get factored
in your figures? At sea level that's a 25% decrease in available
horsepower.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 8, 9:48 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:15:53 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote in >:
>
> >Not
> >forgetting to figure in the fuel costs, it looks like an almost certain fact
> >that the Thielert could save a lot of money.
>
> How does the difference in horsepower (135 HP vs 180 HP) get factored
> in your figures? At sea level that's a 25% decrease in available
> horsepower.

Larry,

You fly cross-country at sea level?

At 10,000 feet, the turbo diesel Thielert will put out more power than
the "180" hp gasoline engine.

At 10,000 feet, the climb rate of a 172 with the normally aspirated
180hp gasoline engine is around 190 fpm, while the turbo diesel 134hp
engine is 560fpm. I know which one I'd rather have here in the
mountains of Idaho...

Dean

[Stefan]

Larry Dighera wrote:

> How does the difference in horsepower (135 HP vs 180 HP) get factored
> in your figures? At sea level that's a 25% decrease in available
> horsepower.

Those numbers don't have much meaning just as numbers, the engines are
too different (Diesel, turbo charged, FADEC controlled injection, FADEC
controlled prop pich...). And do you operate in cruse at 100%? The
numbers *may* mean something, but you only know when you have compared
them in flight. (I haven't.)

I know of one flying club who looked into the Thielert but then went for
the 180hp Lycoming, because it has better acceleration during the
takeoff run. The club operates from a 2000 ft grass strip with a slope
and was afraid that the Thielert would be somewhat marginal when the
ground becomes wet and soft, as is often the case in spring.

[Larry Dighera]

On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:28:20 -0700, wrote in
m>:

>On Oct 8, 9:48 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:15:53 -0400, "Morgans"
>> > wrote in >:
>>
>> >Not
>> >forgetting to figure in the fuel costs, it looks like an almost certain fact
>> >that the Thielert could save a lot of money.
>>
>> How does the difference in horsepower (135 HP vs 180 HP) get factored
>> in your figures? At sea level that's a 25% decrease in available
>> horsepower.
>
>Larry,
>
>You fly cross-country at sea level?

I often takeoff at near sea level elevation (KSNA).

>At 10,000 feet, the turbo diesel Thielert will put out more power than
>the "180" hp gasoline engine.
>
>At 10,000 feet, the climb rate of a 172 with the normally aspirated
>180hp gasoline engine is around 190 fpm, while the turbo diesel 134hp
>engine is 560fpm. I know which one I'd rather have here in the
>mountains of Idaho...
>
>Dean


I understand. But the 25% reduction in power for low level operations
needs to be mentioned in this discussion.

Have you any information about the pressure altitude at which the
break even point occurs where the maximum power output of both engines
is the same?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Larry Dighera > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 08 Oct 2007 22:28:20 -0700, wrote in
> m>:
>
>>On Oct 8, 9:48 pm, Larry Dighera > wrote:
>>> On Mon, 8 Oct 2007 21:15:53 -0400, "Morgans"
>>> > wrote in >:
>>>
>>> >Not
>>> >forgetting to figure in the fuel costs, it looks like an almost
>>> >certain fact that the Thielert could save a lot of money.
>>>
>>> How does the difference in horsepower (135 HP vs 180 HP) get
>>> factored in your figures? At sea level that's a 25% decrease in
>>> available horsepower.
>>
>>Larry,
>>
>>You fly cross-country at sea level?
>
> I often takeoff at near sea level elevation (KSNA).
>
>>At 10,000 feet, the turbo diesel Thielert will put out more power than
>>the "180" hp gasoline engine.
>>
>>At 10,000 feet, the climb rate of a 172 with the normally aspirated
>>180hp gasoline engine is around 190 fpm, while the turbo diesel 134hp
>>engine is 560fpm. I know which one I'd rather have here in the
>>mountains of Idaho...
>>
>>Dean
>
>
> I understand. But the 25% reduction in power for low level operations
> needs to be mentioned in this discussion.
>
> Have you any information about the pressure altitude at which the
> break even point occurs where the maximum power output of both engines
> is the same?


