http://www.austroengine.at/products/jet-a1-piston-engines/piston-engines.html

I saw this in AOPA Pilot. For some reason I'm enamored with the idea of a diesel that runs on Jet A. Since Thielert folded and their Cessna deal fell through, it seems the only manufacturers pursuing a diesel option are Diamond and possibly Maule with the SMA?

New, somewhat promising entries into the engine market are also face a steep climb to success given the existing ubiquity of Continental and Lycoming, and the immense man hours and capital required to develop an STC for existing aircraft. The chance of something like this ever being a realistic upgrade for an old Cessna is pretty much nil, but a guy can dream.

Pic (large):
http://www.austroengine.at/cms/upload/Bilder/AE_300_transparent.jpg

There's a RV-8 here at Boulder City with a 3 cylinder turbo charged Diesel engine. Flying off his restriction hours but is really cool.Sounds like a sewing machine in the pattern. Engine comes from England -I believe tech told me it produces about 130 hp -burns 3 gallons a hour . In RV think there getting about 130 knots cruise .

Is it the Thielert Centurion? That was a promising design until the company had a meltdown. I thought it was a 4-cyl though.

I can't understand why more development in this arena hasn't taken place. The pros of a turbo diesel aircraft engine are many:

• Jet A is readily available on-field, often for slightly cheaper
• Jet A is basically kerosene, which is basically diesel, which is less refined and has some minor lubricative properties inherent. In theory this could translate into corrosion protection and less wear on components in the combustion chamber.
• Anything turbo-charged is going to perform better at altitude.
• Diesel designs benefit from constant power/rpm settings.
• Improved fuel efficiency per unit power output
• FADEC

Cons:

• Turbo chargers add more complexity, more maintenance expense, and cooling concerns.
• The cylinders/heads of diesels must be built to withstand greater compression, thus adding weight.
• It's a fringe concept for acceptance in the notoriously slow-to-adopt-new-technology aviation world.
• FADEC

Regarding FADEC: It's good in theory. When's the last time you agonized about the mixture in your modern automobile? But then, we're pilots and we must retain control of ALL systems.

A few more...

Pros:
Jet A doesn't contain lead. (Of course, neither does modern automobile gasoline, too bad it's hard to find without ethanol now)
Jet A has more energy per gallon than gasoline. So, more bang for the buck if they are the same price per gallon, and you can fly farther on a tank.

Cons:
Jet A weighs about 7 lbs. per gallon as opposed to 6 lbs. per gallon, although you get about the same energy from equal weights of the fuel.
Jet A turns to jelly at very low temps.
Absurdly expensive to get a supplemental type certificate approved.

The gov't ought to pay the cost to develop STCs for all of the major piston engine airplanes just to get rid of the lead. Then, we could just buy a diesel engine for the cost of a diesel engine. It would benefit society far more than their ethanol debacle.

I have always wondered why small turbines never "took off" so to speak. Too inefficient as they are now, but it seems like advances could be made, perhaps in a country where litigation isn't the factor that it is here. The power to weight ratio is unrivaled.

gb

I have been thinking about the engine burning ag diesel as a cheeper source of fuel.
The engine is a little heavy also
A Cessna 180 with a 300hp diesel is my dream.
The Thielert web site was kinda cool,but I dont know if it is still going.

If I remember right, even though the diesel may be heavier and the fuel weighs more, the diesel supposebly burns about half the fuel than avgas which in turn you can load about half the fuel in your airplane tanks. I have a brochure on that Thielert diesel engine somewhere. I'll look for it the next few days and find the specs.

Centurion (by Thielert) is apparently still updating their website. I'm not sure if the company has been purchased, or what...

http://www.centurion-engines.com/

SMA is another company producing diesels, but it reminds me of the mystique surrounding the production of Franklins. Are they being made? Can they be acquired? Apparently so, but they are not cheap.

Look at these numbers from their website:




Question: Do diesels use the exact same engine oil as gasoline burners? That spec list says "Aeroshell Diesel 10w40."

kevbert wrote:The gov't ought to pay the cost to develop STCs for all of the major piston engine airplanes just to get rid of the lead. Then, we could just buy a diesel engine for the cost of a diesel engine. It would benefit society far more than their ethanol debacle.

Before somebody starts in with "not more government spending" over this comment, the answer is clear: Relax the STC engineering data requirements. It's a purpose built engine with equivalent weight and power output for crying out loud. The FAA should make the STC for this and other powerplants a shoe-in. Over-regulation is stifling technological development. I guess the answer to that one is clear too: Go amateur-built experimental.

For the question on the name os the 3 cylinder diesel...I think it is WAM.....http://www.wilksch.com/
They have been in development for a few years and I have been folowing its development. I am still several years from completing my Rebel and haven't decided on an engine yet.

I'm not sure if the company has been purchased, or what...

There is a news release on April 6, 2009 indicating that the Centurion Engine Company is outside the Thielert bankruptcy and is doing world wide engine business.

They unfortunately chose a lousy business year to start a new company.

TD

Looks like DeltaHawk is still working on their diesel too. I just read in GA News that they have teamed up with LoPresti to start work on a STC that puts the DeltaHawk in a Cirrus.

DeltaHawk Press Release