$10 says I'm still flying my Baron in 10 years, probably on 100ll.

Actually I think ten years from now most new aircraft will burn Jet-A. Gas consumption will be trending downward and this will likely signal the death knell for most of the GA fleet.

Tim

I agree, my point was if new aircraft burn Jet-A that will be the death knell for the legacy fleet. It will not die today, it will not be tomorrow but it will come. Think about this fact, 20% of the fleet burns 80% of the avgas. The average age of the planes in the 20% is less then ten years (if I recall correctly). When you run that math out, within twenty years there is the potential for 80% of the existing avgas sales to no longer exist, since those planes will be burning Jet-A instead. What will that do to support for gas for the legacy fleet?

Tim

I agree, my point was if new aircraft burn Jet-A that will be the death knell for the legacy fleet. It will not die today, it will not be tomorrow but it will come. Think about this fact, 20% of the fleet burns 80% of the avgas. The average age of the planes in the 20% is less then ten years (if I recall correctly). When you run that math out, within twenty years there is the potential for 80% of the existing avgas sales to no longer exist, since those planes will be burning Jet-A instead. What will that do to support for gas for the legacy fleet?

Tim

Tim,

I agree 100%. What would be a GA REVOLUTION is a $100k 375HP turbine. It could be done and that engine could be used in everything from a SR22 to a Meridian in the singles and might even have a market for the legacy twins. The engine would be light enough to use in the smaller planes and be fuel/torque limited to each airplane. This makes a lot more sense than putting diesel engines on a Baron, Bonanza, etc. One engine for 100s of different airframes makes sense to me. Get the FAA out of the way and let people start converting. Disallow ANY product liability on the engine manufacturers behalf and let the market roll. How many G36 Bonanzas would sell for $700k with a 375 HP turbine NEW from Beech?

A turbine is too inefficient, planes would need to be redesigned to carry a lot more fuel. A small turbine has close to twice the fuel flow for the same HP as a compression ignition (aka diesel) engine.
EPS, SMA, Diamond, Lycoming and Continental all have diesel engines targeted in the 300-400HP range. The ones released have list prices in the ~$100K to ~$150K; which is a 20-50% premium over existing avgas engines. Likely works for new planes, not many legacy planes.

Tim

A turbine is too inefficient, planes would need to be redesigned to carry a lot more fuel. A small turbine has close to twice the fuel flow for the same HP as a compression ignition (aka diesel) engine.

EPS, SMA, Diamond, Lycoming and Continental all have diesel engines targeted in the 300-400HP range. The ones released have list prices in the ~$100K to ~$150K; which is a 20-50% premium over existing avgas engines. Likely works for new planes, not many legacy planes.

Tim

Tim,

I turbine with a BSFC of .55 or so would work in just about anything. Tip tanks can be added to Bonanzas and many others. You would probably be using less HP from Aerodynamic drag and cooling alone to get the same airspeed. You also could pull back the power and still make more power than a NA engine at altitudes in the 12-20k range where the TAS advantage is there.

I also like the diesel idea, but you have to deal with the ability for the engine to re-start at altitude and the cooling (and weight) issues with a diesel. Build an SR22 with 20 more gallons of useable fuel and you still would weight less with the turbine and the extra fuel than you would with a turbo recip or diesel.

The savings in TBO and having a reliable turbine engine would be the icing on the cake.

I think the odds are pretty good. I think most of the new diesel engines will be certified abroad and then via reciprocity will become available in the USA. Lycoming diesel research is in Italy, SMA is France, Continental is mostly Germany, Diamond is Austria... Only EPS and Deltahawk seem to really be USA based. Basically, everyone is going to avoid the FAA.

In terms of new rich buyers, same place they have been coming from. When you look at the number of new pilots and number of new aircraft sold they match pretty well on twenty to thirty year airplane replacement rate; roughly about 1/3 of the current fleet size we have now.

I do not think it will be a sudden new surge in demand, just that all new planes will switch from avgas to Jet-A.

Tim

Now that we have ventured way off topic...


If a trend develops where regs for certified aircraft are relaxed - ie access to cheaper glass panels, autopilots etc...perhaps a 150-200HP diesel could be manufactured for the legacy fleet as a retrofit under relaxed regs....perhaps we just move our old planes into the experimental category....

I an optimist. At some point I either own scrap or have to rebuild or repower the old girl. I don't think the $700K single diesel market will ever exist....those planes will be $900-1.1M and then we will be debating king airs and used pilatuses and tbm's

Peace,
Don

I think the odds are pretty good. I think most of the new diesel engines will be certified abroad and then via reciprocity will become available in the USA. Lycoming diesel research is in Italy, SMA is France, Continental is mostly Germany, Diamond is Austria... Only EPS and Deltahawk seem to really be USA based. Basically, everyone is going to avoid the FAA.

In terms of new rich buyers, same place they have been coming from. When you look at the number of new pilots and number of new aircraft sold they match pretty well on twenty to thirty year airplane replacement rate; roughly about 1/3 of the current fleet size we have now.

I do not think it will be a sudden new surge in demand, just that all new planes will switch from avgas to Jet-A.

Tim

I haven't read this entire thread, only the first two pages, but I just can't help but ask. Todd, what was the purpose of this post? The topic has been beaten to death about the 421 vs Duke over the last several months. The topic is actually what got y'all suspended for a little while, so I just gotta ask, what is the purpose?

As for the two airplanes go, I looked at pretty much everything during my search and picked the 421 and have loved every second of it.

I don't know Stewart. If you don't like the topic then you don't have to read it. I am glad you like your 421. It is a nice plane with a big cabin. It's performance does not impress me. A lot of Cessna Cheerleaders on this site bragging about their 421s and making claims of 220 knots cruise on 40 GPH and superior climb rates over the Duke. I have flown both and none of it is true. Just stating the facts.

This is the new single vs twin debate.

Tim

I don't know what the outcome will be in 10 years but I need the nose baggage compartment in a Baron. I would prefer pressurization or a single turbine for reliability but not without increasing my baggage capability currently in the Bo. I do love flying the Bo.

Based on 200-250 hours per year in Florida, the 58 NA Baron is the way for me.