Thielert in trouble
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southern Victoria
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thielert in trouble
"Hamburg/Germany - Today the executive board of Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH, Lichtenstein, Saxony/Germany, has filed for the opening of insolvency at the county court Chemnitz concerning the assets of the company due to immediate illiquidity. Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH is a full subsidiary of Thielert AG.
The going concern of Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH can only be ensured permanently by restructuring activities with the support of investors, due to the fact that the Holding Thielert AG is not capable to do so anymore. As a consequence Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH aims for an insolvency plan proceeding. The insolvency plan shall be presented to the court and all creditors by the new appointed executive board and the interim insolvency administrator until the opening of the insolvency proceeding. A successful continuation of business in the insolvency plan proceeding is required."
. Hope they can get this back on the rails or a lot of Diamond aircraft will be looking for Lycoming retrofit kits and the Cessna diesels will be too.
Gotta put out reliable hardware or the warranty replacements will kill you.
The going concern of Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH can only be ensured permanently by restructuring activities with the support of investors, due to the fact that the Holding Thielert AG is not capable to do so anymore. As a consequence Thielert Aircraft Engines GmbH aims for an insolvency plan proceeding. The insolvency plan shall be presented to the court and all creditors by the new appointed executive board and the interim insolvency administrator until the opening of the insolvency proceeding. A successful continuation of business in the insolvency plan proceeding is required."
. Hope they can get this back on the rails or a lot of Diamond aircraft will be looking for Lycoming retrofit kits and the Cessna diesels will be too.
Gotta put out reliable hardware or the warranty replacements will kill you.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: in a fantasy world that is aviation.
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lol this doesnt come without surprise. The engines have constant oil leaks run by a FADEC which seem to enjoy changing loads and load response times at its own will. I guess its like running your merc engine at red line alot of the time, hence the reduction gear box (which also leaks).
For the sake of the DA42 operators out there, i hope thielert are rescued & re-designed.
For the sake of the DA42 operators out there, i hope thielert are rescued & re-designed.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thielert's Flawed Economics (And Why the Company Knows It)
By Paul Bertorelli
The war of words between Diamond Aircraft and Thielert Aircraft Engines continued this week, reaching a low arc at the Berlin Air Show. Bruno Kubler, who heads the firm overseeing Thielert's insolvency, used the forum to blast Diamond for what Kubler claimed was a disinformation campaign aimed at making Diamond customers "massively insecure." Why Diamond would want to do this is baffling, since it has on its hands some 800 distressed owners of airplanes equipped with Thielert diesel engines.
Diamond is engaging in a degree of brinksmanship, but given what appears to be Thielert's disastrous economics, who can blame them? The usual strategy in situations like this is for the companies involved to play footsy behind the scenes to work out a deal acceptable to all of the distressed parties. Unfortunately, Kubler's numbers appear to be so far off the mark that I don't see how this is possible.
This week, I took some time to put a sharp pencil on how Kubler's prices will reshape the economics of the Thielert Centurion line. I developed this data on my own from the Kubler-derived prices and my totals don't precisely agree with Diamond's, which it released in Wednesday. But my research does confirm that Kubler's prices raise the engine operating cost about six fold.
Further, the new prices raise the direct costs of operating the diesels to four or five times that of a gasoline engine. In fact, minus the fuel, Thielert diesel costs outstrip those of operating a turbine engine, such as Pratt & Whitney's PT6 or even a small jet engine. Why? Thielert still requires 300-hour removal and inspection of gearboxes, plus numerous other expensive parts. Furthermore, all these components have to be shipped back and forth to Germany for service and inspection. Shipping alone comes about $600 per inspection event.
This onerous maintenance load was one complaint owners had about the Thielert 1.7 Centurion. Thielert responded to this with the new-and-improved Centurion 2.0, which would double the gearbox inspection interval to 600 hours and increase the engine's time between replacement (TBR) to 2400 hours. But Diamond and owners complain that the documentation doesn't support this and they're still required to do the 300-hour gearbox removals. This is roughly the equivalent of yanking the transmission out of your car every 3000 miles and sending it back to the factory. Moreover, if the 2.0 really is a 2400-hour engine—and no one seems to know if it is or it isn't—the entire thing has to be shipped back to the factory for inspection at 1200 hours, costing $4000 in shipping alone. One flight school with three Twin Stars told me that it's probably more sensible to just replace the engine at 1200 hours rather than shipping it back to Germany.
