Thielert Centurion 2.0

Today Thielert has announced that they will replace 1.7 Centurions with 2.0 engines.

"The company already started series production of the Centurion 2.0 und Centurion 4.0 aircraft piston engines in the last quarter. The Centurion 2.0 is the latest development stage of the Centurion 1.7 and has also 135 PS. The latter engine has in recent years made a considerable contribution to the growth and success of the company, with over 1,500 units delivered for general aviation.
In the Centurion 2.0, Thielert has been able to demonstrate that the proven and reliable design is upwardly compatible. The new engine will in future replace the Centurion 1.7 in all installations. The Centurion 2.0 has a greater engine capacity, particularly in order to meet the requirements of the US market. Thielert has developed a own engine block in the course of the development and approval process, which is especially designed to meet the demands of aviation. The European and US aviation authorities approved the engine in August and October 2006. Similarly, the Centurion 2.0 has been approved for installation in the Cessna 172 since August last year. The Centurion 2.0 is supplied to plane manufacturer Diamond Aircraft Industries as an installation kit, and built into the successful DA40 TDI and DA42 aircraft. Diamond is experiencing strong growth and has customer orders stretching beyond the end of 2007. Planning security for the Thielert AG companies is also further improved in 2007 by a second major and several minor OEM companies."

What I don't understand is that development is increasing cubic inches as demand of States (yeah, the fuel is cheap for you) with what benefits? I also haven't noticed this at their website earlier (it may have been there or even discussed here):

"The development of installations for kit and experimental airplanes will be arranged with all major kit airplane OEMs on their demand.

Our engines show a higher complexity than what you find with conventional engines. To cover this deliberately as well as the different electrical system arrangements the installations will be developed according to regulations and procedures as you find in certified aircraft. This means for the installer that a most reliable system and safest operation is ensured. However, distribution of engines and installation kit will be arranged exclusively through our distribution partners and OEMs.

Please contact the appropriate airframe kitplane manufacturers directly for any available information. For further information please visit the different sections on our website."

Edit: So if we want to have Thielerts in our planes, we should ask them from Van's. Even they are not alternative engine supporters, propably the fact that these are certified might help us. However price is big question: Just head that local parachuters has shown interest for Centurion 4.0 for their C206. The first engine would be around $150k and second $60k and as delivery of those 4.0s has just started, the TBO maybe something else than 2000 hours... However, flying would become much easier as when you want to go up, throttle up and when you want down, throttle down... everything else is pretty much automatic.

For more information, check their website: http://www.centurion-engines.com/
and news from 5th Jan 2007 and Centurion 1.7 -> Centurion 1.7 for kitplanes and experimentals.

We'll never be able to buy new Thielerts because they'll never talk Van's into working with them on a FWF.

I'd kill for a good diesel engine.

I would love to run behind a diesel engine but not at $60,000.00 or more for installation costs. It is bad enough that the Lyclone installation will run upwards to $30,000.00 or more. I am sure Theilert is not interested in working their butts off to sell to a cheaper market than they currently are attempting to sell to. Most of the world thinks of us Yanks as rich folks anyway so we should be busting at the seams to pay high 5 figures for a diesel engine to place on our expensive toys and be happy doing it.

Diesel = 1/4 price * Avgas ! (in Europe)

"I'd kill for a good diesel engine"

Matt, me to !

Its up to us, builders, to convince Vans to make a deal with Thielert (they know each other, but are not getting together to get the FWF kit sorted and ad the "Thielert diesel engine" - option to the catalogue!). The only other choice we have is Wilksch, but it sure takes a long time for them to "deliver" what they are promising! (and no FWF-kit, so far, either)

Still deciding on my engine, got the return lines to the tanks, for the diesel, installed though! May have to decide on a "mo-gas" engine instead (Avgas = EUR 2,05/lt !!!) if the diesels do not get available soon.

Well hopefully the Thielert 2.0 with FAA certification will be enough to convince Van's that it's a safe engine. I'm not holding my breath though - Van seems pretty stubborn on this issue.

I too would like to see the diesel make a run...

I have heard the EU? is going to raise taxes on the diesel (UK rumor?) , but will still be cheaper than 100LL I would imagine.

Could the 'uncertified' engine be any cheaper?

Prices CENTURION 1.7

Price excl. labor and all taxes
* excluding cost for installation labor

CENTURION 1.7
? Jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7
? 14 V FADEC system and wiring harness
? gearbox, turbo charger, prop governor, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter
? certification

25,960 EUR

25,960 EUR X 1.30 (current exchange) = $33,748

CENTURION 1.7
? Jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7
? 28 V FADEC system and wiring harness
? gearbox, turbo charger, prop governor, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter
? certification

27,510 EUR

New CENTURION 1.7 after 2,400 hr operating time / TBR
? Jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7 without instruments
? 14 V FADEC system and wiring harness
? gearbox, turbo charger, prop governor, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter
? certification

20,319 EUR

New CENTURION 1.7 after 2,400 hr operating time / TBR
? Jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7 without instruments
? 28 V FADEC system and wiring harness
? gearbox, turbo charger, prop governor, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter
? certification

21,868 EUR


Replace avgas engine with CENTURION 1.7 in Cessna 172 Ready-to-fly jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7 completely pre-assembled "firewall forward"-unit including 950 parts:

40,470 EUR*

? 14 V FADEC system
? Engine periphery: gearbox, propeller, prop governor, turbo charger, coolant system, engine mounts, single lever control, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter and wiring harness.
? engine and aircraft instruments
? certification
? Long range kit
for Cessna K, L, M, N
425 EUR

Replace avgas engine with CENTURION 1.7 in Cessna 172 Ready-to-fly jet fuel piston engine CENTURION 1.7 completely pre-assembled "firewall forward"-unit including 950 parts:

42,120 EUR*

? 28 V FADEC system
? Engine periphery: gearbox, propeller, prop governor, turbo charger, coolant system, engine mounts, single lever control, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter and wiring harness.
? engine and aircraft instruments
? certification
? Long range kit for Cessna N, P
425 EUR

ALSO:
Recently we have announced the development of the CENTURION 3.2 with 230 hp. - ---- RV10?

