I don't know what the latest is on the SMA... Socata played with it for a few years (they got Britten Norman on the Isle of Wight to do the R&D) and there is a TB10 and a TB20 flying with it. Thielert obviously got ahead early on, on the back of Diamond's high profile. It should be a good retrofit-market engine, with IO540-compatible mounting points.
I know there is additional equipment with this engine, but as you say the IO540 similarity on the mounting points must be an efficient and cost effective (for GA) way of doing the conversation.
They don't want to pursue STCs themselves anymore due to cost and lack of experience. Chicken hen problem.
A real shame... because I think I fall in the grey area in terms of hours where I fall into a zone of "High for a renter, low for an owner" and looking at some Piper Arrows with IFR kit, which is my next step (IR next year hopefully), I could get into one but it would be a stretch for me and falling on uncomfortable. If SMA deliver on their high level promises of fuel flow and power up to FL150 then an SMA powered Arrow would be VERY attractive to me as it would allow me to do the sort of flying that I really want to do. (Similar to Peter's missions but maybe not as far as often).
2400h TBO is a great start (how did they manage to get this, I rather don't want to know) and they hinted something about 2800h soon and then 3000h later.
For me the main attraction of this is that it is TBO, not TBR. An overhaul has to be cheaper than replacement otherwise TBR becomes attractive again.
The big bonus for me is the mechanical "FADEC" of this engine as it does seem to address the main concern of the other powerplants available at the moment.
OTOH Diamond don't need to do that because there is no other option for that market - apart from the Tecnam twin.
Mmm, yes, and although a good point; I think that is bad news, because there does not seem to be any way that Tecnam could pick up the SMA as an option on the 2006, would they need a new airframe?... the weight difference between the engines is rather large... but are they absolutely aimed at the same market? The DA42 is more expensive to run but more performance and the 2006 is cheaper but lower performance.
If SMA deliver on their high level promises of fuel flow and power up to FL150 then an SMA powered Arrow would be VERY attractive to me as it would allow me to do the sort of flying that I really want to do.
FL150 is by far not enough for sensible IR touring. An acquaintance of mine just sold his dream Turbo Arrow with everything imaginable (G500, intercooler, etc.) for next to nothing, about the amount he spent on avionics works in the last 3 years. Too bad I already had more than enough aircraft... The Avgas price cannot rise high enough for an SMA conversion to pay off. The only justification is Avgas availability but this is still OK in Europe.
The airframe conversion offer is a poor value proposition, always has been. It was done in rather large numbers with the Thielert engine because they offered a fixed cost per hour which eventually broke their neck. Now they are very hard to sell despite good parts availability and reliability of the Thielert engine.
Bundling the engine with a new airframe makes more sense but it should offer some advantages. The Cessna 182 JT-A only has one advantage that will make it sell: you can operate it where there is no Avgas. I was at the Egypt Air Flight Academy. They have ca 5 C172 SP and pay $5.3 per liter (not gallon!) of Avgas while Jet A-1 costs around 20 cents per liter. That's a business case for the SMA 182.
But, presumably, you are still allowed to fill the tanks right up?
The Thielert converted Warrior I once flew had its tanks reduced in volume.
an SMA powered Arrow
Would that even be possible? Is the SMA engine smaller than the Thielert? There was no Thielert STC because there isn't enough space firewall forward for both the Thielert and the gear.
Is the SMA engine smaller than the Thielert? There was no Thielert STC because there isn't enough space firewall forward for both the Thielert and the gear.
No idea, I was going of publish performance figures. But I have heard that there might be an arrow with an SMA flying as a demonstrator, but as far as I understand there is no STC on it.
@achima speak more at the weekend, would love to chat about details more on the business case because I think that the published price for a conversion could be offset by sale of removed parts. But obviously it can't be that great otherwise everyone would be doing this. I am still researching heavily into the pitfalls of aircraft ownership, my only exposure to date is some very well run syndicates.
I was at the Egypt Air Flight Academy. They have ca 5 C172 SP and pay $5.3 per liter (not gallon!) of Avgas while Jet A-1 costs around 20 cents per liter.
That's probably an extreme case for Africa.
In Singapore & Malaysia Jet A is around USD1.14/liter & avgas (if you can find it) about USD2.45/liter, still a significant difference... - compare fuel costs of a Seminole (say) with a DA42, you're looking at a fuel cost multiple of 3-4 times pr nm.
Friends of mine just completed an overhaul on an Lycoming AEIO-540 for $7500, call it €5700, minus accessories and with the very good ex-deal from Lycoming on a crankshaft kit that included new bearings, rings etc. in addition to the crank itself. It was an 1100 hr TT engine, so not so old, but they replaced valves, guides and pistons as well as the bottom end. Cylinders needed only honing, or they'd have bored them 10 thou over - its cheap. Cam and lifters were reground. The crankcase was inspected but required no work in this instance. Labor was free. The Slick mags have 800 hrs but were serviced at 500 hrs. They'll throw them away and replace them for $1500 or whatever in a couple of hundred more hours, or 2-3 years. Its a very clean looking installation in an immaculate ~20 year old certified aircraft.
Its surely an extreme example of cost saving but serves to illustrate the point. There are a small number of operators worldwide who would justify €90K + tax for a heavy engine that saves fuel, given the opportunity. The majority of aircraft owners/decision makers don't fly as much, don't burn as much fuel every year, don't pay as much for what they do burn, and get the job done in other ways.
The business case laid out by manufacturers needs to stand up under the harsh light of the real world market, or they get lonely.
That does not sound like An overhaul.
More like a crankshaft ad
That was surely not an overhaul to zero time. It was dead cheap. I paid about 35K, pounds that is not dollars for a IO360 last year.
An IO540-C4 overhaul in the USA (e.g. Barrett Precision - a highly reputable shop) is of the order of $25k. Shipping from/to Europe by air freight should be under $2000. I paid about $14k for the crank swap but that included a rebuild to new limits.
A TIO540 is way more - maybe $50k now. Basically you have to run double the engine fund with a turbo engine, and that assumes it will make TBO which most don't. But the fuel bill still dwarfs the engine fund these days...
Obviously that includes new cylinders, and loads of new stuff.
What I don't know is whether new cylinders are mandatory for an "overhaul". I don't think they are. So if you were amazingly lucky and didn't need new cylinders at 2k hrs then...
However Silvaire's point remains valid, showing the long term running cost of the old Lycos is so much lower than that of diesels that with the difference you can buy enough avgas to last any possible remainder of your flying life - as a private pilot in the 50-150hrs/year range.
I would perhaps pay for a diesel to ease travel to places like the Greek islands, but actually - with the TB20's 1350nm range - there is nowhere I want to go where I can't go already. All of Greece is reachable from anywhere in Croatia, and there is avgas in Corfu, Sitia, Athens (2x), Samos, and apparently Iraklion.
The problem with pricing a product right at the edge of viability is that, ahem, almost nobody is going to make the move.
The problem with pricing a product right at the edge of viability is that, ahem, almost nobody is going to make the move.
And the problem with pricing a product below that is that the manufacturer eventually goes bust... Thielert had a very attractive model with fixed maintenance costs but they did not anticipate the kind of technical problems they would face in the field.
I still like the idea of outlawing avgas, that would bring some innovation to the market. Both in new fuels and diesel engines. In most countries, there is a substantial tax on avgas, why not dedicate some of that to a clean engine program? Governments could pay 10 000 € for every avgas engine converted to a non avgas engine. This would not only reduce the bill by 10 000 € but at the same time cause a significant drop in conversion costs due to massively increased demand.
Basically you have to run double the engine fund with a turbo engine, and that assumes it will make TBO which most don't.
Another reason why one could prefer the aftermarket turbos, like the SR22TN and the TR182. The engine is a standard NA engine with reasonable overhaul costs and the turbo is separate. The TR182's O-540 generally makes its 2000h TBO. The TIO-540 is not a good engine IMO, too costly. In the Malibu, an overhaul is around 100k€.
