From a purely formal viewpoint, one doesn’t necessarily need a DOA / APDOA (formerly called ADOA) to get a type certificate or a retrofit STC:
21.A.13 Eligibility
Any natural or legal person that has demonstrated, or is in the process of demonstrating, its capability in accordance with point 21.A.14 shall be eligible as an applicant for a type-certificate or a restricted type-certificate under the conditions laid down in this Subpart.
21.A.14 Demonstration of capability
(a) An applicant for a type-certificate or restricted type-certificate shall demonstrate its capability by holding a design organisation approval, issued by the Agency in accordance with Subpart J.
(b) By way of derogation from point (a), as an alternative procedure to demonstrate its capability, an applicant may seek the agreement of the Agency for the use of procedures setting out the specific design practices, resources and sequence of activities necessary to comply with this Annex I (Part 21), when the product is one of the following:
1. an ELA2 aircraft;
2. an engine or propeller installed in ELA2 aircraft;
3. a piston engine;
4. a fixed or adjustable pitch propeller.
(c) By way of derogation from point (a), an applicant may demonstrate its capability by obtaining the Agency’s acceptance of its certification programme established in accordance with point 21.A.15(b), where the product to be certified is:
1. an ELA1 aircraft; or
2. an engine or propeller installed in ELA1 aircraft.
and
21.A.112A Eligibility
Any natural or legal person that has demonstrated, or is in the process of demonstrating, its capability in accordance with point 21.A.112B may apply for a supplemental type-certificate in accordance with the conditions laid down in this Subpart.
21.A.112B Demonstration of capability
(a) An applicant for a supplemental type-certificate shall demonstrate its capability by holding a design organisation approval, issued by the Agency in accordance with Subpart J.
(b) By way of derogation from point (a), as an alternative procedure to demonstrate its capability, an applicant may seek Agency agreement for the use of procedures setting out the specific design practices, resources and sequence of activities necessary to comply with this Subpart.
(c) By way of derogation from point (a), in the case of products referred to in point 21.A.14(c), an applicant may demonstrate its capability by obtaining the Agency’s acceptance of its certification programme established in accordance with point 21.A.93(b).
However, going this way will probably be even more expensive and labour-intensive than getting a DOA/APDOA because EASA will bill the applicant for a review of the submitted materials at the hourly rate of €247 (indexed for inflation vs. year 2019).
Perhaps @ultranomad might know.
But still this is yet another case of a retrofit engine project which will go nowhere, unless it gets a big sponsor.
Perhaps @wigglyamp might know more about this process.
@mh can you shed some light on this?
Peter wrote:
This sounds like CMD are an EASA Part 21 DOA, and having this approval makes it easier for them to apply for a Major Mod for an EASA aircraft to use this engine.
Almost! Post above specifically says “ADOA”, so Alternative Procedures DOA.
Under EASA you could submit a TC application even without (A)DOA, I think some call it “no DOA” :). The challenge is that you have to provide all personnel info with the ceritification programme in that TC application, instead of having a handbook… Last time I heard you need a full DOA only for: turbine-based engines (turboprop, turbofan, APU) and/or complex aircraft (two or more turboprop engines OR one or more turbojet/turbofan engines), all other things could be done under other approvals…
This sounds like CMD are an EASA Part 21 DOA, and having this approval makes it easier for them to apply for a Major Mod for an EASA aircraft to use this engine. Perhaps @wigglyamp might know more about this process.
It sounds a bit like a TSO (ETSO for the EASA version) but I don’t know if a TSO is applicable to engines.
Actually getting an engine approved for an airframe is a huge job, obviously, which is one reason why so few of these have been done. The other one is the market is limited, which is why most retrofit propositions have been based on flying school usage of 500hrs/year plus. But one could say this is a circular argument; if you price a diesel retrofit at say 200k then of course only busy schools can afford it 
Various previous threads on this.
If someone did an IO540 diesel retrofit, mounting frame compatible, cowling compatible, say $70k, it would fly off the shelves.
Snoopy wrote:
CS-E with type certifcate…
I don’t read that on their website …
Anyone know this? CS-E with type certifcate…
They have a type certificate from EASA:
Not aware of any actual aircraft flying with it though.
I saw them in Friedrichshafen, but unfortunately did not ask questions. In their website as well not much information. Fuel burn, price etc…
But could be good for future with less consumption and Jet fuel availability and price.
