I am very impressed by the SMA engine. Been looking at it for some years and had a long chat with their development director at this year's AERO. They have done everything right and it's a true aero engine in excellent build quality. SMA now belongs to the SAFRAN group and they use the SAFRAN brand extensively, this means we can rely on the company behind it and its deep pockets. All parts are custom made, it's not based on a 3rd party design and even the turbocharger was developed in-house (after problems with it in the first generation).
The 230hp engine sells for 90 000 € + VAT in small quantities. That is obviously a lot of money, more than a comparable AVGAS engine but it comes with an impressive TBO and consumes less of a better available fuel. The current version is much improved over the initial version which has performed flawlessly so far. The engine is able to deliver continuous 230hp (100% BHP). Its critical altitude is rather low though (I think around 6000ft) and it does not have any turbocharging capacity for pressurization.The Conti TD300 is based on the old SMA engine and given that Conti doesn't really have any engineering talent left, I doubt it will be a contender.
SMA are not planing to get into the STC business, they want to focus on the engine. Suppose one wanted to develop an STC -- which would be the ideal airframe for it? Where could money be made offering SMA STCs?
I haven't really followed this, so don't know if SMA have STCs for them (other than the new Cessna JT-A), but the answer is quite simple: - all and any Cessna from the 182 up.
These a/c fly a lot commercially in many countries, including lots of places where 100LL is hard to come by. The problem here may be the somewhat limited power and, as you say, low critical altitude. 6000ft is field elevation in many parts of Africa! If they could bring out a 265-320hp engine to be retrofit into C210s, then they should in theory have the market stitched up. Pressurization isn't an issue in these ops, most of the flying in Africa/Oz is done around 10k. You do, however, need the 'oooomph' to get you out of a dirt strip with a DA of 7500 ft or so.
Yes i accept that Conti TD300 will be a contender with the kind of SMA engine they have, If some one wants to approach for an ideal airframe, I remember that for major aircraft's like HAWK airframes have approached Globefuel company which are good at aviation spares supply .
How about the Seneca? Same power range and it would really benefit from a lower fuel flow plus the utility of Jet-A. Find an old Seneca II or III, replace the engines and panel and hey presto you've got a 400kEUR super tourer!
I have been in contact with Thierry Argaud from SMA several times.
First of all . this is a generation 2 engine, very much improved over the generation 1, where the Conti is based on.
This engine is ideal for the Seneca .. except that the Seneca was designed with a counterrotating engine .. the SMA does not have a gearbox (hurray!!!) but thus also not a counterrotation. The question becomes wether this would fit.
For many aircraft .. the 440lbs would be on the heavy side. Aircraft wich can handle that typically have a more performant engine (250-320 bhp) like Commander, Cirrus & Socata. So ideally this engine needs to become more perfomant. On the other hand SMA claims that you can run 100% continuously. So 80% of a 270Bhp or 100% of 230Bhp .. and the fuelconsumption is considerably less. For the 182Jet-A it is typically 7-9Gph with a low of 5 versus 13-15Gph with a low of 11 so you can take a lot less fuel with you.
I was hoping for a lightweight 6 Cyl with 320Bhp. However .. the engine they are now proposing (aimed at being certified by end 2015) will be 330-400Bhp with a weight of 595lbs. This will be too heavy for the mentioned aircraft but Ideal for the Malibu, Extra400, 421, Duke, etc, etc.
SMA is first targeting the OEM market and thus the price you heard is just a balloon number. Eventually they should hook up with companies who are capable to do an aftermarket STC. Then the price should come down.
What most of us need is a solution in the middle ... 300Bhp and no more than 500lbs. I really hope they will get that out there soon.
For C172/PA28/.. I do not see a market as they would need a lighter 180HP engine.. Also .. retrofitting would be to expensive. An overhaul is maybe €15k and running it on Mogas would be a lot cheaper.
SMA is looking very promising and is potentially the best vendor for our market.
P.S. I do not know the specific weight of the Austro engines + gearbox but I can imagine that the 230 would make a very good retrofit for the DA42 :-)
This engine is ideal for the Seneca .. except that the Seneca was designed with a counterrotating engine .. the SMA does not have a gearbox (hurray!!!) but thus also not a counterrotation. The question becomes wether this would fit.
The Seneca dosen't have gearboxes either. They build the engines in two (more or less mirrored) variants. SMA could do the same, provided there is a market.
Find an old Seneca II or III, replace the engines and panel and hey presto you've got a 400kEUR super tourer!
Whatever you do to a Seneca - it will always remain a Seneca. The only aircraft I don't want to fly even if I get paid for it...
This engine is ideal for the Seneca .. except that the Seneca was designed with a counterrotating engine .. the SMA does not have a gearbox (hurray!!!) but thus also not a counterrotation.
You don't need a gearbox for counterrotation, the AVGAS engines are capable of doing it. I don't know whether there is something fundamental in a diesel engine that would prevent it from counterrotating.
The DA42 doesn't use counterrotation as far as I know?
The other issue with the Seneca airframe is the 1999kg weight limit. Heavier engines would make it even more obvious that you're violating the MTOW (like 90% of all European Senecas).
So no compelling airframe for the 220hp SMA engine it seems.
The other issue with the Seneca airframe is the 1999kg weight limit.
The Seneca Airframe does not have this limit. It is limited to something like 2400kg instead. But it is often de-rated (or whatever you call it) to 1999kg for avoiding route charges. Also someting I never understood: Being able to spend half a million for an aeroplane and then throwing away half it's payload and range to avoid paying a few thousand per year...
throwing away half it's payload and range to avoid paying a few thousand per year...
Who says that is what people do? The 1999kg are on paper. I have more than once witnessed 1999kg Malibus taking off in EDDS (3300m) in the last third of the runway... It's easy to see for German aircraft because the registration contains the weight class (D-Exxx/D-Gxxxx for less than 2t SEP/MEP).
How do you guys copy quotes??
<<< Whatever you do to a Seneca - it will always remain a Seneca.>>> Isn't that true for any aircraft?
<<< The only aircraft I don't want to fly even if I get paid for it... >>>
Does that mean you haven't flown it? It's not such a bad airplane really. My experience in light twins is limited to the PA34, PA31, DA42 and P2006T and in that group it has its own merits I think.
I don't think weight would be an issue if you consider it a 4 place with baggage space and utilize the full certified MTOM. As stated above, many are limited by POH to 1999kg to avoid eurocontrol charges, but I'm pretty sure none of them fly that way...
Looking at planecheck.com one can get some nicely equipped PA34s for round about 100kEUR and quite a few for less.
The issue would be to convince SMA to produce a counter rotating version, or to include airspeed limitations for critical engine ops in the STC.
