What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

Continental CD-265 Jet-A Engine

gdrudolph

I'm New Here
A friend I work with, Guil, enlightened me to this engine and I have fallen in love with it!! Anyone know of any Vans certification progress from Continental or Vans on this front?

http://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd200.aspx

Cheaper gas cost
Turbo
4 cylinder
265 HP
11.7 gal/hr. burn
Hoping Garmin integration for emergency land feature (a feature that would help me sell my build to the CEO of our household).

The CD-230 to CDR-285 is a family of four-stroke 4-cylinder, air/oil-cooled, horizontally opposed, direct-drive piston aircraft engines with turbocharger and direct injection. The engine has a maximum continuous power of 265 HP @ 2500 RPM
 
Would be interesting to know at what hp the 11.7 gph FF figure is obtained at and of course the cost of the engine.

Looks nice and the weight isn't too bad if that's with accessories.
 
Would be interesting to know at what hp the 11.7 gph FF figure is obtained at and of course the cost of the engine.

Looks nice and the weight isn't too bad if that's with accessories.

unfortunately, still needs accessories ... so ... more weight but I don't know how much...
 
CD-230/265

This is/will be the engine I have. It is also an older spec sheet.

I know more than I'm allowed to say about it, but I do love it. I don't know/can't say when it will be ready for delivery. Vans knows about this project but they are keeping their interest level to themselves as they have not spoken to me about it... EVER.

The quoted FF is about 225HP. The engine can cruise at 90%power all day long. The weight is for the engine only- but that does include the primary exhaust system.
 
Last edited:
Oh man... THANKS SO MUCH!!! There is hope :) I have not even started... YET haha. So I'm a good 3 -5 years out. It is GREAT because Vans just announced 'final size holes' so no "rinse and repeat 3x" as Jason says on his youtube channel haha. This announcement has made me even more eager to start. In any event, I'll keep an eye on your build blog if you have one... and mums the word :)
 
It looks like a great option but it is heavy. I also wonder about pricing. Past attempts at jet A piston engines have had eye watering prices.
 
The quoted FF is about 225HP. The engine can cruise at 90%power all day long. The weight is for the engine only- but that does include the primary exhaust system.

That is pretty exciting if it is accurate. I cruise LOP around 11 GPH and if I believe the common stats, I am producing around 165 HP at that flow. If this diesel can produce 215-220 HP at that same flow, WOW that is an impressive boost.

Everything I have read from Ross seems to indicate similar BSFC / efficiency stats between the std Lyc's and the new diesels, so I remain somewhat skeptical.

Larry
 
11.7 gph at 225 hp is a BSFC of .34. We're seeing figures of around .38 with 9 to 1 Lycomings running LOP with EFI and EI. So that's about 10% better for the diesel in cruise. So you'd have to see what the weight and cost trade offs would be.
 
The weight is close to what the O-470 on my C180 weighs, but the power and fuel consumption is a bit higher. It's probably a reasonable engine for an RV-10 or Rocket, but would someone please explain why this would be preferable to a Lycoming IO-540 that you can buy today and which has known service requirements and reliability and for which the aircraft are designed?

I just don't see any advantage to this thing. Anyone?

Dave
 
...ummm

Personal preference?

Going outside the box?

Experimenting?

There are many individual reasons to consider an alternative engine, or other system.

You may not agree with them but that does not matter; you build the way you want and everyone else is free to do the same...the beauty of experimental aviation.
 
The weight is close to what the O-470 on my C180 weighs, but the power and fuel consumption is a bit higher. It's probably a reasonable engine for an RV-10 or Rocket, but would someone please explain why this would be preferable to a Lycoming IO-540 that you can buy today and which has known service requirements and reliability and for which the aircraft are designed?

I just don't see any advantage to this thing. Anyone?

Dave

A reasonable question as it is just a powerplant at the end of the day... so advantages: Turbo for high level x-country & DA power when you need it most, 4 cylinder (2 less potential points of failure... and less on overhaul but may negate with addition of Turbo), potential ability for Garmin Auto-Land which only works (currently) with Turbo powerplants, less expensive gas (big one), and it looks cool (haha jk)...
 
11.7 gph at 225 hp is a BSFC of .34. We're seeing figures of around .38 with 9 to 1 Lycomings running LOP with EFI and EI. So that's about 10% better for the diesel in cruise. So you'd have to see what the weight and cost trade offs would be.

The weight is close to what the O-470 on my C180 weighs, but the power and fuel consumption is a bit higher. It's probably a reasonable engine for an RV-10 or Rocket, but would someone please explain why this would be preferable to a Lycoming IO-540 that you can buy today and which has known service requirements and reliability and for which the aircraft are designed?

