Silvaire wrote:
The issue for Diesels is not what any individual may prefer, but what will sell to the market in volume.
All turbines are “diesel cycle” so it is obvious what sells in volume 
Reports from Osh where this Cessna flew 2750 km, it will reduce fuel consumption with 35% (from 40-45 lph to 30). Lets say it is from 40 to 30 to be fair. In Norway Jet fuel is about €0.9, while avgas is about €1.5.
Avgas: 40 * 1.5 = 60
Jet: 30 * 0.9 = 27
33 Euro is saved each hour. 33k for 1k hour is a considerable saving (the fuel cost is cut in half and then some), but it’s a long way to go to offset the $175k.
All diesels so far are ridiculously over priced. It makes no economical sense to to get one, not even for an experimental aircraft. They are also rather complex. The Continental CD-155 is probably the best choice if you want a diesel, and then you chose an airframe that fits. I don’t know what it costs outright, but the Glasair price list gives a hint. The CD-155 option is $75k more expensive than the 210 HP IO390 option, or $89k more expensive than an IO360.
The “two week to taxi” Sportsman starts at 200k with an IO360. The diesel option starts at 289k. IMO the only reason to get a diesel is if AVGAS is not available.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
I think the actual real fantasy is thinking everyone has access to free qualified tech labor, endless amounts of time and space, and nothing else to do than waiting for things to get fixed.
The reality is that private GA is a recreational activity for 99% of those involved with it. Hence, private GA has a lot more in common with the vintage car scene than the “consumer buy and trash” car scene. EASA on the other hand, has defined private GA as some kind of “Airbus lite”, which is the main problem in Europe. At the same time Rotax is shuffling out non certified 912s in much greater numbers than all the others combined.
Stop and think for one minute – why is it “recreational” to begin with?
Why is it called “general aviation” and not “general backyard mechanics” when most of the time is spent on the ground trying to make things work?
Why is the soaring scene so much more younger and vibrant? Or the hanggliding scene? Because people actually “aviate”. Yet they are also “recreational activities” and a lot more so than General “Aviation”
Don’t blame EASA just for putting the final nail in the coffin of what was a dying industry surviving on a single product that doesn’t do what the label says it should, and where sales numbers were driven by currently thriving industries like night cheque hauling or pipeline inspection…
Blame the “consumer buy and trash” industry all you want – the same industry that allows someone to own 12 vehicles while at the same time preaching opposition to it -but the reality of life is that thanks to it you enjoy things that are a lot more efficient, easy, fun to use, more reliable by several orders of magnitude and accessible to everyone. Of course if you disagree with the above you can also write your dissenting opinion with a goose feather and real ink and send it in by travelling pigeon or foot runners…
You should go into politics, Shorrick!
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
Why is it called “general aviation” and not “general backyard mechanics” when most of the time is spent on the ground trying to make things work?
It’s all about having enough money to pay for “someone else” to fiddle with it. GA has never really “grown up” industrially. Not to any similar extent of for instance cars and just about every other consumer goods we have. GA offers no utility value. It’s operationally way too complex. The utility value in GA only starts with helis and buizjets/TP and you can pay a couple of pilots to fly and a 3-4 mechanics to fix. Otherwise any utility value is “have space for golf equipment” kind of peculiarities – purely recreational stuff that adds a little spice and “meaning” to the flying (or golfing/hunting/skiing etc, depending on your point of view).
Not before we see widespread use of autonomous drones carrying people, will GA change. That seems way into the future, if ever. I bet no one here would think of that kind of flying as any fun though.
IMO it’s nothing wrong with this. The three big GA happenings in the world are Osh, Sun’n fun and AERO. They have all grown out of the microlight and experimental communities. This IS the heart and soul of private GA today, whether we like it or not (with all kinds of hopeless commercial interests piggybacking also of course). Osh/EAA is also embracing vintage/military aircraft more and more. Private GA could as well be called GBM as far as I’m concerned.
