Innodyn Turbine Engines

[kcameron]

I've been looking in on the centurian/thielert website for years now but never noticed that they have use a clutch. What's it for?

[rv6ejguy]

I'm guessing they use a one way drive clutch between the engine and reduction gear to reduce torsional vibration. Some Rotax 9 series engines and NSI use similar devices. Some designs have not been that reliable historically...

Anyone who thinks adapting auto engines to aircraft is easy- well not too easy even for large corporations with plenty of talent and money. Keeps us busy problem solving and scratching heads.

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by Ralph Kramden

I wonder how many people were like meback two years ago and new to aviation, swayed a bit towards buying an RV kit thinking that the turbine was going to be the engine someday...

(HA HA)

--REK

Ralph,
You CAN buy a turbine, just not Innodyne. PT-6s and Walthers are readily available. Bring your checkbook! Maybe 2 checkbooks. You will have to engineer your entire firewall forward. People are just going to have to come to terms with the fact that a turbine is a stupid idea for the RV. Sick amounts of money to buy, radical airframe change necessary, absurd fuel consumption. These are not the reasons people buy RV's to begin with. This doesn't mean that it cannot be done. The POINT is SHOULD it be done? I'm not afraid to say that I may have trouble spending the money to complete my RV in a conventional fashion. But the line is that it is YOUR money, hope you can have fun. My last comment is by way of annectdote. I worked in the motorcycle industry in the past. In the late 70's we had all kinds of "power wars" similar to the muscle car era. Every manufacturer had a true firebreather a 1000cc monster with a 4 second 0-100 (that's right 100) time. These always sat in the corner of the floor on a little pedestal gathering finger prints, but not selling. While the modest little 500s and 600s sold like hotcakes. Why? Simple they were waaaaay more fun. Enjoy yourself, however you do it. BE SAFE.
Bill Jepson

[rv6ejguy]

I agree with Bill here. I have a friend who owns an RR turbine powered Glasair here. It has been a complete nightmare. Cost about double what he thought, took years longer to complete with all the airframe mods required and now he has an evil flying, gas guzzling airplane he can't afford. Cool plane but not too practical. He is looking at selling it and building an RV10 maybe.

The Walter powered Lancair IVP makes sense if you are a rich person because at least you can practically get them up high where the fuel burn and TAS are decent. You can't really build one of these for less than a half mil however.

[Pirkka]

OFFTOPIC (Innodyn) - sorry.

Originally Posted by kcameron

I've been looking in on the centurian/thielert website for years now but never noticed that they have use a clutch. What's it for?

Description of the Mechanical Systems of the CENTURION 1.7: http://www.tadistributors.com/tad/pd...m%20051123.pdf

[rv6ejguy]

Very interesting reading. A few things struck me with this engine.

1. They don't use a fully counterweighted crank- almost unheard of on most top end inline fours these days.

2. Open deck block on turbo engine running 67 inches- wouldn't be my choice

3. Very small crank journals for a diesel of this displacement- scary in my view

4. Not clear on the clutch whether this incorporates a one way mechanism and a friction breakaway setup from their description. The lateral spring type clutch setup has be used on other redrives in the past with poor results.

A complicated little engine with lots of things to go wrong.

[kevinsky18]

You say complicated. Some others might say modern.

Yes they have had a few growing pains. But their engines are warrentied unlike Lycoming. If a thielert has problems half way through they credit you half the price of a new one. Sure we'd rather they make tbo but think about it, how many lycoming and continentals dont make tbo due to ADs, bad cylinders etc. And what happens? Lycoming and Continental just shrug. If its a hugs issue and there's a major out cry sometimes they offer you a deal on the parts lol.

Yes Theilert will have growing pains. But I see they are now on the second generation of the 135hp engine. the 1.7 has been replaced with the 2.0. I assume they have incorporated some of their lessons learned into the second gen engine.

[gmcjetpilot]

Originally Posted by kevinsky18

You say complicated. Some others might say modern.

No he got it right complicated, more "things" to break, fail, maintain.

Yes they have had a few growing pains. But their engines are warranties unlike Lycoming.

Now Kevin you're getting into demagoguery, fine, but at least tell the truth; sorry, you are wrong, Lycomings have warranties.

If a thielert has problems half way through they credit you half the price of a new one. Sure we'd rather they make tbo but think about it, how many lycoming and continentals dont make tbo due to ADs, bad cylinders etc. And what happens? Lycoming and Continental just shrug. If its a hugs issue and there's a major out cry sometimes they offer you a deal on the parts lol.

No Kevin, there you go again talking silliness, throwing out a bunch of rhetoric with out facts or real intellectual honesty. Whining about Continental and Lycoming is a non-sequitur, a "straw-man". It has nothing to do with Theilert. Considering the facts, you are, sorry, wrong again. Really compete silliness my friend, and how does that change facts regarding centurian/thielert? It does not. You are just being a provocateur with no real honesty. Lycs crank issues stems from a simple change in manufacturing process. The design is not the issue. What is Theilert's problem? Design is a different ball game.

