Thielert (Diesel Engines)

Bertie,

None of them regard electricity.


So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?

Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
are used to.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Bertie,

None of them regard electricity.


So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?


I believe I just did.


Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
are used to.


It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable, therefore
unacceptable.


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


Bertie

On Feb 15, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote :

Bertie,

None of them regard electricity.

So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?

I believe I just did.

Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is, too.
But don't make it sound like there is something inherently wrong about
an engine just because it has different failure modes than the ones you
are used to.

It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable, therefore
unacceptable.

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


I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel. They
must have adde it due to pressure from the marketing department!
However, FADEC adds a failure mode but removal of sparks takes one
away. The reduced risk of fire would remove another. Add that to the
removal of 100LL and the damage that will be caused by ethanol
addition and diesel starts to look better all the time.

Cheers

WingFlaps wrote in
:

On Feb 15, 6:20*am, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Thomas Borchert wrote
innews:VA.000077df.009
:

Bertie,

None of them regard electricity.

So what? Who decides electricity is somehow a more relevant failure
than others?

I believe I just did.

Look, you're obviously free to make that decision. Your club is,
too. But don't make it sound like there is something inherently
wrong about an engine just because it has different failure modes
than the ones you are used to.

It has the same modes plus that one. And that one is avoidable,
therefore unacceptable.

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


I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel. They
must have adde it due to pressure from the marketing department!


However, FADEC adds a failure mode but removal of sparks takes one
away. The reduced risk of fire would remove another. Add that to the
removal of 100LL and the damage that will be caused by ethanol
addition and diesel starts to look better all the time.


No. What I meant was, you lose power to the fadec, you lose power. it's
gone. You;'re gliding. End of flight.
There are Fadecs installed on a lot of turbines. Fadecs and similar
devices. they all have a manual reversion of some description. It's
usually a coarser throttle response, but you still have power....

With the thielert system, you don't. I can only imagine they lifted the
FADEC straight out of the car with the engine.





Bertie

WingFlaps,

I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel.


You need to let go of what you Americans consider to be a "diesel".
That's good for trucks and boats, but not for efficient small cars -
and airplanes.

We're talking modern, common-rail diesels which get their efficiency
and attractivity through complete electronic control.

FWIW, Thielert's two main developments (cost- and engineeringwise) are

1. the fuel pump (which has nothing to do with a gasoline pump), which
is self-lubricating with car diesel, but must be jet fuel compatible -
and jet fuel lubricates less well.

2. The FADEC, which, Bertie, has nothing to do with the car's engine
control, has dual redundancy and also proper electrical redundancy if
installed right (it wasn't in the DA-42, IMHO).

Thielert starts with a Mercedes car engine and exchanges 150 parts
before that engine becomes a Thielert.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

WingFlaps,

I agree, there is no fundamental need for the FADEC in a diesel.


You need to let go of what you Americans consider to be a "diesel".
That's good for trucks and boats, but not for efficient small cars -
and airplanes.


Go **** yourself. i've owned several diesel cars. I have nothing against
diesels in cars or airplanes and I have already made that clear. I'd fly
a diesel airplane no problem and I was anxiously awaiting the Zoche, in
fact, which never appeared.

We're talking modern, common-rail diesels which get their efficiency
and attractivity through complete electronic control.

If you think an engine that can quit anytime a bit of corrosion appears
on it's battery terminals is attractive, have I got a girl for you.

FWIW, Thielert's two main developments (cost- and engineeringwise) are

1. the fuel pump (which has nothing to do with a gasoline pump), which
is self-lubricating with car diesel, but must be jet fuel compatible -
and jet fuel lubricates less well.

2. The FADEC, which, Bertie, has nothing to do with the car's engine
control, has dual redundancy and also proper electrical redundancy if
installed right (it wasn't in the DA-42, IMHO).

Nope.


Thielert starts with a Mercedes car engine and exchanges 150 parts
before that engine becomes a Thielert.


Doesn;t matter. The Fadec requires electricity to make the engine run.
The electricity cannot be gaurunteed as has been proven by experience.
One of the 150 parts is crap.




Bertie

Bertie,

Go **** yourself.


You need to learn to behave yourself at least to minimal standards
before any further discussion with you makes sense. Also, wrt your
other posts, you need to learn that an opinion is not the same as fact.
This is all pretty basic. How old again are you?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Bertie,

Go **** yourself.


You need to learn to behave yourself at least to minimal standards
before any further discussion with you makes sense.


Behave myself?

Lessee, you made a national slur and you're saying that I need to behave
myself?


Go **** yourself and your sister and her donkey.

And as to dscussion, you gave up on that looooong ago. Clinging to a lost
cause is not discussion.




Bertie

Bertie,

It has the same modes plus that one.


Not true.

Let's just agree to disagree.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote in
:

Bertie,

It has the same modes plus that one.


Not true.

Let's just agree to disagree.



You can go ff and agree to anything you like. the engine is not a suitable
one for installation in an airplane and will never be until there is some
sort of manual reversion for the fadec.


Bertie