It's not neccesarily less thrust. HP is only part of the story. Being
Diesel and being geared it probably produces considerably more torque than
an equivelant flat four ignition engine. For instance, how far do you think
you would get if you mounted a C-90 on the front of a JN-4D?
Big torque, = big prop and gearing means an even bigger one and gearing
also means a nice low speed for the prop which all adds up to what could
potentially be some very good thrust figures.
However, I looked up the centurian's torque figures and they're pretty much
the same as an O-320s, so it's not going to get many marks there. it's
dispalcement only being 2.0 liters is the reson for that (comparing like
for like the dispalcement beng the same, a diesel would have a lot less hp
and a lot more torque) The gearing would allow an ideal prop rpm, instead
of the compromise you get with an engine you have to crank up for most
efficient RPM balanced against a need to keep the revs down.
So that's probably a tie more or less as well.
The Theilert has got a controllable prop, though. Not many O-320s do and
those are sedom installed on Cherokees or 172s, so that would be a big
advantage on a short field or even at sea level where climb is needed.
Doesn't need to be said the advantage would go to the blown engine fairly
soon into the climb... Also, the SFC means you have to carry less fuel for
a given journey..


Still, no limp home capabiity? I'm not averse to flying something that you
need to consider a potential glider at any moment (anteeks) but this seems
to me to be just stupid.

Bertie
>
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Still, no limp home capabiity?
>

Of course there is. It's just based on a battery, which somehow seems
to make a difference to you.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Still, no limp home capabiity?
>>
>
> Of course there is. It's just based on a battery, which somehow seems
> to make a difference to you.
>



There is no good reason to have a fuel system completely reliant on sparks.

kind of makes a mockery of having a multi engine aircraft with a single
failure point.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 9, 7:47 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote :
>
> > Bertie,
>
> >> Still, no limp home capabiity?
>
> > Of course there is. It's just based on a battery, which somehow seems
> > to make a difference to you.
>
> There is no good reason to have a fuel system completely reliant on sparks.
>
> kind of makes a mockery of having a multi engine aircraft with a single
> failure point.
>
> Bertie

So, it should be wired as two electrical busses, one for each engine
for redundancy, and there should be a RAT to deploy if you lose both
alternators... just like a big twin.

[[email protected]]

>
> I understand. But the 25% reduction in power for low level operations
> needs to be mentioned in this discussion.
>
> Have you any information about the pressure altitude at which the
> break even point occurs where the maximum power output of both engines
> is the same?

Lets see, the gasoline engine gives you 770 fpm climb at sea level
while the diesel gives you 690 fpm. Not much difference, and BOTH are
way better than we typically get in Idaho in the summer. Even at
2800MSL in Boise on a 100 degree day, we only get 485 fpm with a
gasoline engine. I'd LOVE to have 690 fpm, or even the 560 fpm that
you get at 10,000 feet.

I don't see much down side from the 135hp...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

wrote in
ups.com:

> On Oct 9, 7:47 am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> :
>>
>> > Bertie,
>>
>> >> Still, no limp home capabiity?
>>
>> > Of course there is. It's just based on a battery, which somehow
>> > seems to make a difference to you.
>>
>> There is no good reason to have a fuel system completely reliant on
>> sparks.
>>
>> kind of makes a mockery of having a multi engine aircraft with a
>> single failure point.
>>
>> Bertie
>
> So, it should be wired as two electrical busses, one for each engine
> for redundancy, and there should be a RAT to deploy if you lose both
> alternators... just like a big twin.
>
>



Nope, it whoudl have manual reversion for the fadec. just like every other
airplane I know of that does.


Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> Still, no limp home capabiity? I'm not averse to flying something that you
> need to consider a potential glider at any moment (anteeks) but this seems
> to me to be just stupid.

I think you are fixating on the Diamond twin application of the Thielert,
and not other applications.

I seem to recall reading that one Thielert single engine plane had a backup
battery and essential buss that was capable of running it for about an hour.
I don't remember which one that was.