To straighten you out a little, I have an O-360-A1A, 180HP Lycoming, that was made in the early 1970's. It has been rebuilt twice, both times going to TBO. No AD has ever caused it to not make TBO. Based on last rebuild I should be able to get 4 more overhauls out if it. The AD's on the engine through its life never required major expense or engine overhaul. In fact, all I can think of is an oil pump impeller, carb float, external prop gov oil line and crank corrosion inspection required at next overhaul. There are no AD's on my engine at this time and it's 35 years old! So what are you talking about?

Bad batch of cranks in the 1990's? Oh well I guess you got me, 1% of all Lycs ever made. Stuff happens my friend. As far as cranks, Lyc payed for ALL parts and labor on the AD cranks. Yes there was a later batch that they recommend changing with a service bulletin and parts at cost ($2,000 verses $16,000). The good news is there's no time limit to buy or comply. So you can go to 2,000 hours and change the crank at overhaul. There is no AD on those cranks or failures at this time, it's a service bulletin. TCM had a bad batch of cranks also. Again it was associated with changing vendor and/or forging process. Oh-oops? It has nothing to do with design. So for you to sensationalize it and make half truths is disingenuous at best.

Cylinders? My cylinders have 2,600 hours and are going strong. I guess Superior, ECI, Lyc made some boo-boo's I recall. I also recall they paid for them. By the way Lycoming/TCM cylinder swaps can be done with the engine on the plane, no overhaul needed.

Yes Theilert will have growing pains. But I see they are now on the second generation of the 135hp engine. the 1.7 has been replaced with the 2.0. I assume they have incorporated some of their lessons learned into the second gen engine.

Hummmm sounds like excuses. I wish them luck. Have never owned a Lyc or any engine, Lyc with any of the AD's you spewed out? They are rare and affect a very small population and doubt you ever have. Have you even owned a plane before? You sound like you suffer from unrealistic expectations of mechanical things, especially airplanes. I have owned and flown a lot of them. Anything mechanical can break, expect it, even with Der-Vounder engine you are in love with.


In 50 years of production Lycomings reputation for reliability and durability has been outstanding, with out debate. These engines have been in the air millions of hours over 5 decades .... so stuff happens. Yes Theilert has problems but pointing fingers at Lycoming is a "straw-man".

When Lycoming's Horz opposed engines first came into service, they NEVER replaced or recalled their engines in whole or part in the late 1950's and early 60's. Their brand new designs went into early service with out a hitch, AD or recall. Even through the 1970's, 80's and most of the 90's, Lycs had no major AD's, at least on the crank shafts. Like I said my 1973 Lyc 360 has no AD's on it, facts my friend.

Theilert's early service history is no where near Lycoming's stellar performance and reliability when their engines where entering into service 50 years ago. Even today, not withstanding the few cranks you raged about, Lycoming is still better, crank AD and all. Not saying Theilert won't get it together, but they're off to a bad start.

If you are going to rub Lycomings name in the mud from the admittedly major crank AD screw up, fine, but get your facts straight and make a point please. To shotgun a bunch of crud out to divert attention or avoid embarrassment is a poor way to make a point. Lycoming has nothing to do with it, and the reliability and reputation of this new diesel engine is already behind the 8-ball and no where near a Lycoming's reliability of old or new vintage, based on facts.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by kevinsky18

You say complicated. Some others might say modern.

Yes they have had a few growing pains. But their engines are warrentied unlike Lycoming. If a thielert has problems half way through they credit you half the price of a new one. Sure we'd rather they make tbo but think about it, how many lycoming and continentals dont make tbo due to ADs, bad cylinders etc. And what happens? Lycoming and Continental just shrug. If its a hugs issue and there's a major out cry sometimes they offer you a deal on the parts lol.

Yes Theilert will have growing pains. But I see they are now on the second generation of the 135hp engine. the 1.7 has been replaced with the 2.0. I assume they have incorporated some of their lessons learned into the second gen engine.

Absolutely. I applaud Thielert for introducing the first new light aircraft engine in truly widespread use since the Rotax 9 series engines and Diamond for taking a big chance as well. As with any new engine, there will be growing pains and lessons learned. And you are right, they are stepping up and paying for most of the premature failures. That is a good thing.

I had the opportunity 2 days ago to look at another Twinstar with the cowlings off and could already pick out some revisions made to the cooling and induction system layout since I saw one just 2 years ago.

While mature systems like the Lycoming shouldn't be still experiencing things like crank problems and cracked cylinders after 40+ years of development, the sad reality is that they do, luckily just on a relatively small percentage.

I don't care for Lycomings just for these reasons but I see many people going gaga over these diesels where their overall operating costs far exceed what a typical Lycoming would cost per hour despite the lower fuel burn. When Thielert gets it right, and they go 2000 hours before replacement with only minor work along the way and get a bit more power out of them, I see many more airframes being equipped with them. They just aren't there yet. Power to them to keep at it.