Diesel for Diamond DA40?

karl gruber wrote:
"Greg Copeland" wrote in message Okay, seems
I stand corrected. Just FYI, I looked this morning and
diesel fuel is 18% heavier. I had also assumed that they had placed
a FADEC setup on the Lyc, thusly greatly improving its effeciency
too. Guess not. Many people don't realize that much of the
effeciency associated with these engines comes from FADEC rather
than diesel in of it self.


FADEC won't make an engine run more efficiently. It will make it
easier to manage.

and thus it will make it run more efficiently than a improperly managed
manually controlled engine.

regards,
Friedrich

"karl gruber" wrote

FADEC won't make an engine run more efficiently. It will make it easier to
manage.

In a way that is true, but at the same time it is as false as can be.

A properly leaned engine at cruise, with well matched injectors, will have
all of the cylinders humming happily along at the most efficient setting,
and lowest fuel flow. FADEC can not improve on that much, if any.

But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
idle, or low power on the ground. You are running much richer than need be,
and not as lean as FADEC would have things set. On the average, us setting
the mixture is wasting fuel, and is inefficient as compared to FADEC. FADEC
will reset the mixture many times per second; as often as is needed. That
is something we can never begin to think about doing.
--
Jim in NC

But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
idle, or low power on the ground.

Most of the time will be spent at cruise (unless you are in the
pattern), so I would not expect that to be all that much.

Jose
--
There are two kinds of people in the world. Those that just want to
know what button to push, and those that want to know what happens when
they push the button.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On 2007-05-22, Newps wrote:

The real downside was the cost to convert. They wanted $80K which
is a price nobody will pay because the break even point is still way
too far into the future.

So the question is: where is the break even point? If you account for
the reduced maintenance costs, and you make your own biodiesel at
~$1/gal., would you say the break even point is acceptable?

--
PM instructions: do a C4esar Ciph3r on my address; retain punctuation.

and IIRC what I read.. you can't field overhaul the diesel, it goes back to
the factory and the limit is about 1100hrs.

BT

"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
oups.com...
On May 21, 8:54 pm, Paul kgyy wrote:
Anybody know whether the Diamond DA40 is available with diesel power
in the U.S.? I checked the website and the only engine is the ancient
Lycoming IO360.

Hmm. Not sure why you put it that way. The IO360 is well know for
being rock solid. Diesel aircraft engines typically cost you useful
load because of their weight and the fuel is heavier to boot. A
double whammy on useful load isn't exactly exciting. IIRC, the
diesels that Diamond have certified don't have a 2000hr TBO either.
Didn't they just get it increased from 1200hrs to 1500hr or something
like that? On top of all that, the energy density for 100LL is some
20% higher (IIRC; or was it 40%) which means fuel consumption is 20%
higher for the same HP rating.

Overall, aside from diesel fuel prices, I don't see a big advantage
especially once you multiply the diesel fuel price by %120 to compare
what it would cost you to travel the same distance via 100LL. Once
you add in the engine reserve for a 1500hr (IIRC) engine versus a
2000hr engine and the extra fuel required, one has to wonder if the
diesel price per gallon is worth it in the big picture.

Are you sure you still want diesel power?


Greg

FADEC is much more than just controlling mixture. that system is measuring,
monitoring and governing a whole lot of parameters. compared to a human
operating a few levers, FADEC can set all these parameters in a way so the
engine/propeller-combination operates much closer to its optimum.

also, today's engines can only be that economic because of the electronic
system. as an example, fuel injection varies in injection time and the
amount of fuel injected, depending on RPMs, power setting, flow of the mass
of air through the manifold (not just the air pressure in there) and
probably a few more. you cannot achieve this by mechanical or even maunual
solutions.



uli






Morgans wrote:


A properly leaned engine at cruise, with well matched injectors, will have
all of the cylinders humming happily along at the most efficient setting,
and lowest fuel flow. FADEC can not improve on that much, if any.

But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are at
idle, or low power on the ground. You are running much richer than need
be,
and not as lean as FADEC would have things set. On the average, us
setting
the mixture is wasting fuel, and is inefficient as compared to FADEC.
FADEC
will reset the mixture many times per second; as often as is needed. That
is something we can never begin to think about doing.

"Uli" wrote

FADEC is much more than just controlling mixture. that system is
measuring,
monitoring and governing a whole lot of parameters. compared to a human
operating a few levers, FADEC can set all these parameters in a way so the
engine/propeller-combination operates much closer to its optimum.

also, today's engines can only be that economic because of the electronic
system. as an example, fuel injection varies in injection time and the
amount of fuel injected, depending on RPMs, power setting, flow of the
mass
of air through the manifold (not just the air pressure in there) and
probably a few more. you cannot achieve this by mechanical or even maunual
solutions.

Of course it does much more, but the mixture is a big part of the equation.
One thing you missed mentioning is the timing, on some systems.
--
Jim in NC

("Thomas Borchert" wrote)
Until now, Thielert has sold their engines only in Europe.

Actually, they are selling the DA-42 with Thielert engines in the US and
have been for some months now.


In Minnesota...

At Anoka County-Blaine Airport (ANE) there is a DA-42, with Thielert
engines. It is owned by a regular poster to rec.aviation, he is also a
member of our local EAA Chapter. He's wants to give Young Eagle rides in his
DA-42. He used to give Young Eagle rides in his Cessna 310. g

I hope I get these numbers right.

He said @ 85% power (turbo) he's seeing total fuel burn:

12 gallons/hour ......175kts?
8 gallons /hour .......140kts?

Crap, now I'm guessing. PINGING Cary M !!!


Montblack

Jose wrote:
But, and it is a big but, think of the settings we run on takeoff, and
landing (in case you have to do a go-around) and of the time you are
at idle, or low power on the ground.


Most of the time will be spent at cruise (unless you are in the
pattern), so I would not expect that to be all that much.



A FADEC on a plane like a 182 will save on average 2 GPH, that's huge.
So saying a FADEC in and of itself is not what makes it more efficient
is theoretically true but it is practically true. A human will never be
able to operate the engine at its most efficient, for a computer it is
simple.

Justin Gombos wrote:

On 2007-05-22, Newps wrote:

The real downside was the cost to convert. They wanted $80K which
is a price nobody will pay because the break even point is still way
too far into the future.


So the question is: where is the break even point? If you account for
the reduced maintenance costs,



Nobody knows that yet. Too many different technologies have come and
gone promising lower costs. When the diesel has proven itself to cost
less in the field I will believe it. Until then it's pure speculation.




and you make your own biodiesel at
~$1/gal., would you say the break even point is acceptable?



I don't know. First off putting $80K into a $50K airplane won't happen
for that reason alone. Second the guy who has $80K to put into a 182
isn't the kind of guy who homebrews his own biodiesel. Simple fact of
the matter is $80K is a deal breaker. Get it down to $40K, about the
same as putting a big engine in a 182, and then you've got something.
But at $80K you won't have any market penetration at all. And really at
$40K look how many 300 HP 550's are in 182's now. I wouldn't call it
rare but it's still a fairly small percentage.