DieselDaze

Diesels gaining popularity over head.

http://www.machinedesign.com/ASP/vie...=55900&str

Rich

Mexstan

I have been following diesels in aircraft for years now. The modern diesels will (I predict) become more and more common and we are going to see a lot of retrofit kits available in general aviation airplanes. At one time considered building my own plane powered by a diesel engine. Would not be surprised to see more BMW, Peugeot, Volvo and Volkswagen engine flying soon.<br>So once again, where are the Americans with this new technlogy?

AlpineRAM

Mexstan: I don't think that the automotive diesels will go into planes shortly. First the results from gassers like Porsche weren't too good. I think that the aircraft diesel will benefit from standard automotive components like common rails, VG turbos and the like. There are also some weight issues prohibiting the standard automotive diesel. If you take for example the VW TDI 1.9 with a max. rating of 130 hp the short block has the same weight as the Thielert aircraft diesel installed. <br>Even though it has a bigger displacement it will deliver max. hp at higher revs than the Thielert. Sou you'd have to inclode a greater reduction which in turn adds weight and area. <br>The main advantage of turbo diesels for us over here is that we are at quite high elevations and in summer due to temp/dens our gasser planes have an engine output that falls far below the diesel even though the diesel is rated at 135 hp instead of 160 hp of the lycoming. Add this to the fact that the diesel has more static thrust even at sea level. <br>Due to the intelligent management and turbocharging these engines do provide an incredible climb until service ceiling for non pressurized planes. <br><br>Life is gonna be fun when there are more of them. ;D<br><br>Where is America ??? I don't know what's a cooking in the labs of Lycoming or Continental. But as I see the market there is a great inertia to buy a piston engine from somebody else, even though both haven't evolved their engines significantly from the first designs of the VW beetle ( 1936) and have just put on some injection system where you can buy something more sophisticated from companies like megasquirt to retrofit oldtimers. Maybe this new threat from overseas will lead to an effort of the big 2. <br><br>AlpineRAM

Mexstan

AlpineRAM, for the most part I agree with you. I should have clarified my comments a little better by stating that I see more diesels in homebuilts than airplanes like Cessna, Piper, Beech etc. I do believe that they will come in the GA aircraft, but not tomorrow. They GA industry is ultra conservative (other than Burt Rutan) and they will be watching to see what the homebuilders do. They get ideas from people like Rutan as well. Yes, the diesel in theory is a great engine for aircraft but the weight problem does at this time inhibit it's potential for mass production.<br>As for Continental and Lycoming. Well, as you are probably aware, R&amp;R is VERY expensive so to the best of my knowledge they are not doing much at this time. Pity. Maybe they will surprise us all soon. The only thing new from Lycoming I know about is the 'new' four cylinder IO-390-x at 210 HP. This engine is not really new but is a modified version of an old engine and is offered to homebuilders only. 210 HP at only 308 pounds weight is not too bad. As for Continental, nothing too new from them although I think they recently teemed up with Honda to develop something new.

AlpineRAM

Mexstan: Over here there are so little homebuilts... There are some kits imported from the US like the KitFox and the like, but they are a major PIA to get through certification with AustroControl. Especially if you use an &quot;unknown&quot; engine.<br>What I do like about the TAE and thielert diesel is that you get about 10% more thrust out of only 5 kgs more with the engine mounted compared to the Lycoming. <br>So if you just put in 5 kgs of fuel less then you have more thrust and still much longer endurance. <br>Since these engines are really quiet too I think that they will hit the market for planes that do get a lot of hours- simply because of the fuel price diff and the long endurance. Have you seen the mpg chart for the plane on the link provided in the first post ? <br>I don't have the article online but I read about an 172 diesel Cessna- those guys have great results.<br><br>AlpineRAM

MikeyB

Very sad to say but in litigation happy America you won't be seeing these diesels in general aviation. The problem is when a aircraft manufacturer or supplier tries to update or come out with something newer and better the lawyers preceive that the previous version has a defect. Look at a Continental or Lycoming and you're looking at 1940's technology. One nice thing about aircraft diesels is they burn Jet A, and in Europe theres a big push to get away from 100LL. So one common fuel at the airport.<br> The only way diesels could make it into aircraft here is with custom homebuilts and kits, like Lance Air. <br><br>MikeyB <br>

