Silvaire,
it’s not relevant for a privately operated airplane in Europe either. My Warrior’s engine, for example, is from 1987
Let’s do a thought experiment and forget regulatory and commercial considerations for a minute. Just for Diesels, sorry 
As to the Conti, it basically is an automotive engine, so let’s try to make a comparison between using it in an aircraft and in a car.
Conti CD155, 1200 hrs or 12 yrs TBR. Let’s assume a private flyer, flying 100 hrs a year. Average speed for the flights 125 knots, duration 2 hrs. In car terms that means that the engine runs once a week, about 23.000 km a year for a total of 276.000 km in 12 years. Oil change every year. However, there are some clear differences in the operational conditions. A car typically runs idle for long periods, and the typical % power is low while ‘cruising’, say 20-40%. However, lots of power changes, and that is what machines generally do not like. So, to make the operational conditions comparable, the Mercedes A car (that was the original platform for the engine) would have to be started up, warmed up properly, then get out on the highway, accelerate at full throttle, cruise at a constant 160 km/h for a few hours and then put back into the garage. Say once a week.
I still would expect the engine core to be fine after these 1200 hrs/12 years. But maybe I would feel less comfortable with an engine that has been used as a trainer. Lots of power changes, and many of them not very smooth ones. A theoretical issue though because that engine would not get to 12 years, it would reach the hour-based limit in about 3 years.
Commercial considerations: many variables here. Continental want to sell engines, so the existing ones should not be able to run forever. And they don’t like the prospect of liabilities. But they also need to demonstrate low life-cycle cost. I guess here is where the market will determine what we’ll get eventually. Competition is a great thing, and Austro offers TBO instead of TBR, so Continental cannot and will not simply lean back.
Regulatory considerations: I’m bad at reading the minds of civil ‘servants’, but it is probably safe to say that here in Europe they would be on the conservative side. So if a manufacturer recommends a TBR, at best our servant will say the same, but probably will make it mandatory, depending on whether ‘innocent public’ on board is at risk. Risk averse as he will be, another thing that our servant may consider is the relative newness of Diesels in aviation. Of course, our servant could become creative and argue that it should be fine if the aircraft has TWO of these little Diesels.. Oops, sorry, what did I say now ! 
I think the post from Silvaire 08-Feb-15 03:15 is right on the money. Product liability.
it’s not relevant for a privately operated airplane in Europe either. My Warrior’s engine, for example, is from 1987
That entirely depends on the CAA. The German LBA is the most liberal in EASA land when it comes to post-TBO operation. Many other CAAs either limit post-TBO operation severely or forbid it altogether. The UK CAA does not allow post TBO operation of propellors.
But nobody in their right mind would take a 30 year old Cessna to a Cessna dealer. Or even a brand new Cessna, after the warranty has run out
There aren’t many Cessna dealers these days but there are lots of Cessna Service Centers and a large percentage of Cessna owners go to Cessna Service Centers. The brand loyalty is not because Cirrus/Diamond customers are stupid, it’s because those airplanes both are still in production and have critical mass which something like a TB (dead for over 10 years) doesn’t have so there are no specialized service centers besides the factory.
Why 12 years? I can fully see it is a legal liability limitation exercise, but did somebody work out that 12 years is a handy cutoff point? Is it something that corresponds to some U.S. legal rule? For example here in the UK, 7 years is a significant time for a lot of stuff.
All i know about the prop on my G-reg is that it has to be overhauled every 6 years/2400 hours. I am not aware of a time limit. Is there one? AFAIK engines and props can be operated beyond TBO
Huh? and 6 years is no time limit?
Is this a Hartzell prop, btw? Mine has the same limits, and I really wonder what they were thinking about the very low 6 year limit…
Mandatory 6yr prop overhaul is brilliant for business, because on each OH you skim the blades and after a few of these skims the blades are undersize and the whole prop is scrap.
On N-reg you don’t need to do it… you can do it on condition, or you can choose to “repair” it. It costs ~€4k to “overhaul” a 3B prop but it costs about €300 to “repair” the same prop.
Yes, the 6 year prop overhaul requirement of the UK CAA is expensive and stupid which is why I did not move my aircraft to G-reg. If it wasn’t for the irrational Cessna SID position, the German CAA is the closest to Part 91 you can find in Europe. Close still means lightyears away of course…
I would have expected a rebel like you Achim to be on the Mongolian registry
But seriously I cannot understand why you haven’t gone N-reg. For an intelligent proactive pilot-owner, with a bog standard American plane, it seems a no-brainer. Especially after I have written a ready to cook recipe on how to avoid getting bent over the various barrels
One serious downside with N is that in an increasing % of the world you might get shot… but thankfully nowhere in Europe, currently.
