clearedtoreenter, from memory you are correct. EPS claims to have overcome the problem and have an aluminium prop on their EPS 350.
It is fitted into a cirrus, as test bed.
Compression ignition using JetA1 is the future for General aviation, the availability of Avgas is a major issue.

The Austro Diesel engines fitted to Diamond Aircraft use MT composite props and have done right through development. Walter Atkinson, I'm disappointed.

Austro are also working on STC's for other airframes and their 170hp diesel/jetA1 engines.

That's what happens when you try the con of telling everyone that a 135 HP diesel can match a 160 HP avgas engine.

I see Continentals new CD 300 diesel engine is only 17% heavier (it's actually more like 20%) than it's avgas equivalent. That should be a real selling point.

Gentlemen:

A lot of testing has been going on concerning the use of composite and aluminum props on diesels. The mounting data is that these applications, while they can hold up in the short term, are not well-suited to the very high combustion pulses transferred to the crank and the prop. More than a few props have been destroyed whilst being tested. Time will show what I am reporting is accurate. Wishful thinking is a poor substitute for hard data. A delaminated prop will make for an interesting ride.

As I've stated before the hymomics of a desiel engine destroys props and airframes. You need to run a Cush drive in the hub. What's need ed is a low cost turbine if you won't to run jet a

Having seen both the 172 and 182, the 172 option is DUMB. The 182 with the SMA engine is the smarter of the two…….BUT.

………………anyone know why they have had two (2) engine failures in the certification test process so far? :ooh:

I have said this before……I would like to try one but it would get the same VFR flight that I would do in a two stroke ultralight.

Walter. All Austro Diesel Engines use a torsional vibration damper between the crankshaft and the gearbox and vibration levels are monitored by the ECU. Ie:- the prop and the crankshaft are not hard mounted together.

Did I mention it's certified for Jet A1 and all it's aviation equivalents PLUS good ol' pump diesel.

I don't understand why your so anti diesels. Most certified airframe manufacturers are investing in some capacity into this technology. Clearly it is a valid pathway to reducing overall running costs.

Austro believe that after a few years of collecting data from in service engines there's no reason why they're engines couldn't have an 'On Condition TBO". They all have mandated oil analysis as part of the maintenance program.

Have you ever flown one?

2 flywheels attach the crank to the gearbox with a torsional vibration damper inside. Takes care of high frequency vibes as well as rapid changes in power application.

Aviater, is your "good ol' pump diesel" the diesel that is available in Australia?

There are engines here already certified for diesel, are being run on diesel, but the grades certified are not what is available here.

I've been personally informed by one of the project heads that Australian Pump diesel has been certified for use. Have been looking for supporting documentation but am still waiting to hear back.

During testing one of their DA42 NG aircraft did 2500 hours without teardown on what they called agricultural or farm diesel. That was in Europe though.

You may wish to check out CASA AWB 28-015

How can a b***dy diesel engine be a $60,000 "optional upgrade" over the lycoming?! You can get a complete brand new diesel Hilux for a lot less

BP Diesel restriction.
 

Might want to have a look at the BP Diesel site. Specifically said not to be used in aircraft

:= http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp-cou...ate_Diesel.pdf

$60,000, which I presume is USD, buys one hell of a lot of avgas especially when you consider the difference between the avgas cost and the cost of JetA1 for the same flight time.

What TBO are they giving for the diesel engine?

I'd venture to suggest the Lycoming IO540 will have a higher TBO and lower direct operating costs and overhaul costs.

Why anyone in this part of the world would even consider a diesel C182 beats me. As for retro fitting, it ain't going to happen.

Also the elephant in the room is the turbo reliability.

Apparently both engine failures during test flying were turbo related. Turbos have been fitted to aircraft for many many years now and have very good reliability. To have 2 engine failures with this engine suggests to me the turbo on this engine may not have the reliability we are used to in our aircraft. To follow on from that, a turbo failure in a spark ignition engine doesn't usually end in engine failure like it does so often for a compression ignition engine.

that is BP covering their ass due to probable contamination in diesel tanks at fuel stations. most people fit a second fuel filter to new common rail diesels for instance.

I see AvWeb are reporting the probable demise of the diesel C182.

There is now no definite timeline for the C182 diesel according to the article. It also mentions Cessna are taking out the diesel engines from the aircraft already fitted with them, sending these engines back to the manufacturer and re fitting avgas engines.

There's speculation as to why this has happened, suggestions are that it's due to partly economics (avgas being to cheap) and reliability problems with the engines.

See article here Has Cessna Suddenly Grown Cold On Diesel? - AVweb Insider Article

Sadly, of late even desperate flying schools, or any flying schools, are getting hard to find. Emissions, except from CASA, are way down their order of priorities.

Tootle pip!!

Well bugger me………. :}

I will try not to say it…..

Clearedtoreenter, I could answer that IF there was a sensible comparison to make. The bottom line is this, the STC for a 260HP IO540D4A5 (Comanche & RV10 engine basically) is the best fit for a C182.

It climbs like a love sick angel and LOP produces very good BSFC numbers (yes I do them) and its cost of operation is pretty darned good. The reliability is the best in all of GA and I don't think many will argue that one. It will not flame out with a TC problem or a simple intake leak.

I am not sure what I said previously in this thread but i reckon if you look back the story in avweb (which I also have not read yet) could be very interesting in terms of what is not said.

Cessna would be wise to go back to IO540's but not the 230HP version, the 260. Cost is the same and in cruise the fuel burn is the same as the 230, but you get far more climb. I happen to know the eta on this as a very good friend has one, late model and 260HP. We discussed this at OSH last year and he wrote the cheque, and has not stopped smiling since!


PS: My comment of the smarter of the two, only in terms of a payload capable plane in use in Africa or somewhere….not sure C172's with a TD are the go. But Cessna seem intent on releasing that. Go figure???

Mmmm. Induction leaks can be easily fixed by engineering it out. Please advise what is the critical altitude for a turbo falute in a compression engine.
main thing in this engine will be the lack of pilot management in the set up like a turbine. This will increase reliability of the engine.
And as fuel use age as creamie states is not an issue all will be good in the universe.