Recent Topics
Humor: Walmart Product Review
by Apollo14
39 minutes 32 seconds ago
Mobil Delvac 5w-40 OK for 2009 Audi Q7 TDI?
by teedoff00
41 minutes 56 seconds ago
Honda S2000 Pennzoil Ultra 5,000 miles
by Bror Jace
52 minutes 5 seconds ago
Time for hot vs cold old to drain into pan
by Apollo14
Today at 09:19 PM
Noco Genius Boost - my video test - battery @ 9.9v
by 901Memphis
Today at 09:13 PM
Bought my first firearm today
by Nick R
Today at 09:01 PM
Built a few AR-15 A3's this weekend...
by 2010_FX4
Today at 08:57 PM
New Briggs oiling schedule
by Tom_T
Today at 08:52 PM
Thinking about a new 1.0L Ecoboost Fiesta
by Burt
Today at 08:44 PM
Viscosity Calculators don't work well below zero..
by Shannow
Today at 08:12 PM
Good Dealership Experience this time!
by Miller88
Today at 08:03 PM
Toyota 6000 truck - didn't know they existed.
by Shannow
Today at 07:48 PM
Newest Members
PhxAZ, Miramonte, Rotario, ignat, aahull
51695 Registered Users
Who's Online
81 registered (2010_FX4, 55Test, 123Saab, 13Tacoma, 14 invisible), 1199 Guests and 206 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
51695 Members
64 Forums
221212 Topics
3497526 Posts

Max Online: 2862 @ 07/07/14 03:10 PM
Donate to BITOG

Page 1 of 2 1 2 >
Topic Options
#3439499 - 07/29/14 12:37 PM Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015
LoneRanger Offline


Registered: 07/02/07
Posts: 1456
Loc: Midwest
_________________________

'09 Subaru Forester .. (Kendall GT-1 Syn Blend 5W30)
'13 Ducati MTS .......... (Silkolene Pro 4 Ester 15W50)

Top
#3439513 - 07/29/14 12:52 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
A_Harman Offline


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 4287
Loc: Michigan
It's been a long time coming. I interviewed with Continental aircraft engines back in 1993 for a position developing a 2-stroke diesel engine for general aviation. That project never really got off the ground (so to speak).
_________________________
1985 Z51 Corvette track car
2002 Camaro Z28 LS1/6-speed
2001 Dodge Ram 2500 diesel
1972 GMC 1500 shortbed project truck

Top
#3439516 - 07/29/14 12:58 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
29662 Offline


Registered: 05/14/14
Posts: 305
Loc: sc/fl
It's nice, but $435k(starting price) for a single engine airplane is a bit outrageous. Guess I'll stay in the used market.

Top
#3439580 - 07/29/14 02:21 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: A_Harman]
Astro14 Online   content


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 4545
Loc: Virginia Beach
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
It's been a long time coming. I interviewed with Continental aircraft engines back in 1993 for a position developing a 2-stroke diesel engine for general aviation. That project never really got off the ground (so to speak).


It's been a very long time coming, since Packard's successful diesel in the late 1920s... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_diesel_engine

But the issue has always been weight, diesel engines have to be robust, so the power/weight has always been a challenge...

The real driver in this is the availability of fuel. The diesel can run on Jet-A...as Avgas gets more expensive relative to other fuels...the diesel makes more sense...

The Cessna TTX pictured in the article looks a lot like a Cirrus SR-22/20. Nice looking airplane. For that level of performance, the price of admission is $500,000+...not in reach for most of us, but that's the market...sadly...

And people wonder why GA is on the decline...


Edited by Astro14 (07/29/14 02:28 PM)
_________________________
32 Packard 15W40
90 4Runner 10W40 QS4X4
92 300E 5W40 LiquiMoly
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 5W30 PU
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
06 Corolla 5W30 Edge

Top
#3439693 - 07/29/14 04:08 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
4wheeldog Offline


Registered: 04/23/12
Posts: 194
Loc: East Mountains, NM
So, with a few minor mods, it will soon be possible to "Roll Coal" on the peons, from above!

