Got my first look at the new Redhawk 172

Archammer

Archammer

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
1,308
Location
Austin, Tx
Display Name
Display name:
FlyingSchmidt
I was blown away at, not only the look of that big diesel in there, but all the amazing specs for the changes. Let me add that when that engine started, I couldn't hear anything but the prop cutting through the wind.

155hp slanted 4-cylinder Continental Thielert Centurion 2.0 Liquid Cooled Turbo Diesel
4.5gph (yes you read that correct)
53 down to 45 gallons usable
900nm range
Fadec controlled mixture and triple blade CS prop
Engine comes ready to mount with NO firewall changes.
Lost about 15 horsepower, but the performance is better because of the Fadec controlled system.
Very minimal modifications to the cowling access panels.
And the list goes on...

avedy3er.jpg

2y5ude4y.jpg

abehe5uv.jpg

y6etaqy4.jpg


I hope I get to fly it soon, because its supposed to be smooth as silk. We'll see!

(edit notes: I didn't want confuse everyone, so now that it's finally released I changed it to say Continental Thielert.)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
Last edited:
Zip ties all over the coolant hoses and a few on the engine mount aren't impressive.
 
Very nice! Why do you lose usable fuel?
 
So this one day will be an upgrade path for the C172's?
Is there a model year limitation?
Any prelim info on purchase/install costs?
Do you see this expanding to other airframes?
 
Skylane81E said:
CS prop should easily make up for a 15 HP loss
Click to expand...

And that loss of HP was from the new 172's power. It's still 5 hp more than the majority of the 172 fleet.

This gives a glimmer of hope for the future of GA.
 
LDJones said:
And that loss of HP was from the new 172's power. It's still 5 hp more than the majority of the 172 fleet.

This gives a glimmer of hope for the future of GA.
Click to expand...


I don't think there will be a significant performance loss, and there will be gains that allow any losses to ignored.

My only gripe is Jet-A smells AWFULL. DO NOT GET IT ON YOUR PURTY COW SKINS.
I've hear the only way to get the smell out of clothes is by washing with a soda like Coke Also, don't forget any neglected diesel GA aircraft will suffer significantly from bio growth in the fuel which can lead to expensive corrosion issues, not just plugged filters
 
Last edited:
LDJones said:
And that loss of HP was from the new 172's power. It's still 5 hp more than the majority of the 172 fleet.

This gives a glimmer of hope for the future of GA.
Click to expand...

The new 172 has the extra 20 hp because it needs it.
 
bnt83 said:
Zip ties all over the coolant hoses and a few on the engine mount aren't impressive.
Click to expand...
The hoses are made of silicon. NO temperature transfer, and you don't have to wrap them! Cool huh?


alfadog said:
Very nice! Why do you lose usable fuel?
Click to expand...
Heavier fuel.

AggieMike88 said:
So this one day will be an upgrade path for the C172's?
Is there a model year limitation?
Any prelim info on purchase/install costs?
Do you see this expanding to other airframes?
Click to expand...
I don't know if it will be a kit or an optional model. No clue what final costs will be, other than it will be much cheaper than the IO-360. It should be able to expand into any airframe that can hold a 360 or larger. The only change was that the battery had to be moved into the tail. Other than that, the engine fits in the stock cowlings.

alfadog said:
Is it ground adjustable, not CS?
Click to expand...
No, it is not adjustable, it is CS, but it is Fadec controlled CS, for max performance.

AggieMike88 said:
Burns Jet A?
Click to expand...
Yep, or vegetable oil from overseas at $.30 per gallon :) Someone will do it, I promise.

bnt83 said:
Might be a W&B issue, Jet A ~ 6.7 pounds/gal vs 100LL ~ 6 pounds/gal

:dunno:
Click to expand...
You got it! In addition for W&B because the engine is a bit heavier, moving the battery into the tail (because it doesn't fit with the diesel) puts the CG back in envelope. Pretty neat.

LDJones said:
And that loss of HP was from the new 172's power. It's still 5 hp more than the majority of the 172 fleet.

This gives a glimmer of hope for the future of GA.
Click to expand...
Indeed!

marcoseddi said:
How much?
Click to expand...
No clue yet.

Dan Thomas said:
No firewall changes, maybe, but that's not a Lycoming engine mount.

Dan
Click to expand...
That is a direct Lycoming IO-360 swap out mount for the new Continental Diesel, I assure you. No changes, no new hole taps, or braces. The battery moves into the back, and you cap the hole, period. Wait, do you mean the actual mounting bracket? You're right, that is a mounting bracket for the Continental. The entire Lycoming engine AND bracket come out, and the Continental mounts right in the firewall mounts.
Then you sell the Lycoming to recoup most of your swap costs! ooh baby.
 
Last edited:
Yep, or vegetable oil from overseas at $.30 per gallon Someone will do it, I promise.
Click to expand...
Just what the world needs, a Cessna that will make the bystanders hungry for french fries.
 
alfadog said:
Very nice! Why do you lose usable fuel?
Click to expand...

