Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Diesel aircraft engines
- Thread starter Tom-D
- Start date
MSPAviator
Cleared for Takeoff
I don't know nothin' about these Zoche Aero-Diesels, but I'll take a ZO 01A if it can fit under a cowl designed for an IO-360. The weight reduction, fuel consumption, FADEC, and turbocharger would sure be nice.
A larger displacement inverted V4 making more than 70hp would be sexier though.
On paper atleast, these look way better than Thielerts.
A larger displacement inverted V4 making more than 70hp would be sexier though.
On paper atleast, these look way better than Thielerts.
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
I don't know nothin' about these Zoche Aero-Diesels, but I'll take a ZO 01A if it can fit under a cowl designed for an IO-360. The weight reduction, fuel consumption, FADEC, and turbocharger would sure be nice.
A larger displacement inverted V4 making more than 70hp would be sexier though.
On paper atleast, these look way better than Thielerts.
A nice EXP P-38 lookalike with 2, 300 horse radials.
BiffJ
Pre-takeoff checklist
All I know is that Michael Zoche has been promising diesels to homebuilders since I was at oshkosh in 83 and I've never seen one flying besides his. Lots of promises and no deliveries. I don't know that he's been taking money from anyone but it would be neat to see some actual customer engines in the air.
Frank
Frank
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
A response on EAA says about the same thing. I ran a crossed it and thought it was some thing new.
Cool, I like it, I've given up on him long ago, just another provider of vaporware engines. When the Chinese capitalized Continental I hoped they would get something in the pipe a bit quicker with the SMA project.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
So, what's your esteemed opinion about Deltahawk?
Again, until they are properly capitalized the will remain vapor ware promises for the future.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Well, seeing as there's one picture of one on a test rig (and a poor picture at that) with the rest being CAD drawings, I can't imagine they're particularly far along. While the design is pretty on paper, I also don't see it having much practicality. The SMA diesel design is far more adaptable to most GA aircraft. I like the SMA design on paper, but last I heard it needed some more development work.
Unfortunately, the aircraft diesel engine is difficult to do. The things that become inherent to a diesel end up making "lightweight" a difficult attribute to obtain. Small turboprops would be nice, provided they could have some semblance of efficiency.
Unfortunately, the aircraft diesel engine is difficult to do. The things that become inherent to a diesel end up making "lightweight" a difficult attribute to obtain. Small turboprops would be nice, provided they could have some semblance of efficiency.
Electronic fuel injection has allowed Diesel engines to become smooth enough to take out a lot of the extra weight they needed. It's doable. You do need to "double charge" any Diesel with a mechanical as well as turbo charger, that was always a short coming of the SMA and Thielert that leaves them in a bind for starting at altitude. They have a video of the radial running as well on a test cell, so there is one running copy. A 24" diameter radial is easily adaptable to most any GA plane.
MSPAviator
Cleared for Takeoff
If you dig through their website, there is a video of one of the engines with a prop on it being tested in a windtunnel.
The Chinese just wanted the jets.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
I am not so sure about it. Someone definitely flies those Cirruses in China. The Korean clone of Cirrus (KC-100 Naraon) is also suggestive. They wanted it for some reason, right?
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
You're still looking at some major adaptations, and even after reducing some of the weight you're still heavy. I never said it wasn't doable, you could throw a Ford Powerstroke in a Navajo. Of course then you have a 1000 lb engine. The catch is making it something people will buy...
The market for those planes is still really small and they still have a lot of restrictions on where you can fly. However, they can use cruise a cruise missle jet right now.
My understanding was that after an earthquake a few years back one of the Chinese higher ups had an "Ah Ha" moment as they were having trouble getting people and supplies in and out efficiently and economically; 'they needed GA' and it became a national priority issue to develop this efficient small fleet air force, therefor buying Continental and Cirrus. I read that in a couple of the aviation business things I get emailed so the accuracy is anyone's guess; plausibility meter indicates high though.
See many of these planes being shipped to China? Is Cirrus the best platform to move people/supplies during an emergency? A Cessna Caravan, or a Bearhawk, or a number of other planes would seem to me to be a better choice for this purpose.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Buying Cessna and Pratt & Whitney would be harder than buying Cirrus and Continental...
Why buy...Cessna is building the Skycatcher there now....I wonder how much effort it would take to produce Caravans there?
True that. I was just giving some examples of aircraft that fit the mission better. There are other planes out there for that mission too. There's probably nothing to keep them from buying the appropriate aircraft, and cheaper than buying the whole company.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
Maybe China will be the one to come up with a 100LL replacement since it is not readily available over there. 
They probably will. Sigh.Maybe China will be the one to come up with a 100LL replacement since it is not readily available over there.
denverpilot
Tied Down
Maybe China will be the one to come up with a 100LL replacement since it is not readily available over there.
Nah, they'll just avoid buying the aircraft that make up 20% of the GA fleet that's holding the other 80% hostage to the greenies over here because we can't buy 91UL on the airfields.
Dan Thomas
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2008
- Messages
- 11,431
- Display Name
Display name:
Dan Thomas
There are 50 or 60 SMAs flying worldwide. We had one in a 182. It was a first-generation affair that had numerous cracked or broken brackets and so on, due to the vibration levels at idle. It's a normal pump-distributor diesel, not electronic fuel injected, but the fuel is FADEC-controlled with a mechanical backup in case of failure. The engine is mostly air cooled but the heads also have oil cooling passages in them, and there's a huge oil cooler on one side of the engine and a big turbo intercooler on the other side.
SMA is on their third generation now and are slowly getting the bugs out of it. Must have a king's ransom invested in it. The engine is heavier than the O-470 it replaced, but it develops the same 230 HP at 2200 RPM instead of the 470's 2600, making it lose a little less HP to propeller drag. It performs well. It does not like cold weather.
Dan
MSPAviator
Cleared for Takeoff
MSPAviator
Cleared for Takeoff
No, China discovered they had a serious deficiency in medium and heavy lift helicopters.
So they bought more Mi-171's and leased some Mi-26's. That's just a stop-gap before a homemade helicopter comes online though.
http://china-defense.blogspot.com/2010/08/pla-helicopter-s-operations.html
Tom-D
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 34,740
- Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
funny Hitler's diesels didn't either, that's problem of heavy fuels.
Can't really say, but they aren't buying engines and airframes, they are buying companies to produce machines in China I am sure. China has a history of being self sufficient. This last drought is the first time in history I believe that China has imported food and leased agriculture land from foreign countries.
As to how why someone would come to the conclusion that masses of small efficient utility planes is anyone's guess, but I bet a chopper gun version of an SR 20 with a 230hp 4cyl diesel will be pretty low cost.
Can't really say, but they aren't buying engines and airframes, they are buying companies to produce machines in China I am sure. China has a history of being self sufficient. This last drought is the first time in history I believe that China has imported food and leased agriculture land from foreign countries.
As to how/why someone would come to the conclusion that masses of small efficient utility planes is anyone's guess, but I bet a chopper gun version of an SR 20 with a 230hp 4cyl diesel will be pretty low cost and reasonably efficient.
AFAIK, the companies are still in the United States (meaning the physical assets used to build airframes, the people are still here too, at least the old TCM folks). You keep going on about the diesel- it might be efficient but still vaporware. There's still better platforms than an SR-22 as you need to bring a load into a short strip.
The companies were bought within the last 12 months so no telling really what the future plans are for that, but it makes sense that there will be manufacturing in China. The SMA has been flying around and available for STC purchase in 182s for over a decade now IIRC. It's the only one that isn't really vaporware, just under sold. As for the Cirrus not being the best platform, I don't disagree.
I haven't heard of anything happening- remember I do work at Teledyne and I do have a different track of information.
zaitcev
En-Route
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Messages
- 3,259
- Display Name
Display name:
Pete Zaitcev
No diesel likes cold. Yet T-34 had diesel from the start and worked fine through the winter of 1941. They just used a pre-heater.
My dad is a polar researcher (among other things, he spent a winter at South Pole, as part of scientist exchange program). He said that when diesel fuel turns into a gelly, they warmed up the whole vehicle by building a fire under it. He did not mention it but I imagine instances of setting the whole crawler on fire were frequent.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I surprised on one has mentioned Diamond. They offer the Austro and the Thielert 2.0 right now in a certified aircraft. No vaporware, FADEC controlled, no starting problems (cold or otherwise) have been reported so far. Fuel economy seems amazing for a twin (DA42).
If they can do it why can't any other manufacturer?
