Thielert (Diesel Engines)

[Charles Talleyrand]

This data is from 2006, they Thielert has not released a 2007 annual
report yet.

The annual report for Thielert, which makes diesel engines for certain
single-engine Cessnas, Pipers, and Diamonds, shows an increase in
sales of aircraft engines from 22 million Euros to 31 million Euros.
That's a 44% increase. It's probably over 1000 engines in total.

They are the third largest piston engine maker in the world (which
surprises me, I would have thought Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax).

The total market for piston aircraft engines is about 13,000 including
both new planes and the larger replacement market.

They aim to sell helicopter engines in 2009.

The best quote from the annual report: "We aim to achieve a market
share in piston aircraft engines of over 50% in the medium term. The
necessary demand and customer base are already in place."

Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 10, 10:18*pm, Charles Talleyrand > wrote:
> This data is from 2006, they Thielert has not released a 2007 annual
> report yet.
>
> The annual report for Thielert, which makes diesel engines for certain
> single-engine Cessnas, Pipers, and Diamonds, shows an increase in
> sales of aircraft engines from 22 million Euros to 31 million Euros.
> That's a 44% increase. *It's probably over 1000 engines in total.
>
> They are the third largest piston engine maker in the world (which
> surprises me, I would have thought Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax).
>
> The total market for piston aircraft engines is about 13,000 including
> both new planes and the larger replacement market.
>
> They aim to sell helicopter engines in 2009.
>
> The best quote from the annual report: *"We aim to achieve a market
> share in piston aircraft engines of over 50% in the medium term. *The
> necessary demand and customer base are already in place."
>
> Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????

The Diamond twin also flys the Thielert Diesels.

Wil

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Charles Talleyrand wrote:

>
> Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????

Might want to read either last month's or the month's before Aviation
Consumer. Lots of maintenance and service issues.

[Paul kgyy]

On Feb 11, 9:23 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> > Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????
>
> Might want to read either last month's or the month's before Aviation
> Consumer. Lots of maintenance and service issues.

And attitude issues...

[Alan[_6_]]

In article > Paul kgyy > writes:
>On Feb 11, 9:23 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>wrote:
>> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????
>>
>> Might want to read either last month's or the month's before Aviation
>> Consumer. Lots of maintenance and service issues.
>
>And attitude issues...

People actually pay for Aviation Consumer? I used to get their regular
teaser ads, and was not impressed. More sensationalism from picked details.
Some good stuff, but much of the real stuff was obvious.

Alan

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 12, 3:23*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> Charles Talleyrand wrote:
>
> > Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????
>
> Might want to read either last month's or the month's before Aviation
> Consumer. Lots of maintenance and service issues.

Why should that be? Generally, diesels are great at running at high
power for long periods and they are also the powerplant of choice for
high reliability when fuel consumption is also an issue (ruling out
turbines) -or am I wrong?

Cheers

[William Hung[_2_]]

On Feb 13, 5:14*am, Peter > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote
>
> >Why should that be? Generally, diesels are great at running at high
> >power for long periods and they are also *the powerplant of choice for
> >high reliability when fuel consumption is also an issue (ruling out
> >turbines) -or am I wrong?
>
> Diesels are indeed great in applications where they can be designed
> without weight issues e.g. ships and trucks.
>
> It appears that their problems (Thielert specifically - there is no
> other diesel actually flying any meaningful hours at present) are to
> do with a lightweight car engine - 1.7 litres - being run at 130HP (or
> close to it) for 100% of the time. The original car engine would be
> running at 20-30HP, maybe 100HP very briefly in a big Merc on a German
> motorway (no speed limits). But an aeroplane is a whole different
> situation.
>
> They also had some specific issues e.g. corrosion due to the coolant,
> but all these can and will be solved.
>
> They are now moving to a slightly different 2 litre design which they
> hope will provide that extra bit of ruggedness.
>
> But very significantly Diamond sell only their DA42 twin in the USA,
> and, on a twin, engine failures *enroute* are manageable. They wisely
> sell the DA40 single with a 180HP Lyco, in the USA.
>
> The old Lycos, OTOH, can run at 75% power continuously and provided
> the CHT is well managed (itself a science, as Deakin fans will know,
> but no rocket science) it won't fall apart for 2000hrs. They also
> don't appear to have any consistent catastrophic failure issues -
> ignoring the odd Lyco crankshaft which has been hardened but they
> forgot to temper it :)

A lot of interesting info from you and WingFlaps there Peter. I also
read somewhere recently that the Diamond Twin diesels that uses
Thielerts have limited life on the engine. I can't remember how many
hours, but at the end of the max hour, Thielert will replace your
engines with a fresh rebuild for $25k each, instead of rebuilding
yours for you. In essence, you are actually renting the engine $25k
for that specified hours flown. I suppose this is good and bad. Good
to know your DOC on the engine, bad that you don't get to keep the
core or run the engine past TBO if it was still running good.

Wil

[Thomas Borchert]

Alan,

> People actually pay for Aviation Consumer?
>

The most valuable 39 bucks (or whatever the subscription is) I spend
per year in aviation.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Alan,
>
>> People actually pay for Aviation Consumer?
>>
>
> The most valuable 39 bucks (or whatever the subscription is) I spend
> per year in aviation.
>


I agree. I subscribed several years ago when my company was thinking of
buying a Cherokee 6 and I wanted access to the back issue database
online. I've read just about every word in each issue since.

No Ads means no advertisers they have to suck-up to.

[[email protected]]

In rec.aviation.owning Peter > wrote:

> William Hung > wrote

> >A lot of interesting info from you and WingFlaps there Peter. I also
> >read somewhere recently that the Diamond Twin diesels that uses
> >Thielerts have limited life on the engine. I can't remember how many
> >hours, but at the end of the max hour, Thielert will replace your
> >engines with a fresh rebuild for $25k each, instead of rebuilding
> >yours for you. In essence, you are actually renting the engine $25k
> >for that specified hours flown. I suppose this is good and bad. Good
> >to know your DOC on the engine, bad that you don't get to keep the
> >core or run the engine past TBO if it was still running good.

> Yes, something like that.

> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failures. Basically nobody
> would buy a DA40TDI/DA42 unless they got such an engine warranty :)

> $25k (if that's the figure in the U.S. market) is probably comparable
> to fully overhauling say an IO360 anyway. If this works, one could
> regard it as just a different business model.

> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert and most parts
> re-used. The way the Lyco exchange engine market works (people
> overhaul *their own* engine when the engine is young), the average
> exchange engine is made from ~ 5000hrs old crankcases etc and the
> wisdom of this can probably be debated both ways (esp. when taking
> into account undeclared prop strikes etc, and NDT on aluminium fails
> to pick up subsurface cracks).

There used to be a blurb on their web site that said the "run out"
aero engines were rebuilt and sold for ground power service, i.e.
water pumping and such.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 13, 11:14*pm, Peter > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote
>
> >Why should that be? Generally, diesels are great at running at high
> >power for long periods and they are also *the powerplant of choice for
> >high reliability when fuel consumption is also an issue (ruling out
> >turbines) -or am I wrong?
>
> Diesels are indeed great in applications where they can be designed
> without weight issues e.g. ships and trucks.
>
> It appears that their problems (Thielert specifically - there is no
> other diesel actually flying any meaningful hours at present) are to
> do with a lightweight car engine - 1.7 litres - being run at 130HP (or
> close to it) for 100% of the time. The original car engine would be
> running at 20-30HP, maybe 100HP very briefly in a big Merc on a German
> motorway (no speed limits). But an aeroplane is a whole different
> situation.
>

Yes I've heard that argument but I'd like to add/offer a different
POV. What is really stressful for engines is constant power changes
and the temperature fluctuations that involves. Therefore if your
engine can do 150 mph on a german autobahn for an hour or two it
should have no trouble doing it for a 4 hour flight in a plane. I also
agree that marine installations pay no/little attention to weight
(some performance boat installations aim to keep weight low) but tha's
just a design thing. The natural rpm/torque curve for diesels seems to
match a prop better too. The metals exists to make a diesel about the
same weight as a petrol engine so with a bit more hours under their
belt to identify weaknesses I can't see diesels not becoming the (?)
engine of choice (more range, less fuel quality issues). One more
think, no mixture control just rpm and pitch!
Imagine just setting rpm just one and then doing everything else with
pitch ;-) ...

Cheers

[nrp]

> The weakness of the certification regime is that the engine only has
> to show 2000hrs at 100% power,

I think it is 200 hrs @full throttle.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 14, 10:15*am, Peter > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote
>
> >Yes I've heard that argument but I'd like to add/offer a different
> >POV. What is really stressful for engines is constant power changes
> >and the temperature fluctuations that involves. Therefore if your
> >engine can do 150 mph on a german autobahn for an hour or two it
> >should have no trouble doing it for a 4 hour flight in a plane.
>
> IMHO it is a matter of degree. No road car will be actually run at say
> 75% power for more than minutes - you would kill yourself. Rally cars
> get through engines at great rates, often breaking one in one race.
> Whereas an aero engine just sits there the whole time at that power
> setting. This may be just a matter of duty cycle but the end result
> will be more stress and more wear.
>
> The weakness of the certification regime is that the engine only has
> to show 2000hrs at 100% power, and TBH you could probably get a lawn
> mower engine to do that. Any engine that doesn't actually break (and
> that is easy to achieve by design) and which meets the criteria (e.g.
> starting at the certified ceiling) will be certified.
>
> AFAIK there is no reliability requirement - that certainly applies to
> avionics too.
>
> >I also
> >agree that marine installations pay no/little attention to weight
> >(some performance boat installations aim to keep weight low) but tha's
> >just a design thing. The natural rpm/torque curve for diesels seems to
> >match a prop better too. *
>
> It may be but diesels have a lot more high frequency components in
> their torque spectrum which plays havoc with props and gearboxes. So
> they tend to need rubber shock absorbers.
>
> >The metals exists to make a diesel about the
> >same weight as a petrol engine so with a bit more hours under their
> >belt to identify weaknesses I can't see diesels not becoming the (?)
> >engine of choice (more range, less fuel quality issues). One more
> >think, no mixture control just rpm and pitch!
>
> I agree but that is FADEC, not diesel. With FADEC on a Lyco you would
> have similar benefits.
>

I was under the impression that diesels work by a governor that sets
RPM. The difference between desired rpm and actual rpm determines fuel
injected... In that case you could just set rpm and just adjust pitch
for speed/power. A single power knob (fadec) sets pitch and rpm
together?