Its an investment !

Pfactor, I am not bothered about their price, you?ll have the difference back in a couple of hundred hours flying! And remember, there are a bunch more advantages! I wish we would be able to buy them!

BTW, the tax thing is a well known instrument used by to days politicians: give the people something they can save money on and then......... tax it !, makes millions for the state. I do not even bother to vote anymore at the elections !

Regards, PilotTonny

Pirkka said:

...What I don't understand is that development is increasing cubic inches as demand of States (yeah, the fuel is cheap for you) ...

Click to expand...

As you know, it's cheap world wide. It's just the taxes that get you.
I know, bottom line is still what grabs the pocket book.
-mike

What about performance?

I don't understand the excitement. If the Centurion 2.0 is only 135 hp at sea level takeoff power, who would want one in an RV? That kind of defeats the "Total Performance" concept. In time, you may recover the extra cost of the engine with fuel savings, but the operational limitations represent an additional "cost" that would be unacceptable to me.

Dave Cole said:

I don't understand the excitement. If the Centurion 2.0 is only 135 hp at sea level takeoff power, who would want one in an RV? That kind of defeats the "Total Performance" concept. In time, you may recover the extra cost of the engine with fuel savings, but the operational limitations represent an additional "cost" that would be unacceptable to me.

Click to expand...

I agree, the economics don't make much sense at this point.

Jet fuel is not cheap and in fact costs more than mogas. Thielert announced the 1.7 enginge 172 swap out deal - why would anyone want to go deisel at 135 HP and a cost of around $55,000? Sure the cost per hour would go down, but it would take longer to get anywhere so where is the savings? Beside that, most real pilots would rather fly a RV, not a slow-slow ho-hum Cessna.

At least Thielert is moving forward which is more than can be said for Zoch or Deltahawk. But they are priced out of much of the home built market and RV won't jump on that band wagon soon. His bread and butter has been a very fine line of airplanes at a reasonable price. There is nothing reasonable about the price of these engines in this market and he does not need it to sell RV airplanes.

Dave Cole said:

I don't understand the excitement. If the Centurion 2.0 is only 135 hp at sea level takeoff power, who would want one in an RV? That kind of defeats the "Total Performance" concept. In time, you may recover the extra cost of the engine with fuel savings, but the operational limitations represent an additional "cost" that would be unacceptable to me.

Click to expand...

The Thielert engines are turbocharged. While the power available at sea level is lower than desired, 135 hp is still available at 6,000 ft, and 122 hp is available at 10,000 ft, and 97 hp at 17,500 ft. The cruise power available at typical cruise altitudes approaches that from an O-320.

It is a heavy and expensive engine though, so I agree that very few people would put one in an RV, even if a FWF kit was available.

Dave Cole said:

I don't understand the excitement. If the Centurion 2.0 is only 135 hp at sea level takeoff power, who would want one in an RV? That kind of defeats the "Total Performance" concept. In time, you may recover the extra cost of the engine with fuel savings, but the operational limitations represent an additional "cost" that would be unacceptable to me.

Click to expand...

Don't confuse horsepower with torque. A 135hp Thielert will perform as well or better than a 160+hp Lycoming AND do so up to the airplane's service ceiling.

Can someone comment on fuel venting...?

Can someone comment on what might be involved in transitioning an RV-7A QB wings/fuel tanks to allow for proper venting of kerosene jet fuel??? This consideration has kept me away from considering any diesels or the innodyn engine...


Thanks

John Babrick
RV-7A QB Empennage...

mdredmond said:

Don't confuse horsepower with torque. A 135hp Thielert will perform as well or better than a 160+hp Lycoming AND do so up to the airplane's service ceiling.

Click to expand...

Torque output alone tells you nothing. Power = torque x rpm (with appropriate conversion factors). So you need to know the rpm and torque to know anything useful.

The performance in a given aircraft is determined by the amount of power delivered by the prop. This is equal to the engine's power, times the prop efficiency. Or, if you really like starting with torque, it is equal to the torque, times the rpm, times the prop efficiency.

Kevin Horton said:

Torque output alone tells you nothing. Power = torque x rpm (with appropriate conversion factors). So you need to know the rpm and torque to know anything useful.

Click to expand...

I understand. Likewise, horsepower is meaningless when considered alone. BTW, the conversion factor is 'divided by 5252'.

Torque is the only thing the propeller feels from the engine. A given amount of torque made at one engine rpm will turn the propeller just 'as hard' at as the same torque made at a higher one, but the higher rpm will result in a larger horsepower measurement (with no difference in performance).

Diesels are designed to produce their torque at low rpms, thus lowering the measured horsepower. This doesn't necessarily translate into lower performance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no engineer. My understanding is just the result of a bunch of reading about this stuff. Worth what you paid for it...

mdredmond said:

A given amount of torque made at one engine rpm will turn the propeller just 'as hard' at as the same torque made at a higher one, but the higher rpm will result in a larger horsepower measurement (with no difference in performance).

Click to expand...

Wrong. If you have the same amount of torque at a higher rpm, the additional power at the higher rpm will result in higher performance (this assumes that the prop efficiency does not have a significant decrease at the higher rpm).

I'm not sure how to explain this in simple terms. But trust me on it. I spent four years studying engineering, a year at test pilot school, and have been working full time as an engineering test pilot since 1988. Aircraft performance is determined by power delivered by the prop. Not torque.

Climb performance is determined by excess power (excess power = the power available - the power required to maintain level flight at a given speed). When climbing, you are lifting the weight of the aircraft upwards at a certain vertical speed. If we lift the weight of the aircraft a certain distance upwards, we have performed work, with the amount of work equal to the aircraft weight times the altitude gain. Power = the rate of doing work. The excess power = aircraft weight times rate of climb. So, the rate of climb is determined by the excess power. More power = higher rate of climb.

Level flight performance is also determined by the amount of power. In level flight the thrust = drag. Thrust times speed = power. More power = higher thrust = higher speed.