As the late Everitt Dirksen famously said, you're talking about real money here. When you add everything up, Kubler's numbers just don't make sense. The rational way to examine this—if there's anything rational about any of this—is to compare the lifecycle costs of a Thielert 2.0 against a Lycoming at time of replacement. The numbers follow here. One point: On many Thielert parts, owners have the choice of new or inspected, which is basically a used component within service limits. The parts listed below aren't elective replacement—you have to replace them to keep the engine serviceable.
Cost of replacement engine: $51,150 Inspected gearboxes (3): $23,500 ($47,118 new) Shipping: $1800 High pressure pump: $1412 ($5550 new) Rail valve: $651 Feed pumps (3) $1255 Clutch (3) $1443 Clutch shaft (3) $1200 Alternator: $1426 ($2985 new) Scheduled labor $1800 Unscheduled labor $5000 Total: $90,637 Hourly engine (1200 basis): $75.53 Total hourly with fuel: $101.03
For unscheduled labor, I used 10 percent of the cost of the engine, based on owner surveys we've conducted. These numbers, by the way, represent the absolute best case and assume that no additional parts other than those scheduled will be required. Further, owners complain that the labor for gearbox changes is higher than Thielert said it would be, but I've used the lower number anyway to give Thielert the benefit of the doubt. But these numbers are almost certainly too low.
If new parts rather than inspected parts are used, the total comes to $119,952 or $99.96 for the hourly engine reserve or, when you add in fuel, $125.46. Oh, and double that for a DA42 Twin Star. This total may be sustainable in Europe and the U.K.—although I doubt it—but it's a non-starter in the U.S. But remember, the Centurion diesel is a world engine, not a U.S. engine.
Here's how a Lycoming IO-360 compares. It's apples to apples, because this is the engine Diamond uses in its DA40 Star, which also has a diesel option.
Lycoming IO-360 REM
Cost of replacement engine: $25,160 Top overhaul at mid-time: $8000 Unscheduled maintenance: $5000 Total: $38,160 Hourly engine (2000 hours basis) $19.08 Total hourly with fuel: $59.58
For the Lycoming comparison, I added a top overhaul that this engine is unlikely to need and I used unscheduled maintenance of 20 percent of engine cost, twice what I used for Thielert. Even with this lopsided comparison in favor of the Thielert, the Lycoming's costs are a little more than half of the Thielert's. They begin to break even at an avgas cost of around $9 a gallon. But, of course, if avgas costs that much, so does Jet A, so they never break even.
In some ways, the better comparison is between the Thielert Centurion and the Pratt & Whitney PT6, say the dash 114A used in the Caravan. It's a 675-HP free turbine engine with a 3500-hour TBO and overhaul costs in the $85,000 to $130,000 range. The Aircraft Bluebook Digest recommends a $37.14 per hour set aside for the PT6, or half what it takes to the fund the Thielert Centurion and without the onerous 300-hour inspections.
How could the industry have missed such breathtakingly screwed up economics? The companies involved missed it—Diamond and lately Cessna—missed it and we in the press (including me) absolutely glossed it over. In 2005, I visited Thielert's factory in Lichtenstein, in the former East Germany, and we went over the economics of this engine. I never got a clear explanation of how the power-per-hour pro-ration based on a 2400-hour engine was going to work. It seemed too expensive. How was Thielert going to make a go of it long term with all those built-in service costs? Persistent dumb ass questions led me to understand that the initial engine was a loss leader funded by investors who thought the model would turn the corner with sufficient volume and, once the engine had proved itself, the inspections would go away and TBO would increase.
They haven't. And that's what's killing this engine, more than anything else. Shipping perfectly good gearboxes back and forth to Germany is lunacy, as is removing them from the engines every 300 hours. Owners I've interviewed have told me there are problems with clutches, but the gearboxes themselves have proved durable. There's good evidence that this is true, because Thielert offers an "inspected" gearbox for half the price of a new one. But half price is still $7800, plus shipping, and you need to do that three times to get to the Centurion's tender 1200-hour TBO. Seventy-eight hundred bucks to inspect a gearbox? It's an aluminum case, some bearings and a couple of gears. How can that require $7800?
In my view, the inspections were probably built into the model not just as a prudent and admirable step toward proving durability, but also as a profit center to fund the rest of this engine's expensive recurrent maintenance needs. Logically, there's nothing wrong with that concept, as long as going forward, the customer benefits from the proven reliability and cost decrease.
