chflyer wrote:
why do you say that?
As far as I understand it’s an old school diesel pump and indirect injection (state of the art in late 80’s early 90s turbo diesel cars). None of the benefits of high pressure common rail that truly transformed the diesel engine during the late 90s – early 2000s to what we have today. The Austro engine is common rail, and I think also the Continental engines.
LeSving wrote:
and the (diesel) technology is way outdated by now.
why do you say that?
I don’t remember exactly when I read about this engine for the first time, the mid 90s perhaps, or roughly 25-30 years ago. In that time the engine has not gone anywhere (tried and failed by Cessna?), and the (diesel) technology is way outdated by now.
Here (link to the company’s access map)
Good joke. I’m serious and wonder what’s going on at SMA. With the kind of burn rate they have, and no serious sales, it must be serious, no?
Nobody knows the SMA Diesel whereabouts ?
That’s a point about possible engine conversions, but how many people have really done that? It seems the majority of DA42s went to FTOs and of those I know, zero have converted.
Yes, these figures come close I guess, especially taken into account that the production run of 2005 and 2006 was with Thielert 1.7 engines and many of these converted to Austro.
So, if you add up the DA40NGs and DA42s equipped with the Austro engine, also taking into account ones potentially manufactured in China, why wouldn’t Diamond have used about 1.000 Austro engines so far?
Gama stats don’t differentiate the Lycoming variants of DA40 from the NGs, but even so the numbers roughly support their statement:
