Continental: Cessna screwed us on the diesel thing

3% lifecycle savings on relatively unproven technology in an industry that is notorious for turning every problem (design, manufacturing, whatever) into the customer's responsibility? No way I'm signing up to save those 3%.

Besides, the folks at Continental know Cessna is part of Textron. Which also owns Lycoming. Which makes engines that are a perfect fit for the C-1XX. Continental better have a hell of a mousetrap to make substantial inroads with Cessna.
 
kyleb said:
3% lifecycle savings on relatively unproven technology in an industry that is notorious for turning every problem (design, manufacturing, whatever) into the customer's responsibility? No way I'm signing up to save those 3%.

Besides, the folks at Continental know Cessna is part of Textron. Which also owns Lycoming. Which makes engines that are a perfect fit for the C-1XX. Continental better have a hell of a mousetrap to make substantial inroads with Cessna.
Click to expand...

That unproven tech has been in field and flying on roughly a thousand engines over ten from what I can have seen posted is not really unproven.
Less then fifty years old like a traditional avgas engine, but still it is not a new born.

Tim
 
PaulS said:
Lycoming (Textron) will be announcing a diesel shortly.
Click to expand...

That or Cessna has decided that they are pulling all of the engineering resources required to further develop a 65 year old design with low and slowing sales.
 
I know maule played with this tech too, but for me, nah
 
The operators in Russia love those diesels in Skyhawks, although they mostly put the SMA instead of the CD-155. The main reason is, there's almost no avgas, and it's hideously expensive if found. Some people even import 100LL from the U.S. (illegally, of course). The flight hour is close to $600 wet (well, it was back when $1 was about 30 roubles). But the international market is minuscule and cannot support the appetites of Textron's bureaucracy. And nobody wants a diesel in U.S., as long as avgas is available.
 
tspear said:
That unproven tech has been in field and flying on roughly a thousand engines over ten from what I can have seen posted is not really unproven.
Less then fifty years old like a traditional avgas engine, but still it is not a new born.

Tim
Click to expand...

Not a newborn, but it's a pretty complicated engine. And nowhere near a perfect, or even elegant solution. Yet. The maintenance feed and caring, if carried out to the manufacturers written requirements is significant. Continental's version is from the Thielert development that Diamond originally installed in some of its planes. When Thielert bankrupted (how to make a small fortune in aviation...:rolleyes:) Diamond used the same Mercedes auto diesel block to develop the Austro.

The Continental currently has a TBR of 2100 hrs. That's "time between replacement", not overhaul. Although there might be something positive about the idea of a brand new engine each time, I will agree.

There is a tech company in my office building that uses airplanes flying patterns in their work. They have 5 planes. The first is a Diamond DA-42 with the Austro engines. Their second twin is a 310R. The "chief pilot" (Mr. Everything for this still small company when it comes to the planes) told me because of its speed, payload and less tine in the shop for maintenance the 310 is measurably more profitable for them. I told him to make sure they kept the gear properly rigged on it if he wanted to preserve that status. ;)
 
zaitcev said:
The operators in Russia love those diesels in Skyhawks, although they mostly put the SMA instead of the CD-155. The main reason is, there's almost no avgas, and it's hideously expensive if found. Some people even import 100LL from the U.S. (illegally, of course). The flight hour is close to $600 wet (well, it was back when $1 was about 30 roubles). But the international market is minuscule and cannot support the appetites of Textron's bureaucracy. And nobody wants a diesel in U.S., as long as avgas is available.
Click to expand...

The International market is minuscule and can't hardly support a Van's Aircraft homebuilt franchise. Textron could have zero G&A and wouldn't make any difference whatsoever to the present circumstances. Light personal or ab-initio training aircraft have to target the only really decent sized market in the world for them, the USA (and a few neighbors). At the moment any light GA aircraft or aircraft component that fails in the US market is pretty well doomed.

Maybe Chinese owned Continental Motors will eventually make a market for piston diesels in China, but I don't see much progress going on in that respect at the moment either.
 
@GRG55

My knowledge is based on research, talking to Continental, current owners, and salesman. I am considering a DA-42 for my next plane.
For TBR; if part 91 not actually required. That is marketing and a way to try and escape some liability. Continental, has a wavier form if you want to buy parts past TBR and they happen to know.

What is nice, look at both AE300 and the CD-100 line; they are being developed. Updated versions, decreasing maintenance... Here is an older analyis of some of the engine models: http://www.greatlakesdiamond.com/hourly-engine-reserves-for-da42/ for scheduled MX.
That 2100 you mention, that is much higher then the 1400 hours on the same powered IO-360.