Oddly, both Thielert and Kubler seem to be aware of this, but maintain that Germany's bankruptcy laws force them to run the company on a basis that shows no loss. This morning, Thielert spokesperson Christoph Moller e-mailed me this note:
"At the moment, due to German insolvency law, Mr. Kubler cannot produce any losses and must ask Thielert's clients for prices which meet the company's current expenses. We know, of course, that the new prices for replacement and inspection of parts are a burden for many of our and Diamond's clients. As you know, Mr. Kubler's aim is to find a long-term investor who will provide significant investments in order to push forward the Thielert engine technology which in fact is the future of the aircraft engine industry. To ensure long-lasting relations to his clients this investor will presumably establish a sustainable warranty and guarantee scheme which will improve the current situation significantly. There is a great possibility that this will include considerable efforts to advance Thielert engines especially in terms of prolonging the engines lifetime which in fact is not where it should be at the moment. This will reduce the inspection times and, by this, the costs for owners considerably then."
I take Moller's point, but it's difficult to see how this will make the business viable. In essence, the message to customers is this: pay us five to seven times what you expected to pay and, if we show no losses, we can turn this thing around and you'll maybe pay less later...if you don't mind buying expensive engines without warranties. To me, this looks like a negative feedback loop. The more you input rising prices, the less revenue you generate and the more you have to raise prices until a single customer pays $4 million for a gearbox and clutch. (Warranty extra.)
And if Thielert hopes to find investors to fund a business running on these rules, they'll need nerves of steel and be willing to pour in a pile of money for several years just to gain of glimpse whether it can be profitable. It seems unlikely that customers will stand by and fund what I view as a fiasco, nor should they be expected to. Thielert and Kubler can blame German bankruptcy laws if they wish, but the current strategy seems to serve no one—not creditors, not customers and not the industry.
On the other hand, maybe those of us who think that a Twin Star owner will balk at paying $180,000 to take a pair of diesel engines to 1200 hours are the delusional ones. Kubler tells us owners are "relieved" to know that parts are once again flowing. For some twisted reason, this reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about the brother thinking he's a chicken. "Why don't you call him on that?" asks the shrink. "I would," says the straight man, "but I need the eggs."
Maybe those 1200 or so Centurion owners need the eggs, too.
From http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A..._197998-1.html
By Paul Bertorelli
The war of words between Diamond Aircraft and Thielert Aircraft Engines continued this week, reaching a low arc at the Berlin Air Show. Bruno Kubler, who heads the firm overseeing Thielert's insolvency, used the forum to blast Diamond for what Kubler claimed was a disinformation campaign aimed at making Diamond customers "massively insecure." Why Diamond would want to do this is baffling, since it has on its hands some 800 distressed owners of airplanes equipped with Thielert diesel engines.
Diamond is engaging in a degree of brinksmanship, but given what appears to be Thielert's disastrous economics, who can blame them? The usual strategy in situations like this is for the companies involved to play footsy behind the scenes to work out a deal acceptable to all of the distressed parties. Unfortunately, Kubler's numbers appear to be so far off the mark that I don't see how this is possible.
This week, I took some time to put a sharp pencil on how Kubler's prices will reshape the economics of the Thielert Centurion line. I developed this data on my own from the Kubler-derived prices and my totals don't precisely agree with Diamond's, which it released in Wednesday. But my research does confirm that Kubler's prices raise the engine operating cost about six fold.
Further, the new prices raise the direct costs of operating the diesels to four or five times that of a gasoline engine. In fact, minus the fuel, Thielert diesel costs outstrip those of operating a turbine engine, such as Pratt & Whitney's PT6 or even a small jet engine. Why? Thielert still requires 300-hour removal and inspection of gearboxes, plus numerous other expensive parts. Furthermore, all these components have to be shipped back and forth to Germany for service and inspection. Shipping alone comes about $600 per inspection event.
This onerous maintenance load was one complaint owners had about the Thielert 1.7 Centurion. Thielert responded to this with the new-and-improved Centurion 2.0, which would double the gearbox inspection interval to 600 hours and increase the engine's time between replacement (TBR) to 2400 hours. But Diamond and owners complain that the documentation doesn't support this and they're still required to do the 300-hour gearbox removals. This is roughly the equivalent of yanking the transmission out of your car every 3000 miles and sending it back to the factory. Moreover, if the 2.0 really is a 2400-hour engine—and no one seems to know if it is or it isn't—the entire thing has to be shipped back to the factory for inspection at 1200 hours, costing $4000 in shipping alone. One flight school with three Twin Stars told me that it's probably more sensible to just replace the engine at 1200 hours rather than shipping it back to Germany.
