Diesel powered Skyhawk

Good luck. The J182T was announced what, two years ago? Three?

Search "J182T" on the FAA registration database. There are twelve of them, all registered to Cessna. Many of them are probably just numbers reserved for yet-unbuilt airframes.

How's Piper doing with its diesel "Archer"?

:rolleyes:
 
Redhawk has already cornered that market. Cessna is way too late ;) The only difference is they ended up scrubbing the Aspen and going with the much better Garmin G500. Yes that is a FADEC controlled turbo diesel and yes he DID say 4.5gph!

 
Last edited:
Retrofits found a small success in countries such as Russia, where airports often have Jet-A only. I follow it on Russian pilot's forums and generally the operators are okay with the economics of the airplanes. In many cases their other options is DA-42, KingAir C90, or PT-6 powered utility singles like Kodiak. Neither of them is as cheap as Skyhawk retrofit. If Cessna does not screw the factory pricing (like they did with 162), it's going to sell into the same markets. Maybe 20 airplanes a year around the world? Maybe 100, if they luck on a major contract with a government agency.

Update: $450k sounds like way too much to me. The Russian operators of diesel Skyhawks were getting them at about $100k. So, I suspect Cessna is making a mistake, since the same people can continue to buy used Skyhawks, Centurion engines, convert and sell them, undercutting factory planes by a huge margin. But I may be wrong.
 
Last edited:
Like the new glass air sportsman diesel.
 
The pricing will make it a hard sell. The schedule delays aren't surprising. Certification is hard, and the FAA is probably viewing certification of diesel planes as a lowish priority. They'll get to market, and some folks will buy them, mostly around the world.
 
They had some issues with flight testing the 182. Hopefully it doesn't take them nearly as long to work out the bugs on this one.
 
I wonder where the unleaded Avgas solution is these days? You know the one that we can use immediately, with no loss in HP. :rolleyes:
 
Turbo Diesel is one answer to 100LL. The demise of lead is fast approaching. The Europeans are also standardizing on non leaded 93 and 91 E10, E20 gasoline too.
 
For an airplane of the Skyhawk's class, I'd go with a mogas powered mill. I'd save the diesels for the over 200 hp crowd, as the purchase price of an aviation diesel is too high.
 
Keep in mind that diesel/Jet-A is very attractive to people in the rest of the world. The economics in the US may not make as much sense, but the bet that some of these OEMs are making is that diesels will enhance global sales.

Personally, I think the only reason to buy a new plane would be to have a diesel in it. Hopefully Cessna/Beech will continue the trends with a diesel Baron and Bonanza. I might like a diesel Baron in 30 years.
 
Mauls was playing with it too, though mostly for over seas.

I have yet to see one, ever, and I basically live at airports.
 
I saw one C-182 with a diesel. It passed through the little airport where I am based. Being an old diesel mechanic and driving diesel pickups, I would be interested in a diesel powered airplane as long as they are smart on the TBOs. I would rather use #1 diesel fuel instead of jetA though.
 
Zeldman said:
I saw one C-182 with a diesel. It passed through the little airport where I am based. Being an old diesel mechanic and driving diesel pickups, I would be interested in a diesel powered airplane as long as they are smart on the TBOs. I would rather use #1 diesel fuel instead of jetA though.
Click to expand...

TBOs will start low and increase with time. Nobody should expect a new diesel to have a 3000 hour TBO out of the box.
 
I have 140 hours in the Diesel 182 (SMA retrofit, not the new from Cessna one). Nice aircraft, although the electrical system was prone to failure (4 times in 140 hours!) and the cooling was inadequate.

If they have fixed those issues, then the new one will be fantastic.
 
Yeah, we all knew that was coming.
 
airguy said:
Now that would make a good powerplant for an RV10-class EAB or a Super-8, with a careful eye toward keeping the W&B correct.
Click to expand...
The C300 is in the same power class as the SMA diesel that Cessna is trying to certify. Are there any amazing advantages to it? Like half the price over the French?
 
airguy said:
Now that would make a good powerplant for an RV10-class EAB or a Super-8, with a careful eye toward keeping the W&B correct.
Click to expand...

