I recently read a 2017 US article about the “novel” Rotax 912 engine and its advanced engine technology. Maybe there will be a 2027 article about those “novel” jet fuel burning engines that are so much more reliable and don’t need the red lever?
It might take a while but I think there is a good chance that aero diesels will gain worldwide traction. It might put the US GA industry in the same position as the US car industry — not competitive outside the mainly purchase price driven home market.
The business is worthwhile with a couple of hundred engines sold every year and they can achieve that.
Silvaire wrote:
The US won’t in general buy the expensive to operate Diesel, and nowhere else but Europe has both a fuel infrastructure problem and the money to buy that kind of plane in any volume. So that leads to the question of how many will sell annually in Europe, including Russia?
It’s by far not only Europe which has this problem. Mid East with their pilot schools? Africa? Asia? Avgas is a rare commodity in all those places. A plane which can run on Jet A1 will be very interesting indeed if the alternative is to get trainers which cost a couple of millions a unit with turbines.
It is well possible that the main market may be outside the US initially but what is so unearthly about that?
America usually wisens up a tad slower than the rest of the world on these issues, look at the car industry. it took a couple of decades and bancruptcies for the auto industry to figure out that large big fuel guzzlers would not sell anymore.
Americans may not be that thrifty but to buy a plane which can with the same fuel tank fly 1.4 to 1.8 times the distance will be quite interesting there too. Also talking MPG will be interesting.
Actually the US in general will wake up one morning to find out they can buy the Cirrus diesel, or not buy it. Hard to believe I know, but hey, so is #45.
Worldwide available fuel, single-lever & avionics commonality with the Cirrus Jet, “new product liability” fears and accounting provisions taken care of by the parachute on the one hand, dying-out old-school white socks&birkenstocks brigade on the other.
I wonder which one will Cirrus choose. In the meanwhile maybe we get a quantification of “cheap to operate” avgas engines including the three mandatory top jobs, mag overhauls etc etc during the life of the engine. And no “I gotta mate with a wrench fixin’ ta help me”
achimha wrote:
It might take a while but I think there is a good chance that aero diesels will gain worldwide traction. It might put the US GA industry in the same position as the US car industry — not competitive outside the mainly purchase price driven home market.
I think there is no chance that (1) Diesel aircraft engines will gain a substantial market in the US or (2) new-production certified aircraft will regain a dominant position in the market for aircraft engine sales for the US or (3) that the US won’t be the dominant GA market for the foreseeable future. The reasons are simple economics, and people vote with their wallets.
Re the international car industry, GM is number 3 in car sales worldwide and does well in China (selling four times as many cars in China as BMW, they like Buicks), and Ford is number 5. Tesla does well in the small volume electric car market. All of that however is irrelevant to this discussion 
Broadening the question a bit, outside of the US (which I think mainly means Europe/Russia) how many Diesel powered Cirruses do people think will sell every year?
It’s a nice thought that one day I might be able to replace my 40-year old (one major overhaul since new) O-540 with a Jet A burning 300HP diesel. But without factory support it would obviously be a certification nightmare, and I think prohibitively expensive.
And then in Europe those of us with diesel engine cars are about to become as popular as bacon is in Tel Aviv, and be taxed for our folly in buying the things in the first place; I have now made a decision never again to buy a diesel car, not even a diesel hybrid. So, if I am not alone, how is that going to affect the uptake of diesel engine aircraft that can probably never have all the emission controls that still don’t solve the diesel particulates emission problems? Does Jet A fuel burn more cleanly?
If, as France and the UK have proclaimed, no Internal Combustion engine cars, diesel or petrol, will be allowed to be sold in 20 odd years time, and I am sure many other countries that are “greener” than us will follow suit, will that mean Avgas becomes so expensive to refine that Jet A becomes the only sensibly priced fuel because of the airline demand for it?
Any bright ideas on the future for us?
You don’t want to know what’s in the exhaust of a turboprop and turbofan… Cars produce fresh air at the exhaust in comparison. There is no emission control at all in aviation, the only measure they use today is CO2 which is a synonym for fuel consumption.
The current generation of diesel engines (Euro 6) don’t have emission problems and are probably the overall cleaner package compared to gasoline due to their significantly higher efficiency. In an aviation context, the whole exhaust cleaning complex with catalytic converters, backfeeding of exhaust, urea injection etc. are just removed as there is no legal requirement to clean exhausts in airplanes.
100LL is pure poison, lead is about the most vicious substance there is.
Marchettiman wrote:
Any bright ideas on the future for us?
Maybe not a bright idea but an idea for a bright future: we will be able to use sunlight to produce synthetic diesel by taking water and CO2 from the air. Burning it in an aircraft with an efficient diesel engine will just release CO2 and H2O again. The process already exists and it’s one of the areas where companies like Shell and BP see a future for themselves so there is a lot of research.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Put one on an Acclaim and you get Acclaim speeds at TB20 fuel burn.
Unfortunately, that is just not going to happen . The reason is Cooling Drag (funny, there’s a another thread on this very subject) as well as more frontal area in the worst place – the cowl..
Have a look at any aftermarket Diesel engine installation and compare the cowl opening and flaps. My “favourite” is the Cessna 182 conversion. My bet is the cooling drag was increased by 100% with the diesel install.
DO NOT expect same performance numbers @ same HP ratings for diesel conversions.
achimha wrote:
100LL is pure poison, lead is about the most vicious substance there is.
Yes – but what causes must deaths in the cities here in the north is particle emission from diesel engines. It’s the number one cause of lung related deaths, and number one cause of death (disregarding age related diseases). The problem is in part the high efficiency of diesel engines. When it’s cold outside, it never gets up to working temperature, at least not fast enough to make any difference. Diesel cars are banned already, not permanently, but on a day to day basis measuring the local air pollution. Used in aviation, this is of course irrelevant.
The diesel era for private cars have come and gone. For GA it would be nice if someone made a diesel engine with a price that is sustainable. So far none has.
Michael wrote:
Have a look at any aftermarket Diesel engine installation and compare the cowl opening and flaps. My “favourite” is the Cessna 182 conversion. My bet is the cooling drag was increased by 100% with the diesel install.
That’s a p*ss poor STC. Have a look at the almost released Cessna version of that configuration and now the Soloy. Cooling drag should not be significantly larger.
LeSving wrote:
Yes – but what causes must deaths in the cities here in the north is particle emission from diesel engines.
That argument is misleading on two accounts. First of all, current diesel engines do not emit particles in relevant quantities (EU 6). The fact that old engines do is not a valid argument against current engines. Second the world would be entirely different if all those cars were burning lead. So you are wrong — lead is the really bad stuff. The big mistake by regulators was to base exhaust criteria on artificial test stands with warmed up engines, etc. This is now being changed to RDE (real driving emissions) and the newest generation of diesels already meet the upcoming RDE standards.
LeSving wrote:
The diesel era for private cars have come and gone.
Nonsense. Modern diesel engines are by far the most efficient and environmentally friendly combustion engine. Current car engines have up to 45% thermal efficiency. They are expensive though but they will remain the predominant technology for larger cars in many geographies. Putting diesel engines in small cars is something that probably was never a great idea in the first place.
The “elephant in the room” in all this is that diesel for trucks has no alternative.
It will be interesting what market this engine’s maker goes after. It doesn’t look like the FTO market, which was always the route in the past and prevented significant adoption by anybody else (except in the DA42 product which is today’s only modern twin).
