I also have a Nokia phone to give away :-
Does it run Symbian?
It’s just sad to be stuck with ancient technology.
Better those super modern diesels….. :)
One or two of the same sayings came up in dinner conversation yesterday with a friend who was based in Hong Kong, sourcing from China for 25 years. They are certainly an odd bunch by most western standards, and the Chinese government authorizing variation in wealth years ago does not necessarily equate to now allowing the freedom of a large domestic market for personal aircraft. Or to them deciding that diesel engines are the best technology for that hypothesized Chinese GA market.
I don’t think anybody knows what the Chinese will do, if they do anything of substance, in relation to GA aircraft for their own people. If their government were to pursue domestic GA in the way some westerners project, for all we know they or their people might want Cirrus to build copies of A36 Bonanzas with IO-550s, pre-ashed ash trays with genuine cigar smell and fake wood grain instrument panels: China bought more than twice as many Buick cars in 2013 (810,000 units Link) when compared with BMWs (391,000 units Link). I’m not sure I understand their interest in Buicks, but OTOH I don’t expect to project my own values onto the Chinese either.
That aside, owning and flying beautiful, intrinsically valuable aircraft (by my values) on middle class wages is a privilege for me, not a burden. My avgas bill is about 2 or 3% of my gross pay and that particular cost is nearly a non issue for me.
It’s just sad to be stuck with ancient technology.
Still, it is the best technology. Austro diesels with common rail, FADEC and turbo certainly are advanced, but they are not better than Lycoming. We are stuck with bicycles also, they haven’t changed much in the last 100 years, but no one complains. Lycoming will see fierce competition from below; Rotax, ULPower, D-motor, not from diesels. I also believe that the moment someone makes a diesel that is as good as a Lycoming at a reasonable price, then it will take off.
As a pedant, I complain about bicycles all the time – the design was fixed not for reasons of technical maturity, but because other designs e.g. recumbents were thought to give competitors in races an unfair advantage. Even in ‘ordinary’ bicycles there’s been a lot of innovation in gearing, lighting, maintainability etc… But I agree… I’d like to fly a diesel, and the few people I know who do seem pleased with them.
a diesel that is as good as a Lycoming at a reasonable price
That is only a matter of time. The design and engineering will ripen with experience, and the price will come down as the volumes go up. Unfortunately, both processes are slow.
“Austro diesels with common rail, FADEC and turbo certainly are advanced, but they are not better than Lycoming.”
Are you sure? Within my MEP training I am just converting from a Lycoming (IO360) to the AE, and from my personal point of view the AE is significantly better than any other engine I have been flying with so far, be it the Rotax, be it the Lycoming, be it the Continental. Lycomings and Continentals are based on a technology which is more than 50 years old, just think about all the mixture/leaning stuff which is anyoing to me and totally outdated. Having different procedures for a cold engine start, a medium-warm engine start, a hot-engine start is very much the same to having a crank for starting your car’s engine at the early 1900’s. Finally, with the SR22 for example, nice plane, but using a 6 cylinders engine with approx. 10 liters engine size looks solid, but is totally outdated, isn’t it?
Starting the AE is pretty much similar to starting your modern car’s engine: just turn around the key. That’s it. Be it warm, be it cold, be it what so ever … and the engine runs very decent, really silent. Flying the engine is close to a Jet feeling: simply push the power levers forward or backwards, no need for RPM-adjustments or mixture control. All you have to do is using the load you want to fly with, alternatively the fuel flow you want to achieve. Again: that’s it.
So all in all, the AE is for sure not the end of the technical development, but it is the fully correct step into the right direction and leaves behind all the other, old fashioned big blocks and AVGAS burners.
@wolfipilot: 100% agreement.
SMA tell you to put the power level to 100% at takeoff and only take it back when ready for the descent. That is how an engine should be managed. There are no speed limits in the air and SFC doesn’t change that much across the speed envelope so this is how I want to fly.
@Wolfipilot: you have only illustrated (as if there were any need) that the Austro Diesel is easier to manipulate – which it owns to the FADEC of course. Any engine can be equipped with a FADEC (best swap the carb(s) for injection, too) and it will be just as comfortable. The BEST engine is for me rather found on grounds of reliability, economy of operation, service life, and resale value. FADEC says nothing about the intrinsic qualities of an engine. Mind you, it is a good thing to have, I am not arguing that. But you have in no way shown the Austro to be the better engine.
@Jan: valid point, but on the first view only. I cannot see anything real positive in an engine that is technically based on a big block, which is an outdated technology. The Lycomings / Continentals produce their reliability simply by pure engine size, i.e. 5.9 litres 4 cylinder for the IO360 as far as I know. As a matter of facts, the only real technical improvement we have seen in the GA engines over the last decades (!) was the introduction of electronic fuel injection systems, giving up the pure carb technology. Keeping that in mind, the engines most light aircrafts are using as per today could have been used by our grandfathers already. At the same time we bring in G1000s, GPWS, TCAS, SVT, Radar and all that stuff into the cockpits. But the engines? During exactly the same decades – with the GA engines stuck in the history – the technical development of engines in general (outside GA) was immense, with the actual leading edge supposed to be somewhere at the modern Common Rail. Last weekend I was happy to test a BMW i2, pure electric driving, very interesting. Yes, I like watching an old Corvette from the 60s, but I drive a 350CDI – guess why?
You are mentioning economy of operation: Jet Fuel is significantly cheaper than AVGAS; with 100LL being (to my knowledge) the only fuel available not yet unleaded. Without bringing ‘green thinking’ too much into the discussion this will be more and more a part of the public discussion concerning GA. As for reliability: yes, the first generation of the Diesel engines in GA was not perfect, but this is a regular process of a technical development. The AE are performing very well now with increasing hour limits, but yes, there are still certain steps to take. Inflight economy is already phenomenal: the DA42-vi consumes ~ less than 11 GAL/hour@160TAS, and this is cumulated for the two engines! Resale value: with AVGAS becoming more and more expensive as well as difficult to get at all (and JetA1 being sold at most airports) I personally assume that the resale value of an aircraft being equipped with a Diesel engine is much more stable on a mid-/long term perspective.
I am truly looking for more competiveness on the Diesel market. This would speed up the process of development again. But in the meantime I am happy to give up my (only 4 years old, but old-fashioned anyway) AVGAS burner within the next weeks to shift away from ‘my grandfather’s airplane’.
But in the meantime I am happy to give up my (only 4 years old, but old-fashioned anyway) AVGAS burner within the next weeks to shift away from ‘my grandfather’s airplane’.
So what’s your replacement aircraft?
