Diesels

[KCDW]

Hardly a month goes by without Flyer! Magazine (only one I subscribe to) trumpeting the arrival of a new diesel fitted aeroplane. I was particularly interested when they announced the first PA28 fitted with a diesel. They’ve been around some time now. Does anyone know of any clubs that have purchased a diesel fitted machine? Have they passed on the savings? And, typically, what are the hourly rates?

[Dan Winterland]

From what I have seen, the diesel conversion of a PA 28 is so expensive, I can't imagine the savings of operating one being passed on to the customer within decades!

For my club to convert it's PA 28s to diesels, the cost is more than the value of the aircraft. They won't be viable until the manufacturers install them as original equipment.

[CessnaEng]

The reason that you have not seen any diesels advertised is that none have yet made it onto the British register. Should start to come about this winter...but the initial cost is high however to think of it slightly differently you can pay £15 to £20k for an ordinary ovewrhaul or £35k for the diesel conversion. I suspect when clubs think about it they will like the idea. I also don't think that the lower operating cost will be passed to the hirer straight away.

My hypothesis is that diesels will start to encroach slowly (Dunkeswell flying club being one of the first as they are owned by the same people as are doing the UK conversions). When the first conversions start to come down in price the market will dictate that many clubs will want the diesel. There is a critical event horizon where the development costs are recouped and if enough are sold before this drags the developers under it will be a success. What I can't see is many private owners or groups buying them.

[IanSeager]

There have been a few delays with getting all of the components together for the PA28 conversions apparently, that and the fact that Diamond have ordered quite a few diesel engines for their DA40 means that they haven't yet hit our shores...not too long now though.

Thanks for subscribing

Ian

[Andrew M]

Hardly a month goes by without Flyer! Magazine (only one I subscribe to) trumpeting the arrival of a new diesel fitted aeroplane.

I know !

Seen this months edition ?

A flight review of the DA-40 (again). *Sigh*

I don't think that there will be immediate cut backs on hourly rates - (EDIT) €40,000 was the last price tag I seen for a diesel for a C172. (From flyer magazine) Engine only at €19,500

There was a review a while back (within this year) about a C172 converted to diesel.

The performance of the engine isn't as good in the "spamcans" as on the lighter composite Diamond Stars.

[100LL]

Andrew i think the DA40's slightly Heavier than the 172 and i dont think the mod for the PA28's been approved yet.
Yes there is a TAE Diesel running on these shores albeit on the Austrian register.

[Andrew M]

Yeah, but Jet A1 fuel has a higher density, so if you consider a full tank, then it would be heavier than the equivilent C172 filled with AvGas.

i dont think the mod for the PA28's been approved yet.

In December, CAA approval was expected "in the first quarter of 2003". Haven't heard any update on that yet, but Meridian Aviation bought a 1980-PA28 Warrior and converting it as a demonstration aircraft.

Also, I said in my last post the price was €40,000.

Looking back, there was an article that said £40,000 if I remember correctly.

[Mike Cross]

I agree with the thought that it will be a long time coming.

I have a fast RIB (Rigid Inflatable Boat) with a 140 hp outboard. There are 3 choices of engine for this type of boat

2 stroke outboard (least capital cost, best power/weight ratio, horrendous fuel/oil consumption)
4 stroke outboard (more expensive, better fuel economy)
inboard diesel (highest capital cost, lowest power/weight ratio MUCH lower fuel costs (runs on duty-free red diesel)

All of these options have been available for quite a few years now but the vast majority of owners still go for the 2 stroke outboard because at the average level of use the owner would not recoup the additional capital cost (and its lost ROI) out of the fuel savings.

It's a different story for commercial workhorses, where the rate of ustilisation is much higher.

I suspect the same issues will mitigate against re-engining.

Also of course a re-engine will have a lot of additional expense not incurred in a new build. (Throw away your engine mount, exhaust, ancillaries etc. etc. and replace them with new)

Mike

[Genghis the Engineer]

In aid of a RAeS conference on light aircraft design that I'm helping put together, I did a phone around about a month ago of all the people advertising aero-diesels.

It appears very much that so far as certification is concerned nobody is very far down the line - the aircraft written about in Flyer and others all seem to be only at the late-prototype stage is concerned. Probably the best new-technology engine, the British Wilsch engine simply doesn't seem to be pursuing certification (although does appear to work well on a few PFA types such as the Europa).

