china bought Continental [Archive]

stepwilk

18th Dec 2010, 13:25

I used to think Chinese stuff was all junk, particularly the horrible backyard-forge tools sold in the U. S. by companies such as Harbor Freight and Northern Tool.

Then I noticed something. My wintertime hobby is building very detailed scale-model aircraft, and for some years, many of the best injection-molded plastic kits were manufactured in Japan and Central Europe.

No longer true. The Chinese make the best kits by far, and if you think manufacturing "toy airplanes" is no big deal, I'm talking about serious kits that cost $150 to $200 U.S., not kid stuff. The Chinese dies and molds turn out kits of stunning, never-before-seen detail and accuracy.

My new metric for judging the quality of Chinese manufacture is kits like these, and if the Chinese are the best in the world at manufacturing them (even though the company in question, such as Wingnut Wings, might be located in New Zealand), I know they're no longer to be mocked.

Load Toad

18th Dec 2010, 13:42

It's quite simple - if you ask a Chinese factory to make something as cheap as chips and you say you'll only pay peanuts (as many buyers do) - then they will make you something that is cheap as chips and looks it. Most of the Cheap Chinese stuff on sale in the west was bought by western buyers looking to make a killing not by a Chinese company opening up shop in the west trying to pass of cheap rubbish.
Give them a spec, put in place agreed inspection and testing (& auditing) and pay a price that allows targets to be met without cutting corners - and much like anywhere else on earth you'll get a decent product.

aterpster

18th Dec 2010, 13:57

SASKATOON9999:

Alternativly, the company is left under current stateside ownership and goes bankrupt - At the end of the day, the current management structure allowed the company share price and value to sink so badly in the first place.

Neither Continental nor Lycoming are as good as they once were. According to a retired NTSB inspector friend of mine, more than one new Continental and Lycoming small engines have failed due to a bad critical part here and there.

Also, with a few exceptions, the manufacture of light aircraft is slowly sliding into the sunset. The business of the future is Part 25 mega-million business class jet airplanes (and turbine rotorcraft).

twochai

18th Dec 2010, 14:20

The real problem at Continental Motors (and Lycoming) has been the lack of investment in new processes and new technology over the years.

Its been obvious for years that what GA needs is a range of low cost diesel engines, to get out of the lead fortified gasoline syndrome which is a dead end. Whatever happened to the American entrepreneurial spirit?

Chinese ownership could be a godsend, if the new owners actually invest in the products!

n20junkie

18th Dec 2010, 15:20

The FAA is the issue with new technologies, not the manufactures.

The_Steed

18th Dec 2010, 15:23

I heard a great story about a plant in China that made Nike trainers. They had a production line producing the Nike trainers in one warehouse and an identical production line producing identical trainers without the Nike branding in another warehouse.

Point being that we (in the West) would rather pay £50 for a pair of Nike trainers than pay £25 for the exact same trainers without a tick down the side...

darkroomsource

18th Dec 2010, 15:36

misd-agin

18th Dec 2010, 16:18

aterpster -Neither Continental nor Lycoming are as good as they once were. According to a retired NTSB inspector friend of mine, more than one new Continental and Lycoming small engines have failed due to a bad critical part here and there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement should be easy enough to prove with statisitcs.

More about 90 minutes searching for the facts. Couldn't find any that supported the first statement. Is that your belief or a statement made by your NTSB friend?

Found the Nall Report that covers U.S. general aviation accidents as compiled by AOPA. Mechanical/maintenance accidents was 15%(+/-) in the mid to late 1990's and is the same today. Powerplant/prop is 38-40%%of mechanical for 2007/08 while previous years typically listed it at 44-48%.

In other words, the Nall report data doesn't appear to support the statement that the engine quality is getting worse. I'd welcome any links that you, or he, could provide that support the statement.

Nall Reports -

AOPA Online: AOPA Air Safety Institute - 2009 Joseph T. Nall Report (http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html)

2009 Nall Report (check out page 25 out of 40) -

http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/09nall.pdf

IO540

18th Dec 2010, 17:00

Both Lyco and Conti have had major QA issues (crankshafts, etc) and washed their hands of the bulk of the cost of putting it right.

Chinese can build high quality products, if they are well managed. What you do get in China (I manufacture some electronics out there) is a lot of proud and dedicated people; these qualities are very hard to find in the West and "money" is not a motivator to do a job well, anyway.

So whereas here you make a part and if you are lucky some inspector (who costs you £50k p.a. in total costs) will have a look at it and rubber stamp some bit of paper, in China you can employ - for the same money - half a dozen inspectors who will diligently measure 50 dimensions and write down the actual value and check it against a long list of tolerances, document the lot and sign their name on the bottom.

Example: buying printed circuit boards in the UK, I used to get about 2-3% defectives. This should not happen as we pay for a 100% electrical (probe) test but companies tend to skip that when the end of the month is approaching ;) and rubber stamp it anyway. This 2-3% is expensive because it translates into a lot of expensive nonworking product when they are populated. Since I ditched the UK and started buying bare PCBs from China, we have bought of the order of 200k circuits and the # of defective ones has been zero, zilch, none, not even one. They are a bit cheaper, too.

I have bought some Chinese machine tools and they are excellent. Not as well finished at the goode olde English ones but all those firms have either gone bust or are selling Chinese ones... trade unions, working practices, laziness, bad management, absenteesm, have seen to it - same problems the American engine makers have got now. Nobody wants to work too hard over there.