Cheers

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a Thielert
concept from the get-go.

> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of simple
research would provide the facts? What picture does that paint of the
pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a simple "I don't
know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead of spouting made-up
negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

WingFlaps schrieb:

> One more think, no mixture control just rpm and pitch!
> Imagine just setting rpm just one and then doing everything else with
> pitch ;-) ...

There's nothing Diesel specific on this.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Peter,
>
>> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>>
>
> Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a Thielert
> concept from the get-go.
>
>> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>
> You lose.
>
> Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
> spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of simple
> research would provide the facts? What picture does that paint of the
> pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a simple "I don't
> know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead of spouting made-up
> negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
against it because of the lack of limp home capability.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>

That's not the point I complained about.

There's a ton of failure modes on any Lyc or TCM that lack "limp home
capability". Same with the Thielert. The argument is a red herring.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>
> That's not the point I complained about.
>
> There's a ton of failure modes on any Lyc or TCM that lack "limp home
> capability". Same with the Thielert. The argument is a red herring.
>

None of them regard electricity. The argument is sound.







Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> None of them regard electricity.
>

So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?

Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
are used to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> None of them regard electricity.
>>
>
> So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
> than others?
>

I believe I just did.


> Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
> But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
> an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
> are used to.


It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable, therefore
unacceptable.


http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html


Bertie
>

[David Lesher]

Bertie the Bunyip > writes:


>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>against it because of the lack of limp home capability.

What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
@reader2.panix.com:

> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>
>
>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>>because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>>against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>
> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>
>



This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up front.

Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this case,
when the gear was retracted...

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html

Nice eh?


Bertie

[Peter Clark]

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:

>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>
>>
>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>>>because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>>>against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>
>>
>
>
>
>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up front.
>
>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this case,
>when the gear was retracted...
>
>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>
>Nice eh?

To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
systtem to power the FADECs after that event. I'm surprised it wasn't
required for certification in the first place since it appears to me
that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>>>>one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>>>>decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>>
>>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
>>front.
>>
>>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
>>case, when the gear was retracted...
>>
>>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>>
>>Nice eh?
>
> To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
> systtem to power the FADECs after that event. I'm surprised it wasn't
> required for certification in the first place since it appears to me
> that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.

There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion, lightning,
poor maintenance...
A manual reversion mode or at least a fail safe to a constant power
setting weould be a major improvement and the ony thing that would make
the engine a viable modern airplane engine in my view. I've flown single
ignition airplanes, but there is a world of difference between flying an
antique with low approahc speeds and a modern(ish) lightplane.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote :
>
>
>
> > Peter,
>
> >> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>
> > Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a Thielert
> > concept from the get-go.
>
> >> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>
> > You lose.
>
> > Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
> > spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of simple
> > research would provide the facts? What picture does that paint of the
> > pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a simple "I don't
> > know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead of spouting made-up
> > negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>
> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>

You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity? Since when does adding a complex ignition system add
reliability? All a diesel needs is air and fuel, the fuel pump and
injectors are no more complicated that for petrol engines so that
would be a big boost in potential reliability (given the poor
performance of mags and plugs) in my book..

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> innews:VA.000077db.005
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > Peter,
>>
>> >> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>>
>> > Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
>> > Thielert concept from the get-go.
>>
>> >> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>>
>> > You lose.
>>
>> > Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
>> > spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
>> > simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
>> > paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
>> > simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
>> > of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>>
>> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>
> You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
> electricity?


Read it again.


> That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> without major working?
>

I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours

In a cub trainer, in fact.

I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
working airplanes, though.





Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote :
>
> > Bertie,
>
> >> None of them regard electricity.
>
> > So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
> > than others?
>
> I believe I just did.
>
> > Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
> > But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
> > an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
> > are used to.
>
> It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable, therefore
> unacceptable.
>
> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>

I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel. They
must have adde it due to pressure from the marketing department!
However, FADEC adds a failure mode but removal of sparks takes one
away. The reduced risk of fire would remove another. Add that to the
removal of 100LL and the damage that will be caused by ethanol
addition and diesel starts to look better all the time.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote
> >> innews:VA.000077db.005
> > :
>
> >> > Peter,
>
> >> >> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>
> >> > Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
> >> > Thielert concept from the get-go.
>
> >> >> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>
> >> > You lose.
>
> >> > Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
> >> > spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
> >> > simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
> >> > paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
> >> > simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
> >> > of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>
> >> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
> >> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
> >> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>
> > You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
> > electricity?
>
> Read it again.
>
> > That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> > What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> > replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> > another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> > without major working?
>
> I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours
>
> In a cub trainer, in fact.
>
> I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
> working airplanes, though.
>

OK, but % of engines is that (is plenty say 1 in 20)? (I'll admit
skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
can't imagine the compression figures) I question whether the
reliability argument of petrol is not as sound as it might be so that
people want a new engine to be unrealistically reliable without regard
to other advantages.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> innews:VA.000077df.009
> :
>>
>> > Bertie,
>>
>> >> None of them regard electricity.
>>
>> > So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
>> > than others?
>>
>> I believe I just did.
>>
>> > Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is,
>> > too. But don't make it sound like there is something inherently
>> > wrong about an engine just because it has different failure modes
>> > than the ones you are used to.
>>
>> It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable,
>> therefore unacceptable.
>>
>> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>>
>
> I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel. They
> must have adde it due to pressure from the marketing department!


> However, FADEC adds a failure mode but removal of sparks takes one
> away. The reduced risk of fire would remove another. Add that to the
> removal of 100LL and the damage that will be caused by ethanol
> addition and diesel starts to look better all the time.


No. What I meant was, you lose power to the fadec, you lose power. it's
gone. You;'re gliding. End of flight.
There are Fadecs installed on a lot of turbines. Fadecs and similar
devices. they all have a manual reversion of some description. It's
usually a coarser throttle response, but you still have power....

With the thielert system, you don't. I can only imagine they lifted the
FADEC straight out of the car with the engine.





Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 6:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> Peter Clark > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> > wrote:
>
> >>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
> :
>
> >>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>
> >>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
> >>>>one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
> >>>>decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>
> >>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>
> >>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
> >>front.
>
> >>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
> >>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
> >>case, when the gear was retracted...
>
> >>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>
> >>Nice eh?
>
> > To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
> > systtem to power the FADECs after that event. *I'm surprised it wasn't
> > required for certification in the first place since it appears to me
> > that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.
>
> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion, lightning,
> poor maintenance...

I agree. Isn't that a problem for electrical ignition systems? Limp
home should be excellent in a diesel...

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> WingFlaps > wrote :
>
>
>
> > On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote
> >> innews:VA.000077db.005
> > :
>
> >> > Peter,
>
> >> >> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>
> >> > Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
> >> > Thielert concept from the get-go.
>
> >> >> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>
> >> > You lose.
>
> >> > Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
> >> > spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
> >> > simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
> >> > paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
> >> > simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
> >> > of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>
> >> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
> >> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
> >> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>
> > You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
> > electricity?
>
> Read it again.
>
> > That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> > What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> > replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> > another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> > without major working?
>
> I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours
>
> In a cub trainer, in fact.
>
> I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
> working airplanes, though.
>

OK, but what % of engines is that (is plenty say 1 in 20)? (I'll admit
skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
can't imagine the compression figures) I question whether the
reliability argument of petrol is not as sound as it might be so that
people want a new engine to be unrealistically reliable without regard
to other advantages.
I'm not saying the thielert is the best but rather the diesel engine
has so much going for it that it should replace petrol but resistance
to change old technology will stop good progress.
Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> WingFlaps > wrote
>> innews:474cb903-b6c7-46ed-a5bd-b29b5
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> >> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>> >> innews:VA.000077db.005
>> > :
>>
>> >> > Peter,
>>
>> >> >> AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure
>>
>> >> > Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
>> >> > Thielert concept from the get-go.
>>
>> >> >> But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert
>>
>> >> > You lose.
>>
>> >> > Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
>> >> > spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
>> >> > simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
>> >> > paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about
>> >> > a simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this"
>> >> > instead of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really
>> >> > annoying.
>>
>> >> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>> >> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>> >> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>> > You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
>> > electricity?
>>
>> Read it again.
>>
>> > That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability
>> > issue. What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major
>> > part replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos
>> > etc.). Put another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen
>> > one go to TBO without major working?
>>
>> I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000
>> hours
>>
>> In a cub trainer, in fact.
>>
>> I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
>> working airplanes, though.
>>
>
> OK, but % of engines is that (is plenty say 1 in 20)?

Depends on the usage would be my point. The one I mentioned that my club
is changing has run to the end of it's TBO and it hasn't had anything
done to it since it was bolted on except regualr maintenance. It
probably flew about 300 hours a year.

(I'll admit
> skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
> can't imagine the compression figures)


Actually. that was just the last time I saw the airplane. I did at least
one annual on this airplane myself and the compression was fine, even if
we dd have to rock the prop a bit to get it. The airplane certainly
pulled well. I don't know how long the engine lived, though.

I question whether the
> reliability argument of petrol is not as sound as it might be so that
> people want a new engine to be unrealistically reliable without regard
> to other advantages.


I have no objection to a diesel in principle, I jhust think this one s
not particularly well thought out. I'm surprised it was certified.



