Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Piper Diesel Seminole and Continental CD-170 Diesel Engine

The CD-155 has a TBR of 2100 hours, so let’s hope that the CD-170 will end up having the same amount of hours soon.

EDLE, Netherlands

Joe_90 wrote:

What would be interesting would be to use that engine in the DA42. The power of the Austro with the weight of the Continental. The STC already exists to replace the 135 with the 155 Continental and the DA42 is certificated with a pair of 180 bhp Lycomings.

I don’t think CD-170 would bring any benefit to DA42 comparing to CD-155. It’s heavier and has lower critical altitude and max continuous power is practically as same as CD-155. DA42 with Lycoming is practically non-existent; it is dead-end and can’t be retrofitted to diesel engines.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Rotax 915is anyone?

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I notice the IAI Super Heron has a Fiat based 200 HP diesel and I’m aware of another promising dedicated aircraft engine development. The issue with military engines is that they aren’t likely to be certified and commercially available, but it’s still interesting to see the applications that largely created this technology establishing new suppliers. I personally would not want either an airframe or engine from a Chinese owned manufacturer unless it could be supported indefinitely in the absence of the OEM.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 23 Jun 15:44

“I personally would not want either an airframe or engine from a Chinese owned manufacturer unless it could be supported indefinitely in the absence of the OEM.”
Unfortunately both the aircraft I have shares in have Continental
O-200 engines, and I think Teledyne Continental is Chinese owned.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Emir

I don’t think CD-170 would bring any benefit to DA42 comparing to CD-155. It’s heavier and has lower critical altitude and max continuous power is practically as same as CD-155. DA42 with Lycoming is practically non-existent; it is dead-end and can’t be retrofitted to diesel engines

Agree it’s heavier than the CD155 but it’s still a lot lighter than the Austro 300 which is the same power as near as dammit. I was thinking purely of takeoff performance not cruise.

[ post edited to show what somebody else wrote, as a quote ]

@Maoraigh, an O-200 can be maintained mostly without OEM parts, I’m sure they’ll be flying regardless of OEM status for many decades to come.

Joe_90 wrote:

I was thinking purely of takeoff performance not cruise.

I can’t say how much this would be (IMHO negligible) but we spend much more time in cruise than in taking off, so going for heavier engine with worse cruise performance just because of getting 100-200 fpm more in climb (only to 6000 ft) and maybe 50 m less ground roll, doesn’t make sense.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

Emir wrote:

I can’t say how much this would be (IMHO negligible) but we spend much more time in cruise than in taking off, so going for heavier engine with worse cruise performance just because of getting 100-200 fpm more in climb (only to 6000 ft) and maybe 50 m less ground roll, doesn’t make sense.

But! It allows you to takeoff from shorter runway! :)

EGTR
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top