banner
banner

06 Dec 2019, 19:45 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Greenwich AeroGroup



Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 05:29 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 05/17/10
Posts: 799
Post Likes: +160
Location: canuck
Aircraft: x23mouse
Username Protected wrote:
Does The 1200 hour TBO include the gear reduction unit?

Considering how many issues there were with the original Thieliert GRU, i'd guess yes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 10:30 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 10/03/16
Posts: 165
Post Likes: +106
Location: Chicagoland
Aircraft: Mooney Acclaim
Username Protected wrote:
1200 hours is where all the new engine designs start, and as time is built on the fleet, the TBO/TBR numbers have gone up to approximately the same as conventional gas engines’s numbers. Austro is now 1800 hours TBO, and CMI CD135 is up to 2100. In the case of the Austro, the increase was retroactive, and in the case of the CMI, there was a serial number cut with many design and parts changes.

The 12 year life limit exists also for most gas engines, though opinions on how to interpret the language, which chapter of the maintenance manual it’s published in, and under what authority the aircraft is operated.


TCO compares quite favorably with a gas engine. I believe we have the same TSIO550 G on our planes, and the invoice for a factory reman is something like $85,000. I’m not looking forward to that. I ran the numbers some time ago on a 1500 TBO austro and TVD-equipped CD135, and for 2 engines on a DA42, the scheduled mx and overhaul reserve came to something like $46 and $87 per hour. Both engines. Obviously it’s a different application than our go-fast singles, but throw in a mid-life top and 50 hour oil changes, and you’re right there with the hourly cost for 2 austro engines.

Diamond did fly the DA50 with an austro 170 hp engine. They called it the DA50 magnum, but I was thinking at the time that “rimfire” might be closer to the mark. Performance on this single should be quite a bit better. The DA62 performs nicely on 20% more power, and it has more drag and almost certainly more weight.

One challenge that Diamond and its dealers need to overcome is the density of service centers. Pretty much anyone can work on my TSIO550. The continental and austro diesels, on the other hand, require special equipment and training. This problem goes away with a concerted effort by DAI and dealers and with more in service.
-dan


The 1200 hours doesn't surprise me being a new engine. But there's no guarantee that it is going to get extended. It's also a TBR at this time, so no "overhaul", it's replace.

While those things will likely change over the life of an engine program, it could take years.

All that uncertainty makes it hard-to-sell.

The thing I was wondering though, is if the TBR is an airworthiness limitation that's a whole different matter than a recommended TBO. Our TSIO550's have a recommended TBO, which means we can ignore it. But, an airworthiness limitation would be mandatory, even for pt91.


I can’t speak to the CMI motor as I’ve not seen any documentation on it. Austro engine company manages this uncertainty with a prorated overhaul/exchange price. Likewise, when the certification is done on the new plane, it will be known if this is an airworthiness limitation.

Additionally, it is the goal of both CMI and Austro to make the replacement/overhaul “on condition” rather than bound by hours or the calendar.
-dan

Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 09 Nov 2019, 22:57 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 11/27/16
Posts: 888
Post Likes: +1455
Aircraft: B17,18,24,25,29,58,
Username Protected wrote:
Depends on the polar.


Also depends on whether we’re talking about drag polars to LBGTQ polars. :hide:


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2019, 13:29 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Username Protected wrote:
Great figures in my mind, considering how much weight it's moving.

Wish the engines had a little more sauce. 200 or 210 hp for better runway performance.

More sauce means more fuel burn. There is no getting away from that no matter what your engine is.



I'd be okay with more fuel burn and a little more cooling drag

Many people fly twin diamonds at 90%+ power all the time because they're penalized by... nothing. Use that equivalent power on higher HP engines and use the extra oomph for takeoff.

Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2019, 19:00 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 01/05/11
Posts: 154
Post Likes: +88
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600
More power, higher horse power = more weight = more fuel burn.
That formula will never change, at least for Avgas and Diesel engines.
There is no free lunch.


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 10 Nov 2019, 20:02 
Offline



User avatar
 WWW  Profile

Joined: 06/28/09
Posts: 10604
Post Likes: +4622
Location: Walnut Creek, CA (KCCR)
Aircraft: 1962 Twin Bonanza
Username Protected wrote:
I'm betting on Re-generative gas turbo-props, like this initiative : https://www.turbotech-aero.com/solutions/

- Extremely simple & reliable turbine technology
- Light weight
- Compact (low cowling/cooling drag)
- Burns just about anything: JetA1, Bio-fuel, Un-leaded mo-gas, & even AvGas (yuck !)


