What's new
Van's Air Force

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

RV-10 and an SMA 305 Diesel engine

erenner

I'm New Here
I was wondering if anyone had looked into putting an SMA 305 out front of an RV10. Seems to me if the cost were right that you are getting a pretty comparable power source at lower RPM, better performance at altitude, similar weight to the IO-540 from Lycoming and fewer moving parts. Considering the ultimate plite of 100LL I would suspect that this might be a good direction to go. Given that Cessna and Maule have looked into and certified it in the 182 and M-9(not sure about cert yet for the M-9). Both of which could use the IO-540 I would suspect that you could do the same in an RV10. I would like to hear some other thoughts on the subject....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SMA Diesel

We have started talking to SMA about it. So far they are not interested in the experimental market, but we will see. For other countries, the SMA would be an even better option.

Jesse Saint
Saint Aviation
www.saintaviation.com
 
I would love to help out. I have probably three folks that are interested in doing this. If we can drum up enough interest maybe they will reduce the price on them enough to make it economical.
 
Diesel engines

The last time I spoke to a SMA rep at Oshkosh, the price for the engine alone was around $70K. Bring that down by half and I'd also be interested.
 
Other diesels?

Again, I'm still learning about building your own airplane, so many questions are going through my mind--ones I want to find answers to before I take the purchase plunge.

I'm trying to determine what my engine choices may be for a -10. I'm super interested in piston engines that can run on Jet A (for obvious reasons). What are all the options out there along with the advantages/disadvantages of each? The SMA sounds pretty good (except for the price?) based on the little info I know. Are there other options like this out there?
 
Shoulda searched

Nevermind. Did a search and found more info than I can even understand. Should have started with that.
 
I was at OshKosh about 2 or 3 years ago and searched out the SMA tent. I was really eager to use their diesel for the same reasons you point out. The guy in the front really didn't know much and when he couldn't answer my questions, he went back into the trailer and brought a fellow with a French accent who knew the engine well. That guy said no chance about the SMA and said he had brought it up with them and they wouldn't let him do it either (for his own experimental).
When I researched them on Google their business plan suggested selling many thousands of engines for retrofits. I don't know what planet they are on, but I can't see that happening at their prices excluding experimental aircraft. They have big bucks in this project from what I can surmise, so I suspect they will become more flexible with time.
The engine looks great on paper, the one at Oshkosh looked even better to me. The company looks very professional. I would have seriously considered buying one it they were available. I understand they are airhogs and heavier than they let on. They discuss this engine in an issue of LPM somewhere, I remember reading it.
 
I think I will put together a spreadsheet with the numbers for an O-540 and an SMA at the current price so that they can at least see that the price is too high. If they could make the cost a wash I would definitely consider it. But until at least that time I don't know why anyone would want to do it except to be the first one.
 
Update on Diesel possibilities

Has anyone used a diesel engine for an RV-10?
Are we getting closer to that being a real possibility?
It seems 2007 was the last time the subject was discussed.
Any current updates and comments are appreciated. Thanks
 
Considering the ultimate plite of 100LL

And what is that exactly? To be replaced by a suitable unleaded version. Of the three possible ones I have the following comments.

1. The European 94UL is only good for small engines, and is not a one size fits all. So in the USA and several other countries it would not be the answer. Having several grades is not economic either.

2. Swift Fuel. Lots of noise....little results, and the cost of production is in my opinion likely to be a show stopper.

3. G100UL, works, works across all engines, works in the big high power engines of the warbirds and high MP radials that are stuck in low blower now on 100LL. Passed all the FAA certification tests, lots of report writing etc to be completed. Simple to make, 100% compatible with any residual Avgas, so phase in is not an issue. Cost, most likely less but comparible to avgas and can be produced in any descent refinery, no hazmat issues.

From the above, which do you think has the best chance of success?

As for the diesel option, the RV10 cowls, cooling and other issues........despite the price, I would not even consider it to be an option.

YMMV of course. I hate to rain on someones parade, but it is what it is. Now a $70000 turbine, even with high fuel burn, that could be interesting!:D
 
Easy

KISS (keep it simple, stupid).. is a Lyc up front. How many RV-10 owners have ever decided to replace their Lyc with a Sube or diesel?

We're a bunch of happy campers, flying our easy-to-mantain, dependable Lycs for thousands of hours:)

Best,
 
Pierre,

As usual
worthy.gif
 
German made Zoche ZO 02A 8 cyl radial(2 banks of 4)would look nice.

I am with Pierre at least for 1,900 more hours. With a slow economy at 50 hrs/yr, my -540 should do me 38 more years. That is 80 years old for me, so don't think I will worry about going diesel.
 
