Thielert (Diesel Engines)

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

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 7:11*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
WingFlaps wrote
innews:474cb903-b6c7-46ed-a5bd-b29b5
:



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)?

Depends on the usage would be my point. The one I mentioned that my club
is changing has run to the end of it's TBO and it hasn't had anything
done to it since it was bolted on except regualr maintenance. It
probably flew about 300 hours a year.

(I'll admit
skepticism on the idea of a 4000 hour engine life with no rework -I
can't imagine the compression figures)


Actually. that was just the last time I saw the airplane. I did at least
one annual on this airplane myself and the compression was fine, even if
we dd have to rock the prop a bit to get it. The airplane certainly
pulled well. I don't know how long the engine lived, though.

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 have no objection to a diesel in principle, I jhust think this one s
not particularly well thought out. I'm surprised it was certified.



Bertie