Got my first look at the new Redhawk 172

i don't think the strut will be the first thing to go
 
Most likely it has all to do actual loading of the aircraft as in extreem ends of the envelope. They are trying to keep it idiot proof at standard passenger weights.

Or it may not be physically possible to carry the ?52? gallons and have standard pilot on board without being over gross.
 
bnt83 said:
Or it may not be physically possible to carry the ?52? gallons and have standard pilot on board without being over gross.
Click to expand...

That would be a worthless airplane.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but this is the FAA and their certification we are talking about.
Click to expand...

Yes. My guess is that they avoid a static loading test by not messing with the total weight of the fuel.
 
alfadog said:
Yes. My guess is that they avoid a static loading test by not messing with the total weight of the fuel.
Click to expand...


I'm sure if they did add the weight, they would have to show compliance with the load testing regs again.


It would add 53.6 pounds to the fuel tanks if left alone.

I'm guessing the airplane gains that much weight
 
I see a big difference in weights here. The battery is on the firewall correct? Its about 29 pounds being shifted aft over 120 inches. If thats all true the engine installation must be well over a 100 pounds heavier.
 
Yes, G243 IIRC and it is on the firewall, left front more or less on the "shelf"
 
bnt83 said:
I see a big difference in weights here. The battery is on the firewall correct? Its about 29 pounds being shifted aft over 120 inches. If thats all true the engine installation must be well over a 100 pounds heavier.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't surprise me. Duramax engines are over 800lbs.
 
It's possibe they replace it with a lighter weight battery I guess.
 
bnt83 said:
I see a big difference in weights here. The battery is on the firewall correct? Its about 29 pounds being shifted aft over 120 inches. If thats all true the engine installation must be well over a 100 pounds heavier.
Click to expand...

Yes, you can adjust the balance easily enough with the long moment arm on the battery move but that ain't going to help with any weight hit.
 
alfadog said:
Yes, you can adjust the balance easily enough with the long moment arm on the battery move but that ain't going to help with any weight hit.
Click to expand...

Unless the STC bumps the gross weight by the difference in engine weight.
 
bnt83 said:
If they did a GW bump then why save ~54# by removing 8 gallons of fuel capacity.
Click to expand...

I still think we are looking at a certification short cut, those 8 gallons means the weight of a full load of fuel changes only 3lbs
 
The reduction in gallons doesn't bother me, but I would like to know how they accomplish it? Do Jet-A tanks have similar condensation issues as AvGas tanks if not topped off? From my experience with diesels, I would think the problem would be even worse.
 
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel. Since it weighs more that would make sense to me.
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel.
Click to expand...

oh of course why didn't i think of that
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel. Since it weighs more that would make sense to me.
Click to expand...

um, how? Isn't "gallon" a measure of volume?

what am I missing? are the pain meds messing with my brain that much?
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel. Since it weighs more that would make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Did I miss the smiley face? Isn't a gallon a measure of volume?
Doesn't matter if it is gas, water or vegetable oil.
Perhaps there is an expansion factor difference.
 
Steve said:
I think it was more a proposed product line than a current production model.

I'll try to locate a copy.
Click to expand...

I haven't come across the brochure I saw, which was a Safran promotional brochure, online. But it had a picture of a 6-cylinder engine presented as within the company's capability and a potential product. With the obvious choice of the C206 as an applicable airframe it seems inevitable.

Here is Cessna's page on the new 182

http://www.cessna.com/single-engine/turbo-skylane-jta

Safran's page on the 182 engine

http://www.smaengines.com/spip.php?rubrique2&lang=en

Safran brochure on the 182 engine

http://www.smaengines.com/spip.php?rubrique6&lang=en

btw, this application has some pretty impressive operating history already

http://safran-group.com/site-safran...article/a-c182-powered-with-a-sma-engine?2493
 
Where in the world did this idea that this will cost the same, or less than a IO-360 replacement??!:confused: This is to be a certified engine on a certified plane, right? I'd love to be wrong and I'd love to see the rational behind the very low cost. My guess is, this will be a $75-80k all in conversion. I don't believe this to be a magic bullet for GA.
 
My 2c on the fuel reduction - keeping the wing weight the same as well as the moment of inertia. Betcha that thing would recover from a spin slower with more fuel in the wings.

PS Thielert C172 installations also reduce the fuel tank size.
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel. Since it weighs more that would make sense to me.
Click to expand...

What weighs more a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?:D
 
Yeah, one hp is the work performed by a horse who's one meter long and weights a kilo.
 
Archammer said:
165hp slanted 4cylinder Continental Turbo Diesel
Click to expand...