AlpineRAM

Mickey: There is something I do not quite understand about litigation happy America: What you say to me is that effectively lawyers hinder the technological progress for the consumer. Wouldn't this be the case with cars, trucks, TVs, Computers and whatever else too ?<br>Actually our authorities do not like the fact that aero diesels don't need to run on jet A1 but can be operated on normal diesel. (Tax evasion)<br>The push to get away from 100LL is not too bad, but there is a push to supply MoGas 95. This is standard automotive gasoline over here. Usually the smaller airports do carry 100LL and MoGas, only rarely you'll find JetA1 on a small airport. The diesel users do push for getting diesel at the airports because it's less than half the price o JetA1<br><br>AlpineRAM

Mexstan

The lawyers in the states managed to almost kill the GA industry in the 70's and the industry has never fully recovered. Probably never will. It is because of all the stupid litigation that Piper changed their name. The legal profession in the west has got out of hand and has generaly hurt the US and Canada maybe more than any terrorist ever has. There are many articles on this. Unfortunately too many top politicians are ex lawyers to they continue to modify the laws for self serving purposes. I can get quite upset when I look back and see what litigation has done to the aviation industry. Stupid laws, over regulation etc has forced many great designs in Canada to either be dropped or they have moved to the states to builld them. Better get off my soap box before I say something in anger.<br> Yes MikeyB, I agree with you. Litigation will hinder the use of diesel engines in GA aircraft. However, I am hoping that the better fuel economy and less polution etc of the diesels will get the green people and others into the act and force some changes which will make it possible for diesels to fly more. Time will tell and it will move very slowly.<br> AlpineRAM, yes I saw the article about the diesels getting great fuel economy. This is one reason I have been interested in flying diesels for many years. I suspect that in the future that once some of the stupid litigation is overcome that TBO's for the diesels will go thru the roof. One of the huge costs in aviation, specially GA is engine overhauls. As MikeyB said, engine technology for the GA piston engines is 1940's so no engine I know if has a TBO of more than 2000 hours. A few are restricted to only 1600 hours. That makes the cost per flying hour very expensive. Hopefully the homebuilders can show that TBO&quot;S on diesels can go for ever and reduce the hourly cost substantially.. The downside is that very few homebuilders ever fly more than 100 hours per year.<br> Interesting subject but had better quit for now.

MikeyB

AlpineRam,<br> Like Mexstan said, general aviation is hamstrung by the lawyers. And yes, the auto industry is under the microscope too. Latest was the Firestone tires. And computer companies has been sued also, remember the floppy drive issue? Toshiba gave into the lawyers by settling out of court. Dell did the same with laptop batteries. So the consumer gets a $10 gift certificate and the lawyers walk away with $100's of millions of dollars..... <br> I get an ear full from my Dad all the time on this subject, he's a test pilot and expert witness in aircraft accidents for aircraft manufacturers/suppliers.<br><br>MikeyB<br> <br>

AlpineRAM

Mickey: As to what I read over here Firestone got problems for tires blowing up and killing people on Ford Explorers. What I read was that Ford had lowered the tire pressure under a point that Firestone did suggest and the tires got hot and boom.<br>Maybe I got the wrong impression here.... <br>I don't know about the floppy and notebook batteries... Over here a mfg of notebooks got sued because his notebooks would get so hot on the bottom that they would incinerate paper or lead to severe burns when touched. The mfg had to recall the notebooks concerned and fix the issue within 2 weeks. And to pay for damage done by the notebook.<br>Over here even a small airplane is considered as something only to be touched by people with some education. (PPL is quite strict over here) and any service must be done by certified pro's (Except UL and Experimental where the owner/operator does his own service but has to record everything and the cert. of airworthiness has to be reissued every year)<br>Actually there are really very few accidents in GA over here and most of them are pilots errors. <br>Over here lawyers are paid per hour. They have to inform you before about the price per hour. And there is a limit per hour you can get compensated for your lawyers costs when you win a trial. <br><br>Mexstan: The TBO for the small diesels is at 2400hrs for now, but AFAIK there are university tests running looking to extend them to about 10k hrs. One great advantage is that these engines always use filtered air. Over here on summer days we need carb preheat during takeoff and on the Cessnas this goes around the air filter AFAIK. <br>The overhaul of the TAE takes place in the factory and you get an engine preshipped before you remove the old one to decrease downtime. Good thing is that you get the complete unit including prop. (All got the same intervals) <br><br>AlpineRAM

