@Dave_Phillips I didn’t either but that’s what the engine authority on this forum says.
Malte,
it CAN cruise at 140kts but it doesn’t have to. It will safe quite a bit of time though going to the exercise areas and back or for x countries. After all there are schools who train with SR20ties.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I didn’t either but that’s what the engine authority on this forum says.
Good one Shorrick!! You had me wondering for a moment :)
Peter,
I think both of these are mockups. The “T” model was presented as a mockup in Oskosh last year, the flying exemplar is not yet painted as they keep moving antennas and other things. I heard somewhere they would do a mockup for the J as well, which makes sense. Both mockups have been used to test avionic installations, interior design and for pictures e.t.c. Possibly the red mockup was photoshopped to show the retracable gear features or has been modified.
Edit: Actually there are at least 3 airframes, either mockups or real ones:
And this is the flying one:
As far as I know there is one flying prototype of the “T” with two more nearing completion and one more cell being prepared for destructive testing (wing load e.t.c.). I have not seen or heard of a “J” being built or tested, but apparently they are quite identical with interchangable parts. The only thing they really have different is the fixed gear, the fuel capacity and the engine, which however use identical mounts. I would not be surprised if a T could be converted to a J if the need arose.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
After all there are schools who train with SR20ties.
I am aware of that, and I think they are tougher on the student in his first steps. It might pay later on, though, that I don’t know. But if I were shopping for a basic trainer, I think I might prefer something slower. Albeit, it depends a lot on the actual handling characteristics of the plane. A 7GCBC isn’t fast, either, and yet poses more demand on the student than something like the C150 or DA20.
The Mooney thing may or not happen, over the next decade. More immediately, who is the former Thielert company selling engined to now? New Diamonds are using Austro engines and the US military, which maintained Thielert financially for several years before Chinese ownership, is extracting itself from the relationship. Is it just replacement engines for the US Army, a few new Robins and reworking DA-42s?
Actually now that I think of it, IIRC correctly the Chinese did not purchase rights to Thielert’s military market and their intent was to discontinue military sales… so how is the US Army supporting their UAVs today?
BTW, the reason I refer to the German company as the former Thielert, not Continental, is because (1) It’s badge engineering by the Chinese, the manufacturing and engineering operations of the two companies don’t appear to be related and (2) If I called the diesel company Continental, then for consistency I’d have to start calling the other European engine manufacturer BRP Recreational Products, a Canadian engine manufacturer. 
PS The N-number on the prototype Mooney seems to indicate their interest in building a Chinese market, using the Mooney name as (more) badge engineering. I wonder what Al M. would think about that one…
Nice deflection. So how often has AVIC been in and out of business in the past ten years?
Silvaire wrote:
BTW, the reason I refer to the German company as Thielert, not Continental, is because (1) It’s badge engineering by the Chinese, the manufacturing and engineering operations of the two companies don’t appear to be related and (2) If I called the diesel company Continental, then for consistency I’d have to start calling the other European engine manufacturer BRP Recreational Products
That’s just silly. Companies are owned by other companies and this changes faster than you and I change underpants. It’s the trademark that counts. Therefore, Thielert engines are now Continental, and owned by some Chinese company. Rotax engines are Rotax (they are made by the company called Rotax, owned by BRP).
Shorrick, I think your contribution to this discussion, as is so often case, is to make snide remarks which have no content and add no value. Try something more productive.
I think AVIC has been in business since 1949 continuously. I think Thielert, the German manufacturer of Diesel aircraft engines was founded some time after that, went out of business except for military sales which are now gone, and was then sold to the communist Chinese. They now use a long established American manufacturers name in an attempt to rebrand an unreliable company.
Would you buy a $50K engine from that company, and be tied to them indefinitely through the need for replacement engines? I would not, neither would others, and it’s a factor in why Diesel engines have not caught on for GA applications. Obviously that was my point and remains my point, snide and petty comments notwithstanding.
Aside from Thielert, does anyone know flying SMA Diesels? I like the SMA approach much more than the Autro/Thielert engines. Furthermore, a 2400hrs TBO seems more appealing than a 1200 hrs TBR. I just haven’t heard from recent first hand experience.
Silvaire, conversely I wouldn’t hesitate to buy a Continental diesel. My working experience of diesels started with the Thierlet 1.7 in 2008 and, to be honest, it was a dog. We probably achieved a 50% dispatch rate, at best. Most of the issues revolved around sensors failures/errors which resulted in numerous spurious ECU FAIL messages. Other problems revolved around poor hoses, fittings etc.
Moving on a little under a decade and I ran a flying school where we had three DA42 on fleet (Two aircraft had the 1.7 and the third had the 2.0). By then, the whole Thierlet/Diamond fiasco had raised its ugly head and Diamond had trotted-off to build the Austro. However, the reliability of our Thierlets was now good. In fact I would go as far to say it matched the ubiquitous Lyco 235/320/360s. For sure, the manner in which the Thierlet entered the GA arena undoubtedly caused irrevocable reputational damage and probably knocked-back diesel engines by the best part of a decade. But, and its an important but, in my view the engines are now as bullet proof as any horizontally-oppossed AVGAS burner. The problem continues to lie with power and weight expectations.
I think the Austro AE330 with 180hp will be a game changer but that will only happen if the airframe industry catches-up. There is little point in bolting a heavy 180hp engine on to a SEP aircraft that is already somewhat weight limited. However, bolting two AE330s or Continental Cd-155s to a modern airframe, together with some really clever propeller technology (certainly more clever than a HARTZELL HC-C2YK) and you will find a winner.
mh wrote:
non-US-made that really took off in the US
The Flight Design CT is the best selling SLSA in the USA. China makes the Cirrus and Mooney and Continental…all are best sellers in the USA. The TBM and Pilatus are big sellers in the USA. Airbus does pretty well in the USA too. Diamond would do better if they brought their prices down a bit and had a better sales force in the USA.
