What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 with Continental CD-230 Diesel

jeffwhip

Well Known Member
This is a recent press release from Continental. Did anyone get any information on this while at Oshkosh?

News Release
Continental Motors Group Announces First Diesel
Vans RV-10
Mobile, AL, United States, July 26, 2016 ? Continental Motors Group Ltd. (CMG), an
AVIC International Holding Corporation company, announced today that Scott
Flandermeyer has completed the first installation of the Continental Motors Diesel CD-
230 engine in a Vans RV-10.
Scott Flandermeyer, a Delta Airline Airbus A320 Captain, has been flying since 1985.
When he visited Sun?n?Fun and Oshkosh AirVenture in the early 2000?s, the general
aviation bug bit him again.
He joined the Falcon RV squadron and started to build an RV-10. But he did not want a
regular RV-10. Scott not only wanted power but was also looking for fuel efficiency. After
carefully evaluating all the power options open to him, Scott finally realized that a Diesel
engine answered all his requirements. Continental Motors and Scott started exchanging
information on the CD-230 and concluded that this engine was the right fit for the
airframe. Scott made the decision to go forward and, with the support of Continental
Motors, installed the engine in his standard RV-10 kit.
?The engine installation is complete; the engine runs just fine! I am impatient to go to the
next step which is the flight testing. But I have to make sure that we follow all the steps
listed on the checklist. The first flight is only days away, and we will start to gather
performance data as we open the flight envelope. I am convinced that the CD-230 is the
best engine for someone who is looking for minimal fuel consumption and high
performance. Combined with light structure of the RV-10, we should see high cruise
speeds while sipping JET-A.?
 
I am convinced that the CD-230 is the
best engine for someone who is looking for minimal fuel consumption and high
performance. Combined with light structure of the RV-10, we should see high cruise
speeds while sipping JET-A.?

I hope not so convinced that we receive skewed data. I am interested in how this works out but being "convinced" prior to liftoff is a recipe for overlooking hard data.
 
Representing Kitplanes, I had a nice talk with Continental's Rhett Ross about diesels (and shoes and ships and sealing wax, and cabbages and kings).

Recall that last year, official policy was that diesels would be released for EAB use only through supervised build programs, and at the time, the only such program was the Diesel Sportsman.

That policy has now been modified. The first diesel to be released to homebuilders is the air-cooled 230, which is fairly conventional in planform. Although much is still in flux, the general plan is to require builders to follow specific installation and test procedures per a checklist. With experience, the water cooled diesels will come later.
 
Last edited:
diesel TBO can cost....

I have been working alternative fuels (biojet, biodiesel, bio-avgas, alternatives to 100LL) for the last two decades and really been watching and following the engine, performance, and fuel discussions in the forums and at ASTM meetings, the latter is where fuels get certified, like the new 100LL with no lead coming on line for us from Shell.

I have been really excited about the diesel opportunity in aircraft, yet the high price and short TBO period kills the fuel savings in a heartbeat, at least at my fuel burn rate. It is like anything, is turbocharged worth the higher maintenance cost and short TBO, we all work those numbers to fit our own flying situations and performance requirements.

High octane fuels are not going away from what I have at the ASTM meetings, so the move to a diesel engine should make sense to the buyer, one case at a time. Just a side note, Jet-A has no cetane requirement, so diesel engines using Jet-A do so at their own risk and with no regulation or oversight by the FAA. This has caused serious situations in Europe. Jet-A is designed for turbine engines, and they have no cetane requirement (like diesel engines do). Yeah, most of the time the cetane rating is okay for Jet-A, but at the end of day, the Jet-A fuel producers do not care what the cetane rating is and do not report that value (only in research studies was that data gleaned).
 
800-960 mm in height makes you wonder if it would fit under the cowl. IO 390 is 480 mm.
 
Last edited:
I'll let Scott tell more, but since the cat got out of the bag, I guess I can tell you that we've been involved with Scott on this project for about 3 years working on the plumbing issues. A really good exercise in thinking out of the box, and starting from scratch.

Hopefully, Scott will chime in and talk about it.
Tom
 
Strange that this press release is not on the Continental Diesel web site, only the main continentalmotors.aero site

Edit: I found it through a search on the diesel page, but it isnt't on their press release page.

Also, Continental doesn't seem to have much info on the CD230 other than that it is type certificated. Anyone have any decent links to real data on the engine?
 
