I’d estimate about 250 operations per day at my base, training in Cessna singles.
In the US AVGAS prices still makes it worth while getting most out of old obsolete equipment. Nothing wrong with that, but the situation in Europe is different.
Doing serious training in a Cessna is dead business already today. The maintenance and operational costs are too high and availability is too low
I don’t disagree that the maintenance and operational costs of Cessna 152 are too high but sadly they are still cheaper to operate than any other training aircraft out there.
Seen here this morning… not yet given up I suspect?
That’s a Skyhawk, I assume with a Thielert. Cessna’s current direction for diesels, and it’s interesting to see them using the same JT-A nomenclature on this prototype as they did on the 182. No point in not doing so, I guess.
I really hope this attempt will ‘fly’ – good work happening there: http://eps.aero
I’ll help you hoping, Dooga, but with only that website to go by, I cannot keep back my usual scepticism. Such a lot of blah-blah, so little factual information… not a good omen. The few facts I found are: it is a V8, power is 350 HP, projected TBO is 3000 hours. But, err, those 350 HP, is that continuous power, or a take-off maximum? At what rpm do they occur? Is there gear reduction? There is no mention of it, so I guess not, but a “facts and figures” page would add some credibility. I do apologise if it is there but I missed it. Until I see such, I’ll put this website in the same corner as Zoche’s.
On top of that, some of the peptalk is blatantly untrue, like “the first diesel engine designed from scratch to serve general aviation” – how’s about the Delta Hawk, then, or the Wilksch designs? Or even said Zoche?
Jan, unlike the Zoche, the EPS has actually flown for real :-)
Re continous power vs takeoff power – modern tech engines know no such distinction ;-)
Yes yes, I did cite Zoche as the worst example ever. But the Wilksch and the DAIR and the DeltaHawk do have flown, yet where are they?
Again, I really do hope to see an affordable diesel for recreational flying – diesel is the way to go in internal combustion engines, higher compression ratio will always bring better thermal efficiency, and also the fuel carries more energy per weight. I think we have to wait for a team comprised of both brilliant engineers and brilliant marketeers, all of them believing in what they are doing. Add perhaps a brilliant manager, if (s)he’s not too expensive. The current EPS website would gain a lot of credibility with some engineers’ contributions.
The EPS has made a lot of people excited over at the Aerostar forum. One of the contributors is an investor. It seems to be progressing pretty well. It would be an excellent solution for many older twins. However, before it’s certified and before someone’s certified an STC for the Aerostar or any other legacy twin, decades might have gone by. I can’t wait that long.
I find it hard to believe Cessna can’t bring a sma powered 182 to market. The engine has full EASA approval and there is an STC for it to be fitted to the 182 airframe. Sounds like a couple of months work not a couple of years and then no end product.