The newly built RV-8 (with the builder) I met a few days ago, had FADEC from Aerosance on his Lycoming (as well as full IFR). Even the Rotax iS has FADEC. Modern stuff is indeed available in GA, only it is completely outside the “jurisdiction” of EASA. (Maybe the Aerosance is certified by now, I don’t know). What I mean, there is no reason a CD-155 (basically a Mercedes conversion) should cost 5-10 times as much as a Rotax iS, which already is premium priced.
I agree with Achim 100%. The Thielert saga at the time was bad news but that is irrelevant today. That company does not exist anymore and the engine is now under the umbrella of Continental and works very well indeed. That should be more than enough confidence for anyone thinking of going down that road. I think the 155hp engine is quite reliable these days and most probably a sight better than the 1950 designs we fly.
Anyone having had to tinker and experiment every time he starts his Avgas relic like in the times of 1950 automobiles, where going places always was a gamble as those things would break down without warning would love to finally have an engine up front which is turn key start, not a procedure which goes over 10 checklist positions and, failing that, is able to fill uncounted forum threads on how to get the darn thing going. Followed by bookloads about how to keep them happy and how to operate them.
I see a parallel in an old car I am running at my vaccation place, 1986 built french car with an engine which has a manual choke and fogs in the whole neighbourhood when starting up. Every time I get back there getting the darn thing to run stops short of sacrificing a goat and involving wiccan magic. Am i willing to put up with it? Heavens no, but by now I know how to coax it back to life which doesn’t prevent frustration every time we do it. Recently my O360 in my Mooney behaves similarly, no fault found by maintenance but every start up is an “experience”.
Frankly, looking how the Diesel crowd start up their engines is how things should be. Turn the key and get instant start up, then operate with one lever and forget all the black magic of LOP, power setting tables the size of a tax declaration form and Advanced Pilot Seminars to learn how to use them. Fly with fuel whichis available nearly everywhere and at significantly less consumption. Have a FADEC take away most of the bookloads of tips and tricks on how to care of dinosaurs.
The only reason we still don’t have modern engines available in aviation but for some very tiny examples is that nobody can survive a certification of a new engine unless they have unhealthy amounts of money to burn and why should Lycoming or Conti do that if they can still sell designs which have been paid off in 1950?
Peter wrote:
Yet, you freely choose to fly what you would probably call an old heap A DA42 has a similar payload, can burn avtur (very useful for your trips to Egypt) and can be bought new and thoroughly modern.
The DA42 is more a TB20 alternative (ask Emir). It’s slower, has less useable load, a smaller cabin and needs a lot more runway than my TR182. The DA62 is nicer but to be honest the Austro puts me off — a very clumsy adoption of a car engine to aviation with too much weight and a cowling bigger than the cabin of some aircraft. On top of that, I personally dislike the aesthetics of Diamond aircraft. At > 1m€, it should be pretty at least. A DA62 with 2×230hp SMA might be more interesting.
You don’t have to go as far as a diesel engine to see how the GA industry is unable to innovate and to a large degree because the few remaining customers are more conservative than the word conservative could express. Look at Lycoming’s IO390 and the FADEC Lycoming which never got anywhere. Electronic ignition? Nowhere to be seen in the certified market besides the Guimbal G2 Cabri helicopter (a very smart man this Mr Guimbal).
Sure a gasoline engine is more suitable in principle for small aircraft because it is a lot cheaper, lighter, less complex. However, there are 2 main factors that nobody outside the USA can ignore:
1) AVGAS is not widely available
2) AVGAS contains lead and it is completely unacceptable to emit lead. We’re past that and granting GA an exception is a bold mistake. Nobody should be allowed to emit any lead at all.
On top of that, I personally dislike the aesthetics of Diamond aircraft
OT, but by the way, at last, Diamond has finally demonstrated this year that they CAN propose a good looking aircraft… the DART450.
Maybe your approach to GA is not 100% representative for the whole market?
And it doesn’t sound that any company makes any decent money on your as a customer at all. That of course limits the industry’s ability to develop anything new.