Dave Cole said:

I don't understand the excitement. If the Centurion 2.0 is only 135 hp at sea level takeoff power, who would want one in an RV? That kind of defeats the "Total Performance" concept. In time, you may recover the extra cost of the engine with fuel savings, but the operational limitations represent an additional "cost" that would be unacceptable to me.

Click to expand...

others have just commented about torque and that is key.

at about 2xxx rpms [depends on the particular diesel] you'll have all the torque you'll need. That is part of the beauty of diesels no PSR needed ... it naturally functions at optimal rpms for props.

as far as weight, yes, diesels weigh more... but you need to carry less fuel for the same range [because of the efficiency] so its weight disadvantage is offset...

here is a pilot's report on a recent 1.7 flight :

http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=3471&highlight=diesel

She was flying a spam-can but gives a good comparison between a gasser and the T-plant.

I've lived with auto diesels and a turbo'd 90 hp diesel provides all the power I need to be pleased [I also drive sports cars too and although the turbo-D is not as performance oriented, my diesel satisfies and at > 50 mpg it is a joy to use on the highway].

I also like the thought of using biodiesel [something we can do here in the US] and being energy independent. [I worry about AVgas going away [I guess a 150 hp Lyc or an auto gasser are options too hedge this concern]]

Thielert is too pricy but there are some promising substitutes [Subie is coming out with a boxer opposed 4 turbo-D and Toyota/Lexus has a dandy 2.2 4 banger already out].

Diesels aren't going to please those who want optimal speed but I'm thinking a 135 hp turbo-diesel is the ideal engine for a -9/9A.

YMMV

John

Don't confuse torque with power

When you are crusing, drag is a force, in pounds, and you need an equal quantity of thrust from the engine/prop combination to maintain altitude. The power required can be calcualted as the product of the airplanes velocity and the thrust, or ft/sec * lbs, more commonly expressed as ft-lbs/sec. For reference, 1 HP = 550 ft-lbs/sec.

The point is, what you need to offset drag is power. While engine power is a function of engine torque, high torque does not necessairly mean high power...it depends on the rpm at which it is produced.

A 135hp Thielert simply will not perform as well as 160hp Lycoming under sea level takeoff conditions (and up to about 8,000 ft pressure altitude). However, at higher altitudes, the turbochargers allow the Thielert to produce more horsepower than the Lycoming.

For my money, and for the kind of flying I do, takeoff power is far more valuable than cruise power at higher altitudes. YMMV.

Torque vs power - an automotive example

I just thought of an automotive example that might help shed some light on the confusion of torque vs power.

Imagine you are driving a car that has an engine with a very flat torque curve - i.e. it produces the same torque over a wide range of rpms, like many big V-8 engines. We are going to measure the acceleration at two different rpms, starting from the same speed.

Run 1 - The engine is turning 1,500 rpm. You push the gas pedal to the floor and time the acceleration.

Run 2 - Now, imagine you slowed down to the same speed as before, but now you shift down a gear or two, so the engine is turning 3,000 rpm. Same torque as before, but twice the rpm. You push the gas pedal to the floor again, and time the acceleration.

Anyone who has a driver's license should intuitively know that the car will accelerate much better in the second run. But the torque was the same in both cases.

The car accelerates better in Run 2 because performance is determined by power, not torque. Or, if you like, performance is determined by torque times rpm, not torque alone.

Kevin Horton said:

Wrong. If you have the same amount of torque at a higher rpm, the additional power at the higher rpm will result in higher performance (this assumes that the prop efficiency does not have a significant decrease at the higher rpm).

Click to expand...

I am ignoring prop efficiency because I'm assuming the same prop for both installations.

We're talking about engine RPM, not propeller RPM. Horsepower for these engines is measured at the crankshaft (i.e., at engine rpm), not at the propeller.

The car accelerates better in Run 2 because performance is determined by power, not torque. Or, if you like, performance is determined by torque times rpm, not torque alone.

Click to expand...

Yup. By producing your torque at higher RPM, you can use gearing to 'concentrate' it. The Lycoming doesn't.

But my point is that diesels produce VERY high torque at a low RPM. The Lycoming produces less torque at a much higher RPM. The net result is a virtual wash but the Lycoming's measured horsepower is higher because its higher RPM outdoes higher torque of the diesel in the equation.

That's why a 90hp turbodiesel can take on my 170hp Honda with impressive results.

mdredmond said:

Yup. By producing your torque at higher RPM, you can use gearing to 'concentrate' it. The Lycoming doesn't.

But my point is that diesels produce VERY high torque at a low RPM. The Lycoming produces less torque at a much higher RPM. The net result is a virtual wash but the Lycoming's measured horsepower is higher because its higher RPM outdoes higher torque of the diesel in the equation.

That's why a 90hp turbodiesel can take on my 170hp Honda with impressive results.

Click to expand...

OK, I'm glad we can agree that performance depends on torque and rpm, not just torque alone as you stated earlier.

As far as the performance of a 90 hp diesel vs your 170 hp Honda, which car models are you talking about? What does each of them weigh, and how do the quarter mile times and top speeds compare? I'm betting the 170 hp Honda is a much better performer than a 90 hp diesel, unless the diesel powered car is much, much lighter. Look at the actual test data, and it should show that the car with the better power to weight ratio is the better performer, no matter which one has the higher torque. Same thing with airplanes.

Kevin Horton said:

OK, I'm glad we can agree that performance depends on torque and rpm, not just torque alone as you stated earlier.

As far as the performance of a 90 hp diesel vs your 170 hp Honda, which car models are you talking about? What does each of them weigh, and how do the quarter mile times and top speeds compare? I'm betting the 170 hp Honda is a much better performer than a 90 hp diesel, unless the diesel powered car is much, much lighter. Look at the actual test data, and it should show that the car with the better power to weight ratio is the better performer, no matter which one has the higher torque. Same thing with airplanes.

Click to expand...

A TDI Golf v. a gasser Civic [or Golf] would be comparable examples. The Civic would be faster 0-40. The Golf 40 on up....