Bertie

[Al G[_1_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> Peter Clark > wrote in
> :
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
:
>>>
>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>>>>>one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>>>>>decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>>>
>>>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
>>>front.
>>>
>>>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>>>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
>>>case, when the gear was retracted...
>>>
>>>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>>>
>>>Nice eh?
>>
>> To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
>> systtem to power the FADECs after that event. I'm surprised it wasn't
>> required for certification in the first place since it appears to me
>> that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.
>
> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion, lightning,
> poor maintenance...
> A manual reversion mode or at least a fail safe to a constant power
> setting weould be a major improvement and the ony thing that would make
> the engine a viable modern airplane engine in my view. I've flown single
> ignition airplanes, but there is a world of difference between flying an
> antique with low approahc speeds and a modern(ish) lightplane.
>
>
> Bertie
>

This aircraft had 2 working alternators when the volts dropped and the
FADECs(4) quit. Had each engine shed the electrical load quick enough, this
would not have happened. Apparently it takes less than a 1/4 second of low
volts to "reboot".

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 6:46*am, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> Peter Clark > wrote
>> innews:qav8r3
> :
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>> > >
>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
>> :
>>
>> >>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>
>> >>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't
>> >>>>buy one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a
>> >>>>Cherokee and decided against it because of the lack of limp home
>> >>>>capability.
>>
>> >>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>
>> >>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
>> >>front.
>>
>> >>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>> >>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
>> >>case, when the gear was retracted...
>>
>> >>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-
a.htm
>> >>l
>>
>> >>Nice eh?
>>
>> > To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
>> > systtem to power the FADECs after that event. *I'm surprised it
>> > wasn't
>
>> > required for certification in the first place since it appears to
>> > me that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.
>>
>> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion,
>> lightning, poor maintenance...
>
> I agree. Isn't that a problem for electrical ignition systems?


Well, there are two mostly! Completely independent as well. Not the case
here. You can add backup batteries and what not, but they're still
connected to the same fadec.

Limp
> home should be excellent in a diesel...

Should be, but in this engine it is non-existent. It's not diesels in
general I'm knocking. It's this engine only..



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Al G" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Peter Clark > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
:
>>>>
>>>>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>>>>>>one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>>>>>>decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>>>>
>>>>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
>>>>front.
>>>>
>>>>Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>>>>electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
>>>>case, when the gear was retracted...
>>>>
>>>>http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-
a.html
>>>>
>>>>Nice eh?
>>>
>>> To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
>>> systtem to power the FADECs after that event. I'm surprised it
>>> wasn't required for certification in the first place since it
>>> appears to me that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.
>>
>> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion,
>> lightning, poor maintenance...
>> A manual reversion mode or at least a fail safe to a constant power
>> setting weould be a major improvement and the ony thing that would
>> make the engine a viable modern airplane engine in my view. I've
>> flown single ignition airplanes, but there is a world of difference
>> between flying an antique with low approahc speeds and a modern(ish)
>> lightplane.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>>
>
> This aircraft had 2 working alternators when the volts dropped and
> the
> FADECs(4) quit. Had each engine shed the electrical load quick enough,
> this would not have happened. Apparently it takes less than a 1/4
> second of low volts to "reboot".

The strange part of all this is it seems to me to be a relatively easy
problem to fix. OK, it probably means a different FADEC, but so what?


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

> That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> without major working?
>
> Cheers
>


Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
seen the same.

If you want some info on the reliability I'd suggest you subscribe to
Aviation Consumer that will give you access to the back issue section of
their website and there was a very could article on the Thielerts either
last month or the month before.

[Flydive]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
> David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
> @reader2.panix.com:
>
>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>
>>
>>> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>>> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>>> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>
>>
>
>
>
> This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up front.
>
> Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
> electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this case,
> when the gear was retracted...
>
> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>
> Nice eh?
>
>
> Bertie

Bertie, in this case the failure was due to the pilots not following the
procedures written in the aircraft manual.
Agree the aircraft is not foolproof, but is.

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 8:11*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> > What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> > replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> > another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> > without major working?
>
> > Cheers
>
> Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
> * has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
> seen the same.
>

Now I could be wrong, but I thought not making TBO implies a bad
failure? So in my thinking, my question remains since an engine may
make TBO even though it has had major parts (such as a cylinder heads/
baarrels) replaced... If you know a few engines that have only ever
had plugs replaced in 2000 hours then that's great but I would still
like to know roughly what % that is. If you have the magazine you
refer to perhaps you could look up the relevant figure for me? Another
way of finding this out could be to look at how many cylinder heads
and barrels are sold compared to crankshaft service kits (if there is
such a thing). Even this would underestimate the true rate of engine
fails at annual as cylinders can be easily rehoned to raise
compression. Is 2000 hours is more of a myth than reality? Is there a
LAME here who could estimate how many plane engines he's had to strip
compared to ones he could just leave alone for 2000 hours?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Flydive > wrote in :

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>> David Lesher > wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
>> @reader2.panix.com:
>>
>>> Bertie the Bunyip > writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>>>> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>>>> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>> What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up
>> front.
>>
>> Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
>> electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this
>> case, when the gear was retracted...
>>
>> http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6984004/Fate-1-FADEC-0-a.html
>>
>> Nice eh?
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> Bertie, in this case the failure was due to the pilots not following
> the procedures written in the aircraft manual.
> Agree the aircraft is not foolproof, but is.
>

I'm aware of that, but it's early days for this airplane. It's a poor
design feature and it will give problems in the future. The point is,
it's not a necessary evil. You could strap an ole kugelfisher injector
in there and even if it failed, the chance of the other engine faiing
for the same reason at the same time is zilch. Not so with this one.


Bertie

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
>>> What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
>>> replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
>>> another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
>>> without major working?
>>> Cheers
>> Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
>> has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
>> seen the same.
>>
>
> Now I could be wrong, but I thought not making TBO implies a bad
> failure? So in my thinking, my question remains since an engine may
> make TBO even though it has had major parts (such as a cylinder heads/
> baarrels) replaced... If you know a few engines that have only ever
> had plugs replaced in 2000 hours then that's great but I would still
> like to know roughly what % that is. If you have the magazine you
> refer to perhaps you could look up the relevant figure for me? Another
> way of finding this out could be to look at how many cylinder heads
> and barrels are sold compared to crankshaft service kits (if there is
> such a thing). Even this would underestimate the true rate of engine
> fails at annual as cylinders can be easily rehoned to raise
> compression. Is 2000 hours is more of a myth than reality? Is there a
> LAME here who could estimate how many plane engines he's had to strip
> compared to ones he could just leave alone for 2000 hours?
>
> Cheers


You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has _ever_
seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from myself
and others was yes, lots.

I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there but
even if it is it isn't going to be very useful and it certainly isn't
going to be something you can comparable to the Thielert record unless
there is a huge amount statistical norming.

In fact it wouldn't even be fair to compare such a number to Thielert
because they would come out looking way worse than they really are
because they are new and even supports of Thielert admit they have had
teething problems.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that anybody that hasn't jumped on the
Thielert bandwagon and ripped the Lyc engine off their plane and
replaced it with a Thielert is in some way anti-diesel. That isn't the
case. Thielert has some problems that they haven't ironed out. Once they
do or somebody else comes along with a competing engine that doesn't
have the same problems or others then I have no doubt they will become
more popular.

It's my understanding that the biggest problem Thielert has doesn't have
anything to do with the engine itself it is the service system and the
company's failure to respond to owner issues.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote x

> Should be, but in this engine it is non-existent. It's not diesels in
> general I'm knocking. It's this engine only..

Exactly.

Limp home, or better, should be a no brainer for a diesel.

The choice not to have that feature on this particular engine is, no doubt,
an economic decision. They felt that the need for it, determined by the
risk of failure, is not a large enough factor to necessitate the extra cost
of including this feature.

Perhaps they will survey possible buyers, or determine by some other
vehicle, that this is an important reason for potential customers to not buy
their package. Doubtful, but one can hope...

As to losing the electrical supply to the fadec, only a poor design and
implementation could result in a totally bulletproof and totally reliable
system. The backup circuit and battery should supply only the fadec, and
fuel pump; only the absolute minimum necessary systems needed to keep the
fan turning. A self test should check the ability of the backup circuit to
run these systems upon every start, and also if something changes during
flight that would prevent the backup from functioning.

Is that how it is now, with the only widely used diesel? No. It should not
be difficult or overly costly to build a system to function like that. I
guess we will have to wait for the experimental crowd to design such a
system. <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
<...>
> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>

Right.

MX has informed us of the risks associated with these electronic engine
management systems on several ocassions.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
>> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
>> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>
> Right.
>
> MX has informed us of the risks associated with these electronic engine
> management systems on several ocassions.
>

In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with computer
governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run which
isn't the case with any other engine I know of.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 9:12*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> > wrote:
> >> WingFlaps wrote:
> >>> That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
> >>> What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
> >>> replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
> >>> another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
> >>> without major working?
> >>> Cheers
> >> Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
> >> * has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
> >> seen the same.
>
> > Now I could be wrong, but I thought not making TBO implies a bad
> > failure? *So in my thinking, my question remains since an engine may
> > make TBO even though it has had major parts (such as a cylinder heads/
> > baarrels) replaced... If you know a few engines that have only ever
> > had plugs replaced in 2000 hours then that's great but I would still
> > like to know roughly what % that is. If you have the magazine you
> > refer to perhaps you could look up the relevant figure for me? Another
> > way of finding this out could be to look at how many cylinder heads
> > and barrels are sold compared to crankshaft service kits (if there is
> > such a thing). Even this would underestimate the true rate of engine
> > fails at annual as cylinders can be easily rehoned to raise
> > compression. Is 2000 hours is more of a myth than reality? Is there a
> > LAME here who could estimate how many plane engines he's had to strip
> > compared to ones he could just leave alone for 2000 hours?
>
> > Cheers
>
> You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has _ever_
> seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from myself
> and others was yes, lots.
>
> I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there but
>

Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
normal?

As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.