As the late Everitt Dirksen famously said, you're talking about real money here. When you add everything up, Kubler's numbers just don't make sense. The rational way to examine this—if there's anything rational about any of this—is to compare the lifecycle costs of a Thielert 2.0 against a Lycoming at time of replacement. The numbers follow here. One point: On many Thielert parts, owners have the choice of new or inspected, which is basically a used component within service limits. The parts listed below aren't elective replacement—you have to replace them to keep the engine serviceable.
Cost of replacement engine: $51,150 Inspected gearboxes (3): $23,500 ($47,118 new) Shipping: $1800 High pressure pump: $1412 ($5550 new) Rail valve: $651 Feed pumps (3) $1255 Clutch (3) $1443 Clutch shaft (3) $1200 Alternator: $1426 ($2985 new) Scheduled labor $1800 Unscheduled labor $5000 Total: $90,637 Hourly engine (1200 basis): $75.53 Total hourly with fuel: $101.03
For unscheduled labor, I used 10 percent of the cost of the engine, based on owner surveys we've conducted. These numbers, by the way, represent the absolute best case and assume that no additional parts other than those scheduled will be required. Further, owners complain that the labor for gearbox changes is higher than Thielert said it would be, but I've used the lower number anyway to give Thielert the benefit of the doubt. But these numbers are almost certainly too low.
If new parts rather than inspected parts are used, the total comes to $119,952 or $99.96 for the hourly engine reserve or, when you add in fuel, $125.46. Oh, and double that for a DA42 Twin Star. This total may be sustainable in Europe and the U.K.—although I doubt it—but it's a non-starter in the U.S. But remember, the Centurion diesel is a world engine, not a U.S. engine.
Here's how a Lycoming IO-360 compares. It's apples to apples, because this is the engine Diamond uses in its DA40 Star, which also has a diesel option.
Lycoming IO-360 REM
Cost of replacement engine: $25,160 Top overhaul at mid-time: $8000 Unscheduled maintenance: $5000 Total: $38,160 Hourly engine (2000 hours basis) $19.08 Total hourly with fuel: $59.58
For the Lycoming comparison, I added a top overhaul that this engine is unlikely to need and I used unscheduled maintenance of 20 percent of engine cost, twice what I used for Thielert. Even with this lopsided comparison in favor of the Thielert, the Lycoming's costs are a little more than half of the Thielert's. They begin to break even at an avgas cost of around $9 a gallon. But, of course, if avgas costs that much, so does Jet A, so they never break even.
In some ways, the better comparison is between the Thielert Centurion and the Pratt & Whitney PT6, say the dash 114A used in the Caravan. It's a 675-HP free turbine engine with a 3500-hour TBO and overhaul costs in the $85,000 to $130,000 range. The Aircraft Bluebook Digest recommends a $37.14 per hour set aside for the PT6, or half what it takes to the fund the Thielert Centurion and without the onerous 300-hour inspections.
How could the industry have missed such breathtakingly screwed up economics? The companies involved missed it—Diamond and lately Cessna—missed it and we in the press (including me) absolutely glossed it over. In 2005, I visited Thielert's factory in Lichtenstein, in the former East Germany, and we went over the economics of this engine. I never got a clear explanation of how the power-per-hour pro-ration based on a 2400-hour engine was going to work. It seemed too expensive. How was Thielert going to make a go of it long term with all those built-in service costs? Persistent dumb ass questions led me to understand that the initial engine was a loss leader funded by investors who thought the model would turn the corner with sufficient volume and, once the engine had proved itself, the inspections would go away and TBO would increase.
They haven't. And that's what's killing this engine, more than anything else. Shipping perfectly good gearboxes back and forth to Germany is lunacy, as is removing them from the engines every 300 hours. Owners I've interviewed have told me there are problems with clutches, but the gearboxes themselves have proved durable. There's good evidence that this is true, because Thielert offers an "inspected" gearbox for half the price of a new one. But half price is still $7800, plus shipping, and you need to do that three times to get to the Centurion's tender 1200-hour TBO. Seventy-eight hundred bucks to inspect a gearbox? It's an aluminum case, some bearings and a couple of gears. How can that require $7800?
In my view, the inspections were probably built into the model not just as a prudent and admirable step toward proving durability, but also as a profit center to fund the rest of this engine's expensive recurrent maintenance needs. Logically, there's nothing wrong with that concept, as long as going forward, the customer benefits from the proven reliability and cost decrease.
