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?

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.

[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.

Do Cessna even sell avgas 182s anymore?

The only 182 shown on their website for the last year has been the vapourware diesel model.

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.

Ditto. Improvements in engine efficiency and emissions are desperately needed.

Great.

There is diesel and diesel.

Curious to know - is the grade of diesel these engines are certified for available in Australia?

Some folks are finding not.

Currawong,

My understanding was that the engine uses the Diesel cycle to ignite JetA1, not Diesel fuel.

...I may be wrong :confused:

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.

Why not, if it meets the specs (production and distribution) what's going to stop suppliers selling it if there is a commercial demand.

"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...:hmm:










.

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.

Don't worry about Peter too much. He's also a lover of the carbon tax :rolleyes:

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.

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.

And yet CASA wonders why the GA fleet is so old!

You'd have to fly that 172 for 40 years to pay for it...

Do you really believe this?

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? :uhoh:

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

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?

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.