I just don't see any advantage to this thing. Anyone?

As Ross notes (and leaving aside non-economic reasons like the other Bob notes), you have to look at the cost and weight tradeoffs.

Remember that we here in the US have access to pretty cheap fuel, compared to the rest of the world--especially Avgas, which elsewhere in the world is typically much more expensive than we pay here, if you can get it at all.

By contrast, jet fuel (and its close cousin diesel fuel) are pretty widespread and common elsewhere in the world, and it's typically going to be a fair bit cheaper to boot. An airplane that can run on jet/diesel can provide you with lower fuel costs and better fuel availability.

At that point it becomes a weight and cost tradeoff... if Avgas is really expensive compared to jet fuel where you live, you may well come out ahead in the long run even with the much higher upfront cost of the diesel. If you can't get avgas at all, and a turboprop isn't a viable option, a diesel might be the only realistic way of powering your small airplane.

But at least right now in the US, the higher upfront costs don't seem to be worth the reduction in fuel costs to most operators, especially those who are paying out of pocket and can't depreciate that upfront cost across the operating expenses...
 
The weight is close to what the O-470 on my C180 weighs, but the power and fuel consumption is a bit higher. It's probably a reasonable engine for an RV-10 or Rocket, but would someone please explain why this would be preferable to a Lycoming IO-540 that you can buy today and which has known service requirements and reliability and for which the aircraft are designed?

I just don't see any advantage to this thing. Anyone?

Dave

The main reason would probably be because you like diesels or want something different. Nothing wrong with that. :)
 
As Ross notes (and leaving aside non-economic reasons like the other Bob notes), you have to look at the cost and weight tradeoffs.

Remember that we here in the US have access to pretty cheap fuel, compared to the rest of the world--especially Avgas, which elsewhere in the world is typically much more expensive than we pay here, if you can get it at all.

By contrast, jet fuel (and its close cousin diesel fuel) are pretty widespread and common elsewhere in the world, and it's typically going to be a fair bit cheaper to boot. An airplane that can run on jet/diesel can provide you with lower fuel costs and better fuel availability.

At that point it becomes a weight and cost tradeoff... if Avgas is really expensive compared to jet fuel where you live, you may well come out ahead in the long run even with the much higher upfront cost of the diesel. If you can't get avgas at all, and a turboprop isn't a viable option, a diesel might be the only realistic way of powering your small airplane.

But at least right now in the US, the higher upfront costs don't seem to be worth the reduction in fuel costs to most operators, especially those who are paying out of pocket and can't depreciate that upfront cost across the operating expenses...

Yup, totally agree.

I'd add after several flights in Les Kearney's 540 powered RV-10, even up at 20,000 feet, performance and economy is impressive. I am a big fan of turbos but I don't see that most folks need one on a -10. With the ported heads, cold/ ram air system from Show Planes and EFI/EI, we were seeing 160-172 KTAS on 8.7- 11.3 gph, depending on altitude, running LOP.
 
Last edited:
Intake

One thing to keep in mind is that the tall overhead intake will most likely have interference issues with the stock cowling. Reshaping the cowling to accommodate it will most probably add drag to the airframe offsetting at least some of the claimed efficiency gains of the engine. The reshaped cowling will also reduce forward visibility.

Skylor
 
Last edited:
I know Scott was having issues getting accurate fuel flow figures in cruise. Would be nice to know if those have been resolved and what the TAS vs. FF is at various altitudes to compare to 540 powered 10s.
 
Why a diesel?

I'll give you a few reasons:
1. Safety: Diesel/JetA is much less flammable or volatile than avgas or mogas. This is a big deal to me. Too many people survive accidents only to be burned.
2. Reliability: Continental and Austro claim fewer in-flight shut downs per 100,000 hours than their traditional counterparts. I've spoken with an operator in Europe who has a fleet of PA28s with CD engines, along with Lycomings. He says his diesels are much more reliable, with more up-time. I've had similar results.
3. Economy: Some folks say that a traditional large bore gas engine running LOP approaches the efficiency of diesel. It's simply not even close, especially when the entire flight profile is considered. Diesels consistently consume 25-30% less fuel. I've done the testing. In most places, JetA costs less as well.
4. Ease of operation: Just start it and drive it like your modern car. No fussing with mixture, prop control, carb heat, mags, hot starts, cold starts, priming, etc. Set the single lever control at the desired percent of power or fuel burn and forget it. Climb, descend, do whatever you want; the system doesn't care.
5. As mentioned by others, the push to eliminate leaded fuels isn't going away. We will eventually need to move to UL fuels, and because of low demand, it'll be more expensive.
6. Service intervals: Modern diesels have 100 hour service intervals, compared to 50 hours with traditional engines.
7. Performance. Because modern aerodiesels are turbocharged, they produce 100% power from SL to 10,000', and then power drops off very slowly. DA is much less of an issue.