Oddly, both Thielert and Kubler seem to be aware of this, but maintain that Germany's bankruptcy laws force them to run the company on a basis that shows no loss. This morning, Thielert spokesperson Christoph Moller e-mailed me this note:
"At the moment, due to German insolvency law, Mr. Kubler cannot produce any losses and must ask Thielert's clients for prices which meet the company's current expenses. We know, of course, that the new prices for replacement and inspection of parts are a burden for many of our and Diamond's clients. As you know, Mr. Kubler's aim is to find a long-term investor who will provide significant investments in order to push forward the Thielert engine technology which in fact is the future of the aircraft engine industry. To ensure long-lasting relations to his clients this investor will presumably establish a sustainable warranty and guarantee scheme which will improve the current situation significantly. There is a great possibility that this will include considerable efforts to advance Thielert engines especially in terms of prolonging the engines lifetime which in fact is not where it should be at the moment. This will reduce the inspection times and, by this, the costs for owners considerably then."
I take Moller's point, but it's difficult to see how this will make the business viable. In essence, the message to customers is this: pay us five to seven times what you expected to pay and, if we show no losses, we can turn this thing around and you'll maybe pay less later...if you don't mind buying expensive engines without warranties. To me, this looks like a negative feedback loop. The more you input rising prices, the less revenue you generate and the more you have to raise prices until a single customer pays $4 million for a gearbox and clutch. (Warranty extra.)
And if Thielert hopes to find investors to fund a business running on these rules, they'll need nerves of steel and be willing to pour in a pile of money for several years just to gain of glimpse whether it can be profitable. It seems unlikely that customers will stand by and fund what I view as a fiasco, nor should they be expected to. Thielert and Kubler can blame German bankruptcy laws if they wish, but the current strategy seems to serve no one—not creditors, not customers and not the industry.
On the other hand, maybe those of us who think that a Twin Star owner will balk at paying $180,000 to take a pair of diesel engines to 1200 hours are the delusional ones. Kubler tells us owners are "relieved" to know that parts are once again flowing. For some twisted reason, this reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about the brother thinking he's a chicken. "Why don't you call him on that?" asks the shrink. "I would," says the straight man, "but I need the eggs."
Maybe those 1200 or so Centurion owners need the eggs, too.
From http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/A..._197998-1.html
I've been following some of this stuff, not because I have any interest in Thielert and Diamond, but because several years ago I looked very very hard at marine and automotive diesels as well as writing, in ancient times, an expert report for one of those "new engine technology" start ups (which floated and failed).
The basic issue with engines is getting rid of heat. The more heavily loaded the engine, the harder that becomes, so the idea that Thielert was going to pull 135HP out of a 1.7 litre automotive diesel engine intrigued me.
I know the Centurion has a billet crank, and various fancy pistons/internals, but that doesn't really change the equation. The engine was designed for automotive use, and even with autobahn time thrown in, it would not be designed to operate at continuous power levels of more then 20 - 30% for any length of time, let alone the 55% plus required by aircraft cruise.
This translates into basic engine dimensions that Thielert can't alter - the sizes of bearing surfaces, the capacity of the cooling system and suchlike. It also translates into individual power pulse shape and magnitude, which is probably at the heart of gearbox issues. It translates into distortion of castings etc. that Theilert has no control over.
In my musings years ago a marine engineer put me right. He pointed out that my marine diesel in my yacht weighs 185KG and produces a measly 13 HP. But that's 13 HP continuous, all day, all night, at 35 degree angles of heel. It never misses a beat, and has been doing this most weekends for 25 years with nothing more than an occasional oil change, injector rebuild and valve clearance adjustment.
Of course I could get an engine from a Subaru WRX, weighs half as much and could squeeze 400HP out of it....but not for long. That's the dilemma.
The "old" direct drive engines look deceptively simple and antiquated, but as I learn more about them I realise they aren't. They appear to be one of the better solutions for extracting motive power out of liquid fuels in an aviation environment.
I wish Thielert well. They are travelling down the same road many others have followed....and from which none to my knowledge have returned - the one that starts with brave statements of "aircraft engines are crap compared to today's automotive engines." Seems they aren't.
The basic issue with engines is getting rid of heat. The more heavily loaded the engine, the harder that becomes, so the idea that Thielert was going to pull 135HP out of a 1.7 litre automotive diesel engine intrigued me.
I know the Centurion has a billet crank, and various fancy pistons/internals, but that doesn't really change the equation. The engine was designed for automotive use, and even with autobahn time thrown in, it would not be designed to operate at continuous power levels of more then 20 - 30% for any length of time, let alone the 55% plus required by aircraft cruise.
This translates into basic engine dimensions that Thielert can't alter - the sizes of bearing surfaces, the capacity of the cooling system and suchlike. It also translates into individual power pulse shape and magnitude, which is probably at the heart of gearbox issues. It translates into distortion of castings etc. that Theilert has no control over.