You won't see this in a SLSA, maybe in an experimental that some guy wants to die in, but not in any factory plane.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
You won't see this in a SLSLA, maybe in an experimental that some guy wants to die in, but not in any factory plane.
Click to expand...


Curious, what's your reasoning? Why do you think the Continental engine would be so unreliable?
 
CTLSi said:
You won't see this in a SLSLA, maybe in an experimental that some guy wants to die in, but not in any factory plane.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I predict it'll be in SR22s within a few years.
 
300 horsepower diesel in a pawnee would be nice. keep them towing gliders for another 50 years
 
tonycondon said:
300 horsepower diesel in a pawnee would be nice. keep them towing gliders for another 50 years
Click to expand...

That would be a really expensive Pawnee.
 
i'm actually more interested in the natural gas conversion that Aviat is working on, that could work pretty well for glider towing ops.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I disagree. I predict it'll be in SR22s within a few years.
Click to expand...

Looks like DeltaHawk beat them to it, one flew into OSH this week. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Delta-Hawk-Almost-Ready-For-Production222486-1.html

zaitcev said:
The C300 is in the same power class as the SMA diesel that Cessna is trying to certify. Are there any amazing advantages to it? Like half the price over the French?
Click to expand...

The only real advantage is in parts of the world where 100LL is not available, or is extremely expensive. Jet A or regular diesel is available just about everywhere in the world, the engines are not intended to be competitive in the US market, at least not while we still have 100LL available.

CTLSi said:
You won't see this in a SLSA, maybe in an experimental that some guy wants to die in, but not in any factory plane.
Click to expand...

Nice attitude - way to keep it classy. In case you hadn't been paying attention recently, EAB is the only sector of GA that is still flourishing - in fact the VANS aircraft line has had more first flights in the last five years than Cessna and Piper COMBINED. You might not like them, but they are here to stay. People are tired of overpriced factory spamcans that they can't work on, and the market data reflects that.
 
Last edited:
airguy said:
Looks like DeltaHawk beat them to it, one flew into OSH this week. http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Delta-Hawk-Almost-Ready-For-Production222486-1.html



The only real advantage is in parts of the world where 100LL is not available, or is extremely expensive. Jet A or regular diesel is available just about everywhere in the world, the engines are not intended to be competitive in the US market, at least not while we still have 100LL available.



Nice attitude - way to keep it classy. In case you hadn't been paying attention recently, EAB is the only sector of GA that is still flourishing - in fact the VANS aircraft line has had more first flights in the last five years than Cessna and Piper COMBINED. You might not like them, but they are here to stay. People are tired of overpriced factory spamcans that they can't work on, and the market data reflects that.
Click to expand...

Your last comment is interesting, as both Cessna and Piper have developed squat over the past decade. They both still sell a 1950's technology airplane with today's glass for over $300K.
 
jmp470 said:
Your last comment is interesting, as both Cessna and Piper have developed squat over the past decade. They both still sell a 1950's technology airplane with today's glass for over $300K.
Click to expand...


Yep. What's even more pathetic is that I believe the profit margins on their $300k 50s technology planes are still pretty small...
 
Pilawt said:
Those '50s-technology airplanes are still largely hand-built. Labor is expensive. Cars are built by robots.
Click to expand...

Over the years, they could have automated several of the processes. Majority of the time, Cessna posted quarterly profits for its investors... could have used some of that money.
 
They probably do not have the volume to justify a lot of the automation.
 
dans2992 said:
They probably do not have the volume to justify a lot of the automation.
Click to expand...

Over 50 years worth of sales, I'm sure they had the volume!!! And that is why EAB and new LSA designs are prevailing and picking up steam.

No other industry illustrates the decaying American hegemony as well as GA. The manufacturers have lost touch with reality and its customer base. It's very sad.