Cheers

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 15, 1:44*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote innews:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwe st.com:
>
> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> > <...>
> >> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
> >> because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
> >> against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>
> > Right.
>
> > MX has informed us of the risks associated with these electronic engine
> > management systems on several ocassions.
>
> In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with computer
> governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run which
> isn't the case with any other engine I know of.
>
I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
smell the rat of marketing...

Cheers

[Thomas Borchert]

WingFlaps,

> I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel.
>

You need to let go of what you Americans consider to be a "diesel".
That's good for trucks and boats, but not for efficient small cars -
and airplanes.

We're talking modern, common-rail diesels which get their efficiency
and attractivity through complete electronic control.

FWIW, Thielert's two main developments (cost- and engineeringwise) are

1. the fuel pump (which has nothing to do with a gasoline pump), which
is self-lubricating with car diesel, but must be jet fuel compatible -
and jet fuel lubricates less well.

2. The FADEC, which, Bertie, has nothing to do with the car's engine
control, has dual redundancy and also proper electrical redundancy if
installed right (it wasn't in the DA-42, IMHO).

Thielert starts with a Mercedes car engine and exchanges 150 parts
before that engine becomes a Thielert.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> It has the same modes plus that one.
>

Not true.

Let's just agree to disagree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> in this case,
> when the gear was retracted...
>

While correct on the surface, there was much more to that accident.
Including the pilots blatantly acting against the POH.

Nice, eh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion, lightning,
> poor maintenance...
> A manual reversion mode
>

There are lots of ways you can lose a manual connection, too.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Not the case
> here. You can add backup batteries and what not, but they're still
> connected to the same fadec.
>

There are two FADECs. Get yourself some factual information before
spouting your theories!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> The choice not to have that feature on this particular engine is, no doubt,
> an economic decision.
>

No, no and no again. This is not the diesel Americans are used to from their
boats and trucks. Modern car diesel engines require electronic control. Google
common rail.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

WingFlaps,

> As I said before, I
> smell the rat of marketing...
>

As I said before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 9:12*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>> > On Feb 15, 8:11 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
>> > wrote:
>> >> WingFlaps wrote:
>> >>> That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability
>> >>> issue. What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without
>> >>> major part replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads,
>> >>> magnetos etc.). Put another way, is there anyone here who has
>> >>> _ever_ seen one go to TBO without major working?
>> >>> Cheers
>> >> Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO.
>> >> Anyone tha
> t
>> >> * has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not
>> >> Rental) h
> as
>> >> seen the same.
>>
>> > Now I could be wrong, but I thought not making TBO implies a bad
>> > failure? *So in my thinking, my question remains since an engine
>> > may make TBO even though it has had major parts (such as a cylinder
>> > heads/ baarrels) replaced... If you know a few engines that have
>> > only ever had plugs replaced in 2000 hours then that's great but I
>> > would still like to know roughly what % that is. If you have the
>> > magazine you refer to perhaps you could look up the relevant figure
>> > for me? Another way of finding this out could be to look at how
>> > many cylinder heads and barrels are sold compared to crankshaft
>> > service kits (if there is such a thing). Even this would
>> > underestimate the true rate of engine fails at annual as cylinders
>> > can be easily rehoned to raise compression. Is 2000 hours is more
>> > of a myth than reality? Is there a LAME here who could estimate how
>> > many plane engines he's had to strip compared to ones he could just
>> > leave alone for 2000 hours?
>>
>> > Cheers
>>
>> You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has
>> _ever_ seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from
>> myself and others was yes, lots.
>>
>> I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there
>> but
>>
>
> Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
> had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
> such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
> I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
> really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
> objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
> have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
> that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
> sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
> cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
> normal?

In my experience, yeah. They mostly make it that far.

>
> As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
> not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
> what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
> so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.
>

I kinda prefer to fly Continental eningenes between the two. i couldn't
tellyou why, though. Haiving said that, I'd still prefer any radial over
either! ( except of course an w670 or r 680)




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in
:

> On Feb 15, 1:44*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote
>> innews:nrS
> :
>>
>> > "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > <...>
>> >> There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
>> >> one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
>> >> decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
>>
>> > Right.
>>
>> > MX has informed us of the risks associated with these electronic
>> > engine management systems on several ocassions.
>>
>> In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with
>> computer
>
>> governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run
>> which isn't the case with any other engine I know of.
>>
> I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
> smell the rat of marketing...

Hmmm, could be. Lots of turboprops have fadecs now. The latest Pratts, I
beleive. I was having this ocnverstation with an FO who had come off a
Dash-8 and he told me the latest version of it ( Q400 or something?) had
them. I said "yeah, but they don't have this problem with power, though,
surely" and he told me that they probably did since power was definitely
required to run the fadec. They tell us very little about the innnards
of these fuel units, but I cant see them icencing an airliner without
enough system seperation to ensure that one failure doesn't kill two
engines at once.
I can't see the point of having a Twin star when it can effectively be a
single engine airplane if the lights go out.
i know someone who bought one on behalf of his club and he agreed with
me that it was a feature of the design, but insisted that it will NEVER
be a problem as long as you follow the POH. If anyone here besides
Anthony, met this guy RL, No more confirmation would be necessary that
this was a baaaaad idea.



Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps,
>
>> As I said before, I
>> smell the rat of marketing...
>>
>
> As I said before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail and
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine
>

That doesn't address anything.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> WingFlaps,
>
>> I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel.
>>
>
> You need to let go of what you Americans consider to be a "diesel".
> That's good for trucks and boats, but not for efficient small cars -
> and airplanes.
>

Go **** yourself. i've owned several diesel cars. I have nothing against
diesels in cars or airplanes and I have already made that clear. I'd fly
a diesel airplane no problem and I was anxiously awaiting the Zoche, in
fact, which never appeared.

> We're talking modern, common-rail diesels which get their efficiency
> and attractivity through complete electronic control.

If you think an engine that can quit anytime a bit of corrosion appears
on it's battery terminals is attractive, have I got a girl for you.
>
> FWIW, Thielert's two main developments (cost- and engineeringwise) are
>
> 1. the fuel pump (which has nothing to do with a gasoline pump), which
> is self-lubricating with car diesel, but must be jet fuel compatible -
> and jet fuel lubricates less well.
>
> 2. The FADEC, which, Bertie, has nothing to do with the car's engine
> control, has dual redundancy and also proper electrical redundancy if
> installed right (it wasn't in the DA-42, IMHO).

Nope.

>
> Thielert starts with a Mercedes car engine and exchanges 150 parts
> before that engine becomes a Thielert.
>

Doesn;t matter. The Fadec requires electricity to make the engine run.
The electricity cannot be gaurunteed as has been proven by experience.
One of the 150 parts is crap.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> It has the same modes plus that one.
>>
>
> Not true.
>
> Let's just agree to disagree.
>


You can go ff and agree to anything you like. the engine is not a suitable
one for installation in an airplane and will never be until there is some
sort of manual reversion for the fadec.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> in this case,
>> when the gear was retracted...
>>
>
> While correct on the surface, there was much more to that accident.
> Including the pilots blatantly acting against the POH.

I didn;t say that they didn;t. they obviously did. But it is only a matter
of time until an electrical fault does the same thing without anyone having
done anything wrong until they completely split the electrical systems.
Even then, it;s not a suitable installation for an airplane until they
install a manual reversion for the fadec.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> There's lots of ways you can lose all electrics. Corrosion, lightning,
>> poor maintenance...
>> A manual reversion mode
>>
>
> There are lots of ways you can lose a manual connection, too.
>

Yeah, and when you do the engine doesn't quit. In fact, they go to full
power..


You're not putting up any kind of sensible argument for this at all.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Not the case
>> here. You can add backup batteries and what not, but they're still
>> connected to the same fadec.
>>
>
> There are two FADECs. Get yourself some factual information before
> spouting your theories!
>

It;'s not a theory and you know it.Both fadecs electric, are they?



Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> That doesn't address anything.
>

You're almost as funny as MX with your taking things out of context at
will. He's better at it, though.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Go **** yourself.
>

You need to learn to behave yourself at least to minimal standards
before any further discussion with you makes sense. Also, wrt your
other posts, you need to learn that an opinion is not the same as fact.
This is all pretty basic. How old again are you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Clark]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
wrote:


>
>Hmmm, could be. Lots of turboprops have fadecs now. The latest Pratts, I
>beleive. I was having this ocnverstation with an FO who had come off a
>Dash-8 and he told me the latest version of it ( Q400 or something?) had
>them. I said "yeah, but they don't have this problem with power, though,
>surely" and he told me that they probably did since power was definitely
>required to run the fadec. They tell us very little about the innnards
>of these fuel units, but I cant see them icencing an airliner without
>enough system seperation to ensure that one failure doesn't kill two
>engines at once.

At least in the Meridian they have a manual override lever which is
directly connected to the FCU via cable linkage. I know it's not
FADEC, but maybe they have a similar emergency mode in the -8.

>I can't see the point of having a Twin star when it can effectively be a
>single engine airplane if the lights go out.
>i know someone who bought one on behalf of his club and he agreed with
>me that it was a feature of the design, but insisted that it will NEVER
>be a problem as long as you follow the POH. If anyone here besides
>Anthony, met this guy RL, No more confirmation would be necessary that
>this was a baaaaad idea.

The specific problem the crash flight had (draining the battery and
killing the FADECs) was corrected via AD requiring backup battery to
the FADEC in case you screw up the ships battery. Each engine has a
FADEC, each engine has it's own alternator and backup FADEC battery.
For that specific problem they've now put in redundancy.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> That doesn't address anything.
>>
>
> You're almost as funny as MX with your taking things out of context at
> will. He's better at it, though.
>



Yeah right. nice try.


bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Go **** yourself.
>>
>
> You need to learn to behave yourself at least to minimal standards
> before any further discussion with you makes sense.


Behave myself?

Lessee, you made a national slur and you're saying that I need to behave
myself?


Go **** yourself and your sister and her donkey.

And as to dscussion, you gave up on that looooong ago. Clinging to a lost
cause is not discussion.




Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Peter Clark > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 13:26:01 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip >
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Hmmm, could be. Lots of turboprops have fadecs now. The latest Pratts,
I
>>beleive. I was having this ocnverstation with an FO who had come off a
>>Dash-8 and he told me the latest version of it ( Q400 or something?)
had
>>them. I said "yeah, but they don't have this problem with power,
though,
>>surely" and he told me that they probably did since power was
definitely
>>required to run the fadec. They tell us very little about the innnards
>>of these fuel units, but I cant see them icencing an airliner without
>>enough system seperation to ensure that one failure doesn't kill two
>>engines at once.
>
> At least in the Meridian they have a manual override lever which is
> directly connected to the FCU via cable linkage. I know it's not
> FADEC, but maybe they have a similar emergency mode in the -8.
>
>>I can't see the point of having a Twin star when it can effectively be
a
>>single engine airplane if the lights go out.
>>i know someone who bought one on behalf of his club and he agreed with
>>me that it was a feature of the design, but insisted that it will
NEVER
>>be a problem as long as you follow the POH. If anyone here besides
>>Anthony, met this guy RL, No more confirmation would be necessary that
>>this was a baaaaad idea.
>
> The specific problem the crash flight had (draining the battery and
> killing the FADECs) was corrected via AD requiring backup battery to
> the FADEC in case you screw up the ships battery. Each engine has a
> FADEC, each engine has it's own alternator and backup FADEC battery.
> For that specific problem they've now put in redundancy.


But the fadec still relies on electrics to make the engine run.


I knew about the AD, BTW.


Bertie
>

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Morgans,
>
>> The choice not to have that feature on this particular engine is, no
>> doubt,
>> an economic decision.
>>
>
> No, no and no again. This is not the diesel Americans are used to from
> their
> boats and trucks. Modern car diesel engines require electronic control.
> Google
> common rail.

I agree with Bertie., as to what you can go do to yourself.

You are a pinhead, that thinks all Americans are ignorant, I guess. So go
fyourself.

I am quite familiar with modern electronic control on diesel engines. Could
there have been an option to shut down the automatic injection, and go to a
backup manual fuel control that lets the engine run at say, 80% ?

You bet your ass, there could have been an option like that included. Why
is it not included? Money. Economics. Period.

Do I have to make that any clearer to you, since you are a European? Let me
know if I have to simplify it for you.

Not very nice to have someone talk down to you like this, is it?

You should try not doing it to us, if you don't want it thrown back in your
face.
--
Jim in NC

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:

> I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
> smell the rat of marketing...
>
> Cheers
>

You keep want to blame Marketing. Sure they may have said we need to
have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
not to have the limp home mode.

[Thomas Borchert]

Gig,

> Sure they may have said we need to
> have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
> not to have the limp home mode.
>

In a way, they do (if not in the way it used to be installed in the
DA42): the emergency battery. I guess what I'm trying to say is: This
engine is different than the old Lycs and TCMs. Doesn't mean it's worse.
Just different.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:
> Gig,
>
>> Sure they may have said we need to
>> have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
>> not to have the limp home mode.
>>
>
> In a way, they do (if not in the way it used to be installed in the
> DA42): the emergency battery. I guess what I'm trying to say is: This
> engine is different than the old Lycs and TCMs. Doesn't mean it's worse.
> Just different.
>


What I'm trying to say is that the way the FADEC is enabled in the
Thielerts and the way it is in some newer Lycs is different. In the
Thielerts there doesn't seem to be a limp home mode.

Wingflaper or what ever his name is seems to want to take any negative
comment about the Thielert engine as an attack on the very idea of
aviation diesels and that their very nature of being new that mean old
USAians don't like them.

[Al G[_1_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" > wrote in message
...
> WingFlaps wrote:
>
>> I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
>> smell the rat of marketing...
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>
> You keep want to blame Marketing. Sure they may have said we need to have
> an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided not to
> have the limp home mode.

So, how would you arrange a "limp home" mode that avoided a low volts
problem, with electronic fuel injectors?

If you go to mechanical injectors, you lose the advantages inherent in
the electronic ones.

The only way, I can think of, is to add sources of power.

Al G

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Gig,
>
>> Sure they may have said we need to
>> have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
>> not to have the limp home mode.
>>
>
> In a way, they do (if not in the way it used to be installed in the
> DA42): the emergency battery. I guess what I'm trying to say is: This
> engine is different than the old Lycs and TCMs. Doesn't mean it's worse.
> Just different.
>


Nope


It's worse.


Bertie

[Thomas Borchert]

Al,

> So, how would you arrange a "limp home" mode that avoided a low volts
> problem, with electronic fuel injectors?
>
> If you go to mechanical injectors, you lose the advantages inherent in
> the electronic ones.
>

Ah, thank you!

Of course, as Bertie puts it, one could theoretically build alternative
injectors in, I guess. One could also plate the engine with gold. But, as you
say, an engine with electronic fuel injectors is an engine with ELECTRONIC
fuel injectors. The basis for the engine is a mass-production car engine.
That's what makes (may make) the engine viable in the market. And I still
fail to see how "mechanical" would somehow inherently be better or more
relaible than "electric". In fact, a common rail diesel has a much simpler
mechanical design than one with mechanical injectors - it is much less prone
to failure in that respect.

Interestingly, the SMA diesel is of the old style, with mechanical injectors.
It also has a mechanical emergency throttle. It also has gained zero traction
in the market, in large part due to its high price.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Al,
>
>> So, how would you arrange a "limp home" mode that avoided a low volts
>> problem, with electronic fuel injectors?
>>
>> If you go to mechanical injectors, you lose the advantages
>> inherent in
>> the electronic ones.
>>
>
> Ah, thank you!
>
> Of course, as Bertie puts it, one could theoretically build
> alternative injectors in,


Where did I say that you uberfjukktard?


Bertie

[David Lesher]

I'm never going to agree to a Diesel in an airplane unless they fix this
nonsense about it stopping when the tanks are empty.

Do you want to bet on such a flawed concept?

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

David Lesher > wrote in news:fp4ipr$q92$2
@reader2.panix.com:

>
>
>
> I'm never going to agree to a Diesel in an airplane unless they fix this
> nonsense about it stopping when the tanks are empty.

Which tank?


the liquid or the electron one?


bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 4:53*am, Gig 601XL Builder >
wrote:
> WingFlaps wrote:
> > I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
> > smell the rat of marketing...
>
> > Cheers
>
> You keep want to blame Marketing. Sure they may have said we need to
> have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
> not to have the limp home mode.

Interesting. Why would engineers decide that?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Peter > wrote in
:

>
> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>
>>Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
>>spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of simple
>>research would provide the facts? What picture does that paint of the
>>pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a simple "I don't
>>know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead of spouting made-up
>>negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.
>
> You need to calm down Thomas before jumping on people like this.

Dunno, I kinda like him this way. Pounding on his keyboard, teeth gritted,
veins standing out on his neck. Standing on tiptoe, even though seated, his
leg muscles trembling. It's a good look for him.


Bertie

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 6:28*am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
>. And I still
> fail to see how "mechanical" would somehow inherently be better or more
> relaible than "electric". In fact, a common rail diesel has a much simpler
> mechanical design than one with mechanical injectors - it is much less prone
> to failure in that respect.
>

I don't think that's true. Look at the reliability of non-common rail
(old) diesels. Very high injection pressures give better atomization
but the piezos and nozzles take a hammering and ceramics do break.

Cheers

[Gig 601XL Builder[_2_]]

WingFlaps wrote:
> On Feb 16, 4:53 am, Gig 601XL Builder >
> wrote:
>> WingFlaps wrote:
>>> I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
>>> smell the rat of marketing...
>>> Cheers
>> You keep want to blame Marketing. Sure they may have said we need to
>> have an easy to use FADEC system but it was the engineers that decided
>> not to have the limp home mode.
>
> Interesting. Why would engineers decide that?
>
> Cheers

Why would marketing?

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> When you have calmed down, speak PRIVATELY to a few Diamond/Thielert
> owners. I have.

Thanks, I have, too.

> There is some way to go before Thielert have a reliable engine. I am
> sure they will get there eventually, but they aren't there yet.

I agree completely. And I never said anything to the contrary. That's
not what I'm getting upset about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Peter,
>
>> When you have calmed down, speak PRIVATELY to a few Diamond/Thielert
>> owners. I have.
>
> Thanks, I have, too.
>
>> There is some way to go before Thielert have a reliable engine. I am
>> sure they will get there eventually, but they aren't there yet.
>
> I agree completely. And I never said anything to the contrary. That's
> not what I'm getting upset about.
>

Calm down then, do something relaxing. Invade the Sudetenland. You'll feel
better.

Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
> news:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
<...>
>>
>
> In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with computer
> governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run which
> isn't the case with any other engine I know of.
>

Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that will
run without the computer?

Or, are you in MX mode?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:YeWdnUR3MfqViCvanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
>> news:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
> <...>
>>>
>>
>> In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with
>> computer governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to
>> run which isn't the case with any other engine I know of.
>>
>
> Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that
> will run without the computer?



Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
computer, but the thielert does.
In any case, I said computer governed engines, and I didn't specify
iesels because I was mndful of the airplane I fly at the moment, whihc
does have an ECu, with manual reversion.


>
> Or, are you in MX mode?


What, stuck in front of a computer playing flight sim knowing that a
lack of electrons won't kill me?


What do you think?




Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
> news:YeWdnUR3MfqViCvanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>
>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>> ...
<...>
>>
>> Or, are you in MX mode?
>
>
> What, stuck in front of a computer playing flight sim knowing that a
> lack of electrons won't kill me?
>

No - ranting and raving about something about which you have no clue.

Like this thread.

fujktard.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:rPqdneICDN7xgSvanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
>> news:YeWdnUR3MfqViCvanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
> <...>
>>>
>>> Or, are you in MX mode?
>>
>>
>> What, stuck in front of a computer playing flight sim knowing that a
>> lack of electrons won't kill me?
>>
>
> No - ranting and raving about something about which you have no clue.