In my musings years ago a marine engineer put me right. He pointed out that my marine diesel in my yacht weighs 185KG and produces a measly 13 HP. But that's 13 HP continuous, all day, all night, at 35 degree angles of heel. It never misses a beat, and has been doing this most weekends for 25 years with nothing more than an occasional oil change, injector rebuild and valve clearance adjustment.
Of course I could get an engine from a Subaru WRX, weighs half as much and could squeeze 400HP out of it....but not for long. That's the dilemma.
The "old" direct drive engines look deceptively simple and antiquated, but as I learn more about them I realise they aren't. They appear to be one of the better solutions for extracting motive power out of liquid fuels in an aviation environment.
I wish Thielert well. They are travelling down the same road many others have followed....and from which none to my knowledge have returned - the one that starts with brave statements of "aircraft engines are crap compared to today's automotive engines." Seems they aren't.
Brian. That media article appears to be a little biased!! Whilst the Lycoming IO-360 TBO life costs appear very "conservative" .....
"It's a 675-HP free turbine engine with a 3500-hour TBO and overhaul costs in the $85,000 to $130,000 range."
Never in your wildest dreams, not even first life overhaul!!
"The Aircraft Bluebook Digest recommends a $37.14 per hour"
$130,000 total engine costs for 3,500 hours - including HSI, starter-generator overhaul, engine overhaul etc??
I suspect that Bluebook may be a pre 1980 edition!!!
Cessna's figure for Caravan engine provisions were $48.50 five or six years ago, based on 5,000 hour TBO (i.e. $240,000 first life engine cost) - and I think that figure is rather conservative!
"It's a 675-HP free turbine engine with a 3500-hour TBO and overhaul costs in the $85,000 to $130,000 range."
Never in your wildest dreams, not even first life overhaul!!
"The Aircraft Bluebook Digest recommends a $37.14 per hour"
$130,000 total engine costs for 3,500 hours - including HSI, starter-generator overhaul, engine overhaul etc??
I suspect that Bluebook may be a pre 1980 edition!!!
Cessna's figure for Caravan engine provisions were $48.50 five or six years ago, based on 5,000 hour TBO (i.e. $240,000 first life engine cost) - and I think that figure is rather conservative!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A minor quibble, but
isn't right. Lichtenstein is a fair way SWS of the old East Germany.
Still.., those new, real, operating costs are scary.
Is it a realistic proposition to put non-diesel engines into the affected aircraft ? or would it just be cheaper to break them up for parts. ?
... Thielert's factory in Lichtenstein, in the former East Germany
Still.., those new, real, operating costs are scary.
Is it a realistic proposition to put non-diesel engines into the affected aircraft ? or would it just be cheaper to break them up for parts. ?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the sake of the DA42 operators out there, i hope thielert are rescued & re-designed.
Whether this has any bearing (no pun intended) on Diamond's stance with Kubler, is hard to tell.
The big attraction of the DA42 is the phenomenal range afforded the aircraft by virtue of the economy of the diesel engine. Apparently, the lycoming powered version was a rocket ship but used up all the available payload in the extra fuel that had to be housed to give it a reasonable range.
Also, the Diesel DA42 is very smooth and quiet whereas the Lyc version is apparently neither (haven't flown that version but can attest to the diesel).
So, apart from the fact that the retro fitting of conventional petrol engines has a big hit on the aircraft AND makes it difficult to operate in many parts of the world, it really is the age of the diesel until electric/fuel cell engines come to pass (Don't hold your breath).
Thielert did at least try. Pioneers don't always have easy lives it seems.
The article by Bertorelli is only guilty of the journo's disease of stretching the best/worst case scenario gap.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Canberra
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any successfully operating Diesels running today on an aircraft?
Or is it all a pipe dream?
A lot of very interesting comments on this thread and a subject i personally find fascinating.
Or is it all a pipe dream?
A lot of very interesting comments on this thread and a subject i personally find fascinating.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Torres. I merely posted the article as I thought there may be interest. I have no vested interest or personal knowledge to make a judgement as to its content.
I wasn't questioning your integrity Brian, only questioning a possible bias in the media article you posted.
Biggles pointed out another error, which I'd missed.
I wonder if the current short inspection and TBO periods on the Thielert diesel are not part of the engine maturing process? Any manufacturer of aircraft components needs a big bank account to see their product through to maturity, a period which may take many years. For example, the original PT6 turbine engine of the late 1960's (installed in the Beech A90 for example) had a TBO of approximately 1,200 hours and many engines didn't make it.