I believe the twin engine that crashed was made so one engine's battery
could back-up the other side. The problem was that he took off with both
batteries crapped out. When you lose a battery in the air, you are supposed
to land, and you sure should not be taking off.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> Still, no limp home capabiity? I'm not averse to flying something
>> that you need to consider a potential glider at any moment (anteeks)
>> but this seems to me to be just stupid.
>
> I think you are fixating on the Diamond twin application of the
> Thielert, and not other applications.


Nope, a singel engine installation would be even worse in my view.
>
> I seem to recall reading that one Thielert single engine plane had a
> backup battery and essential buss that was capable of running it for
> about an hour. I don't remember which one that was.


I'm sure you can, but I've often flown singles in situations where that
wasn't anything like enough.

>
> I believe the twin engine that crashed was made so one engine's
> battery could back-up the other side. The problem was that he took
> off with both batteries crapped out. When you lose a battery in the
> air, you are supposed to land, and you sure should not be taking off.

I understand that. I understand it completely. I stil think it's poor
design.

Bertie

[Mike Isaksen]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...
> ...., it (should) have manual reversion for the fadec. just like every
> other airplane I know of that does.

Yup, like the other diesel maker out there who marketed its product for the
c182.
http://www.smaengines.com

These guys actually beat the Theilert boys to the market. Direct drive, air
cooled, hit it with a bat mechanical fuel injection, turbo induction, 230hp,
FADEC with limp home system, and they can't seem to get any traction.

Plus, I like talking to these guys at the shows a lot better than the T
boys. SMA has real engineers (who are also pilots) in their booths. They can
talk about the how and why of every engine part, and its testing history.
They even had the c182 Diesel on the flight line at the AOPA Tampa show a
few years back, and were ground running it for demo (no flights though).

The Theilerts were running in stealth mode for two years in Europe with
constant press release promises of an American debut. Then they partnered
with Superior and started displaying their engines at the booths, with never
any tech experts to explore those very "failure mode" details we're
mentioning in this thread. Finally, they buy out Superior. Typical German
control freaks. And I should know, I am one!

Having said all that, I still think the product is viable. The engine needs
electric for its ECU and has a dedicated battery for backup. If you fail
your entire electrical system in the soup, this engine will probably take
you quite efficently to the scene of the crash. Hey, just a thought, does
this engine support a Vac system?

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Mike Isaksen" > wrote in
news:G9SOi.1100$yJ2.66@trndny01:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message ...
>> ...., it (should) have manual reversion for the fadec. just like
>> every other airplane I know of that does.
>
> Yup, like the other diesel maker out there who marketed its product
> for the c182.
> http://www.smaengines.com
>
> These guys actually beat the Theilert boys to the market. Direct
> drive, air cooled, hit it with a bat mechanical fuel injection, turbo
> induction, 230hp, FADEC with limp home system, and they can't seem to
> get any traction.
>
> Plus, I like talking to these guys at the shows a lot better than the
> T boys. SMA has real engineers (who are also pilots) in their booths.
> They can talk about the how and why of every engine part, and its
> testing history. They even had the c182 Diesel on the flight line at
> the AOPA Tampa show a few years back, and were ground running it for
> demo (no flights though).
>
> The Theilerts were running in stealth mode for two years in Europe
> with constant press release promises of an American debut. Then they
> partnered with Superior and started displaying their engines at the
> booths, with never any tech experts to explore those very "failure
> mode" details we're mentioning in this thread. Finally, they buy out
> Superior. Typical German control freaks. And I should know, I am one!
>
> Having said all that, I still think the product is viable. The engine
> needs electric for its ECU and has a dedicated battery for backup. If
> you fail your entire electrical system in the soup, this engine will
> probably take you quite efficently to the scene of the crash. Hey,
> just a thought, does this engine support a Vac system?
>
>
>
Dunno, but what you say makes sense. A limp home system needn't be to
dramatic. It could be as simple as a fail safe that fails the engine and
prop at, say 75% power which is a lot better than having it at zilch.
Even a two position fallback system would be plenty to get you home and
down, but there's no reason why a full manual reversion can't be
implemented. I'm guessing they will eventualy have to install
something,.


Bertie

[Snowbird]

>
>>
>> I believe the twin engine that crashed was made so one engine's
>> battery could back-up the other side. The problem was that he took
>> off with both batteries crapped out. When you lose a battery in the
>> air, you are supposed to land, and you sure should not be taking off.

The DA42 has one main battery. The problem was that he took off with a dead
or almost dead battery that was not able to buffer the current spike of the
landing gear retraction. The POH prescribed that the 2nd engine shall be
started using the ship's own power, thus ensuring the battery has a
sufficient charge.

>
> I understand that. I understand it completely. I stil think it's poor
> design.
>

Agree anyway.

[Stefan]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

> Even a two position fallback system would be plenty to get you home and
> down, but there's no reason why a full manual reversion can't be
> implemented.

There's no reason why you can't trim the quotes to the essential, either.

> I'm guessing they will eventualy have to install
> something,.

They have installed an emergency battery.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Stefan > wrote in news:9b02$470bf4f2$d9a2714f$8214
@news.hispeed.ch:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
>> Even a two position fallback system would be plenty to get you home and
>> down, but there's no reason why a full manual reversion can't be
>> implemented.
>
> There's no reason why you can't trim the quotes to the essential, either.
>

Of course there is.


>> I'm guessing they will eventualy have to install
>> something,.
>
> They have installed an emergency battery.

Not enough.


Bertie
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> I'm sure you can, but I've often flown singles in situations where that
> wasn't anything like enough.

What is it that isn't enough? A backup battery? An essential buss being
powered by the backup battery? What situation?

Your comment was not enough for me to telepathically link to the meaning,
this time. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> I'm sure you can, but I've often flown singles in situations where
>> that wasn't anything like enough.
>
> What is it that isn't enough? A backup battery? An essential buss
> being powered by the backup battery? What situation?
>
> Your comment was not enough for me to telepathically link to the
> meaning, this time. <g>

It wasn't telepathic.

An hour wasn't enough. I've done quite a few ten hour plus flights away
from anywhere to land in singles. Haveing to have two fuel sources (diesel
and electricity) is not what you want.

Bertie

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote

> An hour wasn't enough. I've done quite a few ten hour plus flights away
> from anywhere to land in singles. Haveing to have two fuel sources (diesel
> and electricity) is not what you want.

Good grief, 10 hours away from somewhere to land in a single? Where were
all these flights; over the ocean?

I suppose if I was going to take a single over the ocean for a ferry flight,
I'd want to rig in a deep discharge battery, with enough capacity to fly me
onward, feet wet to feet dry, at least.

I suppose the makers of electricity dependant engines could also add a
permanent magnet generator, for backup purposes. That would not have to be
very big, and would be a big comfort, I suppose.
--
Jim in NC

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>
>> An hour wasn't enough. I've done quite a few ten hour plus flights
>> away from anywhere to land in singles. Haveing to have two fuel
>> sources (diesel and electricity) is not what you want.
>
> Good grief, 10 hours away from somewhere to land in a single? Where
> were all these flights; over the ocean?


Mostly.

>
> I suppose if I was going to take a single over the ocean for a ferry
> flight, I'd want to rig in a deep discharge battery, with enough
> capacity to fly me onward, feet wet to feet dry, at least.


>
> I suppose the makers of electricity dependant engines could also add a
> permanent magnet generator, for backup purposes. That would not have
> to be very big, and would be a big comfort, I suppose.