So, you're saying that the enge will keep running if the electricity stops?
>
> Like this thread.
>
> fujktard.
>
Oh dear, My opinion of you has increased form non existent to having
noticed you're alive.


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:rPqdneICDN7xgSvanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
>> news:YeWdnUR3MfqViCvanZ2dnUVZ_oytnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
>>
>>> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
>>> ...
> <...>
>>>
>>> Or, are you in MX mode?
>>
>>
>> What, stuck in front of a computer playing flight sim knowing that a
>> lack of electrons won't kill me?
>>
>
> No - ranting and raving about something about which you have no clue.
>
> Like this thread.
>
> fujktard.
>

BTW, it's "fjukktard". you obviously missed the rjubber vjikking helmjut
wars.

Bertie

[Jay Honeck[_2_]]

>>> People actually pay for Aviation Consumer?
>>
>> The most valuable 39 bucks (or whatever the subscription is) I spend per
>> year in aviation.
>
> I agree. I subscribed several years ago when my company was thinking of
> buying a Cherokee 6 and I wanted access to the back issue database online.
> I've read just about every word in each issue since.

Me, too. It's the ONLY magazine out there that actually tells it like it
is, without being influenced by advertisers.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 16, 12:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote f.
>
> > Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that
> > will run without the computer?
>
> Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
> computer, but the thielert does.

In the first common rail engines, wasn't it a hydraulic (rather than
mechanical cam) system that controlled the injector valve?

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in
news:3ettj.35578$yE1.35574@attbi_s21:

>>>> People actually pay for Aviation Consumer?
>>>
>>> The most valuable 39 bucks (or whatever the subscription is) I spend
>>> per year in aviation.
>>
>> I agree. I subscribed several years ago when my company was thinking
>> of buying a Cherokee 6 and I wanted access to the back issue database
>> online. I've read just about every word in each issue since.
>
> Me, too. It's the ONLY magazine out there that actually tells it like
> it is, without being influenced by advertisers.

Wouldn't take one for your cheesy hotel eh?

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

WingFlaps > wrote in news:172b31f9-17a6-4737-be7d-
:

> On Feb 16, 12:01*pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote f.
>>
>> > Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that
>> > will run without the computer?
>>
>> Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
>> computer, but the thielert does.
>
> In the first common rail engines, wasn't it a hydraulic (rather than
> mechanical cam) system that controlled the injector valve?
>

AFAIK they were.


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
> news:rPqdneICDN7xgSvanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
<...>>
> Oh dear, My opinion of you has increased form non existent to having
> noticed you're alive.

What? I'm supposed to be all happy about that or something?

You aren't just clueless, you're mxclueless...

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:X9ydncJRLrhkjCranZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
>> news:rPqdneICDN7xgSvanZ2dnUVZ_i2dnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:
> <...>>
>> Oh dear, My opinion of you has increased form non existent to having
>> noticed you're alive.
>
> What? I'm supposed to be all happy about that or something?

No, you're not supposed to be anything.

>
> You aren't just clueless, you're mxclueless...



You really know how to get to my insecurities, don't you?


Bertie

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Feb 16, 12:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote f.
>>
>> > Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that
>> > will run without the computer?
>>
>> Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
>> computer, but the thielert does.
>
>In the first common rail engines, wasn't it a hydraulic (rather than
>mechanical cam) system that controlled the injector valve?


They are electro-hydraulic. The high pressure injectors are triggered by the
mid pressure hydraulics which are triggered by solenoid valves controlled by
the engine computer. There ain't no mechanical backup - no way - no how. So,
a common rail diesel is 100% dependant on electricity to run. Just like your
Lycoming which won't run if the mags don't send enough electrons to the spark
plug at the right time with NO mechanical backup - no way - no how.


--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Stan Prevost]

I haven't really been following this thread, but I thought I would interject
something I just learned about Thielert diesels.

A local flight school which also rents out airplanes, just got a DA42
Twinstar. An engine quit during a flight a few days ago. The pilot shut it
down, then later attempted a restart. It started back up and ran fine for a
few minutes, then quit again. No anomalous indication on any of the engine
instrumentation.

Turns out that an oil filter in a gearbox, I believe it was, was clogged.
The computer senses that and shuts the engine down. No warning, no
indication of trouble, just shuts it down, or takes it down to very low
power. Saves the engine in preference to the pilot. This seems to not be a
rare event with these engines.


"Charles Talleyrand" > wrote in message
...
> This data is from 2006, they Thielert has not released a 2007 annual
> report yet.
>
> The annual report for Thielert, which makes diesel engines for certain
> single-engine Cessnas, Pipers, and Diamonds, shows an increase in
> sales of aircraft engines from 22 million Euros to 31 million Euros.
> That's a 44% increase. It's probably over 1000 engines in total.
>
> They are the third largest piston engine maker in the world (which
> surprises me, I would have thought Lycoming, Continental, and Rotax).
>
> The total market for piston aircraft engines is about 13,000 including
> both new planes and the larger replacement market.
>
> They aim to sell helicopter engines in 2009.
>
> The best quote from the annual report: "We aim to achieve a market
> share in piston aircraft engines of over 50% in the medium term. The
> necessary demand and customer base are already in place."
>
> Maybe diesel engines are catching on??????

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 4:42*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> > "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Feb 16, 12:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
> >> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote f.
>
> >> > Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application) that
> >> > will run without the computer?
>
> >> Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
> >> computer, but the thielert does.
>
> >In the first common rail engines, wasn't it a hydraulic (rather than
> >mechanical cam) system that controlled the injector valve?
>
> They are electro-hydraulic. The high pressure injectors are triggered by the
> mid pressure hydraulics which are triggered by solenoid valves controlled by
> the engine computer.

What engine computers were used in the 1940's and 1950's?

Cheers

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...

> What engine computers were used in the 1940's and 1950's?

Ford PROCO. Texico was working on one in the 50's also, but I don't recall
the name. Can't recall the others.

What COMMON RAIL diesels were made in the 1940's and 1950's?

Can you name a single COMMON RAIL diesel that didn't have a computer?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" wrote
>
> Can you name a single COMMON RAIL diesel that didn't have a computer?
>
Yep; Ford tractors! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[WingFlaps]

On Feb 18, 6:31*am, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way
D0t C0m> wrote:
> > "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
> ...
> > What engine computers were used in the 1940's and 1950's?
>
> Ford PROCO. Texico was working on one in the 50's also, but I don't recall
> the name. Can't recall the others.
>
> What COMMON RAIL diesels were made in the 1940's and 1950's?
>
> Can you name a single COMMON RAIL diesel that didn't have a computer?
>

No need to shout, I know we are talking about common rail engines.
Now, I'm not sure that thermoinic valve computers were ever used on a
diesel engine but I don't recall hearing of any computer on a 1950's
Cummins PT or even a 1940's Cooper Bessemer.

Cheers

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
:

>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>> .
>> .. On Feb 16, 12:01 pm, Bertie the Bunyip > wrote:
>>> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote f.
>>>
>>> > Can you actually name any common rail diesel (in any application)
>>> > that will run without the computer?
>>>
>>> Nope. I know the older common rail ones didn't have an electronic
>>> computer, but the thielert does.
>>
>>In the first common rail engines, wasn't it a hydraulic (rather than
>>mechanical cam) system that controlled the injector valve?
>
>
> They are electro-hydraulic. The high pressure injectors are triggered
> by the mid pressure hydraulics which are triggered by solenoid valves
> controlled by the engine computer. There ain't no mechanical backup -
> no way - no how. So, a common rail diesel is 100% dependant on
> electricity to run. Just like your Lycoming which won't run if the
> mags don't send enough electrons to the spark plug at the right time
> with NO mechanical backup - no way - no how.
>

Two injectors per cylinder, are there?

Apples and oranges, sunshine..


Bertie
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
:

>> "WingFlaps" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>
>> What engine computers were used in the 1940's and 1950's?
>
> Ford PROCO. Texico was working on one in the 50's also, but I don't
> recall the name. Can't recall the others.
>
> What COMMON RAIL diesels were made in the 1940's and 1950's?
>
> Can you name a single COMMON RAIL diesel that didn't have a computer?
>

Who cares? You stick any engine on the front of an airplane that needs a
battery to fly and you have an airplane I really would rather not fly.

Pretty simple really.

Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote in
:

> I haven't really been following this thread, but I thought I would
> interject something I just learned about Thielert diesels.
>
> A local flight school which also rents out airplanes, just got a DA42
> Twinstar. An engine quit during a flight a few days ago. The pilot
> shut it down, then later attempted a restart. It started back up and
> ran fine for a few minutes, then quit again. No anomalous indication
> on any of the engine instrumentation.
>
> Turns out that an oil filter in a gearbox, I believe it was, was
> clogged. The computer senses that and shuts the engine down. No
> warning, no indication of trouble, just shuts it down, or takes it
> down to very low power. Saves the engine in preference to the pilot.
> This seems to not be a rare event with these engines.
>


Oh boy. I definitely want one now.



Bertie
>

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
<...>
>
> Two injectors per cylinder, are there?
>
> Apples and oranges, sunshine..
>


More than one mag switch per engine? Same-o same-o mxwanaboi.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Stan Prevost" > wrote

>I haven't really been following this thread, but I thought I would
>interject something I just learned about Thielert diesels.
>
> A local flight school which also rents out airplanes, just got a DA42
> Twinstar. An engine quit during a flight a few days ago. The pilot shut
> it down, then later attempted a restart. It started back up and ran fine
> for a few minutes, then quit again. No anomalous indication on any of the
> engine instrumentation.
>
> Turns out that an oil filter in a gearbox, I believe it was, was clogged.
> The computer senses that and shuts the engine down. No warning, no
> indication of trouble, just shuts it down, or takes it down to very low
> power. Saves the engine in preference to the pilot. This seems to not be
> a rare event with these engines.

If that indeed is what was the cause of the shutdown, there is no excuse for
a system behaving like that.

