Thielert (Diesel Engines)

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

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when the gear was retracted...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

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when the gear was retracted...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.

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

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

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

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_0...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

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

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_0...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

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_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...

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

Cheers