I guess the mag check will disappear from the checklist....

Top
#3444218 - 08/02/14 09:51 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: 4wheeldog]
compressignite Offline


Registered: 02/26/08
Posts: 14
Loc: Georgia,USA
What's New?
(Maule's owners have been successfully running the SMA for a while.)

It's worthwhile trade-off of the Loss of Spark Ignition.

BUT, the SMA's Engine will require observation during operation for Ambient Temps.It's apparently sensitive to Froid.

Top
#3444581 - 08/03/14 09:58 AM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
Cujet Offline


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4189
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
I really like the idea of turbocharged, compression ignition aircraft engines. We could have, and should have, done this decades ago.

The advantages of using a more efficient engine are obvious. What's not so obvious to many is the wonderful high altitude performance of turbocharged engines. The combo of diesel and turbocharging is an ideal one. Better, in my opinion, than air cooled, turbocharged gasoline engines.
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3445196 - 08/03/14 10:32 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: Cujet]
The_Eric Offline


Registered: 03/31/10
Posts: 3367
Loc: Iowa
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I really like the idea of turbocharged, compression ignition aircraft engines. We could have, and should have, done this decades ago.


I truly know little about aviation, but it seems that whatever entity that oversees design and operation of aircraft (FAA?) is very slow to change.

Still using mags, leaded fuel and carbs- Why? I would assume after reading of the multiple part failures here (mags, starters and sticking valves to name a few) that the electronics and parts today's auto industry runs on would be more than durable enough to provide many hours of safe and reliable operation.
_________________________
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
1998 Chevy Malibu 2.4
1995 Pontiac Grand Am 3.1
1979 Ford F-150 351M

Top
#3445815 - 08/04/14 04:10 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
ironman_gq Offline


Registered: 04/30/14
Posts: 134
Loc: MN
Their biggest hurdle is going to be managing the fuel pump wear issues with Jet-A being such a dry fuel and with #1/#2 being poor quality in the states. The light duty truck market is having a [censored] of a time getting keeping their pumps together, lots of them grenading within 1000hrs

Top
#3446341 - 08/05/14 06:46 AM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: The_Eric]
Cujet Offline


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4189
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I really like the idea of turbocharged, compression ignition aircraft engines. We could have, and should have, done this decades ago.


I truly know little about aviation, but it seems that whatever entity that oversees design and operation of aircraft (FAA?) is very slow to change.

Still using mags, leaded fuel and carbs- Why? I would assume after reading of the multiple part failures here (mags, starters and sticking valves to name a few) that the electronics and parts today's auto industry runs on would be more than durable enough to provide many hours of safe and reliable operation.


While it's nice to blame the FAA, they really are not the entire problem. Aircraft engines are unique, direct drive, reasonably simple and incredibly efficient. People often think a Chevy Small Block would be a better aircraft engine. Not so. It's far less efficient, it's HP to weight is worse, it's cooling drag (water cooled) is much worse and it's not particularly reliable in "aviation spec".

Even that engine in the 172 (a Thielert variant) was known for early gearbox failures, at 500-600 hours. It eventually became a requirement to pull the engine at 600 hours for "repair", which was simply a replacement gearbox, and often an entirely new engine. The early versions of that engine were absolutely awful, with 300 hour gearbox requirements. And, other parts failed too, not just the gearbox. But fuel pumps, oil pumps etc. Aviation truly is hard on engines.

I certainly hope those issues are worked out.
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3448438 - 08/06/14 10:13 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: Cujet]
The_Eric Offline


Registered: 03/31/10
Posts: 3367
Loc: Iowa
Originally Posted By: Cujet
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
Originally Posted By: Cujet
I really like the idea of turbocharged, compression ignition aircraft engines. We could have, and should have, done this decades ago.


I truly know little about aviation, but it seems that whatever entity that oversees design and operation of aircraft (FAA?) is very slow to change.

Still using mags, leaded fuel and carbs- Why? I would assume after reading of the multiple part failures here (mags, starters and sticking valves to name a few) that the electronics and parts today's auto industry runs on would be more than durable enough to provide many hours of safe and reliable operation.