Drawbacks: Weight and cost. Weight is not as big a deal as you might think. If my diesel installed weight is 80 lb heavier than the equivalent traditional model (it is), I can just fly with 80 lb less fuel and still go substantially further than my friends. Or I can fill the tanks and stay in the air for 8+ hours at normal cruise, or 10 hours at economy cruise. With regard to cost, fuel savings during the life of the engine can easily offset the extra up-front cost.

I can back up what I'm saying with experience. I've flown experimental diesels since 2008; 600+ hours in an RV9 (WAM 120 diesel) and 760 hours in a Sportsman (CD155 diesel).

As Ross says, some people just like diesels. I'm one of them. I think the OP would be too if he had the chance to fly behind one.

Kurt
 
Well said Kurt!

For those LYC drivers that like messing around with hot and cold start procedures, you wouldn't like it. It just starts- first time, every time. The one time it gave me trouble was when I forgot to turn on the glow plugs at 30F OAT. It still started, just wasn't happy for a few revolutions.

Ross- I'm narrowing in a FF system that is pretty accurate right now. I just need a small computer to translate Marine computer speak to Garmin aviation and it will be VERY accurate. I do like reading about your work on making the Lycosarus modern and more efficient.

The following is just a non-scientific data point comparison from G3X data.

Local IO540 with Hart. 2-blade. 6500Ft. 155Ktas 11 GPH

My CD-230 with MT 3-blade 6500ft. 155Ktas 8.3GPH

-Went 9 hours RT to WI last weekend on 75 gals cruising at 155ktas- do the math...

-I know some of you will say " But I can cruise at 170Ktas+" Great.. but at what GPH and $/gal. How much sooner will it get you there?


Here is the current cowling designed using only my Mark1 eyeball and 286 synaptic processor. No CAD/Solidworks/ etc.... Is it a standard Vans cowl? No. but it IS in there.
i-wgbg3TL-M.jpg

No I don't have the big plenum yet but nothing is final until CMI say it is. Being an Alpha tester for this engine, I do get to talk to the guys that make the decisions and continually advocate for things that make sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Diesel

I am following the diesels with great interest, although it is likely not going to happen on my -10 any time soon...
 
As a point of reference we've seen around 170 KTAS on 9.6 gph at 16,000 with the 540 running around 30-50 LOP and timing at 30 BTDC. MT 3 blade prop.
 
Well said Kurt!

For those LYC drivers that like messing around with hot and cold start procedures, you wouldn't like it. It just starts- first time, every time. The one time it gave me trouble was when I forgot to turn on the glow plugs at 30F OAT. It still started, just wasn't happy for a few revolutions.

Ross- I'm narrowing in a FF system that is pretty accurate right now. I just need a small computer to translate Marine computer speak to Garmin aviation and it will be VERY accurate. I do like reading about your work on making the Lycosarus modern and more efficient.

The following is just a non-scientific data point comparison from G3X data.

Local IO540 with Hart. 2-blade. 6500Ft. 155Ktas 11 GPH

My CD-230 with MT 3-blade 6500ft. 155Ktas 8.3GPH

-Went 9 hours RT to WI last weekend on 75 gals cruising at 155ktas- do the math...

-I know some of you will say " But I can cruise at 170Ktas+" Great.. but at what GPH and $/gal. How much sooner will it get you there?


Here is the current cowling designed using only my Mark1 eyeball and 286 synaptic processor. No CAD/Solidworks/ etc.... Is it a standard Vans cowl? No. but it IS in there.
i-wgbg3TL-M.jpg

No I don't have the big plenum yet but nothing is final until CMI say it is. Being an Alpha tester for this engine, I do get to talk to the guys that make the decisions and continually advocate for things that make sense to me.

Everybody is free to have their own opinion (First Amendment is still in effect) and we can find their own way in this EXPERIMENTAL world.

I can’t see a 30% efficiency improvefor diesel. If diesels were that much better, they would be common place in carsand likely carry tax incentives. As a datapoint with my 10, i cruise at 8000’ at 165 kts and a bit over 10.5 gph. I haven’t really flown much at 155, but i bet my burn would be around 9. I don’t believe that 155 kts at 11 is typical for a 10.

Larry
 
Last edited:
As a point of reference we've seen around 170 KTAS on 9.6 gph at 16,000 with the 540 running around 30-50 LOP and timing at 30 BTDC. MT 3 blade prop.

We flew at 14k on a recent trip. We were doibg 165kts at around 9.3.
 
We flew at 14k on a recent trip. We were doibg 165kts at around 9.3.