That said, building aircraft engines out there will be a significant management challenge because most of the stuff in an engine is bought-in, and controlling that is very hard in China because 90% of the people out there are reselling stuff made by somebody else (pretending they make it) and you rarely get exactly the same thing twice. Supply chain quality control is going to be very tough.

vee-tail-1

18th Dec 2010, 17:59

Well my experience of Chinese engineering is a flair for innovation:
This is not aviation but it makes the point. I live in a working watermill, which generates DC 110 volt electricity from a 120 year old 10kw dynamo. I want to update the system to 240 volts AC, but need a very lowspeed alternator to do the job... 4kw at 200 rpm. No one in the UK makes or even understands the need for such an alternator. But the BHA (British Hydropower Association) have surveyed England & Wales and concluded that if all the old watermills were retrofitted with low speed alternators the combined power would equal a nuclear power station.
So having heard the Chinese are pretty keen on small hydropower I googled for low speed alternators and came up with this:http://www.ginlong.com/wind-turbine-pmg-pma-permanent-magnet-generator-alternator.htm (http://www.ginlong.com/wind-turbine-pmg-pma-permanent-magnet-generator-alternator.htm)
A complete range of state of the art rare earth magnet lowspeed alternators that can be tailormade for any waterpower or wind power project. With that sort of innovation and drive, it's no wonder the Chinese are world leaders in electric powered aircraft. I sure hope they diversify Continental into diesel with the same get up and go mentality.

BackPacker

18th Dec 2010, 18:07

I'm not surprised. Due to the differences in wages/labour cost and the exchange rate of the yen, the Chinese are now sitting on an enormous pile of money and the only thing they can do with that is invest in Western countries/companies, particularly the US. The way things are going now, at some point in time all of the US (companies, land, anything that has value) will be owned by the Chinese.

Look at this, and particularly the highest and lowest number on the list.

List of sovereign states by current account balance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance)

IO540

18th Dec 2010, 18:18

VT1 - you could easily convert your DC into 240V AC, exactly 50Hz (frequency not RPM dependent as the alternator will be) with an off the shelf inverter.

This one (http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/3KW-240V-INDUSTRIAL-SOLAR-INVERTER-40---80-VDC-INPUT_W0QQitemZ330401646609QQcmdZViewItem?rvr_id=18685821482 6&rvr_id=186858214826&cguid=fae9808112c0a0a9f4707a70fff778ec) came up on Ebay in seconds. Not quite 110V but you get the idea. This technology is well established, for getting AC mains from photovoltaic panels.

20driver

18th Dec 2010, 18:23

A Chinese friend recently hosted a dinner party that has assorted other chinese friends. One of whom imports glassware from China and Germany and sells it to department stores etc.

On a recent trip home he was told to look out to buy distressed American companies, up to 1 billion, yes billion dollars. He would be reimbursed 70% of the purchase price by the provincial government bank.

I was not there but have no reason to disbelieve the story.

20driver

vee-tail-1

18th Dec 2010, 18:35

IO540 :ok:

Jan Olieslagers

18th Dec 2010, 18:54

Re the inverter at the watermill I was thinking much the same as IO540, having some experience and insight in electronics. But I knew I could count on him to word it better than I ever could.

As for the sale of the engine makers: yes the Chinese have vast amounts of money to invest, and seem to be wiser at it than certain petroleum sheiks. From AvWeb discussion I understand that in this particular case the owner was particularly happy to sell, the company/product being neither very profitable nor a good fit to their other businesses.
And I also believe Lycoming and Continental would stand stronger today if they had invested in product innovation. OTOH I think they must have done some of their marketing homework, and probably found the market/demand too small to justify major investment. Those companies that DID bring state of the art engines for G/A did not really make brilliant successes, after all.

IO540

18th Dec 2010, 18:56

VT1 - there is also a lot of this technology on the German market, designed for PV panel input and for feeding the (surplus) electricity into the mains.

Why German? Because over there they are paying people silly money, like 50p/kWh, for stuff they stuff back up the mains.

I know a former TB20 owner whose house is full of this stuff :)

Jan Olieslagers

18th Dec 2010, 19:04

Germany? Yes, sure. But also in Holland and Denmark. For the same reason.

Silvaire1

18th Dec 2010, 19:31

I'm thinking there will be little impact to Continental's operations except more money for R&D. That is not an endorsement, it's just that I think the Chinese think in decades, not years, and they don't like to make obvious waves. They paid what on their scale is chump change, they will learn what they can, and eventually by this and other means they will have developed a light aircraft capability in China, selling to the world market. The long term effect will be the marginalization of industry in the democratic west and advancement of their own... But I don't think they'll want to outwardly present that agenda in their short term ownership of Continental.

NorthSouth

18th Dec 2010, 19:40

Steed: we (in the West) would rather pay £50 for a pair of Nike trainers than pay £25 for the exact same trainers without a tick down the sideStrange that. I'd pay the extra £25 to get the ones with no tick. And I wouldn't buy the ticked ones at any price.
NS

AdamFrisch

18th Dec 2010, 20:24

IO540

18th Dec 2010, 20:39

There is much less new business today than say 30 years ago.

Just been reading the US AOPA mag...

Back then they were working three shifts, 24/7, doing new engines. Today, much or most of their business is overhauls.

But I bet they still have the same size factory and the same admin staff i.e. similar fixed costs. Downsizing is very hard, especially as you can't just kick out just the least competent people. And anyway anybody with a brain will jump ship before (as they see it) it sinks totally.

And there is a deep recession in GA right now.

24Carrot

18th Dec 2010, 22:03

China can move up the quality curve, just like other countries have.
When I was younger, my parents thought "Made in Japan" meant "Total Cr*p"!

stepwilk

18th Dec 2010, 22:42

Those were the days when, urban legend has it, a manufacturing city in Japan named Usa was established, so that its wares could be stamped "made in USA." My racist prep-school history teacher, in the mid-1950s, taught us this as Truth.

