Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Still no Cirrus Diesel

I guess why most manufacturers today at least look at the Diesel offerings is pretty obvious: It is the only up to date aero engine on the market. Everything else is 1950’ties and before technology, albeit with slight upgrades.

I confess that had there been a Diesel available as a retrofit when I had to overhaul my engine in 2011 and at comparable prices to an overhaul, it would have been a no brainer.

As much as I love my airplane, the one bit which I am not too happy about is the engine management necessary to get that engine to do what it should. In today’s day and age, manual mixture control, manual priming, the necessity of leaning on the ground, the necessity of leaning in flight, the necessity of observing various parameters is something out of a Flight Engineers Manual from the old piston aera, when cars had manual chokes, starting of engines was a piece of luck at best of times, e.t.c.

Many of us simply want an engine which works the same way as in any normal car: Turn the key and it works. Push the Throttle forward and it produces power. Maintain it properly and it will run for the equivalent of tens of thousands of hours, like in any normal off the shelf car engine. (The engine in my current car has run for 230’000 km so far with only minor maintenance, if I calculate that correctly that is around 4000 hours and still only needs a key in the lock to start and a gas pedal to operate). I personally get no kick out of the question whether the darn thing will start after maybe sitting for a week or so, in cold, hot, moist, dry, e.t.c. conditions, on the first try. And I don’t care for the “sacrificing a goat” starting procedures such as Fuel Pump on, Prime 3 times in Summer, 10 times in Winter, pull out this knob push in the other knob, e.t.c. watch out for carb ice e.t.c. Or read about and listen to the stories told by owners of injected engines about how to warm start their IO360… NO car owner would accept something like that, these kind of engines went out with the Trabant.

The same goes for Turbo engines. Engines this critical to operate need automatisation, up to date engine monitoring and easy operation. It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age engines do not reach their spec lifetime as a rule, not the exception. Agai, in the car world, nobody would accept this. Why do we?

For me, the whole discussion about Diesel engines is, apart from the fuel availability issue, also one of modern via outdated. So much the more it frustrates the hell out of me, that so many capable manufacturers are either unable or unwilling to finally provide GA with engines, be it diesel or gasoline, which are state of the art and time we live in!

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 29 Jul 22:35
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

I like my planes largely because they aren’t ‘modern’, in the sense that consumer mentality people mean it, and in particular because they are nothing like a modern car. Buying disposable, plastic crap and attempting to keep it running as it slowly biodegrades over ten years is a burden, not my ambition.

As mentioned before in other threads, people who are enthusiastic about cars feel the same way, and that’s what has caused the gigantic, exponential increase in values of older classic cars. If you own one, you can drive a throw away car as a daily driver but still feel like you’re not trapped by it or the ideas it represents. Given that market, planes are better value in achieving the same end…. And they fly

Last Edited by Silvaire at 29 Jul 23:42

Silvaire wrote:

As mentioned before in other threads, people who are enthusiastic about cars feel the same way, and that’s what has caused the gigantic, exponential increase in values of older classic cars

I think it’s the tinkering aspects. People like to tinker and fix their own things. A modern car is very hard to tinker with for most of us, and the only alternative is to get an old one. The fact that old cars has become a fashion thing, has nothing to do with it. It’s like Harley motorcycles. The worst motorcycles ever produces, but it has become fashion, the looks, the sound it makes, the vibrations and so on.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

I restored older sportscars (Alfa Romeos from the 60s and 70s) when i was younger, but today i am less sentimental than i was – and it’s more the driving and technical perfection of modern cars i like. I am more interested in modern technologies and the future and i don’t understand why “old” is enough of a quality for many … I like the driving.

Airplanes: i don’t see a reason for judging people as “consumers” for their choice of a modern airplane. Although it does not intimidate me personally (there’s so many POVs, really about everything) i find it a waste of time – and not very logical too. Every J-3C, Luscombe or 172 was the most modern airplane there was at some point in time and i bet there were biplane pilots who were disgusted :-) Now they’re old airplanes. That’s all. Some old airplanes are nice, some are still ugly. Same with cars, again. Today many are willing to pay premium prices for ugly and bad cars, just because they are “classic”. Beyond me.

