Textron Introduces Diesel 172
Thread Starter
Textron Introduces Diesel 172
Textron Introduces Diesel 172 - AVweb flash Article
Sheesh, $420,000 USD ($60,000 more than AVGAS) that burns 3 USG less per hour than the AVGAS version.
Cant see flying schools lining up for a whole fleet of them.
Will diesel engine prices fall with economies of scale?
Sheesh, $420,000 USD ($60,000 more than AVGAS) that burns 3 USG less per hour than the AVGAS version.
Cant see flying schools lining up for a whole fleet of them.
Will diesel engine prices fall with economies of scale?
Just what the yanks were looking for, a diesel powered 172. It'll probably sell just as well as the diesel powered 182, which means, not a lot.
As OZ3 suggested, all a flying school needs is a 160hp avgas powered 172, with steam driven instrumentation, rubber mats on the floor and cloth covered seats under your backside.
The current Cessna management (accountants, all of them) are not interested in single engine anything, Caravans included. As has been pointed out elsewhere, about all they can see are Citations and government contracts. They seem to be hell bent on running down the single piston sales to the point where they can make excuses about closing down production because of poor sales.
As OZ3 suggested, all a flying school needs is a 160hp avgas powered 172, with steam driven instrumentation, rubber mats on the floor and cloth covered seats under your backside.
The current Cessna management (accountants, all of them) are not interested in single engine anything, Caravans included. As has been pointed out elsewhere, about all they can see are Citations and government contracts. They seem to be hell bent on running down the single piston sales to the point where they can make excuses about closing down production because of poor sales.
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Tamworth,NSW
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[The current Cessna management (accountants, all of them) are not interested in single engine anything, Caravans included. As has been pointed out elsewhere, about all they can see are Citations and government contracts. They seem to be hell bent on running down the single piston sales to the point where they can make excuses about closing down production because of poor sales.]
Sounds like the same mob that's running Qantas.
Sounds like the same mob that's running Qantas.
People, the next biggest thing to sell in Aviation will be engines! And especially fuel efficient and clean burning ones too. Everyone has upgraded their Avionics, the next biggest expense is an engine to improve performance and reliability.
The only other technology to come out that will interest owners and flying schools is better and lighter paint, with easy changeability. And maybe newer lightweight interiors.
Diesel concept technology is the way to go.
To the Future, KP.
The only other technology to come out that will interest owners and flying schools is better and lighter paint, with easy changeability. And maybe newer lightweight interiors.
Diesel concept technology is the way to go.
To the Future, KP.
Currawong,
My understanding was that the engine uses the Diesel cycle to ignite JetA1, not Diesel fuel.
...I may be wrong
My understanding was that the engine uses the Diesel cycle to ignite JetA1, not Diesel fuel.
...I may be wrong
Long term I feel that diesel or JetA1 is the way to go. Avgas can be extremely difficult to get in some remote locations these days, not to mention that you will pay through the nose for it if you can get it. Avgas these days in PNG is basically not available anywhere, even Moresby these days and the large operators who are using piston engined aircraft are having to import their own Avgas into country as the fuel suppliers aren't generally stocking it now.
You won't put Aussie made diesel in an aircraft, you use Jet A1 as noted above.
via peterC005:
Improvements in engine efficiency and emissions are desperately needed.
Improvements in engine efficiency and emissions are desperately needed.
One always wants to go faster, higher.... though, so did the Wright Brothers.
I've not noticed any emissions concerned desperate flying school operators running around airfields of late...
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well I saw it this morning, and it is a 172, but the truth is it is not 3 USG better and it is (from memory) 155 HP.
The burn at best BSFC is really more like 2 GPH but the TD will hold HP to higher heights, so it will go a bit quicker too.
The burn at best BSFC is really more like 2 GPH but the TD will hold HP to higher heights, so it will go a bit quicker too.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We should not view the introduction of this airframe/engine from a mature market centric position.
Cessna and other OEMs see the future growth market for sales will be in the regions where Avgas is not available.
The future market for light aircraft sales in the traditional markets is bleak at best.
There is no long-term future in Avgas.
Other OEMs will focus their attention in a similar direction. Such as Gipps Aero with the (future) relatively cheap GA10.
Cessna and other OEMs see the future growth market for sales will be in the regions where Avgas is not available.
The future market for light aircraft sales in the traditional markets is bleak at best.
There is no long-term future in Avgas.
Other OEMs will focus their attention in a similar direction. Such as Gipps Aero with the (future) relatively cheap GA10.
Join Date: Jun 1996
Location: Check with Ops
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I get the point of the diesel engine but who on Earth can afford to spend $420,000 on a single-engine, four seat 'spam can'? I like the 172 and agree it is an iconic aircraft but that is just really silly money for what it is.
People, the next biggest thing to sell in Aviation will be engines! And especially fuel efficient and clean burning ones too. Everyone has upgraded their Avionics, the next biggest expense is an engine to improve performance and reliability.
The current Avgas engines are already very fuel efficient by spark ignition standards. They're also pretty damn reliable unlike the Thielert engines. No gear box issues etc.
"Upgrading" as you call it to a diesel engine isn't just a matter of bolting in another engine. There's the small matter of a new engine mount, and probably new cowls and also I suspect a new prop. The initial conversion cost can be pretty eye watering.
While this new engine may improve performance at high altitude (due to the turbo charger) I don't see much performance gain for most operators and certainly no improvement in reliability. In fact based on the earlier Thielerts I'd expect less reliability. But I do see plenty of up front costs which are not necessarily going to be offset by any fuel burn savings.
Also what happens when the turbo fails especially at altitude?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aero enterprise at lismore many moons ago had a kit for 172 and 182 for a desiel conversion but it never went any where due to the cost of it. I don't remember which engine it was they where using but
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Vail, Colorado, USA
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are still major problems with props and diesel engines. Only steel props will work at this point. Very heavy. There are other issues as well that Teledyne nor CMI want to talk about publicly. They want to look like they think the public wants them to look--that diesels are the wave of the future. I am less than convinced. An unleaded AVgas will arrive and the diesel rage will wane.
Diesels in airplanes are like fitting a submarine with an air-cooled engine. I guess you "could" do it, but why would you?
Diesels in airplanes are like fitting a submarine with an air-cooled engine. I guess you "could" do it, but why would you?