The DA-42 is not a load hauler. It is not even close to being in the same class as a 310. Better comparison would be a Baron with the original engines.

Tim
 
GRG55 said:
The first is a Diamond DA-42 with the Austro engines.
Click to expand...

I used to think if I was ever lucky enough to own a plane, I'd lean toward a twin, and the DA-42 was always very appealing to me. But I kept reading things about how they're not that prevalent in the US, parts and service could be an issue, etc, Diamond twins dropped off my list.

I think now, I'd lean toward something with more presence in the US, and more parts/service availability.

I still think the DA-42 is a pretty cool plane, though.
 
When I was initially pondering a step up from my Tiger in 2002, the Diamond TwinStar was my first choice.

Delays in certification led me to the Cirrus I bought in 2003. Always felt I dodged a bullet!
 
Based on current jet-a / 100LL prices, there is at least a $7000 fuel savings over the TBO of the engine. When no lead is approved, you can expect the savings to increase to $20,000.
 
tspear said:
@GRG55

My knowledge is based on research, talking to Continental, current owners, and salesman. I am considering a DA-42 for my next plane.
For TBR; if part 91 not actually required. That is marketing and a way to try and escape some liability. Continental, has a wavier form if you want to buy parts past TBR and they happen to know.

What is nice, look at both AE300 and the CD-100 line; they are being developed. Updated versions, decreasing maintenance... Here is an older analyis of some of the engine models: http://www.greatlakesdiamond.com/hourly-engine-reserves-for-da42/ for scheduled MX.
That 2100 you mention, that is much higher then the 1400 hours on the same powered IO-360.

The DA-42 is not a load hauler. It is not even close to being in the same class as a 310. Better comparison would be a Baron with the original engines.

Tim
Click to expand...

I agree the DA-42 is certainly not a load hauler, but that is one of the few advantages piston twins have over comparable singles.

However, as a personal traveller or for aerial surveillance it's got some attractive attributes. The company I mentioned in my previous post likes the endurance, but even with two starving pilots up front it doesn't have quite the full fuel remaining payload to carry the full suite of their equipment set, so it is sticking with the one for now. I hope Diamond keeps selling enough to continue developing it, as you are correct, it will keep improving.

1400 hour TBO doesn't sound correct. I don't know what specific model of IO-360 Diamond installed in the DA42, but it was 180 hp version and 2000 hr TBO is the norm for the majority of non-aerobatic Lycoming IO-360s.
 
LoneAspen said:
I used to think if I was ever lucky enough to own a plane, I'd lean toward a twin, and the DA-42 was always very appealing to me. But I kept reading things about how they're not that prevalent in the US, parts and service could be an issue, etc, Diamond twins dropped off my list.

I think now, I'd lean toward something with more presence in the US, and more parts/service availability.

I still think the DA-42 is a pretty cool plane, though.
Click to expand...

They are not as prevalent because Diamond hasn't been pumping them out for 40 or 50 years like Beech and Piper.

The global market for piston twins isn't that large, but Diamond appears to slowly be doing in that smaller market what Cirrus did in singles - Diamond owns about half the new market, and everybody else splits the other half. Last year Diamond sold 36 DA42s and 33 DA62s. Tecnam sold 39 of its 100 hp Rotax powered P2006T twins, but that aircraft, with its <800 lb useful load, seems limited to a training role. Textron sold 23 Barons, Piper sold one (one!) Seneca, and 17 Seminoles (the latter, almost certainly all as trainers).

Certificated light airplane manufacturing is a brutal business. The runways are littered with nearly dead companies on life support. Among others Lancair learned that lesson the hard way. Given the Thielert fiasco, that Diamond is even building and selling this many twin piston airplanes is impressive.
 
Last edited:
LoneAspen said:
I used to think if I was ever lucky enough to own a plane, I'd lean toward a twin, and the DA-42 was always very appealing to me. But I kept reading things about how they're not that prevalent in the US, parts and service could be an issue, etc, Diamond twins dropped off my list.

I think now, I'd lean toward something with more presence in the US, and more parts/service availability.
Click to expand...

What kind of "presence" are you looking for? Our club owns a DA40 and it's been great for us. In ~8 years with the plane, I think we've waited a couple days for a part to be shipped from the factory twice. There's a Diamond service center fairly close by that we fly to for annual or any composite-related work. Overall, the plane is about $20/hr cheaper on maintenance than our other planes and easily has the lowest cost per mile.

Yeah, you can't shake a tree and have Diamond parts fall out of it like you can with 172/PA28 type birds, but it's nothing to worry about in terms of being able to get maintenance done. I'd buy another one in a heartbeat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top