Peter,
a few remarks here.
I think you are right insofar that the Diesel engines are still quite new and of course there is no experience in their operation yet which comes close to 50 years of O360ties. I think however, that the initial problems are well behind now. It took a few unpleasant incidents and accidents, which is not really unusual for new technology. What I do hear from people operating these engines today is very different then what it was before.
The initial problems of the Thielert engines were two:
- The fact that these engines are fully dependent on the electric system of the aircraft and initially did not have sufficient backups. That has changed certainly with the Centurion engines and never was an issue with the Austro-engine, which could profit from the experience of the Thielert shortcomings.
- The extremely short TBO for the gearbox of the Tielert engines, which was what contributed into the bancruptcy of Thielert. At the moment, the TBO for these gearboxes has been extended to 600 hours rather than 300 it was. Again, the newer Austroengine does not have this problem as the lessons learned were applied.
What really killed the initial enthusiastic drive for Diesel was the bancruptcy of Thielert, which had not a lot to do with the actual engine but with a severe business problem. The result was that many Thielert customers found themselfs in a financial disaster. That is however a thing of the past now, as for anyone now entering the Diesel world, these things are known and calculable. I think that without that bancruptcy, we would already now see a LOT more diesel powered aircraft, many of them being converted C172's or PA28's.
Locally here, there are several Diamond airplanes as well as some converted Cessnas and Pipers. Today, the customer satisfaction I hear of with those people is very good. I hear from people who fly the DA42 and simply tell me that flying a Twin with 10-12 GPH (for both engines) and 150 kt speed, being able to fuel practically everywhere they go by far outweighs the inital problems they had. The Diesel Cessna is also used a lot and has so far not had any problems whatsoever. And they also operate a DA40.
Initially, the general idea Thielert had was to motivate people to do their conversions when the TBO for their engine came up and they did try to keep prices for the conversion in the same range than a factory new replacement engine would cost, even taking the core value of the old Lycos in the calculation. That got a lot of people to take that plunge and do it. Unfortunately, Thielert did not have the financial possibilities to actually survive this promotion, had they lasted until the 2nd time around, when the first batch of engines would have been due for replacement, things would have looked differently. But as the sheer number of conversions for this first engine showed, there definitly was a demand and there still is.
Austroengine have not had these problems, a) because they work exclusively for Diamond and b) because they were able to develop in full knowledge of the problems Thielert had had. I would not have any major safety concern buying an Austroengine powered plane therefore. Nor really a Thielert one these days, I do think that the expensive lessons have been paid by now. I do not know enough of the SMA Diesel in order to have an opinion of these.
My aircraft has a 180hp O360. Looking at the power output and consumption at various altitudes, I could probably get the same enroute performance out of it with an Austroengine, but burning 30% less fuel, therefore increasing my range from today about 600 NM to approximately 800-900 NM with the same fuel quantity. Were I able to convert for the price of a TBO or abouts, I'd think about it.
The problem is simply that so many airports are run by stupid management which had made a decision to not support piston GA. "Piston GA is dirty" are the actual words of one UK airport manager, and "down south" having a private jet is the ultimate symbol of wealth, influence, bribe-ability, etc. Every airport manager with the MBA from some 3rd grade college absolutely falls over and kisses the runway for a bizjet to come in. And having an airline going there is like a birthday all over.
This gets worse even. There are airport managers around who do not even wish biz jets, but who would gladly ban anyone below 100 pax. The biz jet mania is mainly small airports who lack traffic anyhow and who instead of making themselfs attractive for ALL traffic rather cater to 2-3 biz jets per month to rip off but shun piston GA. However, what you say proves my point. They CAN keep piston GA away by banning Avgas. They can't keep away Diesel powered planes unless they sell no fuel at all.
Certainly you have realized the anti capitalist movement in Europe these days, look at Italy's luxury tax mania. We can not expect anyone to want us on these airports but to do everything in their power to destroy GA. Avgas is one factor they have in their hands, so is Mogas or anything else they need to do to cater for us. They can however not deny us Jet A1.
Africa is well stocked with avgas, once you get out of Egypt and across Sudan
True but you need to get there first. Some friends of mine had a major problem getting their Seneca II to Kenya as there was no Avgas available between Luxor and Nairobi as both Karthoum and Addis Abbeba refused them. They ended up going via Djibouti and got some gas there, 5 Euros plus per liter. Oh yes, Jet A1 sold for about 1 Euro?
Or my usual racetrack? I have about 600 NM range, so I can't do ZRH-Sofia non stop. I land in Belgrade which has great prices for Fuel and handling/landing. In order to get to my destination, I need to land in Plodiv, which has no avgas, then fly to one of the small airports there to fuel. Could I do Jet A1, I could fuel everywhere. And not pay 4 Euros per liter either.