On the highway I've actually simply kept crusing at the same speed up long inclines and passed gasser vehicles that were loosing speed up the hills.

If you follow the link I posted earlier you could read the pilot's impression a portion of which is: <snip>

Observations:
- The engine runs very smoothly, the typical vibration usually occurs on Cessna didn't exist
- The engine noise sounds like driving a car on a freeway, doesn't sound like an airplane, actually sounds a lot nicer than an airplane, I have never liked the typical Cessna-sound
- The control in the fadec is very sensitive. Very small movements, millimeter forward or backward makes a big difference.
- Is faster than the other our flight club's Cessna C172 which is equipped with 150 hp engine and fixed pitch prop.
- Takeoff is significantly faster and more aggressive than on the 150 hp Cessna despite the Thielert is only rated for 135 hp. On the other hand, thanks to the CS prop, the engine outputs 100% power on takeoff, not something like 60% power because of too steep blade angles. The Thielert-Cessna felt more like 200 hp RV-8 than a normal C172 on takeoff, the MT Propeller makes a _HUGE_ difference. However, after getting up from the runway, the climb rate is not much different from ordinary C172 and loses ezily to a 200 hp RV-8.
- There is no manual leaning, carburetor heat, propeller pitch etc. things to take care of. The FADEC controls everything and the single lever interface works pretty nicely.
- on landing, instead of lowering engine rpm, the engine rpm goes up, that is because the FADEC-prop combination does braking on approach
- we didn't go higher than 3000 feet because it was very cold up there and the heating system is not that efficient and we were freezing.... <snip>

The theory of diesel v. gasser can be discussed until the cows come home...

Having lived with both for some time I can say that today's turbo'd diesel with modern fuel metering system is wonder.

If you are skeptical then I suggest go and drive a TDI.

In theory ... theory and practice are the same...
in practice - theory and practice are not so much the
same....

I don't believe speculating what a diesel can or can not do is necessary - actual experiences are available.

John Stobbs

Deuskid said:

If you follow the link I posted earlier you could read the pilot's impression a portion of which is: <snip>

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the details. I followed the earlier link and it went to a forum post, but the pilot report wasn't there.

The performance comparisons between the Lycoming and Thielert powered 172 are muddied by the fact that the Lycoming powered one has a fixed pitch prop, and the Thierlert powered one has a constant speed prop. The engine on the Lycoming one does not turn at high rpm during take off and climb, so it is developing much less than the rated 160 hp.

This is an apples and oranges comparison that proves nothing, other than the fact that Thielert understands that they need to turn the engine at an rpm where it develops best power, rather than being happy with high torque at low rpm.

Deuskid said:

I don't believe speculating what a diesel can or can not do is necessary - actual experiences are available.

Click to expand...

I've driven turbo diesels in Europe - they are a wonderful engine. I'm not arguing otherwise. I am simply attempting to correct some misconceptions about torque vs power. Motor vehicle performance is determined by horsepower, not torque. Period. Anyone who wishes to arque otherwise should look up the normally accepted equations that define motor vehicle performance. You won't find torque in those equations - instead you will find power.

More info on aircraft performance.

my bad - sorry

Kevin -

I linked the wrong thread, sorry. Karolina had started 2 threads at the same time [one on her impressions and the other on the 'new' 2.0 Thielert [similar to this thread here]] and I grabbed the wrong one earlier. Here are both:

Pilot impressions:

http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=3447

Thielert 2.0 thread:

http://canardaviationforum.dmt.net/showthread.php?t=3471

I agree with you on both counts: her comparison is somewhat apples to oranges [although both are C172s she flies] and torque in 'absolute' terms isn't the only variable to determine function.

I also recognize that [as in all issues] there are significant trade-offs when using a diesel.

I still believe that a small turbo'd diesel with current fuel metering systems would be ideal for a X-C aircraft [e.g. a -9] but less appealing for those seeking pure performance.

A diesel also allows for the uncertainty of fuel availability into the future.

All your points are well made and appreciated by me. I just don't want anyone to 'dismiss' diesels based upon your observations without 'rounding out' their understanding with the rest of the story.

Happy New Year!

John Stobbs

Another plus to diesel is that you can burn untaxed 'agricultural' diesel (legally), decreasing your fuel costs by several dollars an hour (44.4 cents per gallon in Texas, more or less in other states).

People confuse the torque and hp thing all the time. Torque is force, hp is work. Torque is irrelevant in moving objects or accelerating them. All vehicle specs being equal, the engine which produces the highest average hp within its working rpm range will accelerate the vehicle quicker. In the case of aircraft, it will climb faster and go faster.

Tests on the Thielert diesels indeed show inferior performance below 6-8000 feet compared to Lycoming powered airframes when using similar propellers on the DA42.

mdredmond said:

Another plus to diesel is that you can burn untaxed 'agricultural' diesel (legally), decreasing your fuel costs by several dollars an hour (44.4 cents per gallon in Texas, more or less in other states).

Click to expand...

That was what I thought when we got ours, but the 'diesel' specification for Thielerts is not readily available in the US. Jet-A is the only thing we can put in the tanks.

Pilottonny said:

OK, The "9" is designed for 120 to 160 hp....... So, the Thielert with 135 hp would fit real nice !....... Now, the fact that it "only" has 135 hp is irrelevant! Above something like 8.000 ft. it wil put out more power than the 160 hp Lycoming, and therefore go faster ! (Turbo !!!) And........ a lot cheaper also! Take-of and see-level flight is no problem either because of the CS-prop!

Come on, anybody who is still thinking that an Avgas slurper is running cheaper than any Diesel is kidding himself! Have you compared the fuel prices ? Do you think Thielert sold more than 1.500 engines, so far, because all their customers are stupid?

And, more important, what about the world your kids are going to live in?

Regards, PilotTonny

Click to expand...

