Biggest improvement in GA in the past few years

docmirror said:
You missed the AND in my post.

OBTW, your link answers your question. Maybe should have read what you linked. ;)
Click to expand...

Maybe you should have read my question, because the two are separate with different benefits that don't require both. Most people I ask have unrealistic expectations of EFI, but electronic ignition has some real benefits.

Electronic ignition is on my list, EFI is not.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Maybe you should have read my question, because the two are separate with different benefits that don't require both. Most people I ask have unrealistic expectations of EFI, but electronic ignition has some real benefits.

Electronic ignition is on my list, EFI is not.
Click to expand...

Who here said "require"? I sure didn't. My point was there are a lot of 470 engines in the fleet. Your question was answered when you asked it already.

Thanks for sharing your list with me. Maybe all the auto, commercial, and industrial engine mfg should go back to carbs or mech FI. I've got an 850 double pump Holley that will live again.
 
docmirror said:
Thanks for sharing your list with me. Maybe all the auto, commercial, and industrial engine mfg should go back to carbs or mech FI. I've got an 850 double pump Holley that will live again.
Click to expand...

You're showing the standard argument, which shows a lack of understanding of what it will do for youin aviation. I was going to try to give you some useful information on the subject, but why bother?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Not true. Continental is continuing their diesel development and is planning on introducing a diesel variant of the F406, which they bought the rights to. I don't think you can buy a new 182 without a diesel, and expect that to spread through the Cessna lineup. There are certified electronic ignitions for naturally aspirated 4 and 6 cylinder engines. Once a mag timing option is available for 520s, I'll be ordering mine.
Click to expand...

Name a single aircraft that comes with any of this new today. The diesel Cessna isn't even certified yet.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
You're showing the standard argument, which shows a lack of understanding of what it will do for youin aviation. I was going to try to give you some useful information on the subject, but why bother?
Click to expand...

Oh - you waz gunna lernt me sumptin? Goooooooleeeeee, whah thankee mister man. :yesnod:
 
Ted DuPuis said:
If I had to guess, they're first looking at the SR22, C350/400, and G36/58. Then they're going to look at the T206. The goal will be to displace the 100LL engines. Listening to a Cessna rep last week, they view diesel as the future, so expect it to end up on new 206s. That said, you will also need to trade yours in for it to be cost effective in my opinion. Engine STCs from dissimilar manufacturers never go cheap.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'll trade in if I decide to stay with the airframe. I expect resale will be VERY high the first few years until more come on the market. The other thing that might be real interesting is the Cirrus with a diesel. Given their increased useful in the latest design the diesel might make it the ultimate single.
 
The best gauge of future acceptance of technology in aviation is in the experimental world, which is on the cutting edge.

I am simply not seeing/hearing much talk about diesel engines, mostly (I'm guessing) because development seems to be concentrated in the large displacement engines.

Does anyone know of a diesel alternative to the ubiquitous O-320/O-360? THAT would sell like hotcakes in the RV world.
 
Jay Honeck said:
The best gauge of future acceptance of technology in aviation is in the experimental world, which is on the cutting edge.

.
Click to expand...

Experimentals could have been using diesels for a long time, they aren't. They are using the same crap we all are. I prefer the term home built vs. a true experimental aircraft that is pushing the boundaries. 99.999% are built just to avoid A&P's and a FAA modification restrictions.
 
Alexb2000 said:
Experimentals could have been using diesels for a long time, they aren't. They are using the same crap we all are. I prefer the term home built vs. a true experimental aircraft that is pushing the boundaries. 99.999% are built just to avoid A&P's and a FAA modification restrictions.
Click to expand...
Generally speaking, I've found that if something isn't being used in the EAB world, it's for a really good reason. It's either too expensive, unreliable, or both.

This stands in contrast to the certificated world, where we couldn't use really intelligent things for no apparent reason.

But back to my question: Is there a drop-in diesel replacement for the ubiquitous O-320/O-360 line of engines? Or one in the works? That would be a growth market, methinks.
 
