A company called RED with an orange logo? That website is so vague and contains so little content … that one will fly when my son is old :-)
I’ve seen that RED engine and it looks solid. The company does have the right background and experience. However, my impression was that the engine was too heavy for its use. Starting with a 500hp V12 is a bit strange as there aren’t a lot of airframes it could fit into — they showed it in a Yak.
Interesting, I’ve never heard about them. Maybe I’m too pessimistic … but I’ve worked in the field since 1994 and there have been so many announcements … a 500 hp V12 might be a good engine for a Malibu … if it fits :-) JetProp LIGHT
Of course the big Q with those modern diesels is how they are going to get power at altitude. A diesel is heavily turbocharged at MSL already — 100" MP is standard. Getting any meaningful power at altitude is very difficult and the big diesels (300hp+) mostly have applications in aircraft that fly high.
No car journalist will diss your Mercedes because it doesn’t do 0-100kph in 3 seconds on the top of the Himalaya…
My opinion is that the future lies in electric superchargers pressure feeding relatively small diesel engines with a reduction gear box — both for cars and airplanes.
EPS has tested their engine at 30k feet – apparently it “still works” up there.
Apparently tested in the test cell up to 408 HP O.O
Of course it can run at 30k feet but what power does it deliver and from which level on can it be restarted in flight? However, piston engines are held to higher standards than turbines there — restarting a turbine in flight is far from trivial.
Also nice to see that there is military sponsorship, it is just so damn hard to develop a GA engine with private money. Thielert burned private money and then generated cashflow by selling to the US military while EPS seem to benefit from direct military sponsoring.
Still, I don’t give this engine much chance. 8 cylinders for the projected power output is 2 cylinders too many.
The EPS engine was a big deal in Aerostar community and some owners backed the company financially. I will say the EPS engine probably has the highest chance of success as far as aviation diesels go. But the problem with all diesel engines is that they’ll have to compete against Jet A1 engines. Here are the general facts for retrofitting in any single or twin:
The engine will probably be available for around $120-150K/engine. But then someone needs to spend 3 years developing a very costly STC for each airframe. Obviously, they don’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they do this to make money. Expect another $100-150K for the STC for your airplane. Now let’s look at a P Baron example. You’re now spending $300K in engines, and probably another $150K for the STC, that’s $450K on top of whatever the airframe is worth. You’re still saddled with a shitty 3.9psi cabin differential and you are going to be as slow as they are. For the $600-700K you’re now spending, you can get into just about any twin turboprop that will outperform it at every level. That’s where the real competition will be – against older Jet A1 burning planes. Same goes for singles. Few are going to spend $300K on a $300K Cirrus airframe, making it $600K, when you can get into a Meridian or used TBM for the same money.
I see only two futures: turbines and electric/hybrid. Diesels and pistons won’t make it – not in cars, not in aviation.
AdamFrisch wrote:
I will say the EPS engine probably has the highest chance of success as far as aviation diesels go.
What makes you think so? The Continental V6 diesel is certified now (EASA, FAA should follow shortly), comes from an established engine manufacturer and is significantly lighter, playing in the same power range. The EPS engine is not certified (not even close) and you really don’t need 8 cylinders for that power output, only adds weight and size.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Few are going to spend $300K on a $300K Cirrus airframe, making it $600K
Cirrus sell hundreds a year at $1m+. I believe there will be a factory diesel version from Cirrus.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Diesels and pistons won’t make it – not in cars, not in aviation.
Piston engines power 99% of all cars sold worldwide so that’s a bold statement. Diesel engines are the engines of choice for bigger vehicles all around the globe (the threshold of “big” depends on the individual country’s fuel/car tax situation).
I believe the diesel Cirrus version will be the only version. Cut down on costs, assembly line complexity, fast-forward recouping of R&D costs.
Not to mention that it smooths even further the upgrade path to the jet – same fuel, same controls, same avionics. I think that while doomsayers have a well-rehearsed speech, if you spend 1m on a new Cirrus, 30-40k extra for an engine that is going to have the same wife “safety & reliability” appeal as the chute is going to be a rounding error. After all if you buy a 1m avgas plane you have a 40k slush fund for stuff that breaks on the engine anyway so…
An argument can always be made about how people that buy a 10k car will not ever spend 10.5k on one that is significantly more reliable and cheaper to operate… but I’m not sure how much traction it is going to have.
While I agree that a diesel Cirrus would be a far more attractive package anywhere outside the US, I am sceptical that it would gain traction in the US. Typical GA airports are more likely to carry leaded AVGAS than Jet A-1 and it is usually even cheaper per liter. Also environmental concerns seem to not gain any traction even though lead is vilest substance there is.
Cessna abandoned the turbo 182 when they announced the SMA diesel version as the replacement. Then they canned the project and now neither of the two airplanes exist anymore.
Another Cessna project, the 162 Skycatcher LSA went with a conventional low-tech engine against all the others with Rotax (which we know to be a super modern hi-tech engine after reading Mike Busch’s recent article on this groundbreaking new engine) and failed miserably. So there are limits even in the US when you try to sell products using the “our 1940s stuff is still the best in the world” claim.