Isn't that the Centurion diesel? The Continental looks much more like a conventional horizontally opposed aircooled aero motor. That's the watercooled Centurion 1.7 which you can also get in the Diamonds.

Rather clever, they base them off the Mercedes 2.0 Turbo Diesel so there's limited engineering to be completed. There's another company using the same setup on the Austro AE300 which is available in the DA42. The latest AOPA mag spent a good amount of space on the diesels coming into the industry and it is a very exciting read.
 
EdFred said:
Maybe a gallon of diesel occupies more volume than a gallon of 100LL, so the space that would normally hold 53 gallons of 100LL can only hold 45 of diesel. Since it weighs more that would make sense to me.
Click to expand...

Right idea but got it backwards. Everyone knows a pound of diesel weighs more than a pound of 100LL.
 
guardrail said:
Isn't that the Centurion diesel? The Continental looks much more like a conventional horizontally opposed aircooled aero motor. That's the watercooled Centurion 1.7 which you can also get in the Diamonds.

Rather clever, they base them off the Mercedes 2.0 Turbo Diesel so there's limited engineering to be completed. There's another company using the same setup on the Austro AE300 which is available in the DA42. The latest AOPA mag spent a good amount of space on the diesels coming into the industry and it is a very exciting read.
Click to expand...

Good catch. Here is the Centurion 2.0 and you can definitely see that it is from the same basic design.

lrg_ba_14.jpg
 
alfadog said:
In fact, why would this not just be a Thielert Centurion 2.0 installation as covered under STC?

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=ad449979-ad7f-48da-a66f-8d0e89eb7a0a#
http://www.centurion-engines.com/typo3/index.php?id=87&no_cache=1
Click to expand...

I believe it is, either the 2.0 or the 1.7 as both were certified.

It's interesting AOPA mentioned specifically how quiet the setups were, even though they were testing the twin Diamond with the AE300 they pointed out how whisper quiet they were. You made the same observation, my thought it is the design of the engine since both use the same unit.

As a downside they mentioned the injector high pressure pump is only approved to 600 hours and the TBO is 1500 but they expect to extend that to 2000 within a short timeframe. They go on to mention they have over 200,000 testing hours with no failures. Pretty impressive.

The upside to these things do seem to outweigh the downside pretty heavily. As long as cost continues to drop we might be seeing the new GA reality, which I would embrace happily!
 
guardrail said:
As a downside they mentioned the injector high pressure pump is only approved to 600 hours and the TBO is 1500 but they expect to extend that to 2000 within a short timeframe. They go on to mention they have over 200,000 testing hours with no failures. Pretty impressive.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that this thing also has a 600-hour gearbox.

Dan
 
Yeah, but a pound of diesel is measured in metric so your theory is all wet too.

Sac Arrow said:
Right idea but got it backwards. Everyone knows a pound of diesel weighs more than a pound of 100LL.
Click to expand...
 
Man you guys make it hard to keep up and have to answer your barrage of questions. :) FYI, it will be at OshKosh, so you can mob them there for the stuff I don't know. hehe

Bob Noel said:
just to foot stomp this, aren't zip ties a great way to wear the engine mount and hoses due to vibration?
Click to expand...
You have to see it run. There is one big jolt on start, and then it is almost motionless, and the quietest engine I've ever heard. My mouth hung open.

alfadog said:
Is this under development for an STC or is the conversion available now? I can't find anything on the web about this; do you have a linky?
Click to expand...
This is TOTAL prototype, but it will release I 'm positive of that, and sooner rather than later. This specific kit will be for C172 F models and later, under the modified STC. Yes, the STC already exists, which is why I know it will go the distance.

bnt83 said:
I see a big difference in weights here. The battery is on the firewall correct? Its about 29 pounds being shifted aft over 120 inches. If thats all true the engine installation must be well over a 100 pounds heavier.
Click to expand...
Engine weight is a little over 100lbs diff, but with the movement of the battery (not a lighter one, but the same stock battery) moving into the back, along with the Fadec power pack backups, the CG centers again. Plus remember that you're also removing about 20lbs of fuel.

JOhnH said:
The reduction in gallons doesn't bother me, but I would like to know how they accomplish it? Do Jet-A tanks have similar condensation issues as AvGas tanks if not topped off? From my experience with diesels, I would think the problem would be even worse.
Click to expand...
You partly answered the loss in usable with the condensation issue. Soo, because it's now a diesel system, you have to not only monitor the water content in the fuel - via fuel sensors, but the addition of the Fadec controlled heating system that controls the condensation levels. These added components take up some space, then the need for a leaned gross weight, and the amazing fuel burn the package no longer requires all that extra fuel.