Ultranomad

18th Dec 2010, 23:14

stepwilk, I am not sure about Japan, but there is a wonderful short story by Eduardo Galeano, an Uruguayan writer:

Alienation

Back in my salad days, I was a bank clerk.

Among the customers, I recall a shirt manufacturer. The manager of the bank would renew his loans purely out of pity. The poor shirtmaker was constantly on the brink of bankruptcy. His shirts were not bad, but no-one bought them.

One night, the shirtmaker was visited by an angel. When he woke that morning he had seen the light. He sprang out of bed.

The first thing he did was to change the name of his enterprise to Uruguay Sociedad Anónima ('Uruguay Company Limited'), a patriotic name whose initials are: USA. The second thing he did was to sew labels onto the collars of his shirts that said, with complete honesty: Made in USA. The third thing he did was to sell shirts like hotcakes. And the fourth was to pay off his debts and make tons of money.

Pilot DAR

19th Dec 2010, 00:55

Strange that. I'd pay the extra £25 to get the ones with no tick. And I wouldn't buy the ticked ones at any price. I could not agree more! But on to the subject at hand...

My two pence worth.... (all my opinion - not fact)

China would like to grow a GA industry, and will not afford to buy our aeronautical products in large numbers, when they know they can make their own at a lower cost.

China has an adequate infrastructure for jets (jet fuel at airports), but not Avgas, and China realizes that Avgas is a dying product, which is expensive and complex to make and distribute - They don't want to be in that business, and certainly won't buy our Avgas. So they don't want many Avgas engines for themselves.

What China does want is diesel techology, and Continental has it, as a result of a deal with SMA earlier in the year. With diesel, they can make GA aircraft for Chinese use, and those aircraft can easily operate within the existing infrastructure - jet fuel.

So, China is happy to make Avgas Continental engines in the US, for the existing market. China is eager to make diesel engines in the US, because some of us want them, and we'll bear the costs of development, and installation development on existing types. (I'll buy the first one certified - either the new SMA, or the new Continental, which ever comes first, I have a C182 waiting, firewall bare). We will operate these new engines enought to "get the bugs out" for them, because we have the experience to know how. China will then mirror the diesel production in China for their market, and they'll be flying for a quarter of the cost we are. In 30 years, China will be the place to go to get your license.

In the mean time, we really won't see much difference in our industry, unless we look into China...

BackPacker

19th Dec 2010, 00:59

What China does want is diesel techology, and Continental has it, as a result of a deal with SMA earlier in the year.

Wouldn't it be simpler to buy Thielert? I hear the insolvency administrator is actively looking for a buyer.

Might not be powerful enough for a C182 though, but the 2.0 performs quite well in front of a C172, PA28, DA40 or DR400.

Pilot DAR

19th Dec 2010, 01:27

I like the Thielert,, though only have an hour of flying the diesel DA 42.

I think that Contiental would be more attractive, as it has a broader, and more marketable product range right now, and a much longer legacy of success. It is already sustaining itself, with lots of happy customers, and brand new aircraft demand for their engines. Thielert appears to me to have the opposite of demand by new airframe makers (as I participarted in the STC replacement of the Thielerts with Lycomings in the DA 42).

I'm sure the Chinese have though this through for the long term.

astir 8

19th Dec 2010, 04:45

Last year I visited Chinese tractor factories. Some are producing rubbish, some are making larger Western style units using state of the art machine tools. The large products are still iffy mainly because of bought-in items such as oil seals and their spares support is still rubbish.

I am convinced however that all these problems will be very rapidly sorted and in a few years the western tractor factories will be history.

And the EU will still be mandating 12 month paternity leave and bread & circuses in general.

Third world here we come (hopefully not in my lifetime but I'm 62). The future is in the Far East.:sad:

Zulu Alpha

19th Dec 2010, 10:31

It's simply incomprehensible how any of the aviation engine manufacturers companies can lose money. They're selling old rope. What R&D costs? What developing costs? They're peddling WWII engines for $50.000 a pop.

Not sure this is quite correct.
My new IO390 has roller tappets, counterbalanced crankshaft etc. It is exactly the same shape as my old engine so it fits without any modifications.

With a new (uncertifed) 180 HP Lycoming for around $24,000 and a 100HP Rotax for £14,000 there isn't much of a price difference and the litres per hour per HP are about the same.

I suspect the weight/HP is similar if you include the radiator, coolant and oil tank.

I do think the Lycoming flat four is criticised unfairly. It is very strong, doesn't need a gearbox, and has a huge bearing to support the prop.

My desire would be for Lycoming to work on allowing more of their engines to work on Mogas. Perhaps by retarding the ignition on some of their higher compression engines.

Regarding the Chinese ownership. I expect that more and more parts will be made in China and just assembled or final badged in the US. This is OK as long as some one is keeping an eye on the quality. My concern is whether the new management will have the same attitude to quality as the previous managment.

Most Japanese electronic goods are made in China but they apply their quality standards so you would never know.

A and C

19th Dec 2010, 10:41

Thirty years ago the British motorcycle industry was in the sort of state that the aircraft engine industry is in now, it was the same story, lack of investment and no interest in new product development.

Fortunatly a guy with a lot of money got hold of the Triumph brand and turned it around, it has taken twenty years of personal investment to get the bikes to the state were they sell on merit.............. not the name.

I have no doubt that if anyone tried to sorce investment for a long term project like Triumph from the banks you would not get in the door, all they want is short term profit.

The reason that the UK and USA can't make it in the major industrial sector is not that we don't have the will, ability, or work ethic it is because the shiny arses in the banks are only intersted in next weeks bonus, not a pay back that might be twenty years off.