Mexstan

Yes, carb heat can be an engine killer in dusty air. At least the fuel injected engines did away with that requirement. Did not know that in your part of the world that the engine and prop was overhauled by the same shop. That is the exception in the US and Canada. Normaly the engine goes to an engine shop and the prop goes to a prop shop. Sometimes the hours of the prop and the engine do not match which is not that big a deal. Just inconvenient at overhaul time.<br> Going back to litigation. Can't remember the numbers as it was so long ago but I seem to remember that Piper, Cessna, Beech etc had to add over 20% to the cost of a new aircraft to cover cost of litigation for that time and possible future. That is what killed the industry as few could afford the added costs. It put many workers out on the streets.<br> Just to give you an idea of how stupid the government can be when it comes to aircraft. Canada in many ways is worse than the US and this example comes from Canada. I know all the details of the following is true as I was involved. A company used to purchase wrecked aircraft, restore them and sell them. Not normally a problem. This time they purchased a bent high performance, all metal glider made in Europe. The spars on the wings was damaged. Normally no problem to fix and certify. This time the MOT said that as they did not know what the material was they could not approve the repair. So samples of the material was sent to a lab for analysis. It proved to be the same as 2024. Still the MOT dithered and wanted the repair to be redone with a safety factor of about 20. Totally ridiculous. As this company did a lot of work with an American company they arranged for the American mechanic to sign off the glider. The glider was deregisterd in Canada, assigned an American registration, certified by the American mechanic, derigistered in the US and reregisterd in Canada using the original registration. The glider never left Canada and the American mechanic never came to Canada. The MOT were happy then because somebody else had accepted responsiblity. Crazy or what!!!!!

AlpineRAM

Mexstan:The normal procedure over here is that the prop and engien are overhauled separately. (We have the same Cessnas, Pipers etc) but the guys over here regard this as something that can be improved and therefore the engine mfg does this as a kind of customer care. <br><br>I think that registration procedures over here are at least as painful as in the US or Canada. <br>I didn't know about having to calculate 20% of the product price for lawsuits. This is really quite ridiculous. What kind of claims or complaints did those people have ?<br><br>AlpineRAM

Mexstan

I don't remember the type of idiotic claims that were allowed. It was along the lines that if you as the pilot or owner of a GA aircraft ran out of fuel due to your own carelessness and then crashed into a farmers field then the guy who refueled your plane, the aircraft mechanic, the manufacturer etc could all be sued. The point is, the manufactures were being sued big time for stuff that had nothing to do with them. If a pilot screwed up, the lawyers could somehow sue the manufactures for not allowing for this contingincy. All I remember is that none of it made any sense to me at the time and makes even less sense looking back. Did I mention that I hate lawyers? To me, they are lower in scale than telephone soliciters. Maybe others who read this can remember some specific stupid claims from that era that forced the manufacturers to thier knees.

AlpineRAM

Over here you are sued if you crash a plane (and survive), because you didn't follow the proper procedures. (Laymans terms here )<br>Well I think I see what is happening on your side of the pond. I have talked to some engineers over here who told me that their companies wouldn't export to the US or Canada for possible legal reasons. Maybe this kind of market protection is also intended by the politicians. <br><br>I think that maybe some company will step up and continue the development of 2 stroke double crankshaft opposing piston aircraft diesels that has been discontinued since WW2. I have seen one of these small powerplants in a museum and was truely astounded that a unit this small and light could produce that much output and still have reasonable efficiency. ( JuMo 207 turbocharged for reconnaissance planes like the Ju88 flying over 10 000 m ( 32800ft) )<br>Naturally these concepts are quite radical, but with the fuel prices climbing and the request for more endurance I think hat there is some potential. <br><br>AlpineRAM

Mexstan

As I have stated many times over the years, lawyers have done more harm than good. Just a few days ago I was reading that kids playgrounds are now so safe that they are strerile and kids no longer enjoy playing in them. Lawyers again!! Maybe skipping ropes will be outlawed soon in case some kid trips over one and bangs her head on the ground!<br> I remember seeing pictures of the double crank opposing piston engine. In fact a few years ago someone was again experimenting with this principle. Not sure, but I think it was also a diesel. Again, thanks to politicians and lawyers, things like that are deemed too radical and barriers are placed in the way to prevent full development and production.