Um, economics here in California doesn't make sense for the Diesel airplane engines. Jet-A is sometimes cheaper than avgas, sometimes not. But the effciency isn't that much better than the Lycoming, and certainly the initial purchase cost doesn't get made up easily if running a Lycoming LOP in cruise. Complexity of install is another issue... In Europe, it may be fine, here doesn't make sense.

osxuser said:

economics here in California doesn't make sense

Click to expand...

I'll agree with that... sorry couldn't help it... JK



The DA42 Twin Star was the first diesel-powered aircraft to make a non-stop crossing of the North Atlantic, in 28 hours, with an average fuel consumption of 11.2 gallons per hour.


CENTURION 1.7
? Consumption 15 - 20 l/hr 4 - 5.3 gal/hr
http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=604&L=1


Deltahawk 200 HP
Fuel burn @ 65% 7 gal/hr Jet A
Fuel burn @ 100% (200 hp) 11.2 gal/hr Jet A
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml

Not worth it at 4 - 5 (or 7) gal/hr ? maybe... maybe not ... BUT some of us would like the choice.... I'd like to see what actual fuel burn would be in an RV, but ...


/remember who is giving you the numbers... your mileage may vary.

pfactor said:

The DA42 Twin Star was the first diesel-powered aircraft to make a non-stop crossing of the North Atlantic, in 28 hours, with an average fuel consumption of 11.2 gallons per hour.

Click to expand...

Diesel-powered aircraft have been around for a long time. The diesel-powered Blohm und Voss BV.139 made 100 Atlantic crossings in the late 1930's. I hesitate to call them non-stop North Atlantic crossings, as they were from Horta in the Azores to New York and return. But, the length of that leg (about 2,080 nm) was longer than the longest leg that the DA42 flew when it crossed the Atlantic (St. John's, Newfoundland to Porto, Portugal, about 1,905 nm).

pfactor said:

I'll agree with that... sorry couldn't help it... JK



The DA42 Twin Star was the first diesel-powered aircraft to make a non-stop crossing of the North Atlantic, in 28 hours, with an average fuel consumption of 11.2 gallons per hour.


CENTURION 1.7
? Consumption 15 - 20 l/hr 4 - 5.3 gal/hr
http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=604&L=1


Deltahawk 200 HP
Fuel burn @ 65% 7 gal/hr Jet A
Fuel burn @ 100% (200 hp) 11.2 gal/hr Jet A
http://www.deltahawkengines.com/econom00.shtml

Not worth it at 4 - 5 (or 7) gal/hr ? maybe... maybe not ... BUT some of us would like the choice.... I'd like to see what actual fuel burn would be in an RV, but ...


/remember who is giving you the numbers... your mileage may vary.

Click to expand...

The Centurion 1.7 burns 5.3gal/hr? Then how did the TwinStar burn an AVERAGE of 11.2 total? *Fuzzy Math*

That trans-atlantic crossing was at lower power settings, best economy cruise, and it burned 5.6/hr a side.... I'll bet a similer power outputs, the 1.7 would be within 1GPH of a Lycoming running LOP at low cruise power settings. (1.7 would be running 120HP, that would put an IO-360 angle valve at 60% power LOP)...

osxuser said:

The Centurion 1.7 burns 5.3gal/hr? Then how did the TwinStar burn an AVERAGE of 11.2 total? *Fuzzy Math*

That trans-atlantic crossing was at lower power settings, best economy cruise, and it burned 5.6/hr a side.... I'll bet a similer power outputs, the 1.7 would be within 1GPH of a Lycoming running LOP at low cruise power settings. (1.7 would be running 120HP, that would put an IO-360 angle valve at 60% power LOP)...

Click to expand...

Yep Fuzzy math... 11.2 - 10.6 = .6 GPH more than avg.....I just quoted the numbers from the websites..(advertising is usually better than reality) ... plus there's climb out, winds, and I am sure dependent on aircraft etc. (although it is a fairly sleek aircraft)

there are other advantages , I am not here to convince anyone to use one, just want (more of) a choice.

pfactor said:

Yep Fuzzy math... 11.2 - 10.6 = .6 GPH more than avg.....I just quoted the numbers from the websites..(advertising is usually better than reality) ... plus there's climb out, winds, and I am sure dependent on aircraft etc. (although it is a fairly sleek aircraft)

there are other advantages , I am not here to convince anyone to use one, just want (more of) a choice.

Click to expand...

Yes, quite a few advantages, and a couple of disadvantages - it's all about what the package as a total offers to the builder. Personally, I'll order one about 5 minutes after they offer them to the experimental market. Until then, we have to operate according to current reality, and I'll plan on a lyclone and build all systems to support either eventual choice.

14. How does this compare with the weight of the normally aspirated 160HP engine currently in the Cessna 172 and Piper PA28?


Depending upon application, the total installed weight with a CENTURION 1.7 is 66 pounds heavier than the conventional normally aspirated 180HP engine in Cessna 172 R or compared to normally aspirated 160HP engine in Piper PA28.

From Thielerts own page. Not a put down, since this is somewhat expected, just a FYI. Also installed weight in a -9 would sagnifigantly increase TO distance. Down on HP up on weight = longer takeoff roll. The use of this engine is a COMPROMISE, lower power but better (less) fuel consumption. Not hard to figure out.
Bill Jepson

Everything in an aircraft is a compromise - from first clean-sheet engineering drawing to the last hour of the last model in the air.

Refer to my statement above - it's all about what the total package offers the builder - each builder will have a different set of wishes/desires which will result in a different compromise. I'm not terribly concerned about a small increase in the takeoff distance for an aircraft that posts a standard THREE HUNDRED foot ground run. Let's look at it in the correct perspective, shall we?