Over forty years the PT6 has impoved manufacturing processes, improved materials and millions of hours experience, such that the base TBO is now around 3,500 hours, with the majority of engines "on condition" and running 5,000 hours plus between overhauls, with far less component change, overhaul or repair.
The diesel aircraft engine is an excellent, innovative concept - the way of the future - only made possible by recent developments in diesel engine technology. However, the manufacturer must have the financial resources to see the engine through to maturity, which may take many years.
Biggles pointed out another error, which I'd missed.
I wonder if the current short inspection and TBO periods on the Thielert diesel are not part of the engine maturing process? Any manufacturer of aircraft components needs a big bank account to see their product through to maturity, a period which may take many years. For example, the original PT6 turbine engine of the late 1960's (installed in the Beech A90 for example) had a TBO of approximately 1,200 hours and many engines didn't make it.
Over forty years the PT6 has impoved manufacturing processes, improved materials and millions of hours experience, such that the base TBO is now around 3,500 hours, with the majority of engines "on condition" and running 5,000 hours plus between overhauls, with far less component change, overhaul or repair.
The diesel aircraft engine is an excellent, innovative concept - the way of the future - only made possible by recent developments in diesel engine technology. However, the manufacturer must have the financial resources to see the engine through to maturity, which may take many years.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are there any successfully operating Diesels running today on an aircraft?
Or is it all a pipe dream?
A lot of very interesting comments on this thread and a subject i personally find fascinating.
Or is it all a pipe dream?
A lot of very interesting comments on this thread and a subject i personally find fascinating.
Isnt there a SMA 182 In Oz somewhere?
Its not a new Idea.......Junkers Jumo 205 1930's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Jumo_205)
The Junkers Jumo 205 aircraft engine was the most famous of a series of diesel engines that were the first, and for more than half a century, the only successful aircraft diesel engines. The Jumo 204 first entered service in 1932. Later engines in the series were styled Jumo 206, Jumo 207 and Jumo 208, and differed in stroke and bore and supercharging arrangements. In all more than 900 of these engines were produced.
These engines all used a two-stroke cycle with six cylinders and twelve pistons, in an opposed piston configuration with two crankshafts, one at the bottom of the cylinder block and the other at the top, geared together. The pistons moved towards each other during the operating cycle. Intake and exhaust manifolds were duplicated on both sides of the block. There were two cam-operated injection pumps per cylinder, each feeding two nozzles, for 4 nozzles per cylinder in all
These engines all used a two-stroke cycle with six cylinders and twelve pistons, in an opposed piston configuration with two crankshafts, one at the bottom of the cylinder block and the other at the top, geared together. The pistons moved towards each other during the operating cycle. Intake and exhaust manifolds were duplicated on both sides of the block. There were two cam-operated injection pumps per cylinder, each feeding two nozzles, for 4 nozzles per cylinder in all
Last edited by Daqqy152; 3rd Jun 2008 at 08:42.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Godzone
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
now THESE: http://www.zoche.de/specs.html look cool
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got so excited about 3 years ago over non-avgas aviation engines. (I don't get too many thrills at my age)
I bookmarked a few interweb sites such as Thielert, SMA, Zoche, Diesel Air, DeltaHawk, and Innodyn.
I recall that prices back then were usually vague and that certifications seemed to be soon.
Well., this thread made me revisit all those old bookmarks, and apart from Thielert going bust and an improved AUD exchange-rate, not much appears to have changed.
Total-cost-of-ownership prices (if you can find them), are still in the yeeouch dollars region.
eg. that SMA diesel in a C182 requires around USD 85k.
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...article_id=949
AVweb have an article about a possible saviour for Diamond aircraft.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._198003-1.html
I hope they succeed.
I bookmarked a few interweb sites such as Thielert, SMA, Zoche, Diesel Air, DeltaHawk, and Innodyn.
I recall that prices back then were usually vague and that certifications seemed to be soon.
Well., this thread made me revisit all those old bookmarks, and apart from Thielert going bust and an improved AUD exchange-rate, not much appears to have changed.
Total-cost-of-ownership prices (if you can find them), are still in the yeeouch dollars region.
eg. that SMA diesel in a C182 requires around USD 85k.
http://www.flyingmag.com/article.asp...article_id=949
AVweb have an article about a possible saviour for Diamond aircraft.
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news..._198003-1.html
I hope they succeed.
"These engines all used a two-stroke cycle with six cylinders and twelve pistons, in an opposed piston configuration with two crankshafts, one at the bottom of the cylinder block and the other at the top, geared together."
