Thielert 135 HP Diesel engine

[Rotary10-RV]

Originally Posted by Pilottonny

You get that back in 500 hours or so, but on top of that you will get: Diesel power with lots of torque (135 HP is more than enough for the RV9 and will be similar to the 160 HP Lycoming due to the higher torque), vibration free operation, FADEC, single lever operation, no shock cooling, no carb ice, easy starting under any condition, turbo power (more power at altitude than a 160 HP Lycoming), 2400 hrs guarantied, electronic instruments with indication of %power and fuel-flow etc. included, safer and better cabin heating, longer range, etc. etc.[/font]

But,..... indead it looks like the only alternative will be the Wilksch, at least for the time being. I need an engine in one or two years time and they also look promissing! I am going to see them at the PFA-Ralley in Kemble (UK).

Regards, Tonny.

Just to be clear here, and understand this isn't intended to be a knock of the Thielert, the engine is based on a DB econobox diesel. It is no smoother than a gas engine, in fact probably worse than the gas engine they build on the same block. Diesel is no panacea. If you are fighting high fuel costs it certainly makes sense. I was on the Thielert e-mail list for a long time, but their refusal to sell to homebuilders direct is a worry. Diesels tend toward slightly more complication to get started. If they are ported engines they usually must have a supercharger to provide enough flow for starting. This is true of all the 2 cycle diesels Wilksch, Deltahawk. Just understand what you are getting into from the outset. You will need HP to fly! If your aircraft won't work with 135 HP don't think about the Thielert. In a car you can "gear up" and improve your position on the torque curve. In an airplane this isn't often possible, I know of only 1 aero engine with a 2 speed gearbox! That engine never went into production. An aircraft might swing a larger prop to match the RPM needs of a diesel, but often planes have ground clearance problems with the prop used on the original gasoline engine. High P-factor at takeoff is another thing to watch out for. Just a few things FYI.
Bill Jepson

[LAMPSguy]

I also sent an email in to Vans and got the canned "we stick by Lycoming because that is what we designed it for...we always look at other options and respect any builders choice to experiment"

But the 135HP might be a moot point anyway. The 1.7 was based upon a Mercedes engine block...that engine model was upgraded, therefore the new one is 2.0 and 150 HP(although they are still calling it 135)...starting to come a little closer to what might be desired...and that would probably look like about 6.5 GPH.

They have the 4.0 with 350HP, but are "in development" of a 3.0 6 cyl engine with approx 200-230HP...that might be a nice little engine. This company isn't going away, certified diamond single and twin, cessna is certifying a 172 with one, etc. They are having a little of a cash flow prob right now and need some cash (like 85-ish million) to continue building to keep up with orders until the books are a little more balanced (need to recoup the development cost).

One great lesson here is I have nothing to do with this company...just call their investor relations hotline...they will spill the beans about plans for the future since they need investors!!! I just havn't taken the plunge yet!

[CNEJR]

If you were one of the "Largest Lycoming Dealers" in the World, would you push alternatives? I wouldn't.

[rv6ejguy]

Originally Posted by LAMPSguy

I also sent an email in to Vans and got the canned "we stick by Lycoming because that is what we designed it for...we always look at other options and respect any builders choice to experiment"

But the 135HP might be a moot point anyway. The 1.7 was based upon a Mercedes engine block...that engine model was upgraded, therefore the new one is 2.0 and 150 HP(although they are still calling it 135)...starting to come a little closer to what might be desired...and that would probably look like about 6.5 GPH.

They have the 4.0 with 350HP, but are "in development" of a 3.0 6 cyl engine with approx 200-230HP...that might be a nice little engine. This company isn't going away, certified diamond single and twin, cessna is certifying a 172 with one, etc. They are having a little of a cash flow prob right now and need some cash (like 85-ish million) to continue building to keep up with orders until the books are a little more balanced (need to recoup the development cost).

One great lesson here is I have nothing to do with this company...just call their investor relations hotline...they will spill the beans about plans for the future since they need investors!!! I just havn't taken the plunge yet!

Until Thielert brings the cost and weight down and the HP and reliability up, I doubt if you will see these engines in RVs any time soon. I don't doubt they need investors after some recent acquisitions and the number of 1.7 engines they have replaced well before TBR. I wish them well for their vision and the need, especially in Europe, for good aero diesel engines but they have had a rough time to date. Cessna being on board will either save them or sink them, depending on how the 2.0 and 4.0 perform on the reliability front.

[Rotary10-RV]

Just an FYI to all the diesel guys. Thielert has been having stock related troubles. Thielert himself has been forced out of the CEO position by the board of directors. There have been some durability issues but that wasn't the reason for the CEO ouster. Thielert has been successful in many other areas so I don't think this is a engineering issue.
Bill Jepson

[frankh]

Originally Posted by the_other_dougreeves

I'd agree. Thielert and others (e.g., Audi's LeMans winning R10) have shown that diesel technology is reliable, quiet, clean and does not have a huge weight penalty compared to gasoline.

Cost will drive the adoption of diesel here in the US, and that will be driven by the issue will be the supply / demand for 100LL - supply (of TEL) is diminishing and demand isn't growing. IMHO, it will only be when 100LL costs ~ $2/gal more than Jet A that people will start to pay attention.

And if ethanol free mogas (or the ETOH watered down stuff is proved to be OK) continues to be available then diesels would be a hard sell to the kit builder who does most of the flying around the patch.

Frank