One more thing

The SMA 305-230 has 30 less horsepower and weighs 45 more pounds than an IO-540-D4A5. The Jet-A weighs 40 pounds more too if carrying 60 gallons. So if they only offer the 230 hp version, it would cost us 30 hp and 85 pounds! I would be excited to see something with closer numbers.
 
3. G100UL, works, works across all engines, works in the big high power engines of the warbirds and high MP radials that are stuck in low blower now on 100LL. Passed all the FAA certification tests, lots of report writing etc to be completed. Simple to make, 100% compatible with any residual Avgas, so phase in is not an issue. Cost, most likely less but comparible to avgas and can be produced in any descent refinery, no hazmat issues.

I am still waiting for that big announcement, I don't know who or what is holding it up but I am glad I don't have to wait for it.

Let's face it, that SMA Diesel isn't going anywhere especially not in an RV-10.
I remember well my enthusiasm for alternative engine options and I am glad I saw the light in a Lycoming.
Just to make sure I am not misunderstood as a curmudgeon, I always keep an eye on new developments and would love to see something better than a Lycoming. But for now it is the cheapest, lightest and most reliable engine available for the RV-10.
If you don't want to pay for avgas you can run your 540 on mogas, it runs even better than on avgas.
 
SMA 305

HP: 230 hp
70% Cruise: 194 mph
Range: 1,261
Consumption: 10 gph / 67.9 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $5.63
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $56.30
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $281,500

IO-540

HP: 260 hp
70% Cruise: 201 mph
Range: 968 mi
Consumption: 13.5 gph / 81 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $5.94
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $80.19
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $401,000

The SMA is heavier but it gets the same range with a 50 gallon tank. Total weight of engine + fuel are very similar when both aircraft are fueled for the same range.

The SMA engine is more expensive to buy. However, it can save a lot of money in fuel over the airplane life.

I think both engines are probably a good choice for the RV-10 but someone would have to do a lot of engineering to properly install the SMA engine. I'm sure that will happen at some point because 100LL is very hard to find in some places.
 
Except that the IO540 is not approved for Mogas so what about the liability/insurance/warranty issues?
In fact, the 8:1 540 is approved for 91 octane.

But this thread is about the RV 10 an experimental airplane and the builder will determine what kind of gas or engine, SMA, Subaru, Zoche or Jabiru you can use.
Just saying, if none of these choices suit your needs or wants, consider the fact that you may absolutely use mogas and that just might put the equation in your favor of an old fashioned Lycoming for the time being.

David,
interesting calculation, I can't dispute it but:

Let's say we take our Lycoming and throttle back to the same power output as your SMA we would certainly be on par with fuel consumption and our range would be similar.
The price of Diesel? I have yet to find a place where diesel is less expensive than avgas, I am sure it exists but not around here.

Now if you use the price of mogas over 5000hrs as in your example, you could trash 2 Lycomings and still be ahead at the end.
 
Last edited:
Ernst,
I am still waiting for that big announcement, I don't know who or what is holding it up but I am glad I don't have to wait for it.

Dam right, you would not want to be hanging by your...errr, somewhere sensitive would you? But have you ever been mad enough to certify such a thing with the FAA? :eek: I might get an update for you in about 6 weeks when I get inside the Ada skunkworks again ;)


David, let's revise these numbers.
SMA 305 I will trust you on these

HP: 230 hp
70% Cruise: 194 mph
Range: 1,261
Consumption: 10 gph / 67.9 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $5.63
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $56.30
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $281,500

IO-540

HP: 260 hp
70% Cruise: 201 mph 196MPH more often
Range: 968 mi 964 miles about the same!
Consumption: 13.5 gph / 81 lbs/hr 12.2gph 73 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $5.94
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $80.19 $72.46
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $401,000 $362,300

However lets look at the same power output numbers, 70% of 230HP or 161HP

HP: 260 hp run at 161HP (61.9%)
161HP 62% Cruise: guessing 185mph
Range: 1027 mi
Consumption: 10.8 gph / 65 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $5.94
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $64.15
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $320,760 or for the same range $302,319 :)

So when the numbers account for $20K more in fuel over that time, the difference is not so great.

We could go on to TB's etc and argue the toss of the coin on what things will be, but the big appeal of a $120K fuel saving is simply not there. Mind you here in Oz it gets a bit better, but not enough to motivate me yet.

YMMV of course :)
 
Last edited:
Dam right, you would not want to be hanging by your...errr, somewhere sensitive would you? But have you ever been mad enough to certify such a thing with the FAA? I might get an update for you in about 6 weeks when I get inside the Ada skunkworks again
I get your point.