Yes, it’s fun to fly a J-3C with the door open (which I have done in Florida), and i have flown many old airplanes i found fascinating (among them: Cessna Bird Dog, Stinson L-5, Beech 45, Bückers, T-6) … but a flight in the Cirrus in FL160 on autopilot and behind Airbus like avionics is just as cool and inspiring.

In the end it’s all lifeless plastic – and aluminum, just material. Or wood and fabric. It’s material that transports our dreams, fascinates us and entertains us, but (too me) it’s other things that count than if something is old, new, primitive or hightech.

But one thing i know for sure: Orville Wright would have been fascinated by A380s or 787s. (And of course by the C plane too ;-))

Stephan_Schwab wrote:

Mine is turbo-normalized. I take off and climb straight to FL200 for cruise and in many cases descend after about 2.5 hrs from FL200 to almost sealevel in more or less one go. My CHT stays well below 400 and my EGT and TIT stay within regular limits. My climb is full power, full rich. My climb is with power pulled back a bit to keep speed around 150 kts. Should I worry?

Sorry, I have to correct myself. Climb had to be at a lower rate, higher speed, not lower power. We had some clouds to out climb, but that wasn’t possible. As for descend, it’s also about rate, not that we couldn’t descend at all.

LPFR, Poland

What speeds and climb rates were you using initially? I can climb with 110 KIAS at any OAT without getting even close to the (very conservative and self imposed) CHT limit of 380°F. I have reached the 380 once or twice only at lower altitudes in Greece, and then I used 120 KIAS. With the NA airplane I use either the “EGT normalized” method or the table on the panel (29gph for taleoff, 24 at 4000 ft, 21 at 8000) and interpolate that. Both methods work fine.

Flyer59, I can’t provide numbers. I remember seeing 700fpm. I wanted to point out that all this head and tit watching is gone in diesels, as is boost pump and mixture voodoo. Just turn the key and go. I think a 350hp v8 diesel would be great in a Cirrus.

LPFR, Poland

I think a 350hp v8 diesel would be great in a Cirrus.

I don’t think the V-8 will happen, I think the Mercedes based V-6 has the better chances. But even for that engine the chances are slim to ever make it into serial production, and I see an even smaller chances for an STC to modify existing airplanes. € 100.000 would be the minimum such an STC would cost, probably rather € 150.000. Everybody loves the idea to have such an engine – and when it’s on the market very few people will have the miney to actually buy it.

The main problem is, and will always be, that the market is too small. There’s probably more engines in scrap metal containers at the Mercedes factories every day than can ever be sold for airplanes in one year… Nobody with any common sense will invest many millions of €/$ without a good chance to ever see that money again. In similar threads I always used this number: AFAIK Mercedes spent around 1 bn Euros on the development of the 7 speed automatic transmission some years ago. (This summer I’ll get the first one with 9 speeds …)

Maybe if a company like Mercedes offered one 300 hp Diesel engine to all GA manufacturers it could work. But then: They can just aswell develop a new baseball hat with a star and sell that in their stores to make the same revenue … ;-)

Mooney_Driver:

“The same goes for Turbo engines. Engines this critical to operate need automatisation, up to date engine monitoring and easy operation. It is simply unacceptable that in this day and age engines do not reach their spec lifetime as a rule, not the exception.”

Would a Lycoming iE2 be good enough?
It seems that in a large fuel capacity airframe (like Lancair Evolution or M600) it would even be possible to fly around Europe.

LRTC, LRPV, LFPN

Flyer59 wrote:

I restored older sportscars (Alfa Romeos from the 60s and 70s) when i was younger, but today i am less sentimental than i was – and it’s more the driving and technical perfection of modern cars i like.

It’s the technical imperfection of modern cars that I dislike – they are life limited throw away devices, and although I accept the need to use them for transport, they are the last place I would spend any discretionary money. Aircraft represent real engineering, and aren’t consumer junk. That’s not a sentimental view, it’s a rational view on where I want to spend my money, and the lasting value I want to purchase.

Sign in to add your message

Back to Top