Last edited:
It's an interesting project. Will be interesting to see some flight data and performance numbers.

A lot of the decision comes down to cost vs. fuel burn vs. reliability. Often the high initial cost of aero diesels in this hp range washes out any dollar savings people think they are going to get in reality, at least here in North American where 100LL is relatively inexpensive and readily available.

Also, has Continental fixed the case fretting and other issues with this engine which is based on the SMA? Will it go to TBO without removal?

What will Continental sell these engines for to homebuilders?
 
I don't think Scott can talk freely about the engine yet as he is working closely with Continental on developing the installation. I'm sure he would love to discuss it but his hands are tied. Hopefully, first flight is coming soon.
 
Welcome Change, maybe.

Conti has a history of wanting to be the provider to the high end applications. Hopefully, this (RV10) will signal a move to more "mundane" experimental. Hopefully, not just diesel. On one hand, little competition can't hurt, but on-the-other-hand, with the small market size, no one is going to accept lower margins. The status quo must be maintained. Well, that didn't sound exciting.:(


Oh - on turbocharging (completely different animal than Otto Cycle)- without the limits of detonation, turbocharging diesels will yield a much better power to weight, cost/hp and BSFC than NA. Pushing an NA to high performance yields high temps and shorter life. This evolution has been in process for 4 decades (at least).
 
Current published specs claim 230 HP@2200 RPM, 450 lbs, and a Jet-A/Jet-A1 approval. Photo is from a recent brochure handout. Best I'm aware, an EAB market price has not yet been announced.

 
Current published specs claim 230 HP@2200 RPM, 450 lbs, and a Jet-A/Jet-A1 approval. Photo is from a recent brochure handout. Best I'm aware, an EAB market price has not yet been announced.


Maybe I'm dumber than usual today, but I can't find any published specs on Continental's web site for this engine. Links would be appreciated if they exist.

Thanks for the info you provided!
 
Interesting

Just a side note, Jet-A has no cetane requirement, so diesel engines using Jet-A do so at their own risk and with no regulation or oversight by the FAA. This has caused serious situations in Europe. Jet-A is designed for turbine engines, and they have no cetane requirement (like diesel engines do). Yeah, most of the time the cetane rating is okay for Jet-A, but at the end of day, the Jet-A fuel producers do not care what the cetane rating is and do not report that value (only in research studies was that data gleaned).

So why in the U.S., unlike in Europe, are the diesel Diamonds (primarily DA42 here) restricted from using diesel fuel and are only allowed to use Jet-A? That would seem to contradict the tighter control on the fuel specifications.
 
It's hard for me to get excited about 230hp especially if the out-the-door price, assuming it's offered to the E-AB community, is higher than an IO-540. I just can't see how an RV-10 powered by this motor will be a good performer, much less great on 30 less ponies and 40-50 more lbs than an IO-540 (assuming the specs Dan listed hold true).

Maybe if I lived or traveled extensively outside the US where Avgas is scarce I'd be more willing to compromise on the specs, but like the man said there's no substitute for power. However, I'll reserve judgement until more info comes to light. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised for once. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
It's hard for me to get excited about 230hp especially if the out-the-door price, assuming it's offered to the E-AB community, is higher than an IO-540.

Maybe if I lived or traveled extensively outside the US where Avgas is scarce I'd be more willing to compromise on the specs, but like the man said there's no substitute for power. However, I'll reserve judgement until more info comes to light. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised for once. :rolleyes:

At what altitude does a normally aspirated IO-540 rated at 260 at sea level begin to make only 230 hp?
 
At what altitude does a normally aspirated IO-540 rated at 260 at sea level begin to make only 230 hp?

Is the diesel turbocharged or normally aspirated--maybe a stupid question but I'm ignorant on diesels? I'm assuming turbo'd which is where it's easy to see, now that you've brought it to my attention, they'd get the performance at altitude to offset the HP reduction. That would be appealing if the cost is not significantly higher than an IO-540. Again I'll reserve judgment until performance figures, reliability figures, installation details, and cost are published.

Of course I'm more concerned about getting off the ground with a fully loaded plane on a hot day than cruise performance at 10K.
 
Last edited:
Is the diesel turbocharged ?--

Yep, the thing hanging below the engine.