Needs another year or two methinks. But ultimately, they do - at least in the 100-400hp bracket - show every signs of doing a lot to cut running costs down.

G

[BlueRobin]

Seen this months edition ?

A flight review of the DA-40 (again). *Sigh*

That was last month's edition!

The point of said review was to conduct a READER flight test. For what I can gather, this was quite a well-received feature and will be done again soon. :ok:

(Pssst! IanS - a dual seat Spit or Boeing/Airbus Sim ride would be great ;) )


Have to agree with our Mr Cross. Our old Warrior needs a new engine. Does the owner of BlueRobins fork out 12-15k for a new O-320 or at least double that for a Centurion 1.7?

Now consider the demand for the aircraft. It flies 50 hours a month. If people are still queuing up for the £98/hr, why go for something cheaper? Bit barrow minded in the long-term granted because the market is bound to change with diesel offering lower flying rates, but still the need for a new engine is now.

Speaking of lower flying rates offered by diesels, I did some calculations on this. Based on the retrofit converison for a Centurion 1.7, I figured the cost per hour saving would only be £10 to £15 per hour. Why? Capital outlay is so high, the operator would need to recoup this and do so soon-ish.

Let's also not forget Bombardier have the hush-hush range of higher powered Rotax engines coming out. I daresay these won't need to run on AVGAS 100LL. :)

Quick thought about the current Rotax range and 100LL. They have to be serviced (http://www.conairsports.co.uk/4stroke_service.htm) twice as much compared to running on UL mogas.

[IO540]

I think Diesels are great and full credit to those UK flying mags that keep doing reviews of them!

FADEC is great and decades overdue.

BUT...

A retrofit isn't economical unless the plane is doing some 500+ hours/year, which basically means a flying school, and how many of those can afford to do more than the absolute minimum "VFR legal" maintenance?

Or it means buying a brand new plane, and new piston plane sales in the UK are very low.

Anyone buying one is going to be a guinea-pig, both for the technology and for the UK maintenance arrangements. I would want cast iron guarantees on both fronts.

As an aircraft owner and speaking from some experience on this, I would very carefully verify prior to purchase the exact warranty terms, whether any work can be done locally or whether you need to cart the plane to the dealer for just about everything. A lot of businesses operating in GA are perpetually nearly bankrupt and what you might regard as your friendly local maintenance shop might not be viewed favourably by the dealer, or vice versa. I cannot use my local JAR145 shop for most warranty work because the dealer who supplied the plane won't pay their invoices.

And finally, make sure the plane can be placed on the G- register before purchase. Suprisingly, not everybody checks, one man I know got caught by this. The dealer didn't say anything...

If I was going to start a flying school, I would get a fleet of diesel DA40s, without a question.

[KCDW]

Thanks for the responses - Unfortunately it looks like it will be a while before we can see the overall cost of flying go down. I'm due to return back to Blighty after my stint here in the US next month, and frankly not looking forward to the reduced hours on my flying budget :ugh:

[Andrew M]

If I was going to start a flying school, I would get a fleet of diesel DA40s, without a question.

Not for ab initio PPL's - that would be pretty foolish. Teaching how to use the mixture/carb heat and running checks is a basic part of the PPL. How are you going to teach your students that in a FADEC machine ?

For hours building hire, then your talking. But for basic PPL training, maybe not.

I don't hold a PPL (hoping to start very soon though) and I wouldn't feel comfortable spending my money flying in an aircraft that doesn't teach me some of the fundamentals to flying other, more regular aircraft. Considering most schools/clubs still use Cessnas and Pipers on Avgas for their hire aircraft, then I would be at a disadvantage.

[Flyin'Dutch']

Have to agree with IO540.

But will these savings on fuel make all that much difference?

I doubt it.

If we assume that the typical fuel cost for a training mount (150/152/PA38 is approximately £20 per hour) This may reduce to £5 for the fuel with an additional cost of £5 for the engine (being more expensive and to get converted). The saving per hour would be £10.

For a the PPL syllabus this equates to £450 and for the average PPL annual budget (lets say 15 hour) £150.

Now nobody will sneeze at a 10% saving but it is not suddenly going to fill the skies with diesel machines. Most peeps live within their means or just outside them.

