Thielert (Diesel Engines)

"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

"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

"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.

"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

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

"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

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

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)

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

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 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 "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