JOhnH said:
Did I miss the smiley face? Isn't a gallon a measure of volume?
Doesn't matter if it is gas, water or vegetable oil.
Perhaps there is an expansion factor difference.
Click to expand...

A gallon is a gallon last time I checked. No matter what it weighs. :)

Dav8or said:
Where in the world did this idea that this will cost the same, or less than a IO-360 replacement??!:confused: This is to be a certified engine on a certified plane, right? I'd love to be wrong and I'd love to see the rational behind the very low cost. My guess is, this will be a $75-80k all in conversion. I don't believe this to be a magic bullet for GA.
Click to expand...

Ok sourpatch, what if I told you that the money you get for your Lycoming would almost pay for the swap. How would that tickle your no-no? Rational? Sure. Take a Mercedes automotive Diesel engine with 4 cylinders that is just as durable as a fancy schmancy plane engine with 6, it has no magnetos/spark plugs and it's mass produced already, carry the 1.. divide by 2 and... wait for it... voila SAVINGS! yaay... savings.. mm. Plus, think of all the savings by using zip ties instead of tie wire and that infernal twist tool. :goofy:


guardrail said:
I believe it is, either the 2.0 or the 1.7 as both were certified.

It's interesting AOPA mentioned specifically how quiet the setups were, even though they were testing the twin Diamond with the AE300 they pointed out how whisper quiet they were. You made the same observation, my thought it is the design of the engine since both use the same unit.

As a downside they mentioned the injector high pressure pump is only approved to 600 hours and the TBO is 1500 but they expect to extend that to 2000 within a short timeframe. They go on to mention they have over 200,000 testing hours with no failures. Pretty impressive.

The upside to these things do seem to outweigh the downside pretty heavily. As long as cost continues to drop we might be seeing the new GA reality, which I would embrace happily!
Click to expand...

This is a 2.0 and is almost identical to the Mercedes Turbo Diesels. That's what makes it so promising, is everything "experimental" about it has already been done. Oh and it really is THAT quiet. Gotta love zoz Germans!
Unfortunately the gearbox is currently only approved for 300hrs. However they do give you a coupon for the second one until they get the 600hr approval. hehe yes, I said "coupon". They have upped the TBO to 2000 hours on the last update, and these engines are now showing 1,000,000 flt/hrs with zero mech failures... Now that's good stuff!

I'm glad to see so many of you excited about this. I hope I get to see some of you this year at OshKosh, and enjoy your weekend! If you get a chance, there's a fly-in in San Marcos tomorrow from 11am-1pm for some good 'ol hamburgers... mm mmmm.
I'll be the guy out on the ramp slobbering on all the planes :)
 
Last edited:
Ha, I just realized why some of you were confused about the engine! I typed Continental instead of Centurion. Yes, it is the Thielert Centurion 2.0 Liquid Cooled Turbo Diesel, and sorry for the confusion. I will modify my post. :)
 
Last edited:
Archammer said:
Ha, I just realized why some of you were confused about the engine! I typed Continental instead of Centurion. Yes, it is the Thielert Centurion 2.0 Liquid Cooled Turbo Diesel, and sorry for the confusion. I will modify my post. :)
Click to expand...

Thielert is a dirty word - pretty sure it's a Benz engine
 
bnt83 said:
Zip ties all over the coolant hoses and a few on the engine mount aren't impressive.
Click to expand...

I got that same feedback from the judges at OSH a couple of years ago... I politely clipped one of the ZIP ties off while they stood there and showed them there is NO chafing of the mount ..... I also politely let them keep the tie I cut off to show they were not getting brittle, altho I check them each year during the conditional inspection.... Personally I have seen more damage done by chafing with Adel clamps when dirt/dust gets between the rubber and the material they are attached to.. YMMV
 

Attachments

  • EngineAndRedriveFromUpperRearRight.jpg
    EngineAndRedriveFromUpperRearRight.jpg
    205.5 KB · Views: 37
  • EngineTopFromRight.jpg
    EngineTopFromRight.jpg
    225.3 KB · Views: 29
  • P1090179.jpg
    P1090179.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 32
N801BH said:
I got that same feedback from the judges at OSH a couple of years ago... I politely clipped one of the ZIP ties off while they stood there and showed them there is NO chafing of the mount ..... I also politely let them keep the tie I cut off to show they were not getting brittle, altho I check them each year during the conditional inspection.... Personally I have seen more damage done by chafing with Adel clamps when dirt/dust gets between the rubber and the material they are attached to.. YMMV
Click to expand...

ok, but I know the engine mount on my 140 showed problems due to zip ties. YMMV indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top