I suspect that they will continue to do so and will just burn of an extra hour per year to stay within theirs. Nobody will embark upon a PPL course just because it will now cost 'only £4150 rather than £4500.

Will fuel savings be passed on to the punters?

No. Maybe you can get to fly a better machine for the same price (as I think the conversions will likely be done in the better club trainers rather than the most clapped out 150) but the justification will be in the higher capital outlay for the converted machine.

If you think that cheaper fuel means cheaper flying you only have to study a 'where to fly guide' and look at the places where fuel is really dirt cheap and compare their training/rental prices with the UK average. No difference last time I looked.

AndrewM

Not for ab initio PPL's - that would be pretty foolish. Teaching how to use the mixture/carb heat and running checks is a basic part of the PPL

The same way as you teach them to use flaps/sideslipping/retractable gear/wobbly prop/fuel injection/2engines and anything else which they have not encountered during the initial training and need later on in their PPL life!

You teach them what they need to know for the mount they are using at that moment, not for something they may or maynot encounter at some point in their life.

FD

[IO540]

Andrew M

I don't hold a PPL (hoping to start very soon though) and I wouldn't feel comfortable spending my money flying in an aircraft that doesn't teach me some of the fundamentals to flying other, more regular aircraft. Considering most schools/clubs still use Cessnas and Pipers on Avgas for their hire aircraft, then I would be at a disadvantage.

Point taken, BUT (and I say this only partially tongue in cheek) have you considered that you might want to get some serious utility out of your flying one day? If so, consider the reaction of a bird (a girl!!) which you are trying to impress, when she is

1) getting into a 1971 Cessna 150 (which to most people looks like it won't make the next flight, but they don't mind getting in because the instructor will die with them, and they assume "he doesn't want to die, so it will probably be OK")

2) getting into a new DA40 (which looks like a serious SEXY plane, a bit like the sort of car etc she is accustomed to)

??

The unfortunate reality is that in the eyes of most of the general public, flying small planes (great fun) and spotting small planes (rather sad) are two activities which are rapidly converging. Soon, the CAA will need to hand out an anorak with a new PPL. I believe this is the main reason why fewer and fewer people are learning. There's plenty of money about (stand next to the M25 for 30 seconds for example) so that's not the problem. The sooner the business gets away from flying decrepit old junk the better. The rest (diesel engines, FADEC, etc) are of secondary importance.

:O

Incidentally, if I was running a school with a fleet of DA40s, with in-warranty planes, guaranteed buy-back deals and diesel fuel I could match the hourly rates of the 1970s Cessna outfit next door. I would train in the the DA40s, and they would be available for self fly hire afterwards, so the issue of type conversion to WW2 technology would be a non-issue for (mostly local) pilots.

A really smart school would sell aircraft shares to the more keen pilots, and when enough shares have been sold in a particular plane, that plane could be detached from the school and the school can then buy another one, brand new of course.

[FlyingForFun]

Personally, if I was running a school (yeah, keep dreaming!) I'd train my students on whatever aircraft I have.

Andrew M, I see your point about the lack of training in carb heat and mixture - but every aircraft has its own little curiousities, and no one would get into any aircraft without appropriate training for that aircraft. If someone learns on a diesel aircraft with FADEC, and then wants to transition to a Continental or Lycoming powered aircraft, they would need to convert.

Just the same as I've had to convert to understand the peculiarities of the Rotax, and the electronically-controlled variable pitch propellor, in my current aircraft. And the same as the way I have to remember that the first stage of flaps can be lowered at a higher speed than the white arc on the C172 I hire occassionally. And the Great Lakes (the only one out of a fleet of three, incidentally) that one particular school has which won't turn left on the ground at normal taxy speeds without using differential braking.

Each aircraft is different, so just take the time to understand your new aircraft before climing in, and there's no problem.

FFF
-----------

[Andrew M]

Andrew M, I see your point about the lack of training in carb heat and mixture - but every aircraft has its own little curiousities, and no one would get into any aircraft without appropriate training for that aircraft. If someone learns on a diesel aircraft with FADEC, and then wants to transition to a Continental or Lycoming powered aircraft, they would need to convert.

So, for PPL courses completed in FADEC aircraft, do we suggest that rather than going for a type rating in a C172 or whatever - then we go for a small non-FADEC aircraft rating (like the IMC and night rating) then a type rating as normal, or just the first type rating off a FADEC-powered aircraft is extended to take heed on the fact the student has not only not flown the aircraft he/she is doing the type rating for, but he/she has never flew ANY aircraft without FADEC.