India Four Two

19th Dec 2010, 16:07

Concerning Chinese manufacturing quality, it's clear that you get what you pay for (and if of course, you QC the product). I do all my PPRuNeing on a Macbook Pro and an iPhone. They are made in China and the build quality and reliability is superb, as you would expect when the buyer is Apple.

On the other hand, I have read from a seemingly knowledgeable source that there are instances where Chinese suppliers of high-quality electronic parts for US companies, build shadow factories that produce the same branded parts and sell them for their own account.

Getting back to Continental, I suspect the discussions about the Chinese interest in diesel technology may be correct. On the other hand, maybe Plan B is to close the plant after a few years due to "continuing losses" and sell the parts and equipment to a scrap company who then coincidentally finds a willing buyer in China.:eek:

Silvaire1

19th Dec 2010, 16:14

John Bloor did a exemplary job with Triumph but I think the analogy with Continental and Lycoming isn't strong. In the case of the British motorcycle industry what they were making 40 years ago was non-engineered crap. The competition killed them with better function. Conversely modern aircraft engines are well engineered and work well, as pointed out by ZA, and they are not being put out of business by more technically advanced competition.

I agree that fuel and controls are the issues right now. I'm not a big fan of diesels but if anybody can produce a diesel that is practical with good 50 year life cycle cost, I'd say it would be Continental using the SMA design.

Big Pistons Forever

19th Dec 2010, 17:46

I own a share in a Nanchang CJ6A. The sheetmetal work is absolutely outstanding with beautiful skin butt joins not a wave in any of the flat areas and perfect riveting. The mechanicals are copies of Russian designs (ie simple, but heavy and crude) again executed to a higher standard.

There is no doubt in my mind that Chinese produced Continental parts will be of equal or probably higher quality than the US sourced parts currently used,
which considering all the recent QA disasters involving US made engine components is not setting the bar very high.

IMO one of the major causes of the decline of GA, at least in Canada is the cost of certified engines. The cost of an engine overhaul for a simple entry level GA aircraft is often more than the total value of the aircraft and even if the engine has time left to overhaul the cost of parts can be crushing, and it is getting worse. For a while there were several aftermarket cylinder assemblies available. As a result cylinder prices fell by 50 % but now most have been forced out of business and cylinder prices are on there way back up.

If the takeover of Continental results in lower engine prices than I think this going to be a very positive development and if I was an exec at Lycoming I would be polishing my resume....

AdamFrisch

19th Dec 2010, 17:48

What well engineered are we talking about?

The fact that Continental is offering a carburetor O-200 for the new Skycatcher 162 should forever disqualify them from being in that bracket - which car manufacturer has carburetted engines in this day and age? A company willing to appear on or at the very forefront of development would have yanked that offering 15 years ago... It's a joke.

I understand the reliability issues with well proven aviation engines. So did everyone else in Detroit 60 years ago when they knew the longevity and reliability of an engine is down to low compression output from huge displacement. It's really not rocket science. That doesn't mean we should have to tolerate carburetor, carb ice rings and old school magnetos (that break time and time again) when there are clearly both proven and reliable alternatives. Just call Bosch up and they'll be able to send you not only electronic ignition and injection, but even fadec.

IO540

19th Dec 2010, 18:23

I do all my PPRuNeing on a Macbook Pro and an iPhone. They are made in China and the build quality and reliability is superb, as you would expect when the buyer is Apple.

Yes, but the sheer scale of project management which Apple put behind this stuff is something never seen in GA.

On the other hand, I have read from a seemingly knowledgeable source that there are instances where Chinese suppliers of high-quality electronic parts for US companies, build shadow factories that produce the same branded parts and sell them for their own account.

Of course. But the brand names are just paying a price for selling $3 generic camera batteries for $80 with "Canon", "Nikon" etc on the label :)

Sony (historically the leaders in QA but nowadays the masters of shafting customers with dodgy schemes and restrictive practices) did their best with chips in batteries but almost nobody else bothers.

Getting back to Continental, I suspect the discussions about the Chinese interest in diesel technology may be correct. On the other hand, maybe Plan B is to close the plant after a few years due to "continuing losses" and sell the parts and equipment to a scrap company who then coincidentally finds a willing buyer in China

Of course :)

In the case of the British motorcycle industry what they were making 40 years ago was non-engineered crap.

As a former motorcyclist the above is 100% correct. Triumph, Norton, BSA, etc were just making crap which would have been tolerated in WW2, just about. It was easy to kill them off. Their crap management had the writing on the wall for 10-20 years.

The fact that Continental is offering a carburetor O-200 for the new Skycatcher 162 should forever disqualify them from being in that bracket - which car manufacturer has carburetted engines in this day and age? A company willing to appear on or at the very forefront of development would have yanked that offering 15 years ago... It's a joke.

Good point; I don't see why a carb should be much cheaper than fuel injection. I really don't get why carbs are still used. I would never buy a plane with a carb engine.

I understand the reliability issues with well proven aviation engines. So did everyone else in Detroit 60 years ago when they knew the longevity and reliability of an engine is down to low compression output from huge displacement.

The problem with low compression is that you get low efficiency. There is a direct relationship. And increasing the compression ratio stresses the engine more.

It's really not rocket science. That doesn't mean we should have to tolerate carburetor, carb ice rings and old school magnetos (that break time and time again) when there are clearly both proven and reliable alternatives. Just call Bosch up and they'll be able to send you not only electronic ignition and injection, but even fadec.

Yes, but car engines are very unreliable when run at 65%-75% of max rated power continuously. It's been tried many times and so far everybody has failed. The application does call for a different design, and the Lyco/Conti design works well. It does have [mis]management issues, which is OK for a "clever" pilot, and makes a good case for FADEC, and that will come.