Thielert vs Lycoming

All of this talk about wanting to use a Thielert 1.7 (or 2.0) in place of a 160 hp Lycoming 0-320 makes no economic sense what-so-ever! Not only is it significantly heavier (which will require more power to get it to cruise at the same speed as the 160 hp Lycoming engine), it will also take its entire life to pay out in fuel savings cost over its lifetime! Let's look at the simple math:

1) Actual Lycoming 0-320 consumption @ 120 hp (75%) = 8.5 gal/hr
2) Actual Thielert fuel consumption (from Twinstar data) = 5.6 gal/hr
3) Net difference = 2.9 gal/hr
4) Fuel cost difference (2.9 gal/hr x $3.00/ gal average) = $8.70/hr
5) Total fuel cost over engine life (2000 hr x $8.70/hr) = $17,400
6) Cost of Thielert 1.7 (the 2.0 is about $20,00 higher) = $33,750
7) Cost of a Superior XP I0-320 160 hp CS engine = $19,700
8) Cost difference between the two engines = $14,050
9) Net cost savings ($17,400 - $14,050) = $3,350
10) Added FWF costs for Thielert conversion = +$5,000
11) Total cost savings of acquisition & operating costs = -$1,650

Thus you can see that in 2000 hrs of operation the Thielert 1.7 diesel engine will actually cost slightly more for far less performance in comparision to a CS I0-320 Lyclone engine. In reality the Thielert will probably eat more than 5.6 gal/hr to run at the same 120 hp that the Lyclone puts out @75% since it would be working at 89% for the same power up to 8000 ft altitude. Perhaps the FWF costs might be less than the $5,000 I gave above, but in the end it will be a break even cost at best!!!

So my question is WHY would anyone ever consider using this engine when the performance is less for the same costs? (and don't forget that the 1.7 engine will not be available in the future because the 2.0 is phasing it out...and that engine will be at least $20,000 higher in cost than the older 1.7 it is replacing).

Is it any wonder that Van will NEVER consider using this engine!!!!!!

tloof said:

All of this talk about wanting to use a Thielert 1.7 (or 2.0) in place of a 160 hp Lycoming 0-320 makes no economic sense what-so-ever! Not only is it significantly heavier (which will require more power to get it to cruise at the same speed as the 160 hp Lycoming engine), it will also take its entire life to pay out in fuel savings cost over its lifetime! Let's look at the simple math:

1) Actual Lycoming 0-320 consumption @ 120 hp (75%) = 8.5 gal/hr
2) Actual Thielert fuel consumption (from Twinstar data) = 5.6 gal/hr
3) Net difference = 2.9 gal/hr
4) Fuel cost difference (2.9 gal/hr x $3.00/ gal average) = $8.70/hr
5) Total fuel cost over engine life (2000 hr x $8.70/hr) = $17,400
6) Cost of Thielert 1.7 (the 2.0 is about $20,00 higher) = $33,750
7) Cost of a Superior XP I0-320 160 hp CS engine = $19,700
8) Cost difference between the two engines = $14,050
9) Net cost savings ($17,400 - $14,050) = $3,350
10) Added FWF costs for Thielert conversion = +$5,000
11) Total cost savings of acquisition & operating costs = -$1,650

Thus you can see that in 2000 hrs of operation the Thielert 1.7 diesel engine will actually cost slightly more for far less performance in comparision to a CS I0-320 Lyclone engine. In reality the Thielert will probably eat more than 5.6 gal/hr to run at the same 120 hp that the Lyclone puts out @75% since it would be working at 89% for the same power up to 8000 ft altitude. Perhaps the FWF costs might be less than the $5,000 I gave above, but in the end it will be a break even cost at best!!!

So my question is WHY would anyone ever consider using this engine when the performance is less for the same costs? (and don't forget that the 1.7 engine will not be available in the future because the 2.0 is phasing it out...and that engine will be at least $20,000 higher in cost than the older 1.7 it is replacing).

Is it any wonder that Van will NEVER consider using this engine!!!!!!

Click to expand...

item #10 - additional FWF costs - some backup for this number please? I've seen nothing so far that would come close to this amount.
item #4/5 - sorry - I will be running tax-free farm diesel. Right at $2/gal.

So that brings us to ballpark +$14k for the Thielert, along with the ability to maintain high cruise power at altitude (where I love to cruise), liquid cooling for low oil consumption and thermal equilibrium for the cylinders, WAY easy cabin heat from the radiator without CO worries, extended range with factory tanks due to lower fuel consumption, can run on Jet A or a mixture, etc etc

Keep setting up your ducks, and I'll keep knocking 'em down. It comes down to builder choice. I want it, you don't, that's fine. Neither of us is going to convince the other that they are wrong - but I'm smart enough not to try.

Greg,


Don't forget the additional safety of diesel fuel. On the other side of the coin is the fact that diesel fuel doesn't like to get cold.

IIRC, the Thielert's price includes their C/S prop.

...and I thought the Thielert was only about 20 pounds heavier (it weighs 295 lbs) than the O320?

I've got to say, though, that the Thielert people are smoking crack if they think their auto-conversion (it's a Benz engine) is worth $30,000+. I'd pay 20-25k but not a penny more.

mdredmond said:

Greg,


Don't forget the additional safety of diesel fuel. On the other side of the coin is the fact that diesel fuel doesn't like to get cold.

IIRC, the Thielert's price includes their C/S prop.

...and I thought the Thielert was only about 20 pounds heavier (it weighs 295 lbs) than the O320?

Click to expand...

The 172 and PA-28 retrofits include the C/S prop, but of course since they are not currently selling to the experimental market, that remains to be seen. The 295 pound weight is correct, for 1.7, there is no information to indicate whether or not the weight of the 2.0 will vary. And of course you're correct about the problems of cold-soaked diesel, but #2 diesel here in US has a cloud point of -20F or less(winter mix), this is equivalent to a very high altitude for quite a while to get the fuel temps down to this point, but can be alleviated by taking the return fuel from the injectors and running it through a simple heat exchanger (think oil cooler) directly post-radiator to warm the fuel before returning it to the tank, if this problem becomes apparent during flight testing.

For everything negative, there's a positive - and vice versa. It all depends on your perspective and what you think (personal preference) as to which is the "best" compromise. As I mentioned before, since they are currently not available to the experimental market, this is a moot point. I'll build according to today's current reality - which means Plan A is a lyclone, most likely the XP-IO340, and the aircraft will be built for a rapid changeover to accept Plan B should the Thielert become available.

airguy said:

I'll build according to today's current reality - which means Plan A is a lyclone, most likely the XP-IO340, and the aircraft will be built for a rapid changeover to accept Plan B should the Thielert become available.

