Thielert (Diesel Engines)

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:24:52 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

David Lesher wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:


There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
against it because of the lack of limp home capability.

What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?





This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up front.

Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this case,
when the gear was retracted...

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...FADEC-0-a.html

Nice eh?

To be fair, there was an immediate AD requiring a backup battery
systtem to power the FADECs after that event. I'm surprised it wasn't
required for certification in the first place since it appears to me
that it was a forseeable failure mode, but still.

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
David Lesher wrote in news:fp1t8e$8vr$4
@reader2.panix.com:

Bertie the Bunyip writes:


There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
against it because of the lack of limp home capability.
What kind of sparks does a Diesel need?





This ine has a FADEC. No electricity and you have a big weight up front.

Worse, in the twin star installation, both engines are tied to an
electrical system that can punch out both at the same time. in this case,
when the gear was retracted...

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0...FADEC-0-a.html

Nice eh?


Bertie

Bertie, in this case the failure was due to the pilots not following the
procedures written in the aircraft manual.
Agree the aircraft is not foolproof, but is.

Bertie,

in this case,
when the gear was retracted...


While correct on the surface, there was much more to that accident.
Including the pilots blatantly acting against the POH.

Nice, eh?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote :



Peter,

AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a Thielert
concept from the get-go.

But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of simple
research would provide the facts? What picture does that paint of the
pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a simple "I don't
know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead of spouting made-up
negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
against it because of the lack of limp home capability.


You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity? Since when does adding a complex ignition system add
reliability? All a diesel needs is air and fuel, the fuel pump and
injectors are no more complicated that for petrol engines so that
would be a big boost in potential reliability (given the poor
performance of mags and plugs) in my book..

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077db.005
:



Peter,

AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
Thielert concept from the get-go.

But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.


You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity?


Read it again.


That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?


I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours

In a cub trainer, in fact.

I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
working airplanes, though.





Bertie

On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :



On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077db.005
:

Peter,

AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
Thielert concept from the get-go.

But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.

You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity?

Read it again.

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours

In a cub trainer, in fact.

I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
working airplanes, though.


OK, but % of engines is that (is plenty say 1 in 20)? (I'll admit
skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
can't imagine the compression figures) I question whether the
reliability argument of petrol is not as sound as it might be so that
people want a new engine to be unrealistically reliable without regard
to other advantages.

Cheers

On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote :



On Feb 15, 4:12*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077db.005
:

Peter,

AFAIK this was forced on them by all the failure

Sorry, but that's completely wrong. "Power by the hour" was a
Thielert concept from the get-go.

But I bet the "scrap" engines get reworked by Thielert

You lose.

Why is it that each and every innovation in GA is met by people
spouting OWTs and made-up speculation, when a minute or two of
simple research would provide the facts? What picture does that
paint of the pilot population and their "hangar talk"? How about a
simple "I don't know and that's why I keep quiet on this" instead
of spouting made-up negatives? Sorry, but this is really annoying.

There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy
one because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and
decided against it because of the lack of limp home capability.

You based a decision on an engine on the fact it did not need
electricity?

Read it again.

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

I have. Plenty of them. Seen at least one A-65 go to almost 4,000 hours

In a cub trainer, in fact.

I've seen lenty of others go past 2,000 with no nuttin changed. all
working airplanes, though.


OK, but what % of engines is that (is plenty say 1 in 20)? (I'll admit
skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
can't imagine the compression figures) I question whether the
reliability argument of petrol is not as sound as it might be so that
people want a new engine to be unrealistically reliable without regard
to other advantages.
I'm not saying the thielert is the best but rather the diesel engine
has so much going for it that it should replace petrol but resistance
to change old technology will stop good progress.
Cheers

WingFlaps wrote:

That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

Cheers



Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
seen the same.

If you want some info on the reliability I'd suggest you subscribe to
Aviation Consumer that will give you access to the back issue section of
their website and there was a very could article on the Thielerts either
last month or the month before.

On Feb 15, 8:11*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
That apart, I'd like to dig a bit deeper into this reliability issue.
What percentage of Lycs or Cons mahe it to TBO without major part
replacements (such as cylinders, cylinder heads, magnetos etc.). Put
another way, is there anyone here who has _ever_ seen one go to TBO
without major working?

Cheers

Of course there are I've seen Lyc and Conts go WAY over TBO. Anyone that
* has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not Rental) has
seen the same.


Now I could be wrong, but I thought not making TBO implies a bad
failure? So in my thinking, my question remains since an engine may
make TBO even though it has had major parts (such as a cylinder heads/
baarrels) replaced... If you know a few engines that have only ever
had plugs replaced in 2000 hours then that's great but I would still
like to know roughly what % that is. If you have the magazine you
refer to perhaps you could look up the relevant figure for me? Another
way of finding this out could be to look at how many cylinder heads
and barrels are sold compared to crankshaft service kits (if there is
such a thing). Even this would underestimate the true rate of engine
fails at annual as cylinders can be easily rehoned to raise
compression. Is 2000 hours is more of a myth than reality? Is there a
LAME here who could estimate how many plane engines he's had to strip
compared to ones he could just leave alone for 2000 hours?

Cheers

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote in message
...
...
There's nothing made up about "No sparks, no power" I wouldn't buy one
because of this. My club was looking at one ofr a Cherokee and decided
against it because of the lack of limp home capability.


Right.

MX has informed us of the risks associated with these electronic engine
management systems on several ocassions.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.