AdamFrisch

19th Dec 2010, 19:35

No, the reliability issues come when too much power is wrung from engines with not enough displacement. Then you have to resort to increasing compression and/or increasing rpm. That's when the reliability issues come. That's exactly why turbo engines don't last - because they in effect increase compression. Or why auto engines don't last - they only produce their power at high rpm's. It has nothing to do with the electronic ignition or the injection.

A direct drive aircraft engine runs at very low rpm's. That's the key. By increasing displacement, you can add power without increasing the compression and the rpm's. In Detroit they used to say; "There is no substitute for cubic inches". They should have added "if you want longevity". They were right.

I mean, show me the big marine ship engine that has to have a teardown at 2000hrs? Doesn't exist. Because they run big displacement, low rpm. Obviously, like you pointed out, there's less efficiency with low compression. So it's a balance. I'm not criticizing the core engines per se, just the archaic stuff around them. No overhead cams? No 4 valve? No injection? No electronic ignition?

IO540

19th Dec 2010, 19:54

The reduced life of turbo engines is probably caused by high power operation for a lot longer (like, the whole flight :) ).

This is because there are many turbo installations (e.g. the TB21) which have the same max rated HP as the non-turbo version (e.g. TB20) yet few if any of the former make TBO without cylinder cracks, at least. And nowadays the "management" knowledge is fairly widespread, so one can't blame it on ignorant pilots.

Overhead cams and 4 valve heads probably do very little at the low revs involved. The SFC of the big Lycos is unmatched by any current petrol car engine, which really proves that point.

The rest I agree with. There are multiple reasons why the industry lags behind on FADEC etc. but one of them, whether one likes this or not, is that FADEC is not going to deliver a significant MPG improvement when running at constant power, peak EGT or LOP. If there was a 30-50% gain to be had (as there is with car engines which spend much of their life delivering 10-20% of max rated power) we would have it by now.

Ultranomad

19th Dec 2010, 20:16

There are multiple reasons why the industry lags behind on FADEC etc. but one of them, whether one likes this or not, is that FADEC is not going to deliver a significant MPG improvement when running at constant power, peak EGT or LOP. If there was a 30-50% gain to be had (as there is with car engines which spend much of their life delivering 10-20% of max rated power) we would have it by now.
Advocates of flying LOP WOT (wide open throttle) claim fuel savings up to 20%, with no engine problems as long as you avoid dangerous combinations of power and mixture. This is precisely where FADEC might help a lot, don't you think so? (Of course, one would first have to convince the manufacturers to endorse this mode of operation...)

IO540

19th Dec 2010, 21:34

I don't think so, because all the FADEC could do in cruise is set up peak EGT (or LOP - no MPG gain there over peak EGT) which is what "we" do manually.

It certainly could optimise spark timing but you don't need a full FADEC (computer controlled throttle and mixture) for that.

Peak EGT / LOP saves 20-30% over operating full rich, but you don't need FADEC to make that saving :)

Ultranomad

19th Dec 2010, 21:57

Peter, I was actually talking of a slightly different animal - not X degrees LOP but rather opening the throttle all the way, and then adjusting power with the mixture knob. However, when above 75% power, you need to enrich the mixture. According to its advocates, this method not only saves fuel (allegedly better than X deg LOP, but this remains to be explained), but also keeps the plugs and the oil much cleaner and the engine in general somewhat healthier, allowing it to be operated on condition well past TBO (wherever permissible).

Anyway, coming back to FADEC, it should just plot the right trajectory in the "Throttle-Mixture" space in response to the quadrant position and other process variables. This would certainly make caring for the engine much easier for them non-engineering types. Meanwhile, the engineering-minded folk would indulge in programming a handful of different control algorithms (X deg LOP, LOP WOT, whatever) and then trying them all to satisfaction :E

Silvaire1

19th Dec 2010, 22:02

I prefer carbs over fuel injection for most aircraft applications - more reliable, no fuel pump required for high wing aircraft, and only low pressure in any case. That makes it safer too. Fuel injection is good for acro.

My background includes EFI tool development, engine tuning, and subsequently selling firmware upgrades for motorcycle fuel injection systems, about 1500 units shipped to date. My current professional work is in replacing a 90000 lb hydraulic actuator design with an electomechanical equivalent. The budget would buy quite a few new aircraft.

FADEC (including the propeller) is very interesting in principle but will also be very time consuming to bring to the same standard or reliability/serviceability as current hardware. The volume of sales will not justify an automotive style hardware and software budget... and the result will inevitably be more stuff like Diamond engine failures due to software bugs, battery voltage control or whatever it was.

As much fun as it sounds, I really don't want FADEC on my little aircraft, the one I'll be maintaining year after year. I already have an electric CS prop and (lo and behold) last week the wiring had a tiny little short and that had to be fixed. I think it's a neat gadget, but it needs more engineering to bring it to the level of a McCauley hydraulic prop.

Ultranomad

19th Dec 2010, 22:11

Silvaire1, just curious - would you equally discount old continuous injection systems like a.g. Bosch K- or Ku-Jetronic? From my recollections, virtually unkillable stuff.

Silvaire1

19th Dec 2010, 22:33

Silvaire1, just curious - would you equally discount old continuous injection systems like a.g. Bosch K- or Ku-Jetronic? From my recollections, virtually unkillable stuff.

I don't discount any of it, and I think fully integrated FADEC will happen, firstly on very expensive aircraft with huge maintenance budgets. Then slowly, slowly I think it'll make it's way downmarket.

The advantage of the modern digital systems is that you can theoretically integrate everything including the prop.

