The big assumption in my numbers above is that

1) tbo the same
2) overhaul costs the same

ERAU seemed to run their skyhawks to 4000 hours then sell. If your overhaul costs are zero .... that's a lot of kerosene. If the diesel has onerous TBR numbers and $$$ parts spec'd to sell internationally with $3/liter avgas ... doubt it goes anywhere in the US

Most of those items have increased over the years. For example the clutch was a replacement at 300 hours. Now the majority of the items are at 1200 hours, with TBR at 2100.

Tim

Is "TBR" binding on part 91 ops? I suspect that it is, but have no idea.

My understanding is yes, due to how the engine was certified.

Tim

If an avgas engine can go to 3500 hours in high volume use, that's an overhaul reseve potentially around $5/hr at a high volume place. If 2100 tbr is $35k (guess) that's only $10/hr more. Diminishes diesel edge but not dramatically.

The CD155 has been performing excellently in the new C172's. I have done the majority of the Post installation verification and break in flights. They are very easy to operate and ground performance meets expectations for a conventional powered C172, while altitude numbers exceed a conventional C172 TAS, with a much lower fuel burn.
The New Garmin package also has some very pleasing new features.
In all, I believe this will be a good selling package for Cessna.
The one pictured will be returning to Kansas next week.
Cc

Chuck,

Any chance you can get blessings from Cessna and/or CMI to post a financial analysis comparing the models for typical usage scenarios (e.g. 100 hrs a year, 200 hrs...)?

Tim

Comparitive studies have been done, but i will have to find out who has the information, or the ability to release it. I will see what can be done to get the information out.
So far, my part in this is just making the first flights for verification that when they come out of install it is ready to be used by the customer, and meets all of the break in and operational requirements.

Are you able to open the cowl flaps and take detailed pictures of engine configuration/layout?

I always wondered what they look like compared to a gasoline engine.

No cowl flaps
But Monday I will take some pictures of the engine without the cowling installed.

Is the diesel 155 hp performance as good or better than a 180 hp a gas burner at sea level?

Looks about the same:

"takeoff distance of 1,320 feet and a max climb rate of 767 feet per minute"

The numbers on the Textron website are close but slightly different from the ones in the Flying link
http://cessna.txtav.com/en/piston/cessn ... yhawk-jt-a

The prop is different, 3 blades instead of 2, and that might explain the apparently equal takeoff and climb performance on less horsepower.

Yes, at nearly sea-level, the field elevation at Fairhope is 80ft, the performance seems to be nearly identical to the 180HP gas engine. The gas may have a slight edge on the takeoff roll, but pilot technique can also do the same. The real differences become noticeable in climb once you reach about 5000ft. It will maintain 100% power through 10000ft. It is water cooled, so temps never become a problem, it is FADEC so the single lever control is exceptionally easy to operate.
Their claim of 134kts TAS is true at the higher altitudes. I believe that the C172TD could probably equal of beat a O-470 equipped 182 at greatly reduced fuel flows on a block to block cross country.
There is a noticeable sound difference of the plane in flight which I think can mainly be attributed to the 3 blade prop. Not a bad difference, just different.

So how far away are we from 300 hp diesel?

Ask EPS at EAA? Are they still flying the Cirrus with their Graflight V8?