Thielert (Diesel Engines)

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

WingFlaps wrote:
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


You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has _ever_
seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from myself
and others was yes, lots.

I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there but
even if it is it isn't going to be very useful and it certainly isn't
going to be something you can comparable to the Thielert record unless
there is a huge amount statistical norming.

In fact it wouldn't even be fair to compare such a number to Thielert
because they would come out looking way worse than they really are
because they are new and even supports of Thielert admit they have had
teething problems.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that anybody that hasn't jumped on the
Thielert bandwagon and ripped the Lyc engine off their plane and
replaced it with a Thielert is in some way anti-diesel. That isn't the
case. Thielert has some problems that they haven't ironed out. Once they
do or somebody else comes along with a competing engine that doesn't
have the same problems or others then I have no doubt they will become
more popular.

It's my understanding that the biggest problem Thielert has doesn't have
anything to do with the engine itself it is the service system and the
company's failure to respond to owner issues.

On Feb 15, 9:12*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
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

You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has _ever_
seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from myself
and others was yes, lots.

I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there but


Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
normal?

As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 9:12*am, Gig 601XL Builder
wrote:
WingFlaps wrote:
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 tha
t
* has spent much time around personally owned aircraft (Not
Rental) h
as
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

You keep moving the bar. YOu asked, "is there anyone here who has
_ever_ seen one go to TBO without major working?" And the answer from
myself and others was yes, lots.

I' have know idea if the the percentage data you want is out there
but


Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
normal?

In my experience, yeah. They mostly make it that far.


As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.


I kinda prefer to fly Continental eningenes between the two. i couldn't
tellyou why, though. Haiving said that, I'd still prefer any radial over
either! ( except of course an w670 or r 680)




Bertie

On Feb 15, 2:24 am, WingFlaps wrote:
Well if you know the complete history of a 2000 hour engine that never
had anything but plugs replaced then as I said, that's great. But if
such anecdotal evidence is what you base reliability figures on then
I, personally, would not have much faith in them. That's my point. I
really don't have any axe to grind on engine type but am trying to be
objective -if that's OK with you? The heavy use Lycoming engines I
have seen all seem to be well down on compression by 1200 hours and
that is not a good look for them to reach 2000 -but I have only a
sample of about a dozen. Of course we'll ignore the complete recall of
cylinders that took place recently... So, is 2000 hours service
normal?

As for being stuck on the idea that one engine type is superior it's
not me as I'm only trying to glean _facts_ and don't I own anything -
what about you? Right now I am looking at the diesel STC for Cessnas
so this is not trivial but a near $1M question.

We run six Lycomings in a flight school. They aren't
babied. They run, hard, their whole lives. Hot weather, cold weather
(down to -25°C), wet and dry. Off-airport strips some of the time,
with the usual dust and other airborne junk. They reach TBO no
problem, except for the one O-235. It has a problem with running too
cold, which leads to lots of condensation in the engine, enough that
corrosion of the front cylinders is a real hassle. The corrosion pits
cause fairly rapid wear of the cylinder wall, leaving a ridge at the
bottom of the ring travel over which the aluminum piston pin plugs
must ride. Those plugs start getting shaved and bright bits begin
appearing in the filter. Compression is still good at that point,
mid-70s or better. Compression doesn't say everything. Compression is
taken with the piston at TDC, above the corroded area. A five-ring
piston would stop that. So would bronze plugs. Neither are available
for that engine.
The other engines, three O-320s and an O-540, all reach TBO
with no hassles whatever. Engines that are run regularly and properly
maintained are no trouble. Using good oil (Aeroshell 15W50, which has
the Lycoming-recommended additive already in it) goes a long way
toward a long life. Cheaper oils are false economy. I can't remember
the last time we changed a cylinder on one of these engines. Another
good thing is to throw away the cheap screen-type oil filter and
install the spin-on adapter. The spin-on filter costs more, but does
it really? The screen stops only the bigger bits that might have part
numbers on them. The smaller bits that get through can score cylinders
and bearings. We have more trouble with leaky rocker cover gaskets on
Lycs than with anything else they make. The aftermarket silicone
gasket fixes that.
So, if you want the engine to last well, see that it's broken
in as per Lycoming's instructions. Exactly. Then change the oil when
it should be changed. Don't run it unless it will fly. Don't make a 20-
minute flight and then put it away. Get that oil hot. Use good oil.
Get the engine warmed up some before taking off in cold weather. If
possible, use some sort of winter fronts to reduce the cooling
airflow. Go easy on the throttle movement; don't slam it open. Keep
that carb heat closed when taxiing through dust. Learn how to lean it
so that it doesn't foul up.
The smaller Continentals have weaker cylinders. Usually need a
top overhaul halfway to TBO. Exhaust valves go easily. We had poor
service from the O-200s in the 150s years ago. Bigger Continentals are
more robust.

Dan

"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.

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m wrote in
news:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

"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.


In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with computer
governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run which
isn't the case with any other engine I know of.


Bertie

On Feb 15, 1:44*pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" The Sea Hawk At Wow Way D0t C0m wrote innews:nrSdnQ8KTvrqRCnanZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@wideopenwe st.com:

"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.

In particular regard to this installation? I have no problem with computer
governed engines, once tey aren't reliant on th ecomputer to run which
isn't the case with any other engine I know of.

I see your point and I think it's a good one. As I said before, I
smell the rat of marketing...

Cheers

WingFlaps,

As I said before, I
smell the rat of marketing...


As I said befo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

WingFlaps,

As I said before, I
smell the rat of marketing...


As I said befo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_engine


That doesn't address anything.

Bertie