Well, even with a large battery I still wouldn't be happy.


http://www.airdisaster.com/cgi-bin/view_details.cgi?date=10111983
&reg=N748LL&airline=Air+Illinois

The report at the bottom of this is not quite correct. The failure of
one generator due to the engine failure caused a bump in the electrics
which knocked off the second generator. There;s no way the crew would
have de-enrgised a genny on an already dead engine.
Anyhow, the RCCB on the opposite side decided to give up the ghost and
at that time there was now way of resetting it from the flight deck
(they were all modified after this accident with the lamest rube
goldberg device you have ever seen)
The whole story of this accident is just so scary it's beyond belief.
The crew were trying to save batt power by turning off as many
unnecesary items as possible, including the cabin lights. When they did
that, the pax started agitating, so they put them on again and off agian
several times before impact.
Bottom line on this accident is that British Aerospace considered it
impossible to lose both generators due to a single electrical event.

They was wrooong.

To this day they conitinue to say "theh crew did this and the crew did
that" but they still modified the airplane.

And they wewren;t all that far from somewhere to land.

I'm not a wimp about that sort of thing. I fly single ignition airplanes
and airplanes with dry rickers you gotta grease every four hours or so.
But this engine goes into airplanes that were designed to be operated as
fairly serious cross country and instrument airplanes. If you put one of
these into a Cherokee or whatever I wouldn't have the same confidence in
the donkey as I would with a Lycoming.If you're going to fly one around
the patch on a sunday afternoon, that's one thing. If you're going to
fly instruments or at night or over water or rough terrain or in any
situation where a good visible landing spot is far away you might as
well be flying across a sea, Depend on a battery? I don't think so.

Bertie

[Al[_2_]]

In the short-term, my Cessna 172E has an AutoGas STC and runs just fine
on the stuff. In the long term, I will turn into a dinosaur, fail my
medical, be unable to afford a $100k LSA, and just rock in my chair all day.

;^)

Al
1964 Skyhawk

[Big John]

Bertie

Have you looked at my "Trims" psoting. No comments under it????

Big John
************************************************** ******************


On Tue, 9 Oct 2007 16:40:30 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote in
:
>
>>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote
>>
>>> Still, no limp home capabiity? I'm not averse to flying something
>>> that you need to consider a potential glider at any moment (anteeks)
>>> but this seems to me to be just stupid.
>>
>> I think you are fixating on the Diamond twin application of the
>> Thielert, and not other applications.
>
>
>Nope, a singel engine installation would be even worse in my view.
>>
>> I seem to recall reading that one Thielert single engine plane had a
>> backup battery and essential buss that was capable of running it for
>> about an hour. I don't remember which one that was.
>
>
>I'm sure you can, but I've often flown singles in situations where that
>wasn't anything like enough.
>
>>
>> I believe the twin engine that crashed was made so one engine's
>> battery could back-up the other side. The problem was that he took
>> off with both batteries crapped out. When you lose a battery in the
>> air, you are supposed to land, and you sure should not be taking off.
>
>I understand that. I understand it completely. I stil think it's poor
>design.
>
>Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> Bertie
>
> Have you looked at my "Trims" psoting. No comments under it????
>


I haven't seen it, I don't think . I delete all the posts after I read them
and some get swept away. I'll have a lok on one of my other newsreaders

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Big John > wrote in
:

> John

NoI don't see it anywhere. It might not have made it on my server.



Bertie

[Big John]

Bertie

I'll post again under heading "Wings Over Houston". It covers my
conversation at the Wings Over Houston Air Show this week end and the
conversation on group about trim plus a littlre other.

Big John

************************************************** **************8
On Wed, 10 Oct 2007 00:59:42 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>Big John > wrote in
:
>
>> John
>
>NoI don't see it anywhere. It might not have made it on my server.
>
>
>
>Bertie

[Gilan]

OH no you won't need to do that. There are and will be many more LSA for
much less than $100k. Talk to the guys in our group and they will tell you.

Have a good day and stay out of the trees!
See ya on Sport Aircraft group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Sport_Aircraft/






"Al" > wrote in message
...
> In the short-term, my Cessna 172E has an AutoGas STC and runs just fine on
> the stuff. In the long term, I will turn into a dinosaur, fail my
> medical, be unable to afford a $100k LSA, and just rock in my chair all
> day.
>
> ;^)
>
> Al
> 1964 Skyhawk