The Centurion engines were the closest to a drop-in, but still not a true drop-in. However, I'm not sure if they are selling to the experimental market. And it would be more expensive than an O/IO-320/360, which would probably hinder it's use in the E-AB world.
 
docmirror said:
An STC for FI and better ignition on the 470 family would be the biggest bang for the buck based on the number of engines installed. Lots of O-470 and IO-470 engines that could benefit from better electronic FI and better spark maps.
Click to expand...

No way, wouldn't be worth much if you already know how to operate an engine. Diesel gains are huge, cut your fuel bill near in half, extend your range significantly, and that is the greatest time/money saver, and turns the 310 into a transatlantic plane with an RON in Rekyavik.:D
 
Has anyone come up with a good solution to the high altitude restart problem diesels have?
 
Henning said:
No way, wouldn't be worth much if you already know how to operate an engine. Diesel gains are huge, cut your fuel bill near in half, extend your range significantly, and that is the greatest time/money saver, and turns the 310 into a transatlantic plane with an RON in Rekyavik.:D
Click to expand...

Like I said already, hoping the big engine makers go back to carbs, hey while we're at it, lets bring back points and condenser.

Another of the 'you our two stoopid too opporate yur plane' posts. Seeing as I'm operating one of the few O-470(like) engines on mogas, running LOP, I will put my BSFC and direct fuel costs up against any cert 4 pl plane any day.

So, gimme a drop in diesel repl for the O-470. I'm ok with that. But know this, an EFI package would be a fly-spec cost compared to exchanging the O-470 with a diesel engine. Apples to lug wrench comparison.
 
Alexb2000 said:
If these are designed for STC applications, I wonder what older airframes would make sense to convert?
Click to expand...

I would guess none if the intended use is in America. ;) If you are going to use it overseas where avgas is scarce or possibly here if you need the long range offered by diesel, it might make sense. The issue to me on most engine conversions is the upfront cost vs a similar factory built with the stock engine, or in the case of turbine conversions a factory turbine for much less money. :dunno:
 
Jay Honeck said:
But back to my question: Is there a drop-in diesel replacement for the ubiquitous O-320/O-360 line of engines? Or one in the works? That would be a growth market, methinks.
Click to expand...
why would that be a market at all? those engines can burn gas from the corner citgo station
 
N747JB said:
I would guess none if the intended use is in America. ;) If you are going to use it overseas where avgas is scarce or possibly here if you need the long range offered by diesel, it might make sense. The issue to me on most engine conversions is the upfront cost vs a similar factory built with the stock engine, or in the case of turbine conversions a factory turbine for much less money. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Plenty of people in the states are spending $100k to convert a Bo to TN. Would this make sense for the typical know-it-all cheap ass pilot trying to score a free lunch from the FBO's cookies and popcorn? No, but then very little would, so the market ignores them. For a frequent flyer, paying higher fuel bills at larger airports, and wanting the advantages of a turbo, I agree, maybe.

Personally I'm excited about it. I've flown the DA42, and while it had its short comings, it was clear diesel was the way to go. Starts like a car hot or cold, one lever, quiet, just nice.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Why not?
Click to expand...

Because it's different, it's been hard to get support (though hopefully being owned by Continental will help), they still haven't got the TBR up to what people expect from TBO and there's no option to overhaul at all.

It's also a lot harder to find Jet-A than 100LL, and it was never approved to run on auto diesel in the US, though since they first certified it most places have introduced ULSD which might be certifiable. But again, not yet.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Disagree. Jet A is no more difficult to find, and is usually cheaper.
Click to expand...
Just one data point: Our airport has 100 LL, but no Jet-A. That's fairly common at the airports we frequent, which tend to be small, uncontrolled fields.

Personally, I think it's absurd that we are being forced away from 100 LL, but no one asked my opinion. So, we are stuck looking for alternatives.

I am set to use regular unleaded car gas, when the time comes, but there's only one station left within 25 miles that still sells it. When that goes away, we will be looking at either diesel, or the ethereal "100 LL replacement fuel", whatever that becomes.

