310HP Diesel

I think the diesel is about to come of age, more and more manufacturers are considering diesel options. One way to cure the 100 LL problem.
 
The new diesel engines in small trucks have the block made out of carbon fiber. Much lighter than the old ones.
 
Geico266 said:
The new diesel engines in small trucks have the block made out of carbon fiber. Much lighter than the old ones.
Click to expand...

In in just a few short decades, the FAA will certify one for aviation use... :rolleyes2:
 
frfly172 said:
I think the diesel is about to come of age, more and more manufacturers are considering diesel options. One way to cure the 100 LL problem.
Click to expand...

IMO it's not just one way, but the best way as well. While it's the most expensive initially, it does have a payoff in efficiency and saves a good bit of fuel money. For those who rarely fly and stay local in planes that can burn Mogas, it makes no sense. For those who fly a lot, especially long range, it's perfect.
 
Henning said:
IMO it's not just one way, but the best way as well. While it's the most expensive initially, it does have a payoff in efficiency and saves a good bit of fuel money. For those who rarely fly and stay local in planes that can burn Mogas, it makes no sense. For those who fly a lot, especially long range, it's perfect.
Click to expand...

The big advantage to GenAv going diesel is that everybody on the airport basically uses the same fuel (JetA). It vastly simplifies the delivery infrastructure chain for the airport not to have to offer any second product.
 
DJTorrente said:
The big advantage to GenAv going diesel is that everybody on the airport basically uses the same fuel (JetA). It vastly simplifies the delivery infrastructure chain for the airport not to have to offer any second product.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can burn jetA, but the engines we are taking about are piston engines. The lubricity of jetA is very low. Diesel that you put in your car or truck is different. I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the airplanes engine manufacturers, but you would not want to use a steady diet of JetA in a truck or car piston engine.
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Yes, you can burn jetA, but the engines we are taking about are piston engines. The lubricity of jetA is very low. Diesel that you put in your car or truck is different. I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the airplanes engine manufacturers, but you would not want to use a steady diet of JetA in a truck or car piston engine.
Click to expand...

I don't think he's talking about the trucks and cars....just the planes. In addition I think the plane engines can use car diesel as well.

Frank
 
Geico266 said:
Yes, you can burn jetA, but the engines we are taking about are piston engines. The lubricity of jetA is very low. Diesel that you put in your car or truck is different. I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the airplanes engine manufacturers, but you would not want to use a steady diet of JetA in a truck or car piston engine.
Click to expand...

I've looked into that on boats where we carried helicopters where they wanted to tank just one fuel. With the old mechanical injection systems it was more of an issue that was curable with a modified pump, with the Common Rail systems it seems to cause much less issue.
 
Henning said:
I've looked into that on boats where we carried helicopters where they wanted to tank just one fuel. With the old mechanical injection systems it was more of an issue that was curable with a modified pump, with the Common Rail systems it seems to cause much less issue.
Click to expand...

I sure hope the guys designing the diesel aircraft engines know this. :lol: :eek:
 
They should throw all the effort being put into a 100LL alternative into getting these diesel's certified.

This will be a better solution all around. Plenty of (powerful) folks (and airlines) have a large interest already in keeping Jet A costs down. 100LL - pretty much nobody cares except us...
 
Dan Thomas said:
The SMA diesel (the one Continental bases their diesels on) is certified to run on Jet A only. Not diesel. And why wouldn't they? Who sells diesel at an airport?


Dan
Click to expand...

Actually, they now have both the SMA and Thielert Diesel designs. The one in this thread and the 172 are Thielerts, the one in the 182 is an SMA IIRC. They were also working on a 6 cyl version of the SMA, not sure of the status there, and Thielert also had a 450hp V8 program.
 
And makes a whopping 180 hp with its low compression.
 
Last edited:
dans2992 said:
They should throw all the effort being put into a 100LL alternative into getting these diesel's certified.

This will be a better solution all around. Plenty of (powerful) folks (and airlines) have a large interest already in keeping Jet A costs down. 100LL - pretty much nobody cares except us...
Click to expand...


Agreed. Having light aviation depend on a special fuel isn't likely to be viable long term. At some point there will only be one or two makers of the stuff, and you can imagine what will happen to the price.
 
Geico266 said:
Yes, you can burn jetA, but the engines we are taking about are piston engines. The lubricity of jetA is very low. Diesel that you put in your car or truck is different. I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the airplanes engine manufacturers, but you would not want to use a steady diet of JetA in a truck or car piston engine.
Click to expand...

What do you consider a "steady diet"? We've run diesels for thousands of hours on Jet A at work without issues.
 
FormerHangie said:
Agreed. Having light aviation depend on a special fuel isn't likely to be viable long term. At some point there will only be one or two makers of the stuff, and you can imagine what will happen to the price.
Click to expand...

