Done via STC. Originally the STC was for the warrior. Schools required the use of the G1000. Once Continental bought out Thielert (the warrior STC holder) Piper sent an Archer to get retrofitted. 13 changes to the archer dx STC from the original warrior STC. Sounds like the nose wheel geometry had to be altered to fit the diesel compared to regular archers.
Doesn't make it less dumb.
Why?
Volume of sales versus cost of install, regulatory hoops, etc.
Auto industry has way more volume. Airplanes are essentially hand built.
What's the GA volume in the Middle East? Is it a thing or not really?
The problem is that in the real world you have to convince the actual market to buy what you offer, at the price you supply it. The only actual market where diesels have a chance for commercial sales is Europe, with market volume limited by current politics and economics that are killing light aviation at levels above ultralights, and a handful more in places like Africa. The market such as it is for diesels is for military UAV engines that fly a lot of hours and are replaced fairly frequently, at great expense.
Just get out your checkbook, many things can be done if a customer is willing to pay for them.
I work in the business.
Yes, but I believe it maintains that 137HP up into the teens. An IO-360 at 160HP is down about 50HP by 10,000' just due to air density. So the benefits of running 160HP continuously don't matter too much in practical use. At 5,000' altitude, the IO-360 should be down around 24HP (so 136HP), which puts it right in line with the Rotax 915/916 continuous rating. Climbing higher than 5K quickly starts favoring the Rotax.
The 172R I flew for 40hrs of my Private ticket begs to differ. However, the 172S and other variants of IO-360 certainly have higher max-RPM limits which gets a higher HP rating. In any case, that isn't the point. The IO-360 is just an example of an engine in the 160HP range like the Rotax 916is. Could be any Conti/Lyco model with 150-160HP for fair comparison.
My belief is that the extent of GenAv in the middle east is a small handful of what would otherwise be considered commercial passenger airframes, up to and including the A380, finished as a flying palace for one or more ruling families. If it were in the US, as much as it looks like Part 120.99, requires a type certificate to fly, with the check ride to ATP standards, it would be still be Part 91, so technically GenAv. Nothing to speak of that is piston/prop powered, nor 4- or 6-seats.
Would certainly be a concern, although I guess some of that is dictated by where the weight is located on the DeltaHawk, especially when considering the supplementary components like the radiator/cooling system.
For fair comparison of performance between with turbo-Rotax gasoline engine that can operate at 100% power for only 5 minutes, you don't pick the Lycoming with the worst power density of any as a result of being de-rated for extreme durability when operated at 100% rated power indefinitely.
I'd guess there are almost as many of those 160HP 172R IO-360s operating than there are the 180/200HP variants, but that is neither here nor there as you still said the IO-360 was rated at 180 or 200HP which was flat out incorrect for a large portion of the IO-360 engines in service. You're the one who brought Rotax 160HP limitations into the thread about the Deltahawk anyway, lol.
No, there aren't. The low RPM 160 HP version of what is normally a 180 HP engine in parallel valve configuration, or a 200 HP in angle valve configuration, is a specialty engine used for a very specific application. It pays a substantial price in climb and high altitude performance by being limited to only 2400 rpm, but lasts a very, very long time even when flown by students - who don't fly at high altitude.
I'd need to see numbers, simply because there were a ton of 172Rs produced (roughly 579 in the dirst year of production vs 21 of the SP-model in that same time period. It's still irrelevant as there are a ton of 160HP io-360 made since the post-restart 172 had that engine for most of the 172 produced. Just accept it.
The future for 'affordable' personal aircraft increasingly looks Experimental.The future for what? Home builders?
The top selling airplanes in the US right now are Cirrus SR20/22/22T, DA40, and C172. The Vision Jet at #7 sells almost as many (90) as Piper Archers (93). Heck, you have to lump all of the Tecnam LSAs together to out-sell the twin DA62 by itself. Otherwise, there are no LSAs in the top ten; Cirrus has nearly half of the GA market by themselves (look at piston sales and then add Vision).
Which of those top sellers is a candidate for a Rotax?
10 best-selling piston airplanes in 2022 — General Aviation News
What were the top selling piston airplanes in 2022? Cirrus leads the pack, taking the first, second, and fifth spots on the top 10 list.generalaviationnews.com
No wonder they sell maybe a few hundred total … what used to be a product that was somewhat affordable to upper middle class and professionals is now pretty much entirely reserved for multimillionaires …
Too many of the planes that were affordable to the upper middle class and professionals from 1950-1985 are still available, and still priced where they are affordable to upper middle class and professionals. If that available fleet of aircraft wasn't meeting demand, they'd be selling for much higher prices.
But thats like claiming that automotive markets in places like Cuba are basically healthy with just about everyone driving increasingly older and junkier 50 years old cars with just a few folks being able to afford new models - after all demand is being met in both markets …
Not really that open. It is a highly regulated product, with extensive liability issues, with significant infrastructure capital paid for by tax dollars (airports)....
Exactly , this supposedly “free” market is struggling and frankly slowly dying due to circumstances that are not too dissimilar to whats ailing Cuban automotive ( and just about all other ) “markets”
