Diesels

Bring it to market for under $60k, it'll sell like hotcakes.
 
It's all about economics. GA is stifled not because of a lack of technology. If there''s no place to put this engine it'll never fly.
 
Another effort at making a small fortune in the airplane business.
The water cooling is a non starter, especially in high power, high flying turbocharged aircraft.
 
" The diesel combustion process, together with the design freedom provided by high strength CGI coupled with steel pistons, enable EPS to realize 30-50% lower fuel consumption and emissions compared to conventional aero engines. "

Why am I thinking they are overselling just a little bit?

OK, more than just a little bit.
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
" The diesel combustion process, together with the design freedom provided by high strength CGI coupled with steel pistons, enable EPS to realize 30-50% lower fuel consumption and emissions compared to conventional aero engines. "

Why am I thinking they are overselling just a little bit?

OK, more than just a little bit.
Click to expand...

30-50% lower emissions? Ask Volkswagen about that.....
 
Just like those diesels in the diamonds.


I'll pass
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
" The diesel combustion process, together with the design freedom provided by high strength CGI coupled with steel pistons, enable EPS to realize 30-50% lower fuel consumption and emissions compared to conventional aero engines. "

Why am I thinking they are overselling just a little bit?

OK, more than just a little bit.
Click to expand...

They are not overselling the fuel consumption.. an electronically controlled common rail turbo diesel will definitely use half the fuel of an air cooled turbo 100ll burner with mags
 
The fuel consumption numbers don't seem too far off. For instance, the Austro engines burn 6.8 GPH to make 75% of 168 HP. My 180 HP IO-360 burns 10.2 GPH to do the same. If you rolled the IO-360 down to 168, that would be 9.5 GPH. That's a 30% difference right there. And that's with current engines.

More engine choices for us is a good thing. I hope this works out for the company.
 
Is it required to use jet A or can I fill it with diesel from the local Loves truck stop?
 
arnoha said:
The fuel consumption numbers don't seem too far off. For instance, the Austro engines burn 6.8 GPH to make 75% of 168 HP. My 180 HP IO-360 burns 10.2 GPH to do the same. If you rolled the IO-360 down to 168, that would be 9.5 GPH. That's a 30% difference right there. And that's with current engines.
Click to expand...

Cessna claims 30-40% reduction with their air cooled SMA turbo diesel engine. Add common rail direct injection and liquid cooling, you should be at 50%. I'm not an expert on these two engines but knowing general diesel technology I see no reason to doubt the claims.
 
Last edited:
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compacted_graphite_iron

first commercial application for compacted graphite iron was for the brake discs for high-speed rail trains.[7]

More recently compacted graphite iron has been used for diesel engine blocks. It has proven to be useful in the manufacture of V topology diesel engines where the loading on the block is very high between the cylinder banks, and for heavy goods vehicles which use diesel engines with high combustion pressures.
Click to expand...

This sounds pretty cool! But, as with iPads, cell phones, and Japanese compacts, I'll wait till the "early adopters" pay for all the bugs to get worked out.
 
Why 75%??? many diesel generators run 100% for days with no problems.

Fly by wire controls have been around a long time in diesels, my coach is a computer controlled ECU by Cummins, but common rail is much better than my CAPS system.

Diesel is better in many ways, for starters, it is not as volatile, has more BTUs per pound than gas, and it can be found almost any gas station.

Just my thoughts.
 
wilkersk said:
This sounds pretty cool! But, as with iPads, cell phones, and Japanese compacts, I'll wait till the "early adopters" pay for all the bugs to get worked out.
Click to expand...

I guess that goes with the old saying " Never buy the "A" model".
 
Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe said:
...Why am I thinking they are overselling just a little bit?

OK, more than just a little bit.
Click to expand...

Well it's an advertisement, not a review and that's what ads do. Diesels in general do make a lot of sense for light propeller driven aircraft though and I would expect to see more of them in the future but like I said, technology is not the reason general aviation seems mired in the 60's
 
I'm not a fan of diesels. They tend to be dirty and smelly. Yes they get better mpg, but diesel and jet A costs more. Then there is the issue of misfueling.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I'm not a fan of diesels. They tend to be dirty and smelly. Yes they get better mpg, but diesel and jet A costs more. Then there is the issue of misfueling.
Click to expand...