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Perth
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way of the diesel is a commendable move forward, and the issue of ongoing availability of Avgas (and present in some locations) is probably reason enough.
But it doesn't hurt to look back occasionally.
Thielerts Centurion engine has a claimed BSFC of .365 lbs/hp/hr, that's pretty good, however the R3500 compound radial achieved .385 and if memory serves me right the IO-550 has figures around the same, .385 So in reality if you set the fuel management up correctly you're not that far behind the Centurion diesel. Although keep in mind the fuel SG screws this figure a bit.
But when you put the engine on the wing other factors come into play, which favour the Avgas flat engines.
The diesel is a bigger engine necessitating a larger cowl and hence increased drag.
The weight of Jet A fuel is heavier than Avgas.
The mass of a diesel engine per hp is greater than an Avgas equivalent per hp.
Any time power is passed through a gearbox some losses occur. (financial as well in this case
)
The design limitations for propellers (at least at the moment) are restrictive due power pulse loads and issues of harmonics. Such that Thielert was (as I understand) unable to marry an alloy prop to their engine.
I wouldn't mind a quiet bet that had a 135 hp turbo normalised Jabiru style engine been mated to the Diamonds the real differences may well have favoured the Avgas version.
Fingers crossed though that Diamond can get their 165 hp Austro engine up and running quick enough that they don't lose their market.
M
But it doesn't hurt to look back occasionally.
Thielerts Centurion engine has a claimed BSFC of .365 lbs/hp/hr, that's pretty good, however the R3500 compound radial achieved .385 and if memory serves me right the IO-550 has figures around the same, .385 So in reality if you set the fuel management up correctly you're not that far behind the Centurion diesel. Although keep in mind the fuel SG screws this figure a bit.
But when you put the engine on the wing other factors come into play, which favour the Avgas flat engines.
The diesel is a bigger engine necessitating a larger cowl and hence increased drag.
The weight of Jet A fuel is heavier than Avgas.
The mass of a diesel engine per hp is greater than an Avgas equivalent per hp.
Any time power is passed through a gearbox some losses occur. (financial as well in this case
)The design limitations for propellers (at least at the moment) are restrictive due power pulse loads and issues of harmonics. Such that Thielert was (as I understand) unable to marry an alloy prop to their engine.
I wouldn't mind a quiet bet that had a 135 hp turbo normalised Jabiru style engine been mated to the Diamonds the real differences may well have favoured the Avgas version.
Fingers crossed though that Diamond can get their 165 hp Austro engine up and running quick enough that they don't lose their market.
M
Last edited by youngmic; 3rd Jun 2008 at 13:20.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the diesel is a good concept to bring back into aviation, but Thielert's bid to convert an automobile engine was probably not the way to go.
In that respect, the Diamond approach may be similarly flawed.
As has been pointed out, it seems that the gearbox is the nub of the problem. Most production diesels are optimally torqued at just about the right rpm for best propeller efficiency, so at first sight why a gearbox?
We all know that every notorious aircraft engine built has a gearbox, the SGIO540, GTSO520 to name just two. I'm sure others have more great examples.
The marriage of an automobile engine to a propellor needs one if only to enable the propellor to be mounted to an engine that was designed to mate with a clutch/gearbox etc. Also there's the shock pulses to absorb, but elastic couplings are well along the way since Continental came unstuck with the Tiara line. Perhaps a belt might have been cheaper and more effective.
It's probably a bit unfair to compare them to the R3500 as it had volumetric efficiency on it's side and the IO550 only gets close by operating lean of peak which has it's own demands.
Neither will run on Jet A-1 and certainly not Bio-diesel.
I wouldn't put the dismal to bed yet.
In that respect, the Diamond approach may be similarly flawed.
As has been pointed out, it seems that the gearbox is the nub of the problem. Most production diesels are optimally torqued at just about the right rpm for best propeller efficiency, so at first sight why a gearbox?
We all know that every notorious aircraft engine built has a gearbox, the SGIO540, GTSO520 to name just two. I'm sure others have more great examples.
The marriage of an automobile engine to a propellor needs one if only to enable the propellor to be mounted to an engine that was designed to mate with a clutch/gearbox etc. Also there's the shock pulses to absorb, but elastic couplings are well along the way since Continental came unstuck with the Tiara line. Perhaps a belt might have been cheaper and more effective.
It's probably a bit unfair to compare them to the R3500 as it had volumetric efficiency on it's side and the IO550 only gets close by operating lean of peak which has it's own demands.
Neither will run on Jet A-1 and certainly not Bio-diesel.
I wouldn't put the dismal to bed yet.