liquid-cooled 170-horsepower Continental Aerospace Technologies CD-170 Jet A engine
FADEC
G1000 NXi, GFC 700 autopilot
>1000 range
5.2 gph
136 knots
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... dium=email

GAME CHANGER

I insist that someone needs to make a decently priced 300 hp turbine.

My only question is if this is from the same Continental that can’t figure out how to manufacture cylinders that last to TBO.

Possibly even better! I know the Continental CD-135 and CD-155 are the remnants of the Thielert engines that originally powered Diamond products, until it was determined that Thielert couldn't manufacture a lot of parts that made it to TBR. Not sure the 170 is of the same lineage, though.

What seems problematic (to me) is TBR (Time Before Replacement, not possible to overhaul) of 1200 hours. Doesn't seem feasible for a training environment.

Dan

Game changer? I doubt it. I bet flop

Depends how much the core is worth.

I’m sure there’ll be a term for these engines when they’ve been gone through by someone other than the factory and brought back to new limits.

Just like we have the term “top overhaul” now which isn’t legally an overhaul we won’t be able to call that an “overhaul” since the factory won’t publish an overhaul manual for these engines, but you can bet they won’t all be going back to Alabama at 1200 hours.

The other CD engines have been granted higher TBR over time. Hopefully this model will as well.

I think its better looking than the 172 but the diesel-powered 172 was a plane that never found a market. I would expect the new Tecnam to be marketed at schools and customers outside North America where avgas is a problem. Diamond has sold a lot of DA40 diesels into those markets too.

Diesel should be better. Mystery as to why it isn’t. Overall costs should be lower with lower operating cost with improved reliability.

Having to replace the engine at 1200 hours, higher acquisition cost, and lower useful load are all non-starters in the US. In Europe paying $9 gal for 100LL it could make sense.

acquisition price needs to come down, and TBO should be 2000 hours.

P2010 flies like a POS from go to wo.
No vis (dangerous as a trainer)
Trim that cuts your hand/fingers
Poor control travel
Weirdest landing profile, never once hit the centerline when landing
Will not train anyone in one YMMV

I think one of the problems with diesels is that fuel costs don't really dominate total aircraft ownership costs. For most people the capital cost of a new plane is more important and I think diesel engines are more complex and more expensive than standard aircraft engines.

The better efficiency helps (maybe 20%?), but at long as avgas is available, it isn't enough to make up for the extra capital cost and weight.

Yes, the term is “uncertified”.

There is no way I would buy an engine or airplane with one that had to be replaced at some arbitrary time in service. I run my engines past TBO and I don’t give them back to Continental (who’s quality control I don’t trust) when they need to be overhauled.

This is likely a method to control sales and revenue. As to rebuilds, my guess is that the cylinders do not have replaceable liners, which means that they could be bored and sleeved if necessary but if that is not approved then the block is tossed when the bores exceed spec.

I don’t see any way a normal US flight school would take this engine on a training or rental plane.

Does the GA world really need a 170hp diesel, piston engine?

Significant advantage completely unclear, unless the climate changers are going to outlaw
100LL in next few years.

As a prior poster said, wake me up when someone designs, tests, manufactures, field tests
a 300hp-450hp turbine engine; whether turbo-prop or turbo-fan. And can make & sell same at a competitive price.

That would be a game changer.

Might be more of a market for a 200 hp turbine.