If you can find more information on that, and report back, I'm sure that
would be appreciated.
--
Jim in NC

[[email protected]]

On Feb 15, 2:24 am, WingFlaps > wrote:
> Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
> had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
> such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
> I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
> really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
> objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
> have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
> that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
> sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
> cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
> normal?
>
> As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
> not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
> what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
> so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.

We run six Lycomings in a flight school. They aren't
babied. They run, hard, their whole lives. Hot weather, cold weather
(down to -25°C), wet and dry. Off-airport strips some of the time,
with the usual dust and other airborne junk. They reach TBO no
problem, except for the one O-235. It has a problem with running too
cold, which leads to lots of condensation in the engine, enough that
corrosion of the front cylinders is a real hassle. The corrosion pits
cause fairly rapid wear of the cylinder wall, leaving a ridge at the
bottom of the ring travel over which the aluminum piston pin plugs
must ride. Those plugs start getting shaved and bright bits begin
appearing in the filter. Compression is still good at that point,
mid-70s or better. Compression doesn't say everything. Compression is
taken with the piston at TDC, above the corroded area. A five-ring
piston would stop that. So would bronze plugs. Neither are available
for that engine.
The other engines, three O-320s and an O-540, all reach TBO
with no hassles whatever. Engines that are run regularly and properly
maintained are no trouble. Using good oil (Aeroshell 15W50, which has
the Lycoming-recommended additive already in it) goes a long way
toward a long life. Cheaper oils are false economy. I can't remember
the last time we changed a cylinder on one of these engines. Another
good thing is to throw away the cheap screen-type oil filter and
install the spin-on adapter. The spin-on filter costs more, but does
it really? The screen stops only the bigger bits that might have part
numbers on them. The smaller bits that get through can score cylinders
and bearings. We have more trouble with leaky rocker cover gaskets on
Lycs than with anything else they make. The aftermarket silicone
gasket fixes that.
So, if you want the engine to last well, see that it's broken
in as per Lycoming's instructions. Exactly. Then change the oil when
it should be changed. Don't run it unless it will fly. Don't make a 20-
minute flight and then put it away. Get that oil hot. Use good oil.
Get the engine warmed up some before taking off in cold weather. If
possible, use some sort of winter fronts to reduce the cooling
airflow. Go easy on the throttle movement; don't slam it open. Keep
that carb heat closed when taxiing through dust. Learn how to lean it
so that it doesn't foul up.
The smaller Continentals have weaker cylinders. Usually need a
top overhaul halfway to TBO. Exhaust valves go easily. We had poor
service from the O-200s in the 150s years ago. Bigger Continentals are
more robust.

Dan

[Bertie the Bunyip[_25_]]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m> wrote in
news:aYadnQriYJlUOyXanZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> ...
> <...>
>>
>> Two injectors per cylinder, are there?
>>
>> Apples and oranges, sunshine..
>>
>
>
> More than one mag switch per engine? Same-o same-o mxwanaboi.


Nope. That's grapes and grapefruit.

Bertie
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 11:09:16 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

> This is not the diesel Americans are used to from their boats and
> trucks.

What about the French? The SMA engine has a mechanical reversion when
the ECU drops offline (for whatever reason). They call it a diesel
engine, but perhaps they need a little education that it cannot be such
if it can operate sans FADEC.

And you can say what you want about the French, but anyone that comes up
with the idea of soaking bread in egg before cooking has to be doing
something right <laugh>.

- Andrew

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> They call it a diesel
> engine, but perhaps they need a little education that it cannot be such
> if it can operate sans FADEC.

Don't think I ever said something to that effect.

The SMA is indeed an "old-style" diesel. It is also not quite a resounding
success in the market.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 09:26:28 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

>> They call it a diesel
>> engine, but perhaps they need a little education that it cannot be such
>> if it can operate sans FADEC.
>
> Don't think I ever said something to that effect.

Perhaps not exactly, but you've written:

You need to let go of what you Americans consider
to be a "diesel". That's good for trucks and boats,
but not for efficient small cars - and airplanes.

So how are we to classify the SMA engine? A diesel, but not good for
airplanes? Or not a diesel?

> The SMA is indeed an "old-style" diesel. It is also not quite a
> resounding success in the market.

And that's as important a statement on the *technical* merits as a VHS/
Betamax market comparison.

But of course you're correct about this being an "old style" engine.
That's rather the point. Does that make it a poor choice for aircraft?
Numerous articles about flight test, along with commentary by current
users, suggests that the SMA engine works quite well in a 182.

As to market...I admit that I am curious why Thielert has done so much
better than SMA. I suspect that it's far cheaper to merely retask an
existing engine rather than design anew. But that doesn't address the
possibility that the retasked engine may not be as appropriate for the
new task as the engine designed specifically for that task. And I'd
suggest an engine with more failure modes is less desirable - esp. for SE
aircraft - than an engine with fewer failure modes.

I also believe that Thielert's ability to get their engines into the
market sooner - another benefit of retasking - has made a big difference
over SMA.

However, this too is not a measure of the appropriateness of the
technology to aviation.

This does leave me pondering the diesel market, though. I referred to
the Beta/VHS incident above precisely because I wonder if we're going to
see something similar occur again. Or are there truly technical reasons
for the Thielert to be chosen over the SMA? Might OEMs still buy into
the SMA (Cessna may not have much choice for 182s, since I don't think
Thielert has a good replacement for the O-470)?

Another point on which I agree with you, BTW, is that diesel technology
does seem to offer a lot to the aviation market. But, absent information
suggesting otherwise, I admit to a severe leaning towards that "old
style" which isn't dependent upon electricity.

It'll be interesting to see what Continental does: <http://www.avweb.com/
podcast/podcast/197170-1.html>, though I admit to a fair level of
skepticism. Wasn't it just a few years ago that they shelved their own
diesel in favor of a mogas project with Honda? And now, according to the
AvWeb interview, the Honda project is on hold and the diesel is back?

- Andrew

[David Lesher]

Andrew Gideon > writes:


>But of course you're correct about this being an "old style" engine.
>That's rather the point. Does that make it a poor choice for aircraft?
>Numerous articles about flight test, along with commentary by current
>users, suggests that the SMA engine works quite well in a 182.

>As to market...I admit that I am curious why Thielert has done so much
>better than SMA. I suspect that it's far cheaper to merely retask an
>existing engine rather than design anew. But that doesn't address the
>possibility that the retasked engine may not be as appropriate for the
>new task as the engine designed specifically for that task. And I'd
>suggest an engine with more failure modes is less desirable - esp. for SE
>aircraft - than an engine with fewer failure modes.

Well, if "old" Diesels made sense for GA use, you'd a thunk there would
be lots by now. There don't seem to be.

And yes, there are risks re: using an existing design vs clean sheet of
paper, but there are also benefits. As I understand it, Thielert started
with a Mercedes engine. Now, Mercedes has been making Diesels for cars
for a Very Long Time. Lots of them, I should add, and some/many of them
get run for very long times. I seem to recall ads of theirs re: "badges"
for 250,000 KM, 500, etc. That's a lot of lessons learned. Granted the
use patterns may differ from GA use, but when you have so many out there...

There are real issues with starting over, and ignoring everything other
people found out The Hard Way. A classic example: Microsoft didn't bother
to look at Unix when they started making a multi-tasking multi-user OS,
because they were and are so arrogant as to be sure they knew it all.
You can see the results in the booming markets in virus add-ons, etc.

There are significant advantages to engines that run closed-loop, and
FADEC control systems add others. Yes, it's best to have zero single
points of failure in any design, be it a Bonanza or a highway bridge,
[or flywheels] but that's not always possible. So you limit them and
make their reliability a key in the design. The Apollo LM had one ascent
engine. It was dirt simple, by design.

(The alternative, by the way, is where GA is now -- 1950's technology
holds forth; outside of the avionics, and it run on 1960-design
alternators.)

Bernie from Netbasix rants on about how he'll never get in a FADEC-run
aircraft, so OK, he won't. But as I mentioned and he ignored, the
mechanical injection engine stops turning the same way when you run
out of Jet A, and guess what -- if you run it into granite cumulus,
it also stops spinning. Damn engineers ignored those single points;
fire 'em!


--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Andrew Gideon]

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 17:15:11 +0000, David Lesher wrote:

> Well, if "old" Diesels made sense for GA use, you'd a thunk there would
> be lots by now. There don't seem to be.

My understanding is that this has, until recently, been a weight issue.

[...]

> There are real issues with starting over, and ignoring everything other

But there's a great deal of space between retasking and "starting over,
and ignoring everything other people found out The Hard Way". So this is
something of a strawman argument.

[...]

> There are significant advantages to engines that run closed-loop, and
> FADEC control systems add others. Yes, it's best to have zero single
> points of failure in any design, be it a Bonanza or a highway bridge,
> [or flywheels] but that's not always possible.

This appears to me to be another strawman. Sure, zero SPOF is not always
possible. But how does that impact the goal of minimizing the SPOF?
Your later comments about granite cumulus would appear to be of the same
sort. Hyperbole, perhaps?

[...]

> (The alternative, by the way, is where GA is now -- 1950's technology
> holds forth; outside of the avionics, and it run on 1960-design
> alternators.)

This might also be explained by the size of the market. Also, don't
ignore the "pause" imposed by the liability issue. Now that small GA is
"moving again" we are seeing innovation. Avionics has been getting a lot
of attention over the past few years thanks to advancements in
electronics, and it appears that we're now seeing the result of evolution
in the engine market.

- Andrew

[David Lesher]

Andrew Gideon > writes:

>> Well, if "old" Diesels made sense for GA use, you'd a thunk there would
>> be lots by now. There don't seem to be.

>My understanding is that this has, until recently, been a weight issue.

Note that over the last ~30 years, cars too have come under intense
scrutiny over weight, and where to (and not to...) save. It includes
things such as making the brake cylinder{s} from aluminum vice steel,
reducing the capacity of the automatic transmission case/sump to use less
ATF, etc. and many smaller gains. All those ounces add up.