I cannot really explain this properly, but basically what I mean is - learning how to use mixture/carb heat and so on is normally taught during PPL, so it wouldn't need to be re-taught when doing a type rating - only characteristics that make the particular aircraft different is need to be taught.

However, if he/she is only used to FADEC, then they will need to know a little more on the first type rating than your average PPL student.

Best regards,
Andrew

[FlyingForFun]

Andrew,

There is no such thing as a type rating for something like a C172. You may have a type checkout - in fact, most clubs or insurance companies would insist on it - but there's no legal requirement to do so.

What you must do is make sure you're familiar with the systems of any new aircraft you fly.

If you happen to have a chance to fly a normally-aspirated petrol-engined C172 (note I'm being very careful about specifying the details here - the C172 I fly is fuel injected, and so doesn't have a carb heat control!) and all the aircraft you've ever flown have had FADEC, then even if your insurance company or the aircraft owner didn't explicitly say so, you would have a duty to ensure that you understood that aircraft's systems before you flew it. The same would apply to any new type, or even any new aircraft even if you're familiar with the type.

Depending on how complex the systems are compared to what you're used to, that might involve some dual time with an instructor, or it might be ground time with an instructor, or it might just be your reading the manuals. Admitedly in the case of carb heat and mixture, you reading the manuals probably isn't enough, but legally there's nothing that stipulates that.

You say that "learning how to use mixture/carb heat and so on is normally taught during PPL". There is nothing on the PPL syllabus which specifies that you must learn to use mixture and carb heat. However, you must learn to operate the aircraft you'll be using for your test - if that aircraft has a mixture control and a carb heat control, then you must learn to use them, otherwise you don't have to. Likewise, if do your test on a tail-wheel aircraft you must learn to do 3-point landings, otherwise you don't have to. And if the aircraft you use for your test has flaps you must be able to use them, but if it doesn't, you don't have to.

To compare to the world of driving, you don't need to learn to double-declutch in order to pass a driving test. On the other hand, if you (are mad enough to) choose to take your driving test in an early 20th century car without synchro-mesh then you will have to learn to double-declutch. If you choose to buy such a car after your test, then you will learn to double-declutch as you learn to drive the new car.

FFF
------------

[Andrew M]

There is no such thing as a type rating for something like a C172. You may have a type checkout - in fact, most clubs or insurance companies would insist on it - but there's no legal requirement to do so.

Yeah, sorry that's what I meant.

Even thought there is no legal requirement (unlike commercial flying where a type rating is required), I would still "get checked-out" in the type of aircraft I was going to fly.

I guess most people would - especially beginners.

[BlueRobin]

Let's put it simply.

PPLs learn a lot of technical subject matter in ground school (e.g. turbos, retracts etc), which the average PPL is unlikely to use. We still learn it though

Now, imagine we are in diesel/FADEC land. The technology has just gone mass market. Critical mass if you will. Still the old technology will floating around somewhere.

The ground school will still cover the theory and hence at least educate the student of the principles. For this reaosn, alone the PPL won't become totally unskilled with respect to engine management.

Sorted. Geezer. Respect due. :cool:



BR

Hi FFF! :p

[IO540]

I honestly don't think FADEC is an issue at all for training. There are far more differences between e.g. a DA40 and a typical school plane, not least that a DA40 will have a lot more stuff in the panel and, being a new aircraft, the stuff is likely to work!

I did my PPL in C150s, PA38s, C152s and while all of these had a mixture lever, nobody ever told me what to do with it, other than shutting the engine off with it.

And if someone has done their PPL in a DA40, they will never want to get inside, let alone fly, anything else that is normally on offer!

Last time I spoke to Diamond the diesel DA40 was listed at about 160k + VAT so I don't think everybody will be worrying about this anyway :O

[BlueRobin]

so I don't think everybody will be worrying about this anyway

...well, not until Robin or Diamond stick a cheap diesel into their 2-seat trainers that is! :E

[Andrew M]

Well, I don't think learning in any new aircraft is realistic - as it is unlikely to get most club aircraft to have everything working as mentioned.

Teaching non-FADEC engine operations will soon become what the other old practices will - such as prop swinging or whatever it's called.