Or, maybe EAA will finally step up and get us some ethanol/gas STCs?

However you slice it, this whole ginned-up fuel situation sucks. It's just one more dagger in GA's back.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Just one data point: Our airport has 100 LL, but no Jet-A. That's fairly common at the airports we frequent, which tend to be small, uncontrolled fields.
Click to expand...

I've certainly seen my share of fields like that (and mine is that way, too). I've also seen lots of fields with the opposite. Jet A is by no means hard to find.

Personally, I think it's absurd that we are being forced away from 100 LL, but no one asked my opinion. So, we are stuck looking for alternatives.
Click to expand...

I agree it's absurd, but here we are. Thank you EPA. In fairness, I will be happier without lead in the fuel.

Or, maybe EAA will finally step up and get us some ethanol/gas STCs?
Click to expand...

That will be difficult without hardware changes. I would think your RV's tanks and lines would be good for ethanol, at which point it comes to the engine fuel system material compatibility and vapor pressure concerns.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Or, maybe EAA will finally step up and get us some ethanol/gas STCs?
Click to expand...

All Bonanzas and Debs up through 1983 have rubber bladder tanks. I think all or most all Mooneys through the mid 80s have bladder tanks, Piper used bladders on some aircraft.

I tested the bladder material with Ethanol and the results were not pretty. To cert a Bonanza with an STC for Ethanol fuel will require at a minimum; Fuel caps with rubber seal repl, Fuel tanks repl, intermediate fuel lines to sump repl, sump bowl gasket and seals repl, drain cock seal repl, fuel lines from sump to hand pump repl, hand pump seals repl, fuel line segments from hand pump to engine pump repl, engine pump seal and gasket repl, fuel line from pump to inj carb repl, all gaskets in inj carb repl, return line from inj carb to tank repl, intake boots repl.

I gave it a ball park cost for labor only of about 130 hours @ $90/hour is $11,700. Materials I just guessed at around $15,000 for Ethanol certified tanks and all the other lines, fittings, seals, gaskets. Cost of STC ~ $5000-ish for a total of $31,700 per plane.

Of course, there is the 152 that's running pure Ethanol, and the swap was much less. But - I think you see where I"m going.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Disagree. Jet A is no more difficult to find, and is usually cheaper.
Click to expand...

OK, hard to "find" wasn't really the right way to say it - What I mean is that there are a lot more airports with 100LL than with Jet-A.

It's not as lopsided as I'd anticipated, though - According to the FAA, there are 3111 public use airports with 100LL and 2208 that have some variant of Jet-A(1)(+). Only 149 carry car gas.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Just one data point: Our airport has 100 LL, but no Jet-A. That's fairly common at the airports we frequent, which tend to be small, uncontrolled fields.

Personally, I think it's absurd that we are being forced away from 100 LL, but no one asked my opinion. So, we are stuck looking for alternatives.

I am set to use regular unleaded car gas, when the time comes, but there's only one station left within 25 miles that still sells it. When that goes away, we will be looking at either diesel, or the ethereal "100 LL replacement fuel", whatever that becomes.

Or, maybe EAA will finally step up and get us some ethanol/gas STCs?

However you slice it, this whole ginned-up fuel situation sucks. It's just one more dagger in GA's back.
Click to expand...
Another data point: our private grass strip has JetA and 100LL. Though I'm unfamiliar with the JetA acquisition process I know that getting a less-than-a-tanker load of 100LL is an expensive PITA.

It's great we have the capability to deliver 100LL in the midst of so much auto fuel and JetA infrastructure but we seem to be a really small part of the pie. (e.g. a nearby airport had an 'oops' when the local fuel distributer filled his 100LL tank with JetA... half a dozen engines in the shop before caught, Whoopsie!") Can't imagine the situation overseas..

Having lost a whole generation worth of gas powered lawn equipment to ethanol, I had to think what the stuff could do to our legacy equipment.

Me, I'm just happy to have a fuel pumping FBO at my desired destinations. When that situation changes, I'll adapt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top