Recent Topics
EcoTech Oil 4-Cycle Full Synthetic Air Cooled?
by Quadrasteer
Today at 09:20 AM
Any autozone or advance coupons for store pick up?
by maverickfhs
Today at 09:08 AM
expired tags
by motor_oil_madman
Today at 09:08 AM
Interpreting viscosity numbers
by Sierra048
Today at 08:52 AM
Getting New Vehicle Becoming Pointless to Me ...
by LoneRanger
Today at 08:43 AM
2003 Mercury Grand Marquis - Power Outlet Help
by tony1679
Today at 08:29 AM
Wet patch between head and block?
by FordCapriDriver
Today at 07:29 AM
Microgard 51036 Cut Open
by dlundblad
Today at 06:21 AM
Tesla Model S outsells S-Class, Panamera, BMW 6/7
by wemay
Today at 06:21 AM
WIX 51036 cut open.
by dlundblad
Today at 06:10 AM
M1-207 Cut Open
by dlundblad
Today at 06:00 AM
Olm went off already.
by ram_man
Today at 02:03 AM
Rotella T5, 10W-30, old version...
by mattwithcats
Today at 12:15 AM
Combating dropping TBN's with vintage MotorGuard
by A310
Yesterday at 11:58 PM
Bobcat 6667352 Fuel Filter -Cut Open Kubota Diesel
by bmwpowere36m3
Yesterday at 11:43 PM
Bobcat 6675517 -Cut Open- Kubota Diesel
by bmwpowere36m3
Yesterday at 11:31 PM
Napa Gold 1085 -Cut Open- Kubota Diesel
by bmwpowere36m3
Yesterday at 11:20 PM
2017 Honda Civic 1.5T, factory fill, 2977miles
by researcher
Yesterday at 10:05 PM
Gutter Guards?
by Gebo
Yesterday at 08:59 PM
75w90 recommendations for GM AWD
by HOG
Yesterday at 07:09 PM
Newest Members
Harleyman08, DannyWatts, TX_1821, TwoDogs, AoS810
61670 Registered Users
Who's Online
67 registered (77GrandPrix, 2009Edge, 4WD, 69GTX, 2004tdigls, 5 invisible), 2590 Guests and 9 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Stats
61670 Members
66 Forums
265661 Topics
4390449 Posts

Max Online: 3590 @ 01/24/17 08:07 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: 2854
Loc: Midwest USA
_________________________

'09 Subaru Forester .........(Quaker State Syn Blend 5W30)
'16 Ducati Multistrada DVT 1200S (Spectro Platinum 15W50)

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


Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 6375
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: 524
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 Offline


Registered: 10/10/10
Posts: 7446
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
02 Volvo V70 T5 0W40 M1
02 Volvo V70 XC 0W40 Edge
05 MB S600 0W40 M1
16 Tundra 1794 TGMO

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: 1454
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: 6062
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: 5202
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.
_________________________
2005 Lincoln Aviator 4.6 DOHC
2000 Honda Accord 2.3
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
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: 540
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: 6062
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: 5202
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?
_________________________
2005 Lincoln Aviator 4.6 DOHC
2000 Honda Accord 2.3
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
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: 6062
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: 5202
Loc: Iowa
Thank you for taking the time to reply! Your knowledge/experience are appreciated.
_________________________
2005 Lincoln Aviator 4.6 DOHC
2000 Honda Accord 2.3
2001 Hyundai Elantra 2.0
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: 689
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: 725
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 5W30
2002 Camaro Mobil 1 0W30
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk




Top
Page 1 of 2 1 2 >