banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 14:10 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 12 May 2018, 23:36 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/17/13
Posts: 6322
Post Likes: +5520
Location: Hollywood, Los Angeles, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Commander 680V
One of the benefits of geared engines (that everyone loves to hate) was that to achieve the rated power, they simply relied on higher rpms (often time limited) rather than on compression ratio or turbos to do it. This had the benefit of them being able to be run on fuel that have lesser detonation or pre-ignition protection, i.e. low octane.

My old Aero Commander 520 with the GO-435's had a takeoff limit of 5min at max rpm. But it was certified from factory to be able to run on 81 octane RON, which is even less than Mogas. Same with many of the GO-300's, GO-480 etc.

Wouldn't it be ironic if the old geared engined planes, in the case of 100LL abandonment, became the valuables ones and the G1000 IO-540's died on the ramps? :duck:

_________________
Problem is the intelligent people are full of doubt, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 01:25 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
Perhaps with the lack of 100LL California will allow auto gas without the corn squeeze at airports and I can utilize the STC I have with the Deb. Until then no bueno.


I don’t think California forbids that... technically, a fuel jobber could sell the airport premium CARBOB, no ethanol... about 88 R+M/2, or 83 aviation octane. But the jobbers and the oil companies aren’t interested in the liability...

Not a state allowance issue at all, unless I missed something changing?

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 01:28 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
My old Aero Commander 520 with the GO-435's had a takeoff limit of 5min at max rpm. But it was certified from factory to be able to run on 81 octane RON, which is even less than Mogas. Same with many of the GO-300's, GO-480 etc.


Are you sure 81 RON? Got a reference for that? Haven’t had pump gas that low an octane since before WWII.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 01:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/14
Posts: 4891
Post Likes: +1862
Location: KJYO
Aircraft: C-182, GA-7
Doesn’t GAMI have a replacement ready and tested? Doesn’t swift have a replacement tested and ready? Oh, yeah, the FAA will bungle this for the next half dozen years.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 01:36 
Offline


User avatar
 WWW  Profile




Joined: 02/16/09
Posts: 2949
Post Likes: +1834
Company: Cardinal Flyers
Location: Berkeley, CA
Aircraft: Turbo Cardinal RG
Username Protected wrote:
Has anyone heard anything on the "aviation fuel initiative?" The last time anything was updated was at Oshkosh 2017 and the update was feeble at best. Since then any news on the issue of eliminating 100LL has been dead silence.
https://news.erau.edu/headlines/coming- ... -aircraft/
All you really have to do is read the last paragraph to get an idea where this initiative is going.
https://www.shell.com/business-customer ... 71515.html
Interesting article the problems related to eliminating lead from aviation fuel.
https://globenewswire.com/news-release/ ... Field.html
This is the latest article I can find regarding the replacement of 100LL.


We’ve discussed all of this here recently. That Shell web page is many years old. (Bad web management by RDS.)

PAFI (piston aviation fuel initiative) says they’ll miss their 2018 deadline, 2019 instead... and are seeking more congressional funding. The way the FAA is running the show, they’ve not allowed Shell nor Swift to tune their fuels as problems were identified, no neither can meet the entire fleet’s needs.

GAMI and another consortium continue to work outside the PAFI process for approval... GAMI announced at Sun ‘n Fun that they’d have STC approval for their first model before Oshkosh, and would begin a data-gathering field trial... and so on.

Paul


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 06:15 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/05/11
Posts: 314
Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
Paul, has anything been published confirming delay and reasons cited? I can't find anything. I have been looking for something concrete and not just hearsay. I haven't found anything.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 21:41 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
Nothing but an anecdotal observation, but I know a guy who works on Diamonds, and those converted MB blocks and gear boxes are not models of dependability. I know of a DA62 that's on it's third gear box on the left engine after less than 500 hours.


And I know a DA-42 with thousands of hours on the engines with only scheduled MX...

The largest problem with the Diesel engines has been mechanics not knowing how to deal with them.