There has been only one manufacturer of TEL for quite a few years now IIRC, pretty sure it all comes from England. I can tell you that from the product tanker aspect, we'll be glad when it disappears, stuff is a PITA.
 
FormerHangie said:
Having light aviation depend on a special fuel isn't likely to be viable long term.
Click to expand...

I fly on the ethanol-free unleaded gasoline, which is common with boaters. Unfortunately, I can only use R+M/2 rating of 91 (manual specifies RON 89). Boaters, however, can use very low octane ratings. Because of that, I cannot use the closest pure-gas station and have to drive quite far to the next one. Resulting burn of gas in my jeep fully offsets any costs savings over 100LL, but at least I don't have to deal with spark plug fouling.
 
FormerHangie said:
Agreed. Having light aviation depend on a special fuel isn't likely to be viable long term. At some point there will only be one or two makers of the stuff, and you can imagine what will happen to the price.
Click to expand...

You mean like today?
 
CASH FOR CLUNKERS PART DEUECE


That's right aviators!! Get a Federal Rebate when you upgrade any 100/130 octane rated aircraft to Diesel

Tax title and licensing not included. Rebate up to and including $5,000 for qualified purchases. All rebate applications must be filled out in blue or black ink in triplicate and signed with blood. All engines, mounts, accessories and propellers removed must be completely destroyed using a noraty public as supporting evidence. Fuel flow computers must be install and calibrated. By accepting rebate you agree to voluntarily sign up for BO's carbon emission tracking service free of charge to track and bill the carbon emission from your aircraft. Also by accepting rebate you agree to update the mode S code to a new discreet code used to bill you for ATC services. The airplane is not eligible for export under any circumstances. Uncle sam reserves the right to inspect your diesel conversion at anytime to ensure you are no longer using 100LL in your aircraft. By diesel we mean Jet-A. farm fuel or road diesel is not approved and punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death by drowning. Why drowning you might ask, well we wanna try something different.
 
Thielert diesel in our DA-40 was certified for both Jet-A and road diesel, I believe.
 
Katamarino said:
Thielert diesel in our DA-40 was certified for both Jet-A and road diesel, I believe.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for a piston engine it's a one way problem, I believe with a turbine the contaminants in Diesel fuel reduce the life span of the turbine blades though. Modern ultra low sulphur Diesel may not have as great an affect though, but not positive on that.
 
No more jugs?

0729_Continental.jpg
 
NoHeat said:
No more jugs?
Click to expand...

Many have replaceable cylinders, I don't know if this one does or not though.

What I'm curious about is what this engine will fit in. The height looks greater than that of a flat engine so its applications may have to be designed with this engine in mind.
 
NoHeat said:
No more jugs?
Click to expand...

Not on the automotive derivative engines. When was the last time you saw jugs on a liquid-cooled automotive engine?

The SMA diesel does have jugs, though.
 
mondtster said:
Many have replaceable cylinders, I don't know if this one does or not though.

What I'm curious about is what this engine will fit in. The height looks greater than that of a flat engine so its applications may have to be designed with this engine in mind.
Click to expand...

Not really. When Toyota had their V-8 on the Aztec, it was in the same cowl as the IO-540 on the other side IIRC. On SE applications it will certainly fit in the footprint of the firewall, on some twins it may require some mods to the nacelle. All in all that will be the most minor part of a conversion.
 
Geico266 said:
Yes, you can burn jetA, but the engines we are taking about are piston engines. The lubricity of jetA is very low. Diesel that you put in your car or truck is different. I'm not sure if it makes a difference to the airplanes engine manufacturers, but you would not want to use a steady diet of JetA in a truck or car piston engine.
Click to expand...

And the lubricity of 100LL and mogas run in piston engines is greater?
 
Clip4 said:
And the lubricity of 100LL and mogas run in piston engines is greater?
Click to expand...

The lubricity issue is only one with high pressure pumps on Diesels, it does not apply to gasoline engines.
 
lubricity concerns are a red herring. Every engine manufacturer who sells to the military has been making fuel injectors for decades with coatings on plungers to tolerate jet fuel operation. Since ULSD came on the scene, with lubricity nearly as crappy, these coatings have been made standard across the board for virtually all diesel engines. Since all these aircraft experiments use fuel injection from modern automotive engines, there shouldn't be any concern about injector or pump scuffing.

You can dump a little ATF in your fuel if it makes you feel better, but it really isn't necessary on new engines.
 
Katamarino said:
I'd love to put one in a 210.
Click to expand...

All those IO550 conversions are going to be obsolete in another decade, making way for diesel.

Those who don't go diesel will go with anti-detonation injection to run mogas. There was a very nice article in Cessna Pilots Association about an ag operator who has been using the Inpulse STC for a few years on his IO520 powered Cessna 188, burning much cheaper 91 mogas (sure he buys in bulk).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top