>> There are significant advantages to engines that run closed-loop, and
>> FADEC control systems add others. Yes, it's best to have zero single
>> points of failure in any design, be it a Bonanza or a highway bridge,
>> [or flywheels] but that's not always possible.

>This appears to me to be another strawman. Sure, zero SPOF is not always
>possible. But how does that impact the goal of minimizing the SPOF?
>Your later comments about granite cumulus would appear to be of the same
>sort. Hyperbole, perhaps?

Call them what you want. Zero SPOF is almost never possible. The question
is, what do you gain, and how do you mitigate the new risk? That twin
with the dead battery is a good example; it was bad engineering to depend
on the one main battery for the FADEC's, but with an added gel-cell for
them alone, that flaw is 99% gone. [You need some automagic battery test
as part of startup.]


>> (The alternative, by the way, is where GA is now -- 1950's technology
>> holds forth; outside of the avionics, and it run on 1960-design
>> alternators.)

>This might also be explained by the size of the market. Also, don't
>ignore the "pause" imposed by the liability issue. Now that small GA is
>"moving again" we are seeing innovation.

You think it's moving? I'll let others speak their mind {Jay, Donnie
etc.}, but from outside, it looks to me like it's reaching stall
speed. GA {in the US} faces large fuel cost increases, an aging fleet,
airport losses to developers, and an overall grim economy. And, sooner
than you think, I bet leaded gas will vanish. Then what?

Does AOPA etc. try to estimate the # of GA hours flown per year?
I can see two ways to swag same: ATC data and total gallons of 100
Octane sold. Both have flaws but it might be interesting to see a
10-20 year trend.

And I'm not one to discount the coffin corner of low volumes plus
regulatory overhead. But what I observe is not a pause but a fergett-it
by new vendors coming from such. YMMV.

--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[Thomas Borchert]

Andrew,

> You need to let go of what you Americans consider
> to be a "diesel". That's good for trucks and boats,
> but not for efficient small cars - and airplanes.
>
> So how are we to classify the SMA engine? A diesel, but not good for
> airplanes? Or not a diesel?

Ah, let's just say that was not my most coherent posting ;-)

> But of course you're correct about this being an "old style" engine.
> That's rather the point. Does that make it a poor choice for aircraft?
> Numerous articles about flight test, along with commentary by current
> users, suggests that the SMA engine works quite well in a 182.

Hmm. I've heard and read quite the opposite. SMA has never met their goals
with regard to certification both of the engine itself and with airframes.
They had a ton of cooling problems, AFAIK they still have altitude
restrictions which are rather low for a turbocharged engine. They had an
airframe from Cirrus to fit the engine to and Cirrus was more than willing
to go forward with them, but in the end they gave up because of a mountain
of problems.

> I suspect that it's far cheaper to merely retask an
> existing engine rather than design anew.

Indeed it is. Frank Thielert has described the calculation in a German
aviation magazine in detail (from a slighly biased POV, of course ;-)). Very
interesting.

> But that doesn't address the
> possibility that the retasked engine may not be as appropriate for the
> new task as the engine designed specifically for that task.

True. I'm just looking at the evidence so far. Number of aviation diesels
designed from a car engine: 1 (I think). Percentage of those flying in
numbers for several years: 100. Number of aviation diesels designed from the
ground up: 3 (? - Zoche, sma, Deltahawk). Percentage flying in numbers for
several years: 0.

> And I'd
> suggest an engine with more failure modes is less desirable - esp. for SE
> aircraft - than an engine with fewer failure modes.

Sure. But just because Bertie says it's so, doesn't mean the Thielert does
in fact have more. Different ones, for sure.

> I also believe that Thielert's ability to get their engines into the
> market sooner - another benefit of retasking - has made a big difference
> over SMA.

True. They started into it at about the same time, though. sma seems to have
run into a wall of problems.

> Or are there truly technical reasons
> for the Thielert to be chosen over the SMA? Might OEMs still buy into
> the SMA (Cessna may not have much choice for 182s, since I don't think
> Thielert has a good replacement for the O-470)?

I think they really tried. I know Cirrus did. Cessna did (as an OEM), too.
Socata did.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[David Lesher]

Thomas Borchert > writes:


>True. I'm just looking at the evidence so far. Number of aviation diesels
>designed from a car engine: 1 (I think). Percentage of those flying in
>numbers for several years: 100. Number of aviation diesels designed from the
>ground up: 3 (? - Zoche, sma, Deltahawk). Percentage flying in numbers for
>several years: 0.

Well, today yes. But Thomas may recall the Luftwaffe Junkers Ju86 used
2-cycle Diesels. I'm sure they did not use FADECs....





--
A host is a host from coast to
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433

[[email protected]]

On 21 Feb., 01:10, Peter > wrote:
> Thomas Borchert > wrote
>
> >True. I'm just looking at the evidence so far. Number of aviation diesels
> >designed from a car engine: 1 (I think). Percentage of those flying in
> >numbers for several years: 100. Number of aviation diesels designed from the
> >ground up: 3 (? - Zoche, sma, Deltahawk). Percentage flying in numbers for
> >several years: 0.
>
> Unfortunately this deduction fails to take into account the real
> market.

I could not disagree more with your line of reasoning. ALL players I
mentioned come from outside the US (apart from Deltahawk, I think).
All entered the field either at the same time as Thielert or well
before. Only Thielert has managed to gain any traction in the market,
including just recently winning Cessna as an OEM on the 172. One just
can't claim that this is all clever marketing and fast action. It's
the way the engine is built.

BTW, note that Diamond has now started building its own diesel engine.
Two remarks regarding that:

1. I guess they don't think the Thielert is perfect, either.
2. Wanna guess what their design is based on? Yep, a Mercedes car
engine.

Thomas

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Peter" > wrote

> And what new aircraft are there? It's difficult to sell into the USA
> (e.g. to Cessna) because a U.S. aircraft maker has to be really
> careful beta testing new engines (see the Rotax fiasco; the name still
> stinks in the USA) and because of the U.S. not-invented-here syndrome
> (call it patriotism if you like but it is an awfully powerful tool to
> keep people buying the old engines).

Correct deduction, wrong reason.

The name Rotax stinks because of the quality of the product, not because of
where it was invented. It is not tough enough to stand up to the rigors of
a plane being flown all day long as a trainer.

So spare us the "we won't buy it because it is not American" crap. I'm sick
to death of hearing that.

Add to that, the fact that Rotax did not get a service capability built up
before they brought the Rotax powered planes here. Few people knew how to
work on them.

Some companies that are selling light sport aircraft with Rotax engines are
doing pretty well, but they are providing the necessary training for working
on the engines. Many people that own the Rotax engines privately love them.

I admit that I am still scared of them. Too many poor experiences with the
smaller Rotax engines to believe that the bigger aviation versions could be
enough better to be worth my life. Nothing to do with patiotism.
Self-preservationism.
--
Jim in NC

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:53:10 +0100, Thomas Borchert wrote:

>> So how are we to classify the SMA engine? A diesel, but not good for
>> airplanes? Or not a diesel?
>
> Ah, let's just say that was not my most coherent posting ;-)

Fair enough. I'm sure all those old fashioned diesels accept
your apology <laugh>.

>
>> But of course you're correct about this being an "old style" engine.
>> That's rather the point. Does that make it a poor choice for aircraft?
>> Numerous articles about flight test, along with commentary by current
>> users, suggests that the SMA engine works quite well in a 182.
>
> Hmm. I've heard and read quite the opposite. SMA has never met their
> goals with regard to certification both of the engine itself and with
> airframes.

I'm not sure what you mean. Scheduling? It's no big shock to me
when aviation schedules are extended (esp. regarding certification
issues which necessarily involve the FAA). But the SMA is currently
certified in at least a couple of 182 models. Plus, users seem happy
with it.

My club has been looking into SMA-ing a 182Q, so we've collected some
opinions from existing customers. Both the names we received from SMA
and those we found ourselves (ie. via CPA's forum) seemed to praise the
engine. Oddly, I have to admit, this praise came even from a couple of
the very first recipients. This is odd to me because they seemed to have
a lot of "start up" problems. Perhaps that SMA handled these at no cost
swayed the customers' opinions, but I've have considered that a necessity
for so new a product.

> They had a ton of cooling problems, AFAIK they still have
> altitude restrictions which are rather low for a turbocharged engine.

The restriction is FAA/US only. In the EU, those are regularly
"violated". So they appear less an engine issue and more a certification
issue.

> They had an airframe from Cirrus to fit the engine to and Cirrus was
> more than willing to go forward with them, but in the end they gave up
> because of a mountain of problems.

Given the timeframe that SMA and Cirrus were involved together, I can
absolutely understand that.

[...]

>> But that doesn't address the
>> possibility that the retasked engine may not be as appropriate for the
>> new task as the engine designed specifically for that task.
>
> True. I'm just looking at the evidence so far. Number of aviation
> diesels designed from a car engine: 1 (I think). Percentage of those
> flying in numbers for several years: 100. Number of aviation diesels
> designed from the ground up: 3 (? - Zoche, sma, Deltahawk). Percentage
> flying in numbers for several years: 0.

But all of this could be explained by marketing and timing.

>
>> And I'd
>> suggest an engine with more failure modes is less desirable - esp. for
>> SE aircraft - than an engine with fewer failure modes.
>
> Sure. But just because Bertie says it's so, doesn't mean the Thielert
> does in fact have more. Different ones, for sure.

Bertie might be like that proverbial clock, too: correct once or twice a
day. What failure modes does the SMA have that the Thielert lacks? That
the latter requires electrical power for the FADEC is clear, but what's
"the other side"?

[...]

>> Or are there truly technical reasons
>> for the Thielert to be chosen over the SMA? Might OEMs still buy into
>> the SMA (Cessna may not have much choice for 182s, since I don't think
>> Thielert has a good replacement for the O-470)?
>
> I think they really tried. I know Cirrus did. Cessna did (as an OEM),
> too. Socata did.

But now that the SMA is certified, what might happen? Or is this all for
naught now that Continental is [claiming to be] entering the diesel
market?

- Andrew