… and in (military) drones, I guess. Makes more sense than to carry extra gasoline instead of already available Diesel.
Peter wrote:
Who is actually flying with Conti diesels? I mean actually flying?
You mean the CD135 and the CD155? Quite a few DA40 and DA42…
I have renamed the thread yet again 
However, that video is diesels. Who is actually flying with Conti diesels? I mean actually flying?
Another input:
and:
Peter wrote:
As I said, I would have expected Rotax aviation production to be way above Lycoming aviation production.
And it is, almost by a factor 10. Rotax produces 200.000 engines per year, only 14.000 of those are made for aviation, at least 5-6 thousand of those are 912/914, which are exclusively made for aircraft (as are all Rotax aviation engines).
From the GAMA-statistics for 2014
New piston airplane: 1129
New piston heli: 257
But, subtracting all the non-Lycoming aircraft (Cirrus, CC, Diamond, FD, Tecnam) which is 848, and we are left with 281 piston airplanes with Lycoming. Continental delivered 308 engines for Cirruses.
So, Lycoming aircraft:
Airplane: 281
Heli: 257
Lycoming say they produced 1500 new engines, but only 538 found their way into a new certified aircraft. At least the same amount of non-certified Lycomings (from Lycoming) must have gone into a new RV. Also, the largest aircraft engine producer for new certified aircraft is Continental.
Edit. The GAMA statistics also shows that Rotax 912 ended up in 278 airplanes, about the same as Lycoming. And this does not include the 3000 or so microlight/LSA with 912.
Even though you are against politics, you do indeed talk like a politician
There is a world of difference between having a technical disagreement on an aviation topic, and making statements about corrupt governments etc etc.
One option is to have a mod who doesn’t participate in aviation. Usually the mod is hidden (no communication, posts simply vanish and those arguing get banned). That has been done plenty elsewhere, with disastrous results.
The number of 912/914 per year must be at least 5 to 6 thousand, all in all including replacement engines.
Would that be for aviation specifically?
As I said, I would have expected Rotax aviation production to be way above Lycoming aviation production.
Peter wrote:
What equally surprises me is that Rotax make as few as 2000 a year
Even though you are against politics, you do indeed talk like a politician Rotax has made 50.000 912/914 since 1989 and until June 2014. That is 2000 per year on average the last 26 years. Obviously the production today is much higher than 2000 per year, as obvious as the fact they did not sell 2000 per year the first 10 years. They produce 14.000 aircraft engines per year. The ratio of 912/914 to two stroke is 50k/120k on average, about 0.42. The number of 912/914 per year must be at least 5 to 6 thousand, all in all including replacement engines.
Lycoming produces engines for RVs and other experimental aircraft (OEM non-certified engines), and for Robinson helicopters + some others. But lots of others also produce Lycomings (clones) for experimental aircraft, so the total production of “Lycomings” (including clones) is substantially higher than 1500 per year. Even Continental produces “Lycoming” engines.
What is interesting is that without the noncertified market, aircraft piston engine production would be tiny indeed.
Yes that’s very true… also do they count engines which were shipped as “remanufactured” i.e. assembled partly from a bucket of used parts which were still within “new” limits?
New Lyco Engines woud not necessarily mean that they come in new airframes, I know a couple of engines that could not be overhauled due to crankcase cracks and thus were bought new.
