 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
When will a diesel be available for my aircraft? |
|
News, facts, and comments on the coming revolution for piston-engine aircraft.News of September 26, 2008Look at this photograph and guess how high the 182SMA is flying.
 The Argentinian owner of a Cessna 182 converted to the SMA turbodiesel engine sends us this photograph taken as he is crossing the Andes. One can wonder where he would land if he lost his engine. Guess how high the plane is flying? posted at 8:40 AM News of September 07, 2008Maule is happy with the SMA diesel - 16 SMAs are flying in the US.Brent Maule, sales manager of Georgia-based Maule Air Inc., proclaimed the SMA JetA-powered Maule M9-230 to be ‘the best one that we build’ after making the long cross-country flight from Georgia to Oshkosh in it. 'It was extremely smooth and quiet at 2,200 rpm,' he said, noting it yielded 135 knots consistently. SMA President Luc Pelon said that 16 SMA SR305-230 engines are flying in the United States since their 2006 certification, and 50 worldwide. He made a point of stating that the 230-hp engine burns JetA which, he said, is ‘fast becoming the new avgas’ - probably truer of Europe than the United States, so far. ‘Moving quickly is not our focus,’ Pelon said. ‘We did not make the easiest choice or the inexpensive way when we decided, some years ago, to go to a new engine design from scratch. Instead of trying to use a technology which existed for other applications we started from the ground up.’ The ‘smooth and quiet’ SMA diesel speaks for itself, according to Maule. For more information: MauleAirInc.com or SMAEngines.com. posted at 11:41 AM News of September 04, 2008DeltaHawk signs with FAA a PSCP aiming at diesel engine certification.
 DeltaHawk Engines, Inc. is pleased to announce the formal signing of the Project Specific Certification Plan (PSCP) on August 12th at DeltaHawk facility in Racine., WI. The PSCP is the official document between the FAA and DeltaHawk detailing the specifics of the certification plan along with timelines for completion. This event marks a major milestone in the certification the DeltaHawk V-4 aerodiesel engine. Pictured, standing in front of DeltaHawk’s Cessna 337, are, from left to right: Doug Doers, DH VP of Engineering, Wayne Shade, DH Contract DER, Dean May, DH Certification Project Manager, Christina Liepins, DH A&P Mechanic & Purchasing, Dennis Webb, DH President; Diane Doers, DH CEO, Tim Smythe, FAA Senior Aviation Safety Engineer, Dr. Chung-Der Young, FAA Aerospace Engineer, and Dom DeCosta, DH Contract DAR. posted at 11:13 PM In 2008, four major events are causing a shock in the aero diesel market – DieselAir special review, Chapter 2: The Engineering Arena.
 Scroll down and see Chapter 1 dated July 9. Aero-News says (7/28/08): The 170 hp AE 300 engine incorporates a number of key advancements over the Thielert engine, including an improved gearbox with a torsional vibration damper instead of a friction clutch, designed to offer gearbox life of 2,400 hours. A new, four-point engine mount is also featured, as is an improved turbocharger and a FADEC-controlled, but otherwise conventional engine governor. The Austro engine also sports an integral oil/ coolant heat exchanger, eliminating external oil lines and the need for an external oil cooler. This leaves open some questions: One is we still do not know the weight incidence on a DA 42 of replacing the Thielert 2 Liter by the Austro. But more generally how will an engine rated at 85HP per Liter of Cubic Capacity behave in terms of wear and tear? Keep in mind that a conventional Avgas engine such as Lycoming or Continental is rated around 30-35HP per Liter, and an SMA diesel, at 50HP per Liter. Now, a power close to 100HP per Liter is nothing exceptional in itself. In the fifties, for instance, an Alfa-Romeo Alfetta Formula One 1.5 Liter, supercharged, was delivering 300HP per Liter! But it was expected to last only a few hours. Today, many European and Japanese automobiles have diesel engines rated between 70 and 90 HP/Liter, and they easily exceed 100,000 miles, corresponding to a TBR of well over 3,000 hours. But they do not drive at a constant speed of 125 mph, at which their full power is needed. The two key differences between an airplane engine and an automobile engine are: First, when you are flying in IMC on your way to an alternate, you cannot stop on the safety lane to open the hood and check what is wrong with your engine and then wait for Triple-A service. Second, an aero engine must be light. To make it lighter, you remove metal volume, and refrigerant volume meaning accordingly circulating oil or water. The lighter it is, the more vulnerable it becomes to thermal shocks, and each of these shocks increases the wear and tear. Adding fifty pounds of weight to an auto engine is not that bad, even though it comes to sense that the life expectancy of a 5 Liter V8 is higher than the one of a 4 cylinder 750cc engine. But to an aero engine, less weight is critical. So far, the Thielert saga has proven the point of the old timers saying that you can’t beat cubic inches when it comes to reliability. Does it mean that they are right? Not necessarily. If your engine is using state of the art technology for alloys and even more for surface treatments, the fact is that the reliability has incredibly increased compared with the 40s and 50s when your Lycoming and Continental were state of the art, and that the experts in these technologies are in Europe. It made sense to expect that the most sophisticated European R&Ds in automobile engine knew how to make a small aero engine that would last longer than expected, whether diesel or gasoline. Thielert comes from the race car engine profession. The SMA team originated with Renault Sports who was designing the famous Renault V10 Formula One engine. Mark Wilksch, founder of Wilksch Airmotive, came from the famous Cosworth team. These three firms, coming from same background, opted for three different solutions: In-line, water cooled, 4 cylinder, 4 stroke, high rpm geared engine, high power per Liter (Thielert, Austro); Opposite piston, air cooled, 4 stroke, no gear, medium power per Liter (SMA); V design, 2 stroke, no gear, medium power (Wilksch). And we can assume they had access to the same know how in terms of alloys, surface treatments, techniques for vibration control, for fuel injection, heat exchange, exhaust design, etc. Why did they disagree on design? And who is right? I have one explanation: Any engineer in automobile engine design owns a car, drives around, maintains it, pays for it, and tinkers with it. Very few of these same engineers own and operate an airplane and live in everyday life how dramatic must be, on any aircraft cruising close to full power, the zero defect, zero incident, trouble-free factor, down to the most modest hose, seal, connector, bearing, and bolt. Therefore these Europeans, lacking that background, began trying different solutions, each one in his neck of the woods. Who is right? Time will tell, but it looks like LSA diesel engines of 100-120HP will be 2 stroke, that so far Thielert has caused a setback to the high rpm in-line geared engine, that Austro has not yet clearly explained why they will do radically better than Thielert, and that SMA, as of now the only FAA certified and world certified engine that seems to run trouble free, does not have yet enough engines actually flying to take advantage of the situation. posted at 9:52 PM |
Previous Posts
Look at this photograph and guess how high the 182... Archives
July 2002
|