Just my considered opinion, FWIW and all that.

IO540

20th Dec 2010, 08:20

not X degrees LOP but rather opening the throttle all the way, and then adjusting power with the mixture knobYes, you are probably right. However, one would need a well matched set of fuel injectors. I have GAMIs and the match (on the special flight test one does) is pretty good, but my attempts to run the engine at WOT and using the mixture have always resulted in very rough running, so I don't do it at low altitude, and at high altitude there isn't an issue because (e.g. FL100+) the power setting is low anyway.

The other solution would be individual injector control, which we do have on modern car engines.

Also electronic ignition is not completely trivial to do. In a car, if your alternator fails, and after your battery has run down, the engine stops. This is totally unacceptable for an aircraft (yes I know there are some ;) ) and a safe setup would be self powered. You can have a sort of magneto-powered ignition (like Lyco have just developed) or you have a little alternator to power it. Then you would need to double it all up (2 ignition systems, 2 alternators). But electronic ignition won't by itself give you the full benefit unless you sense the engine conditions, which means some sensors have to go in, and these are not all that reliable (on cars).

I had the K-Jetronic system on my 1983 Escort XR3i :) But the car still broke down when a wire came off the alternator...

FlyingStone

20th Dec 2010, 18:15

I agree with IO540: modern car engines run with extensive help from ECU. Electronic ignition itself without data (measured by multiple sensors) which is then processed by ECU, isn't really that much more efficient from magneto ignition. Involving numerous sensors and ECU into engine management can be very beneficial, but it also brings complexity to an entirely new level. And the more complex the system is, the more it is prone to failures. As far as economy goes, even the most sophisticated engine management system can't bring fuel flow to zero. Looking at C172, Thielert 2.0 burns around 1,5 USgph less than Lycoming O-320 for same TAS, which is actually not that much of a reduction - especially for 40 or so years of development.

Nevertheless, diesel engines are the future of GA, especially because of their ability to burn Jet A-1, which is by far the most common aviation fuel. The only problem for now seems to be that they haven't accumulated enough hours to convince traditionally very conservative GA market - especially in USA.

Silvaire1

20th Dec 2010, 18:43

Diesel fuel is no cheaper than gasoline. Any difference is tax, so the diesel concept is based on tax avoidance. The fuel consumption for diesels is lower, but not nearly enough lower unless tax issues are a factor.

The life cycle cost/hour for something like a Thielert is much higher than what most potential customers are now paying for aero-engines: throw-away engines (ie no overhauls), clutch replacements, no third party (PMA) parts availability or competitive market for parts. In the sense of conservative meaning cost averse, the potential buyers are indeed conservative.

Mechta

20th Dec 2010, 23:03

I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese also bought Thielert.

By buying Continental the Chinese have got a name that people trust and a ready made distribution network. The fact that the future product will share nothing but mounting hole positions with its predecessor is neither here nor there.

Thielert would give the Chinese the hard-won knowledge of what needs to be done to get a diesel engine to work in an aeroplane, and as well as that, Thielert already make a lot of the aftermarket replacement parts such as crankshafts and piston/barrel assemblies for Lycomings (although not sold under the Thielert name). These parts also overcome the known problem areas on the originals, so there is a lot of know-how up for grabs.

My guess is that the Chinese will keep US Continental going to support their existing range but make the component parts in China. If they bought Thielert they could then use it as an R&D operation, as many far-Eastern companies have done with automotive companies in the UK (Lotus bought by Proton and IAD (International Automotive Design) bought by Daewoo).

The four cylinder Thielert engines share precious few components with their Mercedes source now, so a full break away isn't that unlikely.

I am quite sure Continental would be very pleased to get an engine with their badge on it back in the Cessna 172 after that market was taken by Lycoming 42 years ago (for the US built C172s anyway) and a Continental badged Thielert 2.0 could do that right now.

Silvaire1

20th Dec 2010, 23:49

Thielert is selling mainly to the US military now, and I think their product is better suited to military budgets.

The Continental SMA diesel thing is still complex, but less so. Maybe it will find a commercial market someday.

TWR

21st Dec 2010, 06:27

All I need is the SMA SR-305e for the price of a Conti IO550 or even less...

They don't need any lessons from Thielert.

IO540

21st Dec 2010, 07:03

their product is better suited to military budgets.

and pilotless aircraft ;)

vee-tail-1

21st Dec 2010, 22:56

I sincerely hope that the Chinese have the good sense to avoid the not suited to purpose (pile of cr**p) Thielert engines that have soured the diesel market, and account for the suspicion/conservatism of potential diesel customers. :\

Mechta

22nd Dec 2010, 00:37

The SMA diesel engine is fine for the part of the market it occupies, but what about larger and smaller engined aircraft?

Thielert certainly had their problems, firstly with getting the design right, then once they had done that, with the company's financial difficulties which voided warrantees and didn't win them any friends.

If you base all your views on Thielert engines on the original 1.7 engine, then you aren't giving the company the credit they deserve for identifying and rectifying the shortcomings of their product.

I would have a hard job believing that the Chinese bought Continental because they want to continue making air-cooled petrol engines for any significant number of years.

I don't know much about Continentals, but Lycomings have certainly had enough problems with corroding crankshafts and cracked cylinder heads, so there's somothing to be said for buying a product on which the problems have been found and cured.

Regarding complexity, you only get piston engine efficiency with a reduction drive and proper engine management. Its about time aeroplane engines moved into the last two decades of the last century, let alone this one.