ScreenHunter_29%20Aug.%2002%2009.19_zpsol1ou4oc.jpg
 
Of course I'm more concerned about getting off the ground with a fully loaded plane on a hot day than cruise performance at 10K.

Maybe you'd get both with the diesel? Density altitude might put the diesel close to or above the hp of the 540 on the ground. One of my local airports (KMGY, elev 952') is showing a DA of 2905' today, and it's not even really hot yet.
 
About 4000 feet. I'd also be surprised if you can buy this engine for less than $65K.

20K more than a Van'S IO-540 new price.

Looking at 100LL.com, there's on average let's say a 80 cents difference in favour of jet-A, per gallon.

Continental claims 10.94 G/Hr on the CD-230, let's use 11.

For an IO-540, let's say 16.

5 * 80 cents = 4$/Hr difference on fuel costs.

5000 hours to break even, based on these very simple calculations ...

So yeah, only truly useful to those without a good 100LL source.

And if someone ends up producing a viable drop in replacement to 100LL, who knows, it could go worldwide ... and kill Diesel in at least some other parts of the world??

Don't see the point at this time ...
 
Your math is a little off.
CD-230 = 11gph @ $4.19 = $46.09/hr
IO-540 = 16gph @ $5.00 = $80/hr
difference is $33.91/hr
 
certification SNAFUs, and more

Well, the diesels are only allowed to fly so high - I think 13000MSL or so? Seems they can't get restarted if someone pulls the power back to where the compression ignition fire goes out. The engine will run up to 18000MSL or so, but I would expect a small throttle reduction - as would be used in any descent - and the fire will go out - until you get to a lower altitude.

So you have to make powered descents? No thanks - I like to keep Mr Vne happy (except at Reno - he has to take what I give him while we are there).

I'm almost sure this basic engine was used by the Flying Frog race team that had a diesel in an NXT. Once they turned the wick up, it really went. So - the HP limit is NOT 230 hp - I would guess closer to 350 (judging from the speed). The plane was totaled in a crash in France later - engine failure, if memory serves...

Carry on!
Mark
 
I'm almost sure this basic engine was used by the Flying Frog race team that had a diesel in an NXT. Once they turned the wick up, it really went. So - the HP limit is NOT 230 hp - I would guess closer to 350 (judging from the speed). The plane was totaled in a crash in France later - engine failure, if memory serves...

That nicely defines the fear I detect when I talk diesel EAB with senior folks at Continental. They figure if left to our own devices, we'll install it wrong and treat it badly, and everyone will start saying their diesels are no good.
 
Your math is a little off.
CD-230 = 11gph @ $4.19 = $46.09/hr
IO-540 = 16gph @ $5.00 = $80/hr
difference is $33.91/hr

That makes a whole lot more sense!

And the Diesel pays for itself much quicker then ... paid off in 575 hours roughly.

Of course one would presume the cost of overhaul is likely higher, and even maintenance, since it has a turbo ...

I'm still going to wait and see what comes out of the 100LL replacement ... especially if Shell, with their world wide distribution and infrastructure, ends up the big producer ...
 
That makes a whole lot more sense!

And the Diesel pays for itself much quicker then ... paid off in 575 hours roughly.

Of course one would presume the cost of overhaul is likely higher, and even maintenance, since it has a turbo ...

I'm still going to wait and see what comes out of the 100LL replacement ... especially if Shell, with their world wide distribution and infrastructure, ends up the big producer ...

IO-540 with modern EFI/EI engine controls running LOP is closer to 12-13 gph at 8000 feet.

I think this engine will really cost north of $75K (will they discount for Experimentals?). Don't forget the cost of the extra money up front and earned interest on the saved money if invested when comparing total costs over 1000-2000 hours and how much you fly.

I believe Continental has increased the relight altitude from the SMA days when these engines were limited to 12,000 feet. They also increased the critical altitude with a new turbo setup. They may still have an OAT limit which was not very useful for North American winter ops though.
 
Last edited:
Your math is a little off.
CD-230 = 11gph @ $4.19 = $46.09/hr
IO-540 = 16gph @ $5.00 = $80/hr
difference is $33.91/hr

I think yours is a bit off also.
I don't know anyone that cruises an RV-10 at 16 GPH
When we travel cross country at upper altitudes (10.5-11.5) in the prototype/demonstrator it is typically at WOT, ~2400 RPM, and slightly lean of peak with a fuel flow of just slightly over 11 GPH.


