Markus,
what buggs me is that the technology is even there (Lycoming HAS a diesel which would be suitable but it is military only). Well, looking at history, Detroit made the same mistakes and became irrelevant in the auto industry when it comes to innovation. Germany, Japan took care of that. Now we get Diesel engines from Europe (because here the problem is larger than in the US) and TCM buys into their technology. Well, maybe TCM sees something in them some of our forumites don’t.
I was at Aero and I had a look at Panthera and spoke to one of the developers.
They should go for a diesel, but they come from microlight corner where many bring their fuel from the petrol station.
Full agreement. The guy I talked to said that they keep hearing that and he agrees (he was one of the test pilots). I hope he can convince his bosses to give up the pipe dream of electric or hybrid propulsion and get a diesel. Their primary philosophy to get the most out of the least horse power is certainly right, if not exactly new. But others have forgotten that, with predictable results.
I am talking with another manufacturer currently and they do listen. Mainly because it’s not only me.
Young people are less interested in flying, because it means hard work to learn something.
Well, in the Swiss flight forum I see still a whole LOT of youngsters very interested. I also go to the JULA of the Swiss Aeroclub, which is booked out solid every year. The interest is there, but it is often enough smashed to bits by old farts who will loose no time telling them how bad aviation is, how expensive, how hopeless e.t.c. frustrated old timers who never got what they really wanted because they did not have the balls to buy a plane or to ever leave their traffic circuit.
Look into your smartphone or computer and let the virtual world take over.
Interestingly, there still is quite a substantial flight simmer crowd out there, many of which would dream of making their license. I’ve been trying to encourage them and some do. But what is really required is a massive reduction in cost for simple licenses such as a PPL. 30k CHF is simply outrageous, even 10 is too much. Interestingly, some schools are now really trying to get there again, either by using really economical trainers (one school here is quite popular with a bunch of Jodels, some others have changed for Rotax powered VLA’s such as Sport Cruiser or Tecnams). All of those try to use engines which run Mogas to get costs down.
Remember when Tennis was a sport for the elites only? Nowadays anyone can do it. Golf is going the same way too. Time for aviation to catch up.
Peter,
They need to deliver, initially, a really good tourer with a long range – 1300nm plus is what I would go for. Then avtur burning becomes a lot less relevant.
Actually, if they want to make their current offering exactly that, a Diesel version will do it. They have enough space under their cowling (no mod is needed to fit the IO540 over the IO390) so they could fit a Continental/SMA engine without any problem. 210 hp, 6-7 gph, 180 kts and 55 USG fuel capacity. 7.5 hrs endurance and 1300 NM range with reserve.
a Diesel version will do it. They have enough space under their cowling (no mod is needed to fit the IO540 over the IO390) so they could fit a Continental/SMA engine without any problem. 210 hp, 6-7 gph, 180 kts and 55 USG fuel capacity. 7.5 hrs endurance and 1300 NM range with reserve.
A serious question: what is the catch? If it was that simple, why are they putting in an IO540?
Because it is apparently not that simple. The SMA engine is still somewhat unproven and problematic. Cessna is needing several years to convert the IO-540 182 to that engine. So for Pipistel it would certainly much more of a challenge to design and certify a new airplane with that engine.
The SMA engine is still somewhat unproven and problematic.
Where do you get this from? The C182 STC seems to be very reliable from what I hear. Lyco/Contis are proven to be problematic 
Cessna is needing several years to convert the IO-540 182 to that engine.
That might say more about Cessna than about the engine or the project. Unfortunately the SMA guys are under a strict ban by Cessna to talk about it but I was told by people involved that the issue is understood and resolved. That’s what flight testing is for after all.
They have enough space under their cowling (no mod is needed to fit the IO540 over the IO390) so they could fit a Continental/SMA engine without any problem.
You’re forgetting that the SMA engine needs extra space for its coolers. Those are not required for the entirely air cooled Lycomings. Also the difference in weight can have implications on the airframe. Still, a diesel engine sounds like the only chance for Pipistrel to turn the Panthera from a complete economic failure into something that has a chance.
Come on Achim, a couple hundred aircraft flying for five or ten years is not what I would call thorougly proven. And those two engine failures sure don’t help with that.
That might say more about Cessna than about the engine or the project
Here I am with you. My esteem for Cessna’s development skills has taken a big hit, after it became clear that nowadays they aren’t even able to develop a solid two-seat trainer anymore…
Socata also gave up on the SMA, after spending years on it and eventually contracting Britten/Norman (a fairly competent UK firm) to have a go.
My take on this is that Pipistrel have enough on their plate with a new airframe, to want to throw in another variable which, if there is any significant financial-liability issue, will sink their whole company. They do not have the massive financial resources of Cessna to carry them through any problems. They need to come out with a fully working product which has no real technology risk areas.
AFAICT, Diamond got away with the “Thielert business” by the cunning method of selling planes with a separate engine warranty (which was legal in the EU with “business” customers who very usefully formed most of the DA40/42-Tdi customer base) and by using dubious customer service practices to keep a lid on the problem. Speak in private to any FTO from the relevant era… I don’t think Pipistrel have the resources to take that on and, frankly, if I was running their company, I too would not want to put my company into a position where I have to run such maneuvers to stop it from sinking if I hit a big problem. They have a nice business making their ultralight/sports stuff. I know I will at this point be accused of pulling out an “old and solved” (allegedly) problem, but the principle of prudent business management never changes. You should never bet the whole shop on one thing.
Socata also gave up on the SMA
Socata gave up on the TB, not just on the SMA…
a couple hundred aircraft flying for five or ten years is not what I would call thorougly proven. And those two engine failures sure don’t help with that.
There is no alternative way to introduce a new engine. GA is small. The SMA has a good operational history and it is very well engineered. They know what they are doing. Both the Thielert and the Austro engines have a good operational history as well. I am always amazed how owners are willing to forgive Conti/Lyco for producing terrible quality products, sell substandard parts for years, call them back and charge owners for it. If a Lyco in a Malibu makes 50% of its TBO, owners are happy. If a Conti in a P210 keeps its cylinders for 800h, owners are happy. But SMA/Thielert/Austro are not to be trusted.
And really, the problems of the past are the problems of the past, they have no relevance today. I had customers telling me “your software is problematic because 3 years ago there was a bug”. Yes, it was fixed 3 years ago and that has which relevance today? That mindset is what keeps us locked in with terrible ancient technology.
The way I understood it is that it simply did not occurr to them until very recently. They bet the house on Mogas instead and got into trouble when they understood that their engine of choice won’t support Mogas. And as it was said before, Pipistrel comes out of the UL/ROTAX scene, so MOGAS is their choice of fuel.
That seems to change slowly now however, as they got quite a few people asking them what they are doing. One guy I talked to didn’t even know of the SMA / Cessna possibility which replaces the very same engine they want to put with a diesel. His answer was : Oh, we’d better check this out then. If he is representative of the decisionmakers, then the answer why is clear: They simply didn’t think of it.
a couple hundred aircraft flying for five or ten years is not what I would call thorougly proven
Then what? If we always want to wait with any new engine until there are a couple of millions flying for 5 decades?
And those two engine failures sure don’t help with that.
There were two or three very prominent ones with Thielert as well. Since then, virtually none. As Achim sais, that is what testflying is for.
Centurion, Austroengine and SMA have a very good reliability record from what I hear by people who run them. Centurion had expensive initial maintenance issues, Austroengine never did. The SMA airplanes simply seem to run without much ado.
You should never bet the whole shop on one thing.
Then don’t. Diamond offers their DA40 with a Lycoming and the Diesel, so why not them as well? That is prudent in my view. And the situation is slightly different with the fact that SMA’s engine is now factually a Continental product. So a bancruptcy which was what got Diamond in trouble is not really very probable.
And the situation is slightly different with the fact that SMA’s engine is now factually a Continental product.
That is not true. Continental licensed the old version of the SMA engine without any engineering support. That was done before the Thielert acquisition. The original SMA engine was not great at all, it would lose power at altitude quickly and there were other weaknesses. Continental had a TD300 prototype at Aero and it looked absolutely terrible from a build quality point of view. I predict they are going to give up on it or let the Thielert engineers work on it. I cannot imagine they have the expertise to ever turn it into a product they can sell.
The 6 cylinder SMA engine prototype has two of the same turbochargers as the 4 cylinder engine and uses the same cylinders (just upside down, installed in the Lyco fashion whereas the 4 cylinder engine uses the Conti fashion). This means that they use increased manifold pressure in the new engine. The TBO is planned to be 2000h for the initial version. The power/weight ratio will be 1.1 compared to 0.9 for the 4 cylinder. This is very good news as it means they should be able to increase the power output of the 4 cylinder engine to 250-275hp.
