Safran SMA Diesel--retrofitting possible?

W

WhiskeyPapa

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 6, 2013
Messages
199
Display Name
Display name:
WhiskeyPapa
Over engine life, these diesels might offer enough savings on fuel to justify an upgrade (depending on what it cost)… would anyone look at this? Any ideas on what it would cost to put this into an older 182, if possible?

"The 227 horsepower SMA engine burns 11 gallons per hour, or about 30 to 40 percent less fuel than comparable avgas engines. Estimated range at max cruise speed is an 1,025 nm. The certified ceiling will be 20,000 feet, while estimated useful load is 1,018 pounds."
Read more at

http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/pistons/cessna-182-jt-certification-imminent#wDtBpFSuxLyp8fp6.99
 
The STC for that engine in a 182 has been available around a decade if not more. I would consider them for the 310 if a set of 300+HP Diesels don't show up.
 
The 182 STC is for the Q model only, IIRC. Did some work on one three years ago. SMA had plenty of teething problems, and this one was one of the first generation versions. Lots of stuff needed fixing.

They burn about 8 gph in cruise, not 11.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
The 182 STC is for the Q model only, IIRC. Did some work on one three years ago. SMA had plenty of teething problems, and this one was one of the first generation versions. Lots of stuff needed fixing.

They burn about 8 gph in cruise, not 11.

Dan
Click to expand...

How much would it cost all in?
 
WhiskeyPapa said:
How much would it cost all in?
Click to expand...

Three or four years ago it was north of $100K. You have to want a diesel pretty badly. They make more sense in some areas (such as Africa and South America) where Avgas is rare and expensive.

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
Three or four years ago it was north of $100K.
Click to expand...

Is this simply a function of economy of scale, or are there technical complexities that make it so expensive? Diesel sure seems like a good alternative to 100LL, but beyond reading a few articles in Pilot about it, I don't know much about the technology in GA applications.
 
kayoh190 said:
Is this simply a function of economy of scale, or are there technical complexities that make it so expensive? Diesel sure seems like a good alternative to 100LL, but beyond reading a few articles in Pilot about it, I don't know much about the technology in GA applications.
Click to expand...

SMA spent one billion dollars developing that thing. That's what they told us, anyway. They're a part of a much bigger outfit that can afford to spend money like that, but they also want to recoup those costs. When I was involved with that one airplane there were only 50 flying worldwide. It will take a long time to get the R&R back at that rate, especially because the $100K includes the labor, mount, plumbing, everything. Maybe Continental can do it for less, but it will never be an O-470 price.

Dan
 
In Europe, 100LL is running about 2.7 Euros per liter. That means 10.2 Euros per gallon. Or 13.87 USD per gallon. (US-based pilots, please stop bitching about cost of flying or I may make use of liberal gun laws next time I show up!!! :D)

Diesel is running about 1.5 Euros per liter. Not sure on Jet A. Point is that in a place like Europe 6 USD per gallon savings is realistic with a different engine. Assume, you consume 12 gallons per hour=$ 72 in savings per hour. 100 hours = $ 7,200 or 1000 hours $ 72,000.

And that's without counting the greater fuel efficiency of the newer engines. I suspect you get close to recovery of the full cost of the upgrade within 1000 hours. (Edit…before seeing Henning's remarks!)

That's back of the envelope but gives you an idea of how these upgrades can make sense.

BTW another alternative is non-ethanol Mogas, which seems more readily available in Europe in the US (and is showing up at more airports).
 
Last edited:
WhiskeyPapa said:
In Europe, 100LL is running about 2.7 Euros per liter. That means 10.2 Euros per gallon. Or 13.87 USD per gallon. (US-based pilots, please stop bitching about cost of flying or I may make use of liberal gun laws next time I show up!!! :D)

Diesel is running about 1.5 Euros per liter. Not sure on Jet A. Point is that in a place like Europe 6 USD per gallon savings is realistic with a different engine. Assume, you consume 12 gallons per hour=$ 72 in savings per hour. 100 hours = $ 7,200 or 1000 hours $ 72,000.

That's back of the envelope but gives you an idea of how these upgrades can make sense.
Click to expand...

Without a doubt, (although you forgot that your fuel burn decreases from 12gph-8gph, so there's another 33%). The real advantage to having a Diesel burner though is the ability to run algae oil without having to refine it to gasoline, there is already a Jet-A approved algae fuel.

With an algae oil engine, you can grow your own fuel supply.

Here's the real question, can you combine the SMA with the Katmai conversion on the 182? That canard helps everything about that airframe from low speed handling and a nice balanced yoke pull to efficiency in cruise.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
With an algae oil engine, you can grow your own fuel supply.

Here's the real question, can you combine the SMA with the Katmai conversion on the 182? That canard helps everything about that airframe from low speed handling and a nice balanced yoke pull to efficiency in cruise.
Click to expand...

I think I recall you can install a canard without the full Katmai upgrade (on a stock 182 anyway).
 
WhiskeyPapa said:
I think I recall you can install a canard without the full Katmai upgrade (on a stock 182 anyway).
Click to expand...

That would be your machine, the Petersen airframe conversion and the Continental/SMA engine.

Either that or stick it in an early Bonanza, I bet Continental would be helpful developing the STC as there is a pretty good market potential. Think of a full load of fuel with the Osbourne tip tanks what kind of range you would have. With a Speed Slope windshield and an older, lighter airframe you would have a great 150kt traveller at 8gph.
 
