BeechTalk - BT

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 15:50

Username Protected wrote:

I sure like my 8 year old promo. And it is - I've never gotten more lookers, questions, and comments than in this. A tower was asking me about the chute on roll out last month.

Attachment:

IMG_8834.JPG

You have made what was rather plain beautiful. I call it the Cinderella plane.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 15:55

Thanks, Tony. "Plain" would be generous.

Couldn't be happier.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 16:50

Username Protected wrote:

Lots of people are working on diesels. The problems seem to be real technical hurdles and not purely regulatory.

Regulatory limits the market. This limits the funding to solve the technical issues.
So far the best solution is to design the plane around the engine; e.g. DA42

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 17:13

Diesel is not a new technology. Fuel economy has always been a driving force in aircraft design. The essential total lack certified and experimental diesel airplanes over 100 years says something.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 17:21

It's fairly new in adapting to airframes. There was not an historical need until recently.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 17:35

Username Protected wrote:

It's fairly new in adapting to airframes. There was not an historical need until recently.

Substantially better fuel consumption has always been a compelling need.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 17:50

Username Protected wrote:

It's fairly new in adapting to airframes. There was not an historical need until recently.

Actually many early planes were compression ignition; this was a display at the National Air and Space museum a few years ago. The primary fuel was peanut oil....

Tim

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 21:20

Username Protected wrote:

So I am about to fly with a new engine for the second time. This one is at a busier airport and I can't jump to the RW and takeoff as quickly as I could with the last new engine.

All the break-in procedures say to spend little time taxiing and take off as soon as possible. What's the worry - is it simply overheating, or is there something more?

I must admit, I'm on the wrong side of the fun curve with these engines.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 21:46

Nate,

I cannot answer your question about why to minimize taxi for the break in procedure. I just know that is it best to break them in using a high power setting.

I must have missed what happened to for first new engine.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 23 Feb 2016, 22:44

Corey - Kurt grabbed that quote from a thread that was just over a year old. No idea why. I assume, since he quoted me saying I can't remember a squawk this year, he went looking and found this that was as close to a year as he could find. :shrug:

I must have 700 posts in the last year, Kurt. Did you really look that hard?

That's weird.

Corey - all is good. I bought this plane with an engine almost to TBO. Hoped to go past TBO, but it didn't happen. Put a new engine in the end of '14. 150 hrs later, and running great!

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Feb 2016, 10:00

Username Protected wrote:

Corey - Kurt grabbed that quote from a thread that was just over a year old. No idea why. I assume, since he quoted me saying I can't remember a squawk this year, he went looking and found this that was as close to a year as he could find. :shrug:

I must have 700 posts in the last year, Kurt. Did you really look that hard?

That's weird.

Corey - all is good. I bought this plane with an engine almost to TBO. Hoped to go past TBO, but it didn't happen. Put a new engine in the end of '14. 150 hrs later, and running great!

Ahhh. I see now. I knew you needed a new one shortly after you bought the plane due to a cracked case. I thought I had missed something. Glad that was a quote from the distant past.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Feb 2016, 10:36

Username Protected wrote:

I wish they would just pop a diesel engine in the existing airframe. I feel like that would be relatively easy and pretty good innovation, but of course the FAA would make the certification costs and time so incredibly high it wouldnt be worth it. The FAA directly stands in the way of all innovation. Cirrus is at least doing as much as they can with the hand that has been given them.

They tried it. Sometime around 2003-ish, they had a TDI SR22. I don't know the details on the motor as they were pretty hush hush about it, but many times I fueled Jet A into an SR22. Would be interesting to hear why they canned the project.

Username Protected · **Posted:** 24 Feb 2016, 12:34

Username Protected wrote:

They tried it. Sometime around 2003-ish, they had a TDI SR22. I don't know the details on the motor as they were pretty hush hush about it, but many times I fueled Jet A into an SR22. Would be interesting to hear why they canned the project.

Performance. The Theirelert engine was just not strong enough. It weighed a little more the IO-360 on the SR20 it was replacing. The IO-360 was HP 200 HP, the Theilert was 155. Everyone thought the Theilert would outperform/match the IO-360. But those previous comparisons had been with an IO-360 on a fixed pitch prop. The miscalculation was that Cirrus already had a constant speed prop on the plane, and it was already slow turning; so the whole low end torque argument goes out the window.

All this info was pure hearsay, passed on by a friend. But it makes sense to me.

Tim