Increased weight of the fuel, but also the much lower fuel burn means you'll need much less fuel! :D 45 gallons at 4.5 GPH is a LOT of fuel!!:yikes: Even if it burns 6 GPH that's 6.5 hours PLUS an hour reserve, that is a long, long time in any airplane!! 45 gallons in the Conquest is .7 hours at cruise. :redface:
 
How bout a 6 cylinder with 250hp? :D
 
Talked with a Cessna rep the other day, only turbo diesels 182t's will be available for purchase after the end of the year.
 
bnt83 said:
Might be a W&B issue, Jet A ~ 6.7 pounds/gal vs 100LL ~ 6 pounds/gal
Click to expand...

Archammer said:
Heavier fuel.
Click to expand...

N747JB said:
Increased weight of the fuel, but also the much lower fuel burn means you'll need much less fuel! :D
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is not really an answer to why you lose gallon, not pound, fuel capacity. If the fuel weighs more then you carry less payload. That is what we do all the time, juggle payload and fuel onboard. What stops you from putting 53 gallons in the tanks? Are you changing the fuel tanks? Adding a restrictor of some sort?
 
alfadog said:
Yes, but that is not really an answer to why you lose gallon, not pound, fuel capacity. If the fuel weighs more then you carry less payload. That is what we do all the time, uggle payload and fuel onboard. What stops you from putting 53 gallons in the tanks? Are you changing the fuel tanks? Adding a restrictor of some sort?
Click to expand...

Diesel engine is probably heavier. Gotta lose weight from somewhere. Hell, I would have cut the fuel capacity further. 45 gallons at a 4.5gph burn? Who wants to sit in a 172 that long?
 
EdFred said:
Diesel engine is probably heavier. Gotta lose weight from somewhere. Hell, I would have cut the fuel capacity further. 45 gallons at a 4.5gph burn? Who wants to sit in a 172 that long?
Click to expand...

But why cut the capacity at all? We already know that we cannot load a 172 up with folks and junk and full fuel. If you are flying solo, you could probably use that 53 gallons, fly a long way, and fill little jars. Not that I would want to but some do.
 
alfadog said:
But why cut the capacity at all? We already know that we cannot load a 172 up with folks and junk and full fuel. If you are flying solo, you could probably use that 53 gallons, fly a long way, and fill little jars. Not that I would want to but some do.
Click to expand...

Why build a plane? Why eat pizza? Because you can.
 
alfadog said:
But why cut the capacity at all? We already know that we cannot load a 172 up with folks and junk and full fuel. If you are flying solo, you could probably use that 53 gallons, fly a long way, and fill little jars. Not that I would want to but some do.
Click to expand...

I'm with you on this one.. not getting the reduced capacity either.
 
EdFred said:
Why build a plane? Why eat pizza? Because you can.
Click to expand...

Why mess with the tanks in the first place?

Im guessing this has something to do with fuel system changes and the diesel. The tanks need a certain volume of warm recirculated fuel from the motor, or some other kind of heating system.
 
FWIW,

I talked to a Cessna authorized repair shop owner last week. He's writing a magazine article about his first impressions flying the new 182. A couple of the high points are full rated power up to the critical altitude which yields 155 kts true (observed) in cruise and a single power lever with a mechanical backup mixture control in the event of FADEC failure. Also the engine manufacturer includes a 6 cylinder 250+hp engine in their sales brochure. And Cessna expects to sell more compression ignition powered aircraft than all their other piston lines combined in the near future.
 
Steve said:
FWIW,

I talked to a Cessna authorized repair shop owner last week. He's writing a magazine article about his first impressions flying the new 182. A couple of the high points are full rated power up to the critical altitude which yields 155 kts true (observed) in cruise and a single power lever with a mechanical backup mixture control in the event of FADEC failure. Also the engine manufacturer includes a 6 cylinder 250+hp engine in their sales brochure. And Cessna expects to sell more compression ignition powered aircraft than all their other piston lines combined in the near future.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna need that link.
 
bnt83 said:
Zip ties all over the coolant hoses and a few on the engine mount aren't impressive.
Click to expand...

just to foot stomp this, aren't zip ties a great way to wear the engine mount and hoses due to vibration?
 
Archammer said:
I don't know if it will be a kit or an optional model. No clue what final costs will be, other than it will be much cheaper than the IO-360.
Click to expand...

You got MY attention!

If one can purchase a firewall-forward package for something close to the cost of a new IO360, the interest is genuine... and they'll sell the pee out of these!
 
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?
 
Reduce the fuel capacity to keep the weight in the wings the same to simply certification?
 
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...


They damage silicone jackets on ignition harnesses, wear holes in ducting etc, if they are too tight. I try to avoid them whenever possible.
 
Skylane81E said:
Reduce the fuel capacity to keep the weight in the wings the same to simply certification?
Click to expand...

Ah, I like that one. Wonder how they limit how much fuel you can put in the tank. I guess a simple drop-down tube in the filler would do it, assuming the venting will not defeat that.
 
EdFred said:
Yeah, but this is the FAA and their certification we are talking about.
Click to expand...

I can see where there might be some concern about the structure during a hard landing, would suck to break a strut on an otherwise damage free landing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top