My situation is: I can buy a C172 new for about $300K, or I can buy a Recreational Vehicle for about $90-125K and then get a LSA or RV-10 for about $150K. Or I can get the recreational vehicle now, and wait to see if the C4, or delta hawk Cirrus conversation comes to market.

Conventional GA has killed itself here in the USA! And now they are hoping that the FDA rewrites its laws.
 
jmp470 said:
Over 50 years worth of sales, I'm sure they had the volume!!! And that is why EAB and new LSA designs are prevailing and picking up steam.

No other industry illustrates the decaying American hegemony as well as GA. The manufacturers have lost touch with reality and its customer base. It's very sad.
Click to expand...

Those of us who fix both airplanes and cars know there's a big difference in their manufacture. Ever seen pics of an automobile assembly line? It would take a LOT of cars to pay for all those robots and the computers that drive them. Still cheaper than union labor rates, though.

Robotic machinery can stamp out complex, compound-curved steel body parts. If you try that with 2024 aluminum, it splits and tears. You are limited to CNC shearing and rivet hole punching. Robots can weld body parts together in a flash, 2024 can't be welded. You can weld 6061 or 5052, but those are weaker, softer alloys so you need thicker parts, meaning heavier parts, not something welcome in an airplane. I can't see robots installing and bucking tiny rivets with any speed, considering the tens of thousands of locations (coordinates) and the varying diameters and lengths of rivets, and so on. Robots might be able to work with composites, but layups and cure times and all that is really critical, far more so than robotic welding. The only solution would be plastic molding, using some super-strong, UV-resistant, non-fiber material we don't have yet.

Short story: cars are not airplanes. Many cars, few airplanes. Heavy cars, light airplanes. Car engine failures are mostly an inconvenience; airplane engine failures tend to get lethal. Even if airplanes cost a third of what they do; how many more people would fly? Maintenance costs would still be as bad as they are now. A license would still cost a lot of money and take a lot of work, and most folks just won't do it.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Those of us who fix both airplanes and cars know there's a big difference in their manufacture. Ever seen pics of an automobile assembly line? It would take a LOT of cars to pay for all those robots and the computers that drive them. Still cheaper than union labor rates, though.

Robotic machinery can stamp out complex, compound-curved steel body parts. If you try that with 2024 aluminum, it splits and tears. You are limited to CNC shearing and rivet hole punching. Robots can weld body parts together in a flash, 2024 can't be welded. You can weld 6061 or 5052, but those are weaker, softer alloys so you need thicker parts, meaning heavier parts, not something welcome in an airplane. I can't see robots installing and bucking tiny rivets with any speed, considering the tens of thousands of locations (coordinates) and the varying diameters and lengths of rivets, and so on. Robots might be able to work with composites, but layups and cure times and all that is really critical, far more so than robotic welding. The only solution would be plastic molding, using some super-strong, UV-resistant, non-fiber material we don't have yet.

Short story: cars are not airplanes. Many cars, few airplanes. Heavy cars, light airplanes. Car engine failures are mostly an inconvenience; airplane engine failures tend to get lethal. Even if airplanes cost a third of what they do; how many more people would fly? Maintenance costs would still be as bad as they are now. A license would still cost a lot of money and take a lot of work, and most folks just won't do it.

Dan
Click to expand...


Dan,
Please don't take this personal, but, when I read that. I think, lots of excuses, (aka the American way). Our society is stuck in many different areas, all because things cannot be done as they once were. This was the same exact argument when glass panels first came out! This way of thinking has become our Achilles heal. It is the same with fuel. We are still dick dancing with 100LL, etc. at one point you wake up and realize that your industry is archaic and needs to be overhauled or die a glorious death (aka, the golden age of flight, etc). Another point, at one point cars were also hand build too
 
There are three reasons US GA is stuck:

1. the FAA - too big, too slow, mission not concerned with aviation advances
2. the installed base of old aircraft - fleet conversion problems
3. the slow acceptance of new tech by an aging pilot base
 
jmp470 said:
Dan,
Please don't take this personal, but, when I read that. I think, lots of excuses, (aka the American way). Our society is stuck in many different areas, all because things cannot be done as they once were. This was the same exact argument when glass panels first came out! This way of thinking has become our Achilles heal. It is the same with fuel. We are still dick dancing with 100LL, etc. at one point you wake up and realize that your industry is archaic and needs to be overhauled or die a glorious death (aka, the golden age of flight, etc). Another point, at one point cars were also hand build too
Click to expand...


