172driver wrote:
And in this market, diesels are simply irrelevant, as they have zero advantage over Avgas.
At the moment that may be true from a purely availability point of view. And while the European market is small, it still is pretty much 2nd to the American market. And over here, even if it may not sound so in this forum, diesel has been watched with a lot of interest.
The existing diesels which are in use can be classified as proven by now. Certainly the Thielert/Conti ones, as well as the Austroengine.
172driver wrote:
That leaves a few southern Europeans – you really want to develop an engine for the 10 private GA flyers in Greece ?
I would be careful with that judgement. Avgas availability is by far not limited to Greece only. In BG I usually run into the problem of having either Avgas or Customs but not both, just as an example. Avgas is also not easy to get in some italian airports. In other words, on MOST airports used for travelling you WILL have Jet A1 but Avgas is good luck.
The sales of Diamond alone made this exercise worthwile. And while the refit market did indeed collapse due to the Thielert bancruptcy, it was very much alive before it. And it will be alive again once it is actively pursued by Continental. Offer proper STC´s with incentives to do it, and a lot of schools will buy into it. Heck, if there had been an STC and a 180 hp engine when I had to do my TBO, I´d have been there. If there is a conversion available when my engine next will come up on TBO, I´ll certainly give it a very good look.
Yes, we need a 250-400 hp range. Yes, Continental needs to improve the exchange cycles for their clutch, yes, there are a lot of things which need to be done. But unless someone comes up with an economically viable alternative such as a turbine with similar consumption, my bet is on Diesel.
And as for the American market: I thought it was Americans who made things like automatic transmission in cars standard? They like an easy to operate engine as much as the next guy. Once it is available over there in some numbers, it will pick up. The M10 might play a role in this, what I hear interest is considerable in the Trainer version, both inside and outside the US. And I would not discount the “J” either. A 170 kt tourer on 4-5 gph and 1000 NM range? Why the heck not.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
At the moment that may be true from a purely availability point of view.
Not only. The price difference simply isn’t there, and that’s the main driver here.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Offer proper STC´s with incentives to do it, and a lot of schools will buy into it.
Perhaps. I do, however, have a feeling that by the time this is all sorted out, there will be electric trainers on the market. And THAT is a real game changer for schools. Don’t forget, one of the main external issues flight schools face is the NIMBY brigade. If you can fly your T&Gs with a little, quiet electric fan…. everyone’s happy.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
In BG I usually run into the problem
Flyer59 wrote:
Why are several companies trying to get a Diesel engine developed and certified,
In one word: drones. If these things then make it into the GA fleet, fine, but drones are a big driver in this sphere.
Just to be clear – I’ve got no skin in this game and nothing whatsoever against diesels in aviation. I simply cannot see the arguments pro-diesel in GA stack up and make a viable business case for the broader market. I’d be delighted to be proven wrong and be able to fly through Africa again, this time with a diesel powered airplane. Somehow, though, I doubt that.
That would indeed be great! Wonder what kind of fuel burn you’ll see at the typical SEP (low) altitudes.
Flyer59 wrote:
Why are several companies trying to get a Diesel engine developed
Because of fuel cost. Jet-A is cheaper and more widely available in emerging places like China. This is the primary motiviation for Mooney to make their new diesel planes despite the problems with the Continental diesel they are certifying.. The US military is dumping the drones with Rotax engines for the same reason, non diesel. They use Jet-A far more than 100LL and mogas and don’t want to keep dragging 100LL around.
A company I fly for operates PA31s and DA42s for a specific task. For sure, we’re comparing apples with oranges but both types undertake the same specific task.
The PA31 will burn 160l/hr at a cost of about £1.30/l = £208/hr
The DA42 will burn 45l/hr at a cost of about £0.50/l = £23/hr
As the PA31 is faster than the DA42 it will complete the task in about 1.5hrs = fuel cost of approximately £300. The DA42 completes the task in 2hrs = fuel cost of approximately £46. For sure, you have to consider other costs like maintenance (i.e. more airborne time), price of parts etc but, from a business perspective, the question is a no-brainer and hence the reason why we’re are moving to a diesel fleet.
172driver wrote:
That would indeed be great! Wonder what kind of fuel burn you’ll see at the typical SEP (low) altitudes.
Good point, but I wonder how long any of us could summon the patience to fart about at low altitude when sitting behind a 240 bhp engine which weighs less than a Rotax. 
Do turbines run OK on regular kerosene (heating oil)? In that case every farm in Scotland is a potential gas station…
I think they do but isn’t it illegal to run vehicles on heating oil, in the UK?
Peter wrote:
I think they do but isn’t it illegal to run vehicles on heating oil, in the UK?
Only on public roads. I don’t see too many Cessna 172s driving up and down the M6!
But with 240 horses up front someone from Prestwick is bound to try it on the M74… 
