Thielert (Diesel Engines)

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

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

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

WingFlaps,

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


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


That doesn't address anything.

Bertie

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)