Did you just jump off a time machine from 1974 ? Obviously you haven't been around any modern common rail diesels. You could stand right next to my Porsche and not even know it was a diesel. Plus it will far out last any gas engine.
 
coloradobluesky said:
I'm not a fan of diesels. They tend to be dirty and smelly. Yes they get better mpg, but diesel and jet A costs more. Then there is the issue of misfueling.
Click to expand...

No worse than the turbine stink. plus the black soot does not harm the engine like the lead does.

But it's too bad that we can't get the economy out a turbine that we can out of the diesel.
Then we'd have a much smaller package with no cooling system and one major moving part with TBO's in the thousands of hours.
 
Art VanDelay said:
Did you just jump off a time machine from 1974 ? Obviously you haven't been around any modern common rail diesels. You could stand right next to my Porsche and not even know it was a diesel. Plus it will far out last any gas engine.
Click to expand...

They will only outlast any gas engine because they have to be built like a brick ****house. A brick ****house would never fly. I doubt these high tech diesels will be as durable. Composite case... composites suck.
 
Diesel is definitely the future for GA. TBOs of even the early generation engines are at 2,000 hours, approved by EASA and the FAA. The fuel burn improvement is accurate (having a couple of hundred hours in Diesel 182s and DA40s I know this first hand).

The 1st generation SMA engine in the 182 didn't have great cooling (although to be fair, we were operating it in the Sahara during summer for part of the time) and the alternator connections kept fatiguing and breaking, but this is nothing that can't be engineered out.
 
Tom-D said:
But it's too bad that we can't get the economy out a turbine that we can out of the diesel.
Then we'd have a much smaller package with no cooling system and one major moving part with TBO's in the thousands of hours.
Click to expand...

Correction: turbines do typically have cooling systems. The cooling system is internal bleed air used to cool the hot section and other parts.

So it does exist, you just don't see it. And if it fails (gets clogged) it gets really expensive.

Carry on.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Correction: turbines do typically have cooling systems. The cooling system is internal bleed air used to cool the hot section and other parts.

So it does exist, you just don't see it. And if it fails (gets clogged) it gets really expensive.

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I think you are picking a nit.

they are not carrying a bunch of radiators, hoses, fans and all that stuff.

as we commonly know as a cooling system.
 
Air cooled radial diesel for a plane

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packard_DR-980

800px-Packard_DR-980_USAF.jpg
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
They usually have oil coolers (radiators).
Click to expand...

Yep. They use air/oil and fuel/oil heat exchangers to cool the engine oil and also heat the fuel. The systems typically include heat exchangers, tubing, ducting, valves, sensors, etc.
 
Tom-D said:
Why 75%??? many diesel generators run 100% for days with no problems.
Click to expand...

Actually, my house generator's engine uses the same engine as my Kubota tractor, with the tractor rated at 37hp, and the generator engine rated at 22hp. Difference is, the generator runs at a steady 1800 rpm (to get 60hz), whereas the tractor redlines in the high 30's if I remember correctly. So the generator in this case is not at 100%.

I've owned a car with a twin turbo diesel (it's a little motor, 1.9L I think) for the last year and I have to say it pulls the 4500 pound sedan nicely while delivering 40-50 mpg day in and day out. I pass the Prius guys while getting the same mileage and with a lot more comfort :)
 
Last edited:
So if gasoline aircraft engines are 12hp/gallon, how many hp/gallon are diesel engines? Or for that matter boat engines and car engines.
 
Almost no engine actually gets to rated power. That is at sealevel, full throttle and rpm and with no muffler or air cleaner.
 
coloradobluesky said:
Almost no engine actually gets to rated power. That is at sealevel, full throttle and rpm and with no muffler or air cleaner.
Click to expand...
So, when a Roll Royce Dart gets over torqued (yes, the engine has a torque meter), or a CF6 has an overspeed, or an RB211 has an EPR exceedance, the required checks are not warranted? Oh wait, you jumped back to piston engines...
 
I stopped by the EPS building at OSH. They were not interested in selling the engines to anyone but certified aircraft manufacturers.

Seems shortsighted (and a huge waste of marketing dollars) given the spread they had!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top