$5 per gal for 100 LL seems a bit high for right now also.
I paid as low as $3.70 (KABR) during my OSH trip but there are lots of places in the $4 range. Even the fancy FBO at Billings was only $4.25


Regardless, the cost of the engine vs the cost of fuel difference will never pencil out in favor of any currently viable diesel unless you are operating in a third world country with little to no 100LL availability.
 
Sorry, I used the data out of the previous post for gpm without checking & averaged the fuel costs shown on 100ll.com for fuel.
 
I think yours is a bit off also.
I don't know anyone that cruises an RV-10 at 16 GPH
When we travel cross country at upper altitudes (10.5-11.5) in the prototype/demonstrator it is typically at WOT, ~2400 RPM, and slightly lean of peak with a fuel flow of just slightly over 11 GPH.


$5 per gal for 100 LL seems a bit high for right now also.
I paid as low as $3.70 (KABR) during my OSH trip but there are lots of places in the $4 range. Even the fancy FBO at Billings was only $4.25


Regardless, the cost of the engine vs the cost of fuel difference will never pencil out in favor of any currently viable diesel unless you are operating in a third world country with little to no 100LL availability.

Sadly, 100LL in the northeast is still firmly in the high $4 to $5 range at best. I marvel at the prices people are seeing in the southeast and West.
 
diesel is not jet fuel, jet fuel is not diesel fuel....

yeah they work most of the time...the NAVY goes from Humvee to generator to F-18, all with JP-5.....and they are concerned about cetane rating. So was Exxon in 2008...

"The debate was ratcheted up a notch last November (2008) when ExxonMobil sent a directive to its distributors saying in part: ?ExxonMobil Aviation Global Technical Group has made the technical decision that ExxonMobil does not support or endorse the supply of jet fuel to aircraft powered by diesel engines.? from Aviation pros article in 2009. Has the aviation diesel engine changed in the last seven years and I have not heard where the Jet-A producers stand on supporting (or not) the aircraft diesel engine market.

Jet fuel freezes at -47 deg C, diesel at ~0 C, and if biodiesel is present, can be even higher. This is why diesel fuel in Europe is not recommended for aviation use, is was not designed to deal with the temperature extremes we see in aviation. Jet A is not designed to meet diesel/compression ignition requirements (ASTM D1655), it does so most of the time, so as the bet goes, a much safer gamble over the very poor cold flow characteristics of diesel fuel, which are a given.

There are reasons why diesel engines get more "bang" per gallon (i.e. volume). One, right out of the gate, is that Jet-A/Diesel fuel is a more dense liquid, about 15% more energy per gallon comes from this (on a volume basis, not by weight!) alone. Pound for pound, Jet-A has less energy content than most Avgas formulations. But in all cases, keep a good check on your weight and balance...:), as 100LL replacements are being developed and considered, fuel density is a very big deal.

Cheers and happy building and/or flying
 
Jet fuel freezes at -47 deg C, diesel at ~0 C, and if biodiesel is present, can be even higher. This is why diesel fuel in Europe is not recommended for aviation use, is was not designed to deal with the temperature extremes we see in aviation.

Not really accurate. We know diesel cars and trucks drive all over the world in temperatures far below this. It's best to qualify which diesel you're talking about as there are different blends and additives. #2 diesel gels at around -7C but that's not what is supplied in cooler climates/ weather. It's often blended with #1 which has a gel point of around -45C or with additives to lower the gel point into the -24C to -40C range.

The cetane rating is more of a concern in jet fuel when applied to diesels since it currently is of little concern to jet fuel refiners because jet engines don't care about this.
 
Last edited:
I think yours is a bit off also.
I don't know anyone that cruises an RV-10 at 16 GPH
When we travel cross country at upper altitudes (10.5-11.5) in the prototype/demonstrator it is typically at WOT, ~2400 RPM, and slightly lean of peak with a fuel flow of just slightly over 11 GPH.

What speeds are you seeing at those settings? I typically cruise 2400 at less than WOT (around 20 - 22 inches), burning 13.7 at 50* ROP. That will usually give me somewhere around 170 - 175 kts over the ground in still air.

~Marc
 
What speeds are you seeing at those settings? I typically cruise 2400 at less than WOT (around 20 - 22 inches), burning 13.7 at 50* ROP. That will usually give me somewhere around 170 - 175 kts over the ground in still air.