Silvaire1

22nd Dec 2010, 02:12

I think complex, expensive diesel aircraft engines are unlikely to sell outside of areas with high fuel taxes and/or poor fuel distribution - there is no economic or technical reason why they should. Given that situation its hard for me to imagine manufacturers investing in ground-up diesel development projects, or passing the associated R&D cost onto the customer base. Diamond only put together their own version of the Mercedes diesel because Thielert went south on them, and because they sell to the high-tax, low availability European market more than some others.

The SMA engine has been certificated for 10 years but has never taken off due to limited demand. So I imagine Continental (which was not exactly flush with cash) bought the rights at a price that recognizes return on investment is limited, taking advantage of what must surely be a large and unrewarded SAFRAN development cost over 15 or more years. Maybe that "donation to the cause" will help.

I think eventually (say within 15 years) the US will switch to unleaded avgas because of the perceived environmental issue. The Diamond/Austro engine will continue, and the SMA/Continental diesel might get developed for sale in small volume and high life cycle price. They won't sell in the US unless some new third world no-avgas market (like China!?) increases volume enough to lower life cycle costs. In addition, I think light aviation in high tax areas will move further towards Rotax powered VLAs and Mogas, because that seems to be more politically palatable to their governments on several different levels.

The technical challenge I can see with higher powered aero-engines now is that the pursuit of low weight has led them to large cylinders, which tend to need 100 octane fuel given highish compression ratios or high boost.

BackPacker

22nd Dec 2010, 07:31

I think complex, expensive diesel aircraft engines are unlikely to sell outside of areas with high fuel taxes and/or poor fuel distribution

You're essentially talking about the whole world except the USA and Canada here. That's a fairly large market even for GA.

My club was one of the first in the Netherlands to start flying diesels but I know quite a few clubs who have followed, both in NL and elsewhere in Europe. We flew *new* DR400-135CDIs for about 2/3 the price of *2nd hand* PA28-161s. Fuel costs were slashed from being about 50% of the overall costs to something like 20%.

If Thielert would not have the technical problems with the 1.7 engine (which indeed caused a significant loss of confidence in diesel technology in general) and subsequently ran into financial trouble, almost our whole fleet would have been converted to diesel by now.

Katamarino

22nd Dec 2010, 08:06

Indeed - even in 2008 when I joined Backpacker's club, I was told that within months we'd be receiving two new C172s with diesel engines. Needless to say these never materialised (and our normal Cessna fleet has shrunk from 5 to 3 in that time too!), and the club are even trying to get rid of the last two remaining diesels from the fleet. :(

It's a great shame that the costs are so high, as our Diamond is a lovely aircraft, and with AVGAS selling for 2.70 a litre or so we need all the help on fuel that we can get.

IO540

22nd Dec 2010, 08:18

The UK is now taxing diesel so the tax advantage of diesels has gone.

The scheme is self-declaring ... not sure how it works in practice. Training flights and business use are exempt, AFAIK. Anyway, this was wiped out the retrofit business case.

SMA had certification problems with high altitude restarts. I believe these have been solved at some altitude, but at what altitude? Socata have a TB20 with the SMA engine; had it for years. The vibration was apparently not solved.

onetrack

22nd Dec 2010, 08:34

If Packard and Guiberson could invent and sell successful diesel aero engines in the 1930's, there's no reason at all why a highly successful diesel aero engine couldn't become dominant today.
The problem is that "success" is measured by the effort a company puts into the product... and that not only includes good marketing, but sound engineering, and good parts and service.

The Packard diesel died because of the death of its chief proponent and engineer.. along with the onset of the Great Depression... and the Guiberson died because of a lack of marketing and engineering development.
Both of these engines could have easily been developed into winners, and either could have become a primary aero engine.

The Chinese manufacturing angle suffers from a host of problems. Not the least of which, the desire of the Chinese to go always go "cheap". Asians in general, work on quantity, not quality.

The rampant corruption, poor legal structures (it took Caterpillar nearly 6 YEARS to get a Chinese court to agree that there had been copyright/trademark infringement in the Perkins manufacturing case) and regular substitution of inferior parts, is something that the Chinese can't get away from.

The Chinese neither understand.. nor have any will to support... dealerships, and parts and service backup. They do not have a clue in these areas. Buy a Chinese manufactured product that requires parts and backup, and you're out on your own.
They only understand the concept of manufacturing a zillion items in one production run, and letting you, the customer, sort out the QC (or should I say, lack of it).

In addition, we have the major problem of the vast majority (possibly 99%) of the Chinese workforce with poor education, poor English skills, and poor understanding of Western objectives in a high quality manufacturing environment.
We're talking about workers who can't even understand basic English, and we're talking about them producing and assembling highly-critical, high-tech, aircraft engine components?

The previous poster who mentioned that the executives of Continental see only the short-term... while the Chinese have the long-term in mind, was absolutely spot-on.
The aim of the Chinese is to extract as much technology from the West, as easily as possible, and for as little cost as possible... and in this case, they are ably assisted by stupid, short-sighted Western corporate executives.

The manufacturing facilities for Continental engines in the U.S. will be slated by the Chinese, in the near-future, for dismantling and sell-off... and all manufacturing will then be re-located to China... and good luck to you all then, as YOU, the pilot, then becomes the test-bed and QC control, for "Made In China" aircraft components... :{

IO540

22nd Dec 2010, 09:31

the desire of the Chinese to go always go "cheap". Asians in general, work on quantity, not quality.I don't think that is a Chinese character trait at all.

The reason why most Chinese stuff is crap is because Western customers tell them to make stuff down to a ridiculously low price (how many £1 T-shirts does one really need to buy??) and the customer accepts the crap quality.

It is people in the West who are the idiots. Walk down the High Street and watch people; their shopping bags stuffed with cheap crap clothes which will last a few weeks and then go in a landfill and then they go out and engage in more retail therapy, because their uneducated lives are so dreary that all they can do is eat MacDonalds, watch Eastenders, and spend their weekends shopping for cheap crap clothes.