Tim


Last edited on 13 May 2018, 22:07, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 21:56 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/16
Posts: 6406
Post Likes: +7871
Location: Austin, TX area
Aircraft: OPA
Username Protected wrote:
Nothing but an anecdotal observation, but I know a guy who works on Diamonds, and those converted MB blocks and gear boxes are not models of dependability. I know of a DA62 that's on it's third gear box on the left engine after less than 500 hours.


And I know a DA-42 with thousands of hours on the engines with only scheduled MX...

The largest problem with the Diesel engines has been mechanics not knowing how to deal with them.

Lastly, I would point out the issue of the landing gear you raise has nothing to do with the engine. So why mention it?

Tim


You quoted my entire post, I never mentioned anything about the landing gear. The mechanic has been to the Diamond school.

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 13 May 2018, 22:07 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
You quoted my entire post, I never mentioned anything about the landing gear. The mechanic has been to the Diamond school.


Oops, I read it too fast.

Tim


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 09:36 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 12/10/09
Posts: 299
Post Likes: +43
Location: TN and KY
Username Protected wrote:
The largest problem with the Diesel engines has been mechanics not knowing how to deal with them.

Tim


Unfortunately that could be said of most any aviation engine, Lycoming or Continental included. Just reference a mechanic's response to low compression checks for example.

Sorry...potential thread drift alert.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 12:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
And I know a DA-42 with thousands of hours on the engines with only scheduled MX...


You sure about that?

The Centurion 2.0 engines have a mandatory replacement at 1500 hours. The AE300 have a mandatory overhaul at 1800 hours. As airworthiness limitations, these are required even in part 91 operations. The limitations are in the maintenance manual, but unlike most of the engines we're familiar with, the overhaul/replacement intervals are not just recommendations.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 12:30 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 09/12/11
Posts: 3337
Post Likes: +794
Company: RPM Aircraft Service
Location: Gaithersburg MD KGAI
Aircraft: Mooney 201, A320
Username Protected wrote:
Nothing but an anecdotal observation, but I know a guy who works on Diamonds, and those converted MB blocks and gear boxes are not models of dependability. I know of a DA62 that's on it's third gear box on the left engine after less than 500 hours.


I think they're about 35 grand apiece as well. But at least they're saving on fuel.


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 13:32 
Offline


 WWW  Profile




Joined: 12/03/14
Posts: 19252
Post Likes: +23612
Company: Ciholas, Inc
Location: KEHR
Aircraft: C560V
Username Protected wrote:
And I know a DA-42 with thousands of hours on the engines with only scheduled MX...
You sure about that?

Well, technically, "scheduled MX" could include "replacement at 1500 hours".

Mike C.
_________________
Email mikec (at) ciholas.com


Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 14:45 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 11/06/10
Posts: 11885
Post Likes: +2848
Company: Looking
Location: Outside Boston, or some hotel somewhere
Aircraft: None
Username Protected wrote:
And I know a DA-42 with thousands of hours on the engines with only scheduled MX...


You sure about that?

The Centurion 2.0 engines have a mandatory replacement at 1500 hours. The AE300 have a mandatory overhaul at 1800 hours. As airworthiness limitations, these are required even in part 91 operations. The limitations are in the maintenance manual, but unlike most of the engines we're familiar with, the overhaul/replacement intervals are not just recommendations.


Yes. Myth on required replacement. For a while Thielert would not sell parts when past TBR. Continental makes you sign a waiver. This is all under the assumption Thielert or Continental know you are passed TBR.

As for the Part 91 and limitations, I have asked a few Diamond shops and two FSDO before I submitted the offer on a Diamond (no deal, way to far apart on price). All gave me the same answer. TBR and TBO even for Diamond planes is a manufacturer suggestion, it does not apply to Part 91.

Tim

Top

 Post subject: Re: Cessna Discontinues Diesel Skyhawk
PostPosted: 14 May 2018, 19:13 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Ok, I'll go with that. I don't have the current Austro maintenance manuals, but a few years ago I looked at DA42's and I could have sworn the TBR/TBO were chapter 4 items.

I felt at the time much of the used fleet pricing didn't account well for that.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.midwest2.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.daytona.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.dbm.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.