Pretty similar to our numbers. Thanks for the data point.

Slowing from 165 to 155 should reduce power needed by about 17% and FF as well, assuming the same BSFC. That would make FFs under 8 gph.

The diesel should have a bigger advantage in the climb where it doesn't have to be rich like an SI engine. Since RVs climb pretty well, the time in the climb isn't so big unless you're going really high.

On the decent, the SI engine can pull power way back whereas the diesel has to maintain pretty high manifold pressure to stay lit in the cold.

Would be most interesting to do a side by side with the same prop. See how much both planes take at the pump (weight not volume, since BSFC is measured lbs./hp/hr. and diesel fuel weighs 10% more than 100LL) at the end of the flight. Make it apples to apples with the SI engine having EFI and proper EI with LOP advance so it's latest SI tech vs. latest diesel tech.
 
Last edited:
Any chance you can offer a status update? I'd love to know what Conti is planning on doing. Have they indicated when they will swap you out for the production engine?

Any idea if there will be a FW-FWD kit? cowling molds? engine mount? I understand you sourced/designed all of this on your own so far?
 
11.7 gph at 225 hp is a BSFC of .34. We're seeing figures of around .38 with 9 to 1 Lycomings running LOP with EFI and EI. So that's about 10% better for the diesel in cruise. So you'd have to see what the weight and cost trade offs would be.

Different fuels have different energy densities, so wouldn't you have to normalize for the difference between 100LL and the more energy-dense Jet A to get comparable efficiency numbers?
 
I can’t see a 30% efficiency improvefor diesel. If diesels were that much better, they would be common place in carsand likely carry tax incentives. As a datapoint with my 10, i cruise at 8000’ at 165 kts and a bit over 10.5 gph. I haven’t really flown much at 155, but i bet my burn would be around 9. I don’t believe that 155 kts at 11 is typical for a 10.

Larry

It is possible. it comes down to a few factors: energy/volume, compression ratio, and mixture. diesel (38.6 MJ/L) and jet a (35) both have a higher energy density than 100LL (31.6). So you're looking at 22% more energy for diesel and ~11% for Jet A over 100LL.

Compression ratio: the io-540 is 8.5:1. I don't know what the cd-265 runs at but it's probably somewhere around 1.5x that (12:1ish). so you get more bang per bang.

Finally mixture: diesels don't care. you control power with fuel alone. so you can go WAY LOP and keep running.

There are other efficiencies that apply here too: turbo helps push air into the engine along with 50+ years of engine development since the 540 was designed.

diesels are VERY common in cars including tax incentives.. outside the US. even within the US diesels rule where fuel efficiency really matters: tractor trailers. But for cars diesel runs some 10-20% more to buy/gallon plus the extra $5-10k for the engine and it's a really bad value proposition. You have to drive a lot before you even break even.

they're a great fit for general aviation though: cheaper fuel (jet a), lower burn rate, lots of torque at low RPMs.
 
Aircraft engines don't operate at light load however so the difference in BSFC in cruise is not that large as we've seen from flight data from various folks posted here on VAF. That's why I'd like to see the data when Scott is able to release it from the production spec engine.

Austro publishes cruise BSFC figures of .33-.35, little better than what a good 9 to 1 Lyc can achieve with fuel injection and proper spark timing LOP. Dave Anders with his 11 and 12 to 1 engines is right there in diesel territory.

The latest SI engines from Toyota match or exceed light auto diesels in the BSFC arena- 41% TE as of 2018 and even match part load mpg in some instances.

I realize Scott can't say too much at this time but I appreciate his updates, candor and facts to date. Has been realistic data without the spin we've seen before on the topic.

BTW kudos again to Scott for taking on this project and the testing for Conti. Very cool and lots of extra hours well spent. Fascinating stuff.
 
Last edited:
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the Higgs Hawk E330J/G in the running as a potential future choice. It even gives you the choice on what you can burn in it; Jet A / 100LL / Auto / Hydrogen gas, (maybe moonshine too).
350hp, 2 stroke, 8.5:1, spark plug ignition, 306 lbs plus accessories & cooling... Also has the important criteria of being lots of $$$
 
I'm suprised nobody has mentioned the Higgs Hawk E330J/G in the running as a potential future choice. It even gives you the choice on what you can burn in it; Jet A / 100LL / Auto / Hydrogen gas, (maybe moonshine too).
350hp, 2 stroke, 8.5:1, spark plug ignition, 306 lbs plus accessories & cooling... Also has the important criteria of being lots of $$$

Until Hawk has a flying RV-10 with the engine, it's as real as the similarly named DeltaHawk. As we have seen, aircraft engine design is not easy :(
 
Back
Top