That looks interesting. Any out in the field yet though? The list of orphan "next gen" aircraft engine projects is long...

_________________
http://calipilot.com
cfii


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 11 Nov 2019, 16:07 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 04/20/15
Posts: 55
Post Likes: +24
Username Protected wrote:
More power, higher horse power = more weight = more fuel burn.
That formula will never change, at least for Avgas and Diesel engines.
There is no free lunch.


I know what you're staying, but Diamond left room on the table. They increased power on Austro diesels by 12 hp on DA62s. Same weight engine, more boost, TBO quickly increased to the same 1800 hour TBO as the DA42 version.


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2019, 10:11 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile

Joined: 08/12/08
Posts: 5593
Post Likes: +919
Location: Santa Barbara, CA
Aircraft: '76 A36 TAT TN 550
General aviation is ripe for a new and improved power plant.

Better fuel specifics not only increase fuel economy and lower operating costs but they also effectively increase useful load because one doesn’t need to carry as much fuel.

Better reliability (longer TBO, less maintenance) is another holy grail of GA and is currently the domain of the turbine engines.

How many folks buy twins because of concerns over an engine failure in a single?

We’ve read about the “promise” of Diesel engines in GA for a long time but as a practical matter that promise has not been realized.

When engine and conversion costs are factored in often times the conclusion is “the juice isn’t worth the squeeze”.

:shrug:

I think diesels have promise but remain skeptical. For now I’ll remain a big bore Continental customer.

_________________
ABS Life Member


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2019, 10:44 
Offline


 WWW  Profile

Joined: 05/03/18
Posts: 394
Post Likes: +135
Aircraft: 182P
Wasn’t the performance issues with the CMI Diesel with the Skylane that tarnished this engine?

Cessna had a couple of engine failures in test flights that made them retrofit all the manufactured diesel 182’s back to gas? This was what I was told by a Cessna rep.

I wonder how much additional engineering CMI put into this diesel since then?

Curious what others may know.

_________________
http://welch.com/n46pg/


Top

 Post subject: Re: interesting Diamond new retract diesel single
PostPosted: 12 Nov 2019, 12:33 
Offline


 Profile

Joined: 10/03/16
Posts: 165
Post Likes: +106
Location: Chicagoland
Aircraft: Mooney Acclaim
Username Protected wrote:
Wasn’t the performance issues with the CMI Diesel with the Skylane that tarnished this engine?

Cessna had a couple of engine failures in test flights that made them retrofit all the manufactured diesel 182’s back to gas? This was what I was told by a Cessna rep.

I wonder how much additional engineering CMI put into this diesel since then?

Curious what others may know.

Skylane was the SMA diesel, which is a non-automotive-based power plant. Skyhawk was re-engined by Redbird with the CDI 135, and cessna was making noises about doing the 155 hp CMI.

Piper has 155 HP CMI engines in archers/warriors in the world market.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4



uAvionix (banner)

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 2007-2019

.Anrim_85x200.png.
.Outright_85_50.png.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.truecourse.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Trace.jpg.
.tempest.jpg.
.instar.jpg.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.kingairdom.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.jpg.
.jetacquisitions-85x50.png.
.SCA.jpg.
.Expert_Aircraft_Solution_85x50.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.Bendix_85x50(1).png.
.cubcrafters.jpg.
.lopresti_85x50.jpg.
.Latitude.jpg.
.airpower-85x50.jpg.
.L3_85x100.jpg.
.Steel_85x50.jpg.
.camguard.jpg.
.midwest2.jpg.
.Showalter.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.fortner-85x50.jpg.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.AAI.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.Electroair.jpg.
.Davis_Aviation_85x50.jpg.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.FreeFlight_85x50.jpg.
.garmin-85x200-2019-11-01.jpg.
.ps_engineering.gif.
.McPeck_85x50.jpg.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.avidyne-85x50-2017-11-22.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.KalAir_Black.jpg.
.avionicssource-85x50.jpg.
.methodseven-85x50.jpg.
.ForeFlight.jpeg.
.heartlandsm.jpg.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.jetaviva-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.dshannon.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.tulsair-85x50.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.byerlyaviation-85x50.png.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.hpair-85x50.jpg.
.rtc-85x200.jpg.
.STLAir_85x50.jpg.
.airplanesusa-85x50.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.uavionix-85x50.png.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.bkool-85x50-2014-08-04.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.sureflight-85x50.jpg.
.weatherspork_85x50.jpg.
.wildblue-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.westsky.jpg.
.selectairparts-85x100.jpg.
.tas-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.