Performance, efficiency and emissions ... controls the amount of fuel injected, when it is injected, boost mgt and cooling (radiators and intercoolers) mgt.

I could not find any references that aero diesels are using variable valve timing. I can argue that either way. Which answer do you prefer?

For a constant-RPM engine, VVT is all cost for no benefit. Also not much benefit from the exhaust retarder function that comes with VVT for free

The Piaggio Avanti is one more good example of this kind of structural-aerodynamic thought process, putting the wing box behind the people box and taking advantage of that by making it a mid wing. There was a good, thorough article discussing the design in Flying magazine when the airplane was new sometime in the 1980s. I'm pretty sure it was a Garrison article (imagine that) but I can't seem to find it on google.

Starship sort of split the difference and put the wing box under and behind~ish, but it also had those big strakes (a Rutan thumbprint) rather than a short chord root like the Avanti wing.


It certainly keeps things interesting!

Way cool engine tech.......perhaps Peter and the Raptor should visit them for pointers.....or a loaner engine.....

Very interesting, thanks for sharing.

Doug there were successful diesels flying well before electronic controls. Giberson is an example. Germans had them back before WWII. I just wondered why not keep it mechanical injection and simplify things since we are near constant RPM most of the time compared to auto applications.

Modern diesels can develop a whole lot more power on a whole lot less fuel with (and this is the big one for airplanes) much less drastic power pulses by using common rail high pressure electronically controlled injections. My truck uses as many as 7 injections per cycle and standing next to it you can’t tell it apart from a gas engine truck unless you really know what you’re listening for.

Interesting 7 pulses per cycle. It’s better no doubt

https://www.flyingmag.com/piaggio-avant ... but-great/

Informative. Thank you for mentioning it. It also led me to the Beech Triumph ... which I had forgotten about. Also interesting that PG hangs the Starship debacle on Beech execs, not Rutan.

https://www.flyingmag.com/piaggio-avant ... but-great/

Informative. Thank you for mentioning it. It also led me to the Beech Triumph ... which I had forgotten about. Also interesting that PG hangs the Starship debacle on Beech execs, not Rutan.

is this a single engine Avanti.

with the respective fuel burns +installed weight of the Red diesel engine vs. the pt6 crossing at about 3 to 5 hours endurance, I would look seriously at putting a proven turbine in it and proving it works. an even better engine would be the Honeywell /garret turboprop pusher that is used in the general atomics grim Reaper.

If its drag is really that much less it could be a great aircraft with a proven engine that is in production.

Ancient history but there is/was a 1300 hp pusher Garrett installation that was going to be used on a certified regional plane. See the links below.

https://historicalcenter.embraer.com/gl ... 123-vector

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer/F ... 123_Vector

Only a guess, but I think the Celera guys know that. Their design mission is high altitude, long endurance: radio relay, reconnaissance, etc. The business aircraft paint is to get coverage in the aviation press now that they’ve proved the thing works. BWTHDIK.

That's a big "if". All we know is that it flies, there've been no reports of its actual performance.

No flight aware data for the last 3 months.
Has anyone seen or purchased the whole N818WM record?
Would be interesting how high and how fast it went in testing so far.

the flying magazine article is available on line now

https://www.flyingmag.com/story/aircraf ... 0l-design/

interesting thoughts

The Avanti is probably what the Otto will be like in real life with deicing etc.