Thielert (Diesel Engines)

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

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

"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_0...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

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_0...ate-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

"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_0...ate-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

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.

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_0...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.

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

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_0...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

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.