The retailers here are only too happy to fulfil this need.

gasax

22nd Dec 2010, 10:32

The SMA diesel is not a particularly complex unit. It even fits more easily into existing airframes due to the similar configuration of the engines it is likely to replace.

I read of the purchase of the design by Continental with some interest - given that they had recently had Mark Wilksch working for them - but apparently he no longer does (and has not for quite a while).

But the SMA 'engine' - which IIRC was a 'firewall forward' kit started at €80,000 - which strangely enough was something of a barrier to its widespread take up.

So if Continental can make its cost a lot more 'sensible' it should sell. Whether the Chinese aspect of that will have much impact I guess we'll have to wait and see.

TWR

22nd Dec 2010, 12:19

Don't forget that the € 80K includes a new prop, cowling, relocated landing light and throttle quadrant. Those are not included @ TBO.

The new SMA is certified to 20 000'.

Check out their renewed website.

Mechta

22nd Dec 2010, 12:51

The UK is now taxing diesel so the tax advantage of diesels has gone.Although described as diesel engines (which they are), most, if not all, of the aircraft certificated diesels are intended to run on Jet A or A1 as opposed to the previously untaxed red diesel that tractors and boats use.

The red diesel is actually kinder to the injection pump (better lubricity), but the assumption is that Jet A is more readily available at airfields from a quality controlled source (not the rusty old tank of red diesel that the grass cutting tractor uses).

Until Jet A or A1 starts to be sold at the same sort of price as 100LL,there will stll be a considerable saving to be made in fuel cost on an aircraft diesel engine.

Silvaire1

22nd Dec 2010, 14:24

Until Jet A or A1 starts to be sold at the same sort of price as 100LL,there will stll be a considerable saving to be made in fuel cost on an aircraft diesel engine.

In the county where I live there are five GA airports with a total of around 1500 piston engine operations per day. Jet fuel at those airports and for those buyers is more expensive per liter/gallon than avgas.

The telling statistic would be the average worldwide cost of avgas + tax actually being paid per gallon, by the market who is buying it and the engines that burn it.

TWR

22nd Dec 2010, 14:35

$ 12/gal. And that's a good price...

Ultranomad

22nd Dec 2010, 14:38

Silvaire1, you are on one end of the spectrum. On the other end are whole countries like Russia, where all 100LL is imported and costs 2-3 times the cost of avtur.

Silvaire1

22nd Dec 2010, 15:17

Silvaire1, you are on one end of the spectrum. On the other end are whole countries like Russia, where all 100LL is imported and costs 2-3 times the cost of avtur.

Which explains why there are so many Yaks around here...

The business case for Jet-A burning piston engines depends on the expansion of the GA market volume in those areas, and the ongoing stability of that pricing structure. That's a different thing than selling to a stable, existing market, for which I think there is no business case.

What if the motivation for that pricing structure is anti-GA taxation versus anti-avgas? Is GA actually going to expand in those areas if the fuel needed is available? I think those are the questions that you'd need to answer, and money-men get very nervous when politics determine their success

FlyingStone

22nd Dec 2010, 15:57

USA is unique case where fuel costs almost the same as fresh air, GA is much more developed there, but you simply cannot compare it to Europe. Here in EASA land, especially Eastern Europe, it's hard to get hands on 100LL and if you do find an airport with 100LL, prices go through the roof :hmm:

It's probably hard to understand, but in Eastern Europe you can go 300 NM between two airfields which have 100LL - and most of them are short grass strips owned by local clubs, often in very poor condition. And of course many Cirrus/Seneca/Seminole/etc. aren't really excited to land there just to refuel, not to mention all the trouble with Customs :}

Silvaire1

22nd Dec 2010, 16:08

I came from Eutope originally and have spent a lot of time there over the last 10 years. I think the issue is that the the aero-engine market (and potential market) is a world market, not an extension of the small, stable, highly taxed European market.

Rotax has done well in the world market for small engines, focusing on auto fuel. Whatever happened to Continrntal's tie-in with Honda?

Ciao

TWR

22nd Dec 2010, 16:20

Anybody bringing out an affordable alternative
to avgas-burners will do business in Europe. Apart from Rotax,
Thielert did very well (saleswise). SMA isn't doing bad either when you
take into account the single STC (C182) and their strange dislike for publicity.

The problem is the damn avgas. Not only the price but
also the availability. It's a boutique fuel starting to look like
Kryptonite...

vee-tail-1

22nd Dec 2010, 16:43

At the risk of repeating an earlier discussion; there are a number of excellent diesel engines out there based on successful German WWII designs.
See: Gemini Engine (http://www.ppdgemini.com/)

and: zoche aero-diesels homepage (http://www.zoche.de/)

Sadly the available money was wasted on developing Thielert car type engines, when dedicated aircraft powerplants like above would have so much more potential.

Silvaire1

22nd Dec 2010, 17:01

I think the Junkers style engines are really cool, and I'm aware of another similar development that was done some years ago. The organization is that case eventually went with Thielert to limit development costs.

The Honda/Continental press release from 2003 is still on the TCM website. Honda would have the kind of budget to do a mogas engine, making a high risk bet on the market.

Teledyne Continental Motors ||Bulletins & Manuals|| (http://www.tcmlink.com/pressreleases/honda.html)

With support in the development process based on TCM's aviation expertise and know-how, Honda has developed a prototype piston aviation engine that has achieved the technical potential for being significantly advanced over currently available engines in terms of weight, fuel efficiency, power output and emissions.

(I'm trying to limit my contribution to thread drift to some degree!)