While it's nice to blame the FAA, they really are not the entire problem. Aircraft engines are unique, direct drive, reasonably simple and incredibly efficient. People often think a Chevy Small Block would be a better aircraft engine. Not so. It's far less efficient, it's HP to weight is worse, it's cooling drag (water cooled) is much worse and it's not particularly reliable in "aviation spec".

Even that engine in the 172 (a Thielert variant) was known for early gearbox failures, at 500-600 hours. It eventually became a requirement to pull the engine at 600 hours for "repair", which was simply a replacement gearbox, and often an entirely new engine. The early versions of that engine were absolutely awful, with 300 hour gearbox requirements. And, other parts failed too, not just the gearbox. But fuel pumps, oil pumps etc. Aviation truly is hard on engines.

I certainly hope those issues are worked out.



I realize that the majority of auto engines are not well suited to aviation use. That's not what I was questioning.

My question is why can't auto type engine management systems/hard parts be used instead of the old style mags and carbs? Most auto electronics will go for a 100K plus miles without so much as a hiccup. Surely that translates favorably to hours of flight time?
_________________________
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
1998 Chevy Malibu 2.4
1995 Pontiac Grand Am 3.1
1979 Ford F-150 351M

Top
#3451702 - 08/10/14 05:06 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: The_Eric]
Cujet Offline


Registered: 02/15/03
Posts: 4189
Loc: Jupiter, Florida
Originally Posted By: The_Eric
My question is why can't auto type engine management systems/hard parts be used instead of the old style mags and carbs? Most auto electronics will go for a 100K plus miles without so much as a hiccup. Surely that translates favorably to hours of flight time?


Lycoming has a FADEC (electronic ign and elec port fuel inj) piston engine that, I believe, is certified. Not sure that it's any better in any way. Remember that we match injectors to the cylinder requirements carefully, so fueling is actually quite accurate.

Electronic ign has been aval in various forms for some time now. It's not always better. In fact, The CAFE Foundation did extensive testing and was able to achieve improved MPG when operated lean of peak. But they lost power under normal operations, which resulted in lower top speed, and lower climb rates. The results match my experience. Mags make more power due to the very robust spark.

Why this matters is that some aircraft (like mine) require as much power as the engine can produce to achieve acceptable cruise speeds. I lose way too much speed operating "lean of peak". (on the order of 20Kts) to save 2GPH. The end result is a very slight gain in MPG, and a significant increase in trip time. That's not acceptable.

What I would like to see is a direct injection aviation engine. That could improve BSFC somewhat.
_________________________
Turbo's rule.

Top
#3452042 - 08/10/14 11:27 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
The_Eric Offline


Registered: 03/31/10
Posts: 3367
Loc: Iowa
Thank you for taking the time to reply! Your knowledge/experience are appreciated.
_________________________
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
1998 Chevy Malibu 2.4
1995 Pontiac Grand Am 3.1
1979 Ford F-150 351M

Top
#3465865 - 08/26/14 09:58 PM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: LoneRanger]
datech Offline


Registered: 01/14/14
Posts: 454
Loc: us
I have read about exp planes using the VW 2.0 tdi engine and worked very well even with the weight of water cooling the turbo provided a good power to weight ratio. The timing controlled by computer makes a big difference.

Top
#3466999 - 08/28/14 12:29 AM Re: Cessna to intro diesel 172 for 2015 [Re: Astro14]
BusyLittleShop Offline


Registered: 12/09/11
Posts: 253
Loc: Ca USA
Originally Posted By: Astro14
[quote=A_Harman]
But the issue has always been weight, diesel engines have to be robust, so the power/weight has always been a challenge..


True but the Delta Hawk was a 200hp V4 Diesel with a dry weight of 327 pounds... I think one would fit my Chipmunk nicely...
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml

_________________________
Larry L
Have a Wheelie NICE day
94 RC45 #2 58,000 on 30 weights Currently Mobil 1 0W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >