New diesel option?
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
Is this an aircraft engine designed from scratch?
I am no engine specialist but I spoke to a few of them last year, and the consensus was that Thielert's getting 130HP from 1.7 litres was pushing a car engine way beyond its limits. A car engine spends most of its time at 10-30% of rated max power.
We do badly need a decent avtur burning engine but so far there is no sign of one that lasts.
I am no engine specialist but I spoke to a few of them last year, and the consensus was that Thielert's getting 130HP from 1.7 litres was pushing a car engine way beyond its limits. A car engine spends most of its time at 10-30% of rated max power.
We do badly need a decent avtur burning engine but so far there is no sign of one that lasts.
Thread Starter
Red On, Green On
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 6,490
Likes: 2
From: Between the woods and the water
No, it's designed for car use. Autocar review
I guess the first thing to do is to de-rate/rev limit it, so 148 bhp would drop to around 125, perhaps. The review says it's been designed "with equal bore and stroke and a very short crankshaft to limit vibration and noise", and goes on "Those figures are relatively low – it has been tuned for (class leading) targets of economy and emissions, not power. The wick could be turned up easily and, later, it will be." which implies that they think 148 bhp does not stress the engine.
I guess the first thing to do is to de-rate/rev limit it, so 148 bhp would drop to around 125, perhaps. The review says it's been designed "with equal bore and stroke and a very short crankshaft to limit vibration and noise", and goes on "Those figures are relatively low – it has been tuned for (class leading) targets of economy and emissions, not power. The wick could be turned up easily and, later, it will be." which implies that they think 148 bhp does not stress the engine.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,090
Likes: 2,952
From: Ontario, Canada
Subaru automotive engines have their origin with Fuji heavy industries aircraft engines, so indeed, all of those cars are really being powered by converted aircraft engines!
The Subaru gasoline engines have been very successfully adapted for use in aircraft. http://www.crossflow.com/
The Subaru diesel won't be far behind...
Pilot DAR
The Subaru gasoline engines have been very successfully adapted for use in aircraft. http://www.crossflow.com/
The Subaru diesel won't be far behind...
Pilot DAR
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
We do badly need a decent avtur burning engine but so far there is no sign of one that lasts.
It's very obvious that we will replace our Avgas engines with these replacements in the future
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
The diesel guru for TCM is Mark Wilksch - now where have we heard that name before. After many years of appearing at the PFA rally promising 'this year/next year' there is only a handful flying and most of those owners are doing a fair bit of development work. And the engine is non-certified so Permit (Experimental) use only.
As for TCM, 7 or 8 years ago they produced a diesel. They were paid by NASA et al to produce an engine and were paid US$1 million to do so. 1/3 to design it, 1/3 to run it and 1/3 to fly it. It was flown in the nose of a C337 in a straight line on a long runway with a normal Continental ticking away in the back. It was then put on a shelf. Nice little earner...
That was told to me by a guy in 2002 or so at Oshkosh that worked on it and then defected to Superior to flog Centurion diesles Stateside. Funny that Superior now own TAE.
Subaru made aircraft engines? What flying machines did they go in? I know the normal Scooby engine is a flat 4 or 6 but as IO540 says, car engines really don't like revving their ass off producing the required power.
Can't be that good, Sternone if they aren't fitted to a Mooney.... And as for being the obvious replacement to Avgas burners - not until the Americans start accepting diesels into their everyday life on the roads etc.
As for TCM, 7 or 8 years ago they produced a diesel. They were paid by NASA et al to produce an engine and were paid US$1 million to do so. 1/3 to design it, 1/3 to run it and 1/3 to fly it. It was flown in the nose of a C337 in a straight line on a long runway with a normal Continental ticking away in the back. It was then put on a shelf. Nice little earner...
That was told to me by a guy in 2002 or so at Oshkosh that worked on it and then defected to Superior to flog Centurion diesles Stateside. Funny that Superior now own TAE.
Subaru made aircraft engines? What flying machines did they go in? I know the normal Scooby engine is a flat 4 or 6 but as IO540 says, car engines really don't like revving their ass off producing the required power.
Can't be that good, Sternone if they aren't fitted to a Mooney.... And as for being the obvious replacement to Avgas burners - not until the Americans start accepting diesels into their everyday life on the roads etc.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Can't be that good, Sternone if they aren't fitted to a Mooney....
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The problem is that an engine is not proven until it is ..... proven.
It's a catch-22.
Somebody has to stick a number of these engines onto a number of planes, equip them with decent data collection stuff, and give them to a number of REAL PILOTS who do REAL FLYING, with the deal being that the pilots co-operate on feedback etc.
Flying schools are OK but they have commercial incentives to behave in certain ways, and they have limited operating patterns.
The smart place to do this would be in the USA, where they have the Experimental category and the process would be straightforward.
Run this experiment for a few years.
The trouble is that just every manufacturer in GA is a cynical bunch of b*astards and likes to use paying customers as guinea-pigs, with the predictable result of masses of problems and the resultant "warranty issues" costing the manufacturer many times more than running a decent field trial first. Currently, Diamond/Thielert have a very poor reputation and the only reason anybody buys them is because there is no better option if you want avtur, or a modern twin with a G1000.
The SMA engine is probably further down the road of credibility than any 3rd contestant, but where is it now?
It's a catch-22.
Somebody has to stick a number of these engines onto a number of planes, equip them with decent data collection stuff, and give them to a number of REAL PILOTS who do REAL FLYING, with the deal being that the pilots co-operate on feedback etc.
Flying schools are OK but they have commercial incentives to behave in certain ways, and they have limited operating patterns.
The smart place to do this would be in the USA, where they have the Experimental category and the process would be straightforward.
Run this experiment for a few years.
The trouble is that just every manufacturer in GA is a cynical bunch of b*astards and likes to use paying customers as guinea-pigs, with the predictable result of masses of problems and the resultant "warranty issues" costing the manufacturer many times more than running a decent field trial first. Currently, Diamond/Thielert have a very poor reputation and the only reason anybody buys them is because there is no better option if you want avtur, or a modern twin with a G1000.
The SMA engine is probably further down the road of credibility than any 3rd contestant, but where is it now?
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,681
Likes: 10
From: Just South of the last ice sheet
All of Fuji's aeroplanes were/are dragged along by Mr. Lycoming's products so if Fuji Heavy Industry made aeroengines they didn't stick them in the front of their own aeroplanes.
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by smarthawke
Funny that Superior now own TAE.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 630
Likes: 2
From: UK
Ooops - word order finger trouble, sorry!
Zoche? Now there's a company with a product of the future. I remember strolling round their stand at Oshkosh in '94 and it wasn't the first year they had promised great things were imminent. Weren't Vulcanair going to fit them in their (Partenavia) P68s?
Zoche? Now there's a company with a product of the future. I remember strolling round their stand at Oshkosh in '94 and it wasn't the first year they had promised great things were imminent. Weren't Vulcanair going to fit them in their (Partenavia) P68s?
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: UK
Diesel Fan
The US designed direct drive Delta Hawk Turbo/Super Charged V4 two stroke of 160 to 200hp is the best bet at the moment. The company has a positive cash flow, selling them as drone engines.
A 160hp one is being tacked on the front of a 172 and they plan to put two 200hp ones into a Cessna 337. Aiming at the Lycoming IO360 market.
This engine is well on the way to certification.
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
There are about 10 Aero Diesels in development at the moment with two certified, the French SMA a bit of a boat anchor and the the Thielert over complicated.
There are two opposed piston type engines, one flying by Diesel Air 2 cyl piston and Jade Air are developing a 3 cyl 6 pistion version.
Then there is Diesel Aero, Vulcan Aircraft Engines, Eco Motors and of course
The 8 cyl Zorche, I think is the best design of the lot, but a joke of a development programe, I think they are a scam to get EU research funds.
Then there was Continetal flat 4, 2 stroke with a 90 degree offset crank
and pistons shuttling from side to side, one bang every quarter of a rev.
The sleeper is a radicaly new design of 4 stroke engine called the Rand Cam,
two main moving parts a rotor and 12 sliding vanes, the two cams are set at 90 degrees to each other, giving a constant spacing. The vanes slide back and forward when the rotor in the middle rotates. A 6inch by 6 inch test model gives 42 hp. Will make wonderfully light compact engine with 24 power pulses per rev. http://www.regtech.com/
So there are tons of Aero Diesels in development, I just don't think the Thierlert will be the winner in the long run to complicated and a direct drive 2 stroke is smoother and less harmonics then the 4 strokes.
By the why Diamond are developing there own 180 hp diesel I think they are fedup with the Thierlert problems.
is be
A 160hp one is being tacked on the front of a 172 and they plan to put two 200hp ones into a Cessna 337. Aiming at the Lycoming IO360 market.
This engine is well on the way to certification.
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
There are about 10 Aero Diesels in development at the moment with two certified, the French SMA a bit of a boat anchor and the the Thielert over complicated.
There are two opposed piston type engines, one flying by Diesel Air 2 cyl piston and Jade Air are developing a 3 cyl 6 pistion version.
Then there is Diesel Aero, Vulcan Aircraft Engines, Eco Motors and of course
The 8 cyl Zorche, I think is the best design of the lot, but a joke of a development programe, I think they are a scam to get EU research funds.
Then there was Continetal flat 4, 2 stroke with a 90 degree offset crank
and pistons shuttling from side to side, one bang every quarter of a rev.
The sleeper is a radicaly new design of 4 stroke engine called the Rand Cam,
two main moving parts a rotor and 12 sliding vanes, the two cams are set at 90 degrees to each other, giving a constant spacing. The vanes slide back and forward when the rotor in the middle rotates. A 6inch by 6 inch test model gives 42 hp. Will make wonderfully light compact engine with 24 power pulses per rev. http://www.regtech.com/
So there are tons of Aero Diesels in development, I just don't think the Thierlert will be the winner in the long run to complicated and a direct drive 2 stroke is smoother and less harmonics then the 4 strokes.
By the why Diamond are developing there own 180 hp diesel I think they are fedup with the Thierlert problems.
is be
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
From: UK
Diesel Fan
The US designed direct drive Delta Hawk Turbo/Super Charged V4 two stroke of 160 to 200hp is the best bet at the moment. The company has a positive cash flow, selling them as drone engines.
A 160hp one is being tacked on the front of a 172 and they plan to put two 200hp ones into a Cessna 337. Aiming at the Lycoming IO360 market.
This engine is well on the way to certification.
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
There are about 10 Aero Diesels in development at the moment with two certified, the French SMA a bit of a boat anchor and the the Thielert over complicated.
There are two opposed piston type engines, one flying by Diesel Air 2 cyl 4 piston and Jade Air are developing a 3 cyl 6 piston version, both with twin crank shafts.
Then there is Diesel Aero, Vulcan Aircraft Engines, Eco Motors and of course.
The 8 cyl Zorche, I think this is the best design of the lot, but a joke of a development programme, I think they are a scam just to get EU research funds.
Then there was Continetal flat 4, 2 stroke with a 90 degree offset crank
and pistons shuttling from side to side, one bang every quarter of a rev.
The sleeper is a radicaly new design of 4 stroke engine called the Rand Cam,
two main moving parts, a rotor and 12 sliding vanes, the two cams are set at 90 degree facing each other, giving a constant spacing. The vanes slide back and forward between them when the rotor is rotated. A 6 inch by 6 inch test model gives 42 hp. Will make wonderfully light compact engine with 24 power pulses per rev. http://www.regtech.com/
So there are tons of Aero Diesels in development, I just don't think the Thierlert will be the winner in the long run, to complicated and a direct drive 2 stroke is smoother and has less harmonics then the 4 strokes.
Note Diamond are developing there own 180 hp diesel, I think they are fedup with the Thierlert problems.
A 160hp one is being tacked on the front of a 172 and they plan to put two 200hp ones into a Cessna 337. Aiming at the Lycoming IO360 market.
This engine is well on the way to certification.
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/
There are about 10 Aero Diesels in development at the moment with two certified, the French SMA a bit of a boat anchor and the the Thielert over complicated.
There are two opposed piston type engines, one flying by Diesel Air 2 cyl 4 piston and Jade Air are developing a 3 cyl 6 piston version, both with twin crank shafts.
Then there is Diesel Aero, Vulcan Aircraft Engines, Eco Motors and of course.
The 8 cyl Zorche, I think this is the best design of the lot, but a joke of a development programme, I think they are a scam just to get EU research funds.
Then there was Continetal flat 4, 2 stroke with a 90 degree offset crank
and pistons shuttling from side to side, one bang every quarter of a rev.
The sleeper is a radicaly new design of 4 stroke engine called the Rand Cam,
two main moving parts, a rotor and 12 sliding vanes, the two cams are set at 90 degree facing each other, giving a constant spacing. The vanes slide back and forward between them when the rotor is rotated. A 6 inch by 6 inch test model gives 42 hp. Will make wonderfully light compact engine with 24 power pulses per rev. http://www.regtech.com/
So there are tons of Aero Diesels in development, I just don't think the Thierlert will be the winner in the long run, to complicated and a direct drive 2 stroke is smoother and has less harmonics then the 4 strokes.
Note Diamond are developing there own 180 hp diesel, I think they are fedup with the Thierlert problems.