If they can do it why can't any other manufacturer?
Are you kidding? Read the boards... why the hell would you build an improved product when the buyers won't spend the money?
Alexb2000
En-Route
I don't know if Diamond subsidized the prices of conversions from the 1.7 to the new options, but I found the prices reasonable for what you get. Close in line with a quality firewall forward on any gas twin.
Buyers may not spend the money today, but if Avgas gets banned and replaced by something that widens the cost gap significantly with Jet A, then it may force some of the cheapest people on earth to release the purse strings. Pilots.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
Calling the Austro and Theilert engines a "success" is a bit optimistic. They do have a number of problems (although starting isn't one of them, primarily because the modern diesel engine they're based on has good starting characteristics), and are far from ideal. Perhaps in a couple more generations, they'll be better.
The hard part is less convincing people to buy them, but it's more making an STC'd conversion affordable enough that people will consider it.
Example: A pair of engines on the 310 (which we'll have to do before long) costs about $70,000. If we were to switch to diesels, I'd expect that cost to be probably $150,000-$200,000. Now, I would also get new props out of the deal, but that price differential will buy me a lot of AvGas. All this so I can spend less money on fuel (a plus), but more money on maintenance (a minus), with a poor support network (a big minus).
In another 5-10 years (when AvGas is probably about gone and the diesels have passed a few more generations), it'd be an easier thing to convince me on. Especially if Continental gets the SMA diesel refined and is willing to take our 520s in on exchange.
Alexb2000
En-Route
Let's use that math. If the price difference was ~$175-70= $105K.
For the gas engine 1700 hours X 25 GPH X $6 per gallon Avgas = $255,000 in fuel expense to TBO.
Diesel 1700 hours X 16 GPH X $5 per gallon Jet A = $136,000
$255,000 - $136,000 = $119,000 so the diesel conversion more that paid for itself. Plus you got new props, plus you get at least an extra 300 hours before TBO, plus FADEC, plus fuel availability worldwide, plus no Environmentalist.
The next round of overhauls, maybe four years in your case, the diesel pulls way out in front.
Of course this is all based on the fantasy that fuel prices won't increase as well.
Ted
The pilot formerly known as Twin Engine Ted
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 30,014
- Display Name
Display name:
iFlyNothing
I think that you're being a bit optimistic on the diesel fuel burn, but we'll go with that for the moment.
It also meant that I had to come up with that extra $105k upfront, which may or may not be feasible for a number of people. Granted, I'd recognize savings than most people given the amount that I fly, but it's still a significant extra cost up front. You're also assuming that the maintenance costs over the life of the engines are the same, which they aren't. The diesels at this point have a number of reliability issues, which are expensive when they happen. You are also assuming that my engines become toast at 1700 (they have 2000 now, still going strong), and assuming that the diesels will make it to 2000 (which is a poor assumption). And lastly, you're assuming the props that come with the engines are as good as the props I have now, and will be as durable. I would question that.
The FADEC isn't really a selling point for me, but for some it is, so let's call it a neutral.
Fuel availability worldwide? I fly all over North America, no problems.
I'd agree that by overhaul #2, the diesels might start to make more sense as the fuel savings might start to make up for the higher purchase cost, MX cost, etc.
And the other fantasies mentioned above.
Remember, I'm a big proponent of GA switching over to Jet-A. However, I'm also aware of the challenges. If someone who flies as much as me has a hard time justifying the cost outlay (an extra $105k is nothing to sneeze at), then what makes you think that the average pilot will be able to justify it?
Now, if you're looking at buying a new plane, then the outlay is a lot easier to swallow. But when you're looking at a 40 year-old plane like what most of us fly, it's significantly harder.
Alexb2000
En-Route
I just based it off published TBO, they are suggesting that the diesels may end up with 2500, which should be possible given diesels longevity in other applications.
I know you just fly in NA, but what about the resale of a twin with diesels in the world wide market? Probably a fast mover under $400K.
I run a LOT of diesels. The maintenance is more in my world only because of the filter cost and fluid capacity. It they had the same filter and crankcase volume as a gas engine, I can't see how they wouldn't be a lot cheaper than replacing mags, plugs, wires, etc. 4 times in the life of the engine.
Don't forget, when someone spends all this money on a conversion and then lets their aircraft sit for 10 years the diesel will probably take it much better.