Click to expand...

I'm holding off on my tanks until I get closer to "engine time" so I'll have the chance to use larger caps if I go diesel. I don't hold out much hope of a diesel solution in the next few years, though.

My uncle is an ME that trained at VW/Porsche in Germany. He's also a pilot. He's dying to do a diesel conversion for my plane (with me footing the bill, of course). That's all fine, but what the Thielert has that he can't do is the FADEC and automatic C/S prop that delivers full power all the time. I'm not sure I want to be his first crack at the aviation market.

Thielert vs Lycoming

The additional FWF costs are an estimate on my part based on the fact of how much the Subie liquid cooledc conversions cost due to an entirely different engine mount being required along with cowling changes, radiator cooling system addition, tank changes for special venting & return lines, etc. No matter what you say it will at least add a couple of 1000 $ for such a conversion over the current FWF kit that Van's sells for the Lycoming engine.

Once you start using the $2/gal Ag diesel fuel you will soon discover that it isn't very clean, has alot of sulphur still in it, and has a higher content of water in it in comparison to Jet A fuel. It also has a lower cloud point value and will ultimately cause more problems for aircraft use than it's worth, especially since you indicate that you will be doing so much high altitude flying (which really isn't what an RV is great at anyway...it's ideal cruise altitude is 8000' which is also where the Lycoming perfoms best at!). Since you will need a storage tank for buying the AG diesel anyway, you could just as easily get 100LL delivered in 1000 gal amounts for around $2.25/gal, so the fuel savings cost really isn't that great and the long term use problems of the AG fuel may well cost you way more in maintenance and repair costs on your diesel engine.

And by the way, the price I gave for the Thielert 1.7 engine DOES NOT include the prop. The $33,750 US (about $25,960 EU) price I gave ONLY includes the engine, gearbox, prop governor, turbo charger, single lever FADEC control system, vacuum pump, alternator, belt, starter and wiring harness. It is the conversion for the Cessna 172 that also includes the additional items of the propeller, coolant system, engine mount, and engine instruments which all costs $52,611 US ($40,470 EU) total. Now since the 1.7 is NEVER going to be sold for the Experimental market, and only the newer and more expensive 2.0 is all that may ultimately be offered, you will also have to add another $20,000 to the cost per Thielerts own admission (at that price you will NEVER be able to recoup the conversion cost difference in fuel cost alone with that way OVER PRICED engine, so I don't know why any of you are even considering this thing!!!).

Also, the 295 lb weight of the Thielert doesn't include the extra weight for the cooling system, etc. You better figure on at least a 75 lb gain over a Lycoming 0-320 engine for a conversion in the RV.

As for the safety of diesel fuel, it is actually more explosive than AvGas when improperly vented, which may become a problem for those that try to convert from a Lycoming engine, so all is not as it seems for diesel fuel.

The supposed increased range you claim is very subjective right now considering there is no real data to back up the actual fuel consumption of the Thielert 1.7 at a 120 hp cruise rating (if it truely can run such a sustained power loading). My guess is that when all the dust settles that it really is only good for about a 0.5-1 gal/hr difference over an 0-320 at the same economy cruise setting and same airspeed. One could easily add some extra longer range tip tanks in any Lycoming powered RV to offset that range difference for less overall cost in comparison to what the Thielert will cost...and they would still retain the MUCH greater climb & higher potential cruise performance over the Thielert conversion.

From what I can see, the Thielert diesel conversion has nothing but negatives and NO positives worth the consideration of it!!! Yeah, if that is what your heart is so set on installing in your RV, then go for it. But when a simple low powered and WAY lower cost Lycoming 0-320 blows you away don't go crying to any of us! Ha (Never mind the fact that a lighter Lycoming 0-360 powered RV will really blow it away in performance in every way, including up to the higher altitude of 12,000 ft!!). Sorry, that is just the way it is, no matter what you try to claim!

Actually, that wouldn't be that big a hurdle - you just run it like any other standard C/S prop setup. One lever for RPM (prop control) and one for the fuel injector (power, or throttle on a gas engine). You would just have to be careful about lugging the engine down at a low rpm with a high power setting, if you exceed the critical air/fuel ratio (smoke point) you're just thowing fuel overboard in the form of black smoke.

The thing that would scare me about a DIY diesel setup is the need to come up with a homegrown PSRU unless you want to go the Deltahawk route and just run high displacement and pay the weight penalty. Also keep in mind that there is no advantage to going diesel unless you go TURBOdiesel.

airguy said:

The thing that would scare me about a DIY diesel setup is the need to come up with a homegrown PSRU unless you want to go the Deltahawk route and just run high displacement and pay the weight penalty.

Click to expand...

I think the reduction unit would be simple enough - just copy Thielert's , assuming we'd use the same engine. He's a talented engineer with lots of automotive experience. Now he designs geared machinery for oilwell applications & has access to many good machinists.

I'm more concerned about the aviation-specific items (mounts, cowling, etc...) that he may or may not be able to address - and the cost of funding his experimentation (and its inevitable failures).

Unless a revolutionary engine comes on the market and proves itself safe, I'll likely go with an IO-320 purchased new from Van's. It would be nice if there was an affordable/i] fadec available for the Lycomings.

Kevin Horton said:

The Thielert engines are turbocharged. While the power available at sea level is lower than desired, 135 hp is still available at 6,000 ft, and 122 hp is available at 10,000 ft, and 97 hp at 17,500 ft. The cruise power available at typical cruise altitudes approaches that from an O-320.

It is a heavy and expensive engine though, so I agree that very few people would put one in an RV, even if a FWF kit was available.

Click to expand...

97/135=71.852%
Can your precious Lycoming make 72% power at 17,500?