If there was money to be made building affordable light airplane, many more smart guys would be doing it. But how many startup companies can you think of that have managed to do that? There have been some in the last 20 years; they start out with a reasonable price in mind, publish that price, then by the time they get the bugs worked out and the thing certified, it costs about three times more than they said it would.

It's NOT because we're stuck with old mindsets. The certified guys have been adopting new technology all along, as long as it worked for the homebuilders. Composites. Glass panels. Diesels. FADEC. Lots of stuff. It's not because we're resistant to change; it's because our society demands risk-free recreation, and to achieve that sort of thing, the governments place onerous requirements on the builders. Even then, there's no such thing as a safe yet profitable airplane as long as people do the dumb (and illegal) things they do, then sue, and win big awards.

The industry suffers tremendously under such conditions, both in the public perception and in financial ways, discouraging the wannabes from taking it up. Ignorant journalism is part of the trouble. When people say to me that they would never ride in a little airplane, I point out several really old airplanes and tell them that this here 1957 172 has never been damaged or killed anyone; that there 1946 Champ hasn't either. Most airplanes haven't hurt anyone. If you're going to revitalize the industry you MUST tackle those issues. No market means no revitalization.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
If there was money to be made building affordable light airplane, many more smart guys would be doing it. But how many startup companies can you think of that have managed to do that? There have been some in the last 20 years; they start out with a reasonable price in mind, publish that price, then by the time they get the bugs worked out and the thing certified, it costs about three times more than they said it would.

It's NOT because we're stuck with old mindsets. The certified guys have been adopting new technology all along, as long as it worked for the homebuilders. Composites. Glass panels. Diesels. FADEC. Lots of stuff. It's not because we're resistant to change; it's because our society demands risk-free recreation, and to achieve that sort of thing, the governments place onerous requirements on the builders. Even then, there's no such thing as a safe yet profitable airplane as long as people do the dumb (and illegal) things they do, then sue, and win big awards.

The industry suffers tremendously under such conditions, both in the public perception and in financial ways, discouraging the wannabes from taking it up. Ignorant journalism is part of the trouble. When people say to me that they would never ride in a little airplane, I point out several really old airplanes and tell them that this here 1957 172 has never been damaged or killed anyone; that there 1946 Champ hasn't either. Most airplanes haven't hurt anyone. If you're going to revitalize the industry you MUST tackle those issues. No market means no revitalization.

Dan
Click to expand...

Then explain why the LSA market is growing? It is still ran through the FAA. Additionally, the FAA did not come around until the late 50's, while AOPA says it started in 1939! Plenty of time for pilots to start the industry off on the right foot and gain momentum!

I still don't buy that rhetoric. All that happen was fat cats got fatter and sat around watching the industry implode!

Don't believe me, look at AOPA's quarterly filings and FAA's lack of budget!!!!
 
jmp470 said:
Then explain why the LSA market is growing? It is still ran through the FAA.
Click to expand...

Lsa grows because it's the cheapest way to get flying without building your own airplane. And it's still not cheap, even at that. And it's unlikely that you're going to find a lot of expensive goodies in an "affordable" LSA, too, so they tend to look a lot like the airplanes we've been seeing for a long time.

As far as "fat cats" in aviation manufacturing: sure, there are fat cats there, just like there are fat cat automakers, but manufacturers like Cessna are making their money on jets, not piston singles. The makers who don't make jets aren't doing so well. What's Mooney up to these days? Piper?

Dan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top