WhiskeyPapa said:
In Europe, 100LL is running about 2.7 Euros per liter. That means 10.2 Euros per gallon. Or 13.87 USD per gallon. (US-based pilots, please stop bitching about cost of flying or I may make use of liberal gun laws next time I show up!!! :D)

Diesel is running about 1.5 Euros per liter. Not sure on Jet A. Point is that in a place like Europe 6 USD per gallon savings is realistic with a different engine. Assume, you consume 12 gallons per hour=$ 72 in savings per hour. 100 hours = $ 7,200 or 1000 hours $ 72,000.

And that's without counting the greater fuel efficiency of the newer engines. I suspect you get close to recovery of the full cost of the upgrade within 1000 hours. (Edit…before seeing Henning's remarks!)

That's back of the envelope but gives you an idea of how these upgrades can make sense.

BTW another alternative is non-ethanol Mogas, which seems more readily available in Europe in the US (and is showing up at more airports).
Click to expand...

And then there is the push by the environmentalists here in the US that want to eliminate leaded avgas - very quickly. Such engines might be mandated.
 
wsuffa said:
And then there is the push by the environmentalists here in the US that want to eliminate leaded avgas - very quickly. Such engines might be mandated.
Click to expand...

Unleaded avgas is in the works. It will show up soon enough, though its availability will probably accelerate the ban on 100LL.

Dan
 
Now that SMA have licenced their Generation 2 engine for the factory-new C182, they are no longer providing engines for retrofits. They are still supporting the existing fleet but very grudgingly. They are sending very strong signals of not wanting anything to do with individuals or small organisations at all any more; if you're not a big player like Cessna, you might as well not bother talking to them.

Gen 1 engine had a terrible alternator setup that we found to fail about every 50 hours. Sure hope they've improved on that.
 
Dan Thomas said:
Unleaded avgas is in the works. It will show up soon enough, though its availability will probably accelerate the ban on 100LL.

Dan
Click to expand...

Most likely expensive enough to pay for the conversion in short order....
 
Does the turbo enable this diesel to make better power at altitude? More cost savings if you can make reasonable cruise power at 18,000 ft


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dell30rb said:
Does the turbo enable this diesel to make better power at altitude? More cost savings if you can make reasonable cruise power at 18,000 ft


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Turbo diesels work somewhere between a traditional turbo aircraft engine and a naturally aspirated engine in altitude performance. Because they run such high manifold pressures, the turbo runs maxes out early on.
 
wsuffa said:
And then there is the push by the environmentalists here in the US that want to eliminate leaded avgas - very quickly. Such engines might be mandated.
Click to expand...

I don't see diesels being mandated for the legacy fleet. The markets will turn all new planes diesel on their own.

Dan Thomas said:
Unleaded avgas is in the works. It will show up soon enough, though its availability will probably accelerate the ban on 100LL.
Click to expand...

Once an unleaded 100LL replacement is blessed by the FAA, I expect 100LL to go away in about a year, maybe 2.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Turbo diesels work somewhere between a traditional turbo aircraft engine and a naturally aspirated engine in altitude performance. Because they run such high manifold pressures, the turbo runs maxes out early on.
Click to expand...
Cessna's website for 182 JT-A says " Critical altitude (ft): 10,000", "Maximum Operating Altitude: 20,000 ft". Does not seem like an airplane for cruising in flight levels.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Cessna's website for 182 JT-A says " Critical altitude (ft): 10,000", "Maximum Operating Altitude: 20,000 ft". Does not seem like an airplane for cruising in flight levels.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my point. A normal turbo Lycontisaur has a critical altitude between 15-25k ft. That's just where you can no longer make max rated power/manifold pressure.

So, a Lycoming T182 might do better above 10k ft into the flight levels, but do you really want to fly a 182 that high? Seems kind of silly most of the time.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That was pretty much my point. A normal turbo Lycontisaur has a critical altitude between 15-25k ft. That's just where you can no longer make max rated power/manifold pressure.

So, a Lycoming T182 might do better above 10k ft into the flight levels, but do you really want to fly a 182 that high? Seems kind of silly most of the time.
Click to expand...

Not unless way up in the mountains. Wouldn't surprise me if they end up 2 staging the Diesels with a gear or belt drive supercharger with a stacked turbo. Also helps your restart altitude.
 
Henning said:
Not unless way up in the mountains. Wouldn't surprise me if they end up 2 staging the Diesels with a gear or belt drive supercharger with a stacked turbo. Also helps your restart altitude.
Click to expand...

I have felt that a 2-stage sequential forced induction diesel will be needed, especially if they want to get into pressurized planes like Malibus, 414/421s, etc. I like the turbo/supercharger setup. Let a turbo feed a supercharger.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have felt that a 2-stage sequential forced induction diesel will be needed, especially if they want to get into pressurized planes like Malibus, 414/421s, etc. I like the turbo/supercharger setup. Let a turbo feed a supercharger.
Click to expand...

Been doing it on airplanes since before WWII, no sense stopping.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I have felt that a 2-stage sequential forced induction diesel will be needed, especially if they want to get into pressurized planes like Malibus, 414/421s, etc. I like the turbo/supercharger setup. Let a turbo feed a supercharger.
Click to expand...

The new Volvo S6 power plant is that setup. 304 HP, IIRC out of 2.5 liter 4 cylinder.

John
 
Henning said:
Not unless way up in the mountains.
Click to expand...

I once checked the highest airports in Europe. The highest - period - airport was only 6000 ft or so, or a whole lot lower than Taos where my puny 56 hp Carlson managed to visit easily, in the summer. The second highest was about 4500 or so, lower than my home base.

If they are going to export that 182 to Europe, existing turbo is all they need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top