Anyway - it's a moot point until the market is open to us. Until then I will certainly not waste any more electrons arguing with the likes of you.
Actually, that will hold true even AFTER the engine is available!

airguy said:

Everything in an aircraft is a compromise - from first clean-sheet engineering drawing to the last hour of the last model in the air.

Refer to my statement above - it's all about what the total package offers the builder - each builder will have a different set of wishes/desires which will result in a different compromise. I'm not terribly concerned about a small increase in the takeoff distance for an aircraft that posts a standard THREE HUNDRED foot ground run. Let's look at it in the correct perspective, shall we?

Click to expand...

Gregg, Please don't misunderstand, I'm an alternate engines guy from the outset so there's no contention from me. I don't doubt that the Thielert would be a good engine in many planes. There are some concerns about diesel use to be honest that have to be addressed. If you like the EMS on the Thielert and single lever control is important to you, that is simply factored into the buying decision. Cost recovery through fuel savings is a lot tougher, though not impossible if you fly a LOT! Thielert was quoting the engines as a TBR though, (time to replacement) rather than overhaul. If you intend to keep your plane a long time you should be sure of a guaranteed replacement cost. Buying 2 of these engines durring the lifetime of your plane would be very difficult to justify. Thielert may change their specs with more engines in operation. All I'm saying is to be sure. Thielert took advantage of easier certifcation rules in Europe to get certified, or at least lower litigation costs who knows, and then used reprocity rules to get into the US. A re-worked MB auto diesel at that price, (no matter how well done) is a expensive way to get a diesel. I have nothing against diesel either. I welcome a good one. My Cummins TD full size PU got 20+ MPG all the way across Nevada. This didn't make the trip to Utah any shorter, but it was less painfull! Diesel is a good economy solution, but the attendant plumbing, (direct injection and high pressure EFI), while mature, really don't make a diesel any safer than a gas engine. The fumes are still explosive, just under different circumstances. If you intend a lot of high altitude cruiseing it may be just the right solution for you. Reguardless of what you chose for power, fly safe and enjoy!

Bill Jepson

Look guys - I'm not trying to sell their engines for them. I like the concept, and don't mind dealing with the drawbacks. It's not all about the dollar you spend - how many of us have $10,000 panels and only fly day VFR? Was the panel cost a good decision in that case? I got married (twice) and I can certainly assure you that it wasn't my cheapest decision - either of them. Sometimes you make a decision or take an action for some factor other than simple economics. Would any of us have children if the economic cost/benefit ratio was the only thing to be considered?

Matt's idea of TD retrofit is not too far off base. If I could be relatively assured of the longevity of the (to me) most critical piece - the PSRU - I would be very interested in buying a MB engine (or something similar) and reworking it as a one-off. The first guy to put a Subie in an airplane was surely laughed at in the same manner - but there are a bunch of them flying today. This is no different, just with a compression ignition engine. It might not be the Thielert, or the Deltahawk, or the SMA - but you can bet that this is one idea that will not fade away anytime soon.

ok a bit for and against...


where is the $20,000 more for the 2.0 coming from? rumor?


The more fuel price goes up the bigger the difference will be.

http://map.aeroplanner.com/tools/fbomap.cfm
right now say 3.39 for JetA and 3.59 for 100LL

GPH 5.6 8.5
x 2000TB total fuel cost = 11200 17000
$37,968.00 VS $61,030.00
difference - $23,062.00

now compare overhaul vs. replace? Deltahawk claims they overhaul, but Thielert does replacement... which is way overpriced IMHO. They don't seem to want our buisness.. oh well.. NEXT....

It might not be the Thielert, or the Deltahawk, or the SMA - but you can bet that this is one idea that will not fade away anytime soon.

Click to expand...

exactly... or Wilksch or Zoche etc.

Matt's idea of TD retrofit is not too far off base. If I could be relatively assured of the longevity of the (to me) most critical piece - the PSRU - I would be very interested in buying a MB engine (or something similar) and reworking it as a one-off. The first guy to put a Subie in an airplane was surely laughed at in the same manner - but there are a bunch of them flying today.

Click to expand...

amen.

Diesels are for Europe !

OK, all the pro's and con's have been listed, but everybody seems to forget that (bar the Deltahawk) all the diesels are European:

- DAC Ranger:........................90 hp http://www.dac-ranger.nl
- Wilksch WAM 120:............120 hp http://www.wilksch.com
- Thielert Centurion 1.7:.......135 hp http://www.centurion-engines.com
- Wilksch WAM 160:............160 hp http://www.wilksch.com
- SMA SR 305:.....................200 hp http://smaengines.com
- Thielert Centurion 4.0:.......350 hp http://www.centurion-engines.com

The only one out of this list, that is not flying jet, is the WAM160, but there are some engines that are going to be installed in RV 9's in the UK soon.

I have left out the SMART Diesel powered Ultralight (70 hp?), because I could not find a link to it and I left out ZOCHE because it looks like they are living on the grants they get from the European Union to keep on "developing". I do not believe they will ever bring their engines (75 hp, 150 hp and 300 hp) in production. Maybe its the competitors or "the Avgas lobby" that are paying them money to stay off the market, who knows?

Now, with Avgas prices of approx. (Belgium): 2,05 Eur/lt (10,10 $/gal) and the cheapest form of Diesel at 0,52 Eur/lt (2,55 $/gal) , you can imagine why its interesting to go for a diesel engine in Europe. The fuel cost may be somewhere around 30% of that of Avgas!! After 2.400 (TBR of the Centurion) that means, lets say at 20 lt/hr, a difference of somthing like 70.000 Eur (91.000 $) So......... thats why ! I hope its clear to all now.
If the diesel engine would be heavier than an Avgas engine (if!!), that means the empty weight goes up and the usefull load goes down, no problem for us skinny Europeans! But, as has been addressed here many times before, because the diesel uses less fuel, you have to carry less to go the same distance and this will make up a lot (if not all) of the weight penalty.

I am also looking into a Mogas burner at the moment. It seems that a lot of small airfields are also catering for Mogas these days. Still saves 50% and if unavailable you can always fill-up with Avgas to get you back home.

Regards, PilotTonny