At my base, we have two competing suppliers of AVGAS and Jet-A, and you can get either off the truck at your hangar. You can also get AVGAS at a slight discount by taxiing to the self-serve fuel island. So no problem regardless of what you’re flying.
However, at smaller airports it’s more often self-serve AVGAS only, because nobody flies a jet into a 2000 ft/600 m paved runway at a unattended airport, and the helicopter business wouldn’t justify an extra pump. I think if you had a diesel you wouldn’t have any insurmountable problems, but you’d need to plan on fuel stops at larger airports instead of assuming that you can top off the tanks anywhere along the way, without planning. Turbines are not a big fraction of the fuel business at most airports.
Silvaire, GA is declining fast in the US, too. The thunderstorm is further away from where you’re sitting but it is approaching as well… 
In Europe, business/commercial GA is 99.9% turbine and in the US it is coming close to that number, too. There are airports that rarely service recreational GA and for those, AVGAS is not a business. It my home airfield, we have 3 types of fuel (100LL, Mogas, Jet A-1) and AVGAS is the #1 seller by far because it’s mostly recreational GA.
In areas with developed GA infrastructure, there are many airports with AVGAS only, no jet fuel pumps. Many more than the converse. Those airports would be equally reticent to maintain extra infrastructure for an alternate fuel – which was the reason 80/87 was phased out.
“Minus the tax advantage I think the sole rational reason for a diesel is fuel availability in geographic areas where GA has yet to develop”
And half the fuel infrastructure costs for airports who do not have to d!ck around with two different fuel supply systems.
Or maybe do what the tractor pulling guys have been doing for donkeys years, two stage turbo charging.
It depends on which places charge massive taxes on Jet A1 for private aviation to artificially make it as expensive as Avgas so that GA is not getting to profit from it. I believe that is what the UK does.
Tax issues do warp people’s behavior in unpredictable and generally inefficient ways, but I think in this case it’s outrageous European gasoline taxes that are the issue.
Minus the tax advantage I think the sole rational reason for a diesel is fuel availability in geographic areas where GA has yet to develop. The high altitude performance is attractive too, but the supercharger that creates it isn’t attractive. If it was, more aircraft would have superchargers already, regardless of engine type. The cost, weight and complexity have only made sense to a small segment of buyers.
It’ll be interesting to see where the volume for diesel aero engines stabilizes in say 30 years. None if them are in volume production for new aircraft now, Thielert lost its two main customers (US Army and Diamond), Austro is the closest with one customer that’s shipping a few, and the others have yet to be shipped on a new airframe.
Isn’t it to heavy?
Plenty of space in the elevator for lead I believe the Deltahawk should be comparable, the SR20 Conti is lighter than the ultra heavy TB20 engine.
That engine might fit well in a TB20 and a 182 RG…
Isn’t it to heavy?
That might become the most successful aero diesel. The Centurion 4.0 was certified ages ago and is a good engine but it never saw any shipments and is dead now because the underlying Mercedes V8 diesel has been discontinued. Also you no longer need 8 cylinders for this power and it’s smarter to use a V6.
That engine might fit well in a TB20 and a 182 RG…