~Marc

I see 160-165 KTS TAS at that power setting and fuel flow (WOT, 2350-2400 RPM, 11.5 gph) in cruise from 8K-11K depending on aircraft weight and OAT.
 
Last edited:
Fuel flow comparisons

Without knowing the % power or actual hp of the diesel and the Lycoming, you're not comparing apples to apples in cruise.

At around 60-65% power LOP (say around 12,000 feet WOT) with the latest electronic controls, I believe you'll be under 11 gph on the Lycoming.

Another factor to consider is many smaller airports don't have jet fuel.
 
Without knowing the % power or actual hp of the diesel and the Lycoming, you're not comparing apples to apples in cruise.

At around 60-65% power LOP (say around 12,000 feet WOT) with the latest electronic controls, I believe you'll be under 11 gph on the Lycoming.

Another factor to consider is many smaller airports don't have jet fuel.

Ross, Since we would never really know the HP, wouldn't we just want fuel burn at the same speed and density altitude? That would take all the system variables into one result.
 
Ross, Since we would never really know the HP, wouldn't we just want fuel burn at the same speed and density altitude? That would take all the system variables into one result.

Absolutely, just need to wait for this plane to fly and get the numbers. My point was really that the diesel advocates often don't use real world data when comparing their engine fuel burn to existing SI engines, especially running LOP like many people do today.

Remember the Deltahawk data years back comparing a 360 Lyc at 12 GPH or something and replacing spark plugs every 200 hours? It was just nonsense and their published BSFC figures in cruise were no better than a Lyc. When I asked them to explain, they couldn't.
 
Last edited:
Another question for Diesels is the cost when you are at 2,200 hours, not just 2,000 hours.

The Continental that is in the Glasair Sportsman has a TBR (time before replacement) of 2,100 hours, with a gearbox and timing chain at 1,200 hours. There is no overhaul. Flat out replacement for full price.

This means that at 2,200 hours your total outlay is over $150,000, while it's more like $70,000 on a IO-390 (what the engine in the Sportsman competes with). That's a lot of AvGas, even at $5 an hour.
 
Now, imagine mogas vs Jet A

Now imagine for a moment that you could do all this on mogas, generally
about two dollars cheaper than 100LL or perhaps a dollar less than Jet A.
2000 hours of flying at 13 GPH (avg) saves you 26'000 dollars over Jet A and will pretty much pay for your overhaul.
Fact is, most if not all the flying diesel data is projected and estimated.
Truth is, mogas has been successfully used by hundreds of pilots flying Lycomings and the data is real and based on years of experience.
Unlike Jet A fuel, it is readily available all over the populated world.
I would never discourage anyone from trying a new power plant but strongly encourage anyone to deal with real world data especially cost.
Money speaks very loudly.
 
...Now imagine off-highway diesel vs Jet A...

When you bring mogas into the equation, you also have to bring in non-taxed diesel, which is substantially cheaper than mogas. Aerodiesels run just great on diesel fuel!

I know I'm going to get flamed here, but I don't blame Scott for not posting on this forum. It always turns into the "you're an idiot for flying behind something other than a Lycoming" forum. We get that. Some of us just like to use newer technology and try to pave the way for something more efficient, reliable, safe, and - dare I say it? - green. Cost is NOT the motivating factor, even though the math can work out in the diesel's favor.

I speak from experience, as I now have over 750 hours flying EAB diesel aircraft. I have over 500 hours on my RV9 diesel and 350 hours on my Sportsman diesel. Both have performed flawlessly, and despite what many of you continue to say, there is published data proving that the diesels are at least 30% more efficient than their LycCon counterparts. (See Kitplanes April 2010 and June 2015), while achieving the same performance. My experience has continually proven this fact.

I have nothing against traditional aircraft engines; I fly a Cirrus SR22 regularly. I just happen to enjoy flying the diesels more. What bothers me is that every time someone brings up the subject of diesels on these forums, many, who have very little or no experience with diesel aviation - or even diesel engines - suddenly become experts on the subject and start putting down anyone who would dare try something different. This is why I rarely post any more.

The truth is, diesel aviation has come a LONG way in the last few years. They truly are much more efficient than their gasoline counterparts, even more so when you consider the entire flight profile. The fuel is much safer - no one can refute that. In the real world, the heavier weight of the fuel is a non-issue since you need so much less of it to go the same distance as your avgas-powered buddies. This is real world information - I've been doing it in the real world for 8 years. These are proven facts, yet on VAF forums it's still a sin to own and fly a diesel.

Yes, for now they are more expensive, but we've seen that in just a couple of years, the TBR/TBO (they do mention TBO in the SB) of the Conti engines has doubled, and I know of people who have run their diesels far longer than 2100 hours. And if the plane is flown enough, the fuel savings do justify the cost. Just look at Redhawk's website. The savings in training aircraft are substantial. I find it interesting how many on these forums spend many tens of thousands on the latest avionics, incredible paint jobs and interiors, yet scoff at the extra cost of a more modern and efficient certified power plant.

I do understand that many are just trying to prevent unknowing builders from buying in to unproven technology. Some of these "modern engine package" peddlers have really hurt the EAB image, as well as more than a few users of their product. But with some of these diesels, we're talking about certified engines built and supported by Continental, with over 5 million flight hours. Not a fly-by-night organization... The technology is here. It works great. It solves many of the problems we face in GA.

Done with my rant.

Kurt Goodfellow
 
Good for you!

Nice post! It is good to see that there are still people willing to put the "experiment" back in experimental.

I have had similar flamings when speaking about electronic ignition and, heaven forbid, electronic fuel injection...

If no one ever pushes the boundaries, everything becomes static and progress ceases to occur. Those who choose to forge ahead and push the boundaries are the ones who will eventually change the status quo.

Are pushing the boundaries for everyone? No, but for some it is quite rewarding.

We are, after all, having this discussion on a forum dedicated to the RV series of aircraft...:D
 
Cloud Point - Ya know - it's always something.

When you bring mogas into the equation, you also have to bring in non-taxed diesel, which is substantially cheaper than mogas. Aerodiesels run just great on diesel fuel!
. . . .
I speak from experience, as I now have over 750 hours flying EAB diesel aircraft. I have over 500 hours on my RV9 diesel and 350 hours on my Sportsman diesel.
Kurt Goodfellow

Kurt, just so others know diesel fuels have paraffins, and at some temperature will gel just like candle wax and become difficult to impossible to pump. It is called cloud point and standardized as part of the on/off highway diesel fuel standards. Typically it is around 8 Deg F for summer fuels. It will plug filters and the engine will reduce power and stop. Some high pressure fuel systems cool with fuel and are inefficient, so return-to-tank temps are elevated and will affect the OAT offset. JP-4 JP8 and Jet A all have quite low cloud points.

So, Kurt, did you do anything special to identify cloud point for cold weather operation? How do you deal with that? Does your RV/Sportsman have a thermocouple in the tank to monitor the temps, or add some additive (like gasoline) to lower the CP?

Thanks for posting, it is good to hear from a person experienced with aero diesels. I was hesitant to mix the non-road fuels here, but the cost effectiveness is excellent at this time.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we could get some informative information.

Kurt, what sort of diesel do you have in your RV-9? What is the empty weight? What is the actual fuel burn at what speed and altitude? Do you have more or less climb performance? What experience have you had with the manufacturer in terms of installation and ongoing support?

Your Sportsman went together under a supervised build program at Glasair. We don't currently have that option with an RV. IF Continental allowed it, how would you rate the installation process, assuming you had to engineer it yourself? Note that the current thinking from the executive suite is that it would be too difficult for general release. Would you agree?
 
I was looking at this a few days ago. It's interesting to compare the 360 Lycoming to the the 155hp diesel in the Glastar:

http://www.glasairaviation.com/sportsman-specs.html

http://www.kitplanes.com/issues/31_11/flight_reports/diesel_sportsman_21111-1.html

Highlights:

Diesel 133 KTAS on 7.3 GPH (48.6 PPH), Empty 1560 lbs.
Lyc O-360 134 KTAS on 8.5 GPH (51 PPH) (@65%) Empty 1350 lbs.

Takeoff and initial climb is better with the Lycoming. Above about 5000 feet the turbo diesel is better.

FF cost on the diesel (including prop) $90K. Intro price was $60K.

Note the O-360 has a carb and mags and we know with modern engine controls we can do at least 10% better than this running LOP which would make the cruise fuel consumption nearly a wash.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top