While we are at it let's compare the whole picture.
The OP stated:
Considering the ultimate plite of 100LL I would suspect that this might be a good direction to go.
We are discussing fuel and options right?
I have come to realize that promoting the use of mogas makes one some sort of an oddball in this forum but while we are comparing numbers here is what you might see next the above comparisons.

HP: 260 hp run at 161HP (61.9%)
161HP 62% Cruise: guessing 185mph
Range: 1027 mi
Consumption: 10.8 gph / 65 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $4.25 ( its less but why exaggerate )
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $45.90
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $229,500 or $52,000 less than the SMA
 
In my opinion

Diesel is the easy winner, its everywhere. The engine is dirt simple, a lycoming simplified, no ignition, one less thing to go wrong, takes no power to run, as long as its mechanical injection that is, and they red line in the right area, 3200ish RPM, no gear box, one less thing to go wrong, one less thing consuming wasted power, more efficient, less fuel consumption-flying further. Figure out how to make it light and you'll be a rich man.

I really like my Lycoming, don't get me wrong. But looking at what makes the most sense. Hands down! And dyed diesel isn't anywhere near 5 bucks a gallon.

Randy
8A
0-360
 
Adept air has a very interesting concept, I just went to their website. They are planning a lower, at least initially, cost than lycoming. The prsu seems to be on the same principle of the rotax, that is a good thing. The weight should be in the ballpark. I think they should send me one and I will stick on my 8 and give it a whirl!:eek:

Bird
 
Diesel is the easy winner, its everywhere.
So is 91 octane.
But there is no diesel engine for the RV-10.
It's like saying you have the best race car driver but you don't have a race car.

Adept air has a very interesting concept, I just went to their website. They are planning a lower, at least initially, cost than lycoming.

Same here, just a concept and lots of huff and puff, I've watched these developments for 20 years and nothing has ever come out of it or come even close to a Lycoming in the 260 HP range. I especially like when the marketing hype includes prices less than a Lycoming.

I am quite certain that G100UL or one of those fuels will eventually make it to the market but if you want an alternative to expensive avgas, use mogas, it's everywhere and always less than diesel.
And dyed diesel isn't anywhere near 5 bucks a gallon.
You are right but it's always more than 91 octane.

I argued from your side for many years but have always been let down by companies who promote this kind of low cost and super efficient aircraft engine hype.
As they say"show me the money" or the engine in this case.
 
So is 91 octane.
But there is no diesel engine for the RV-10.
It's like saying you have the best race car driver but you don't have a race car.



Same here, just a concept and lots of huff and puff, I've watched these developments for 20 years and nothing has ever come out of it or come even close to a Lycoming in the 260 HP range. I especially like when the marketing hype includes prices less than a Lycoming.

I am quite certain that G100UL or one of those fuels will eventually make it to the market but if you want an alternative to expensive avgas, use mogas, it's everywhere and always less than diesel.

You are right but it's always more than 91 octane.

I argued from your side for many years but have always been let down by companies who promote this kind of low cost and super efficient aircraft engine hype.
As they say"show me the money" or the engine in this case.

I am looking at the logic. The engine I think is the future of GA is diesel, and to my knowledge, does not exist. I do however believe that someday the technology will exist to make this happen and for a craft that is dependant on propulsion as an aircraft, making this engine as simple as possible is going to be the winner. And I would argue your fact that dyed diesel is always more expensive than 91 octane, the cheapest 91 octane around here is 3.49 a gal, cheapest on road diesel is 3.77, take the road tax off it which is probably like 50 cents a gallon and your at 3.27 for dyed diesel. Go look at European gas prices and see which is cheaper. When I say everywhere, I mean everywhere on planet earth. Not the lower 48.

I am merely trying to look in the future and not use what we have already and keep making it work, I am looking at what makes the most sense to work, I am looking at what would make it better.

I am not arguing for any company here, I have no money to be made. But if I'm going to spend my time trying to develop something it isn't going to be a replacement fuel, its a replacement engine, something that makes more sense to me. And your right there is no Diesel engine for the RV 10, or my RV 8, or alot of other planes, just like for a long time there wasn't a person on the moon. Bring a guy to the table like Van, put him in the engine development market, and build a better "mouse trap engine"


I think it will happen someday.

Randy
8A
 
Ernst, you are a classic guy! :)

We are discussing fuel and options right?
I have come to realize that promoting the use of mogas makes one some sort of an oddball in this forum but while we are comparing numbers here is what you might see next the above comparisons.

HP: 260 hp run at 161HP (61.9%)
161HP 62% Cruise: guessing 185mph
Range: 1027 mi
Consumption: 10.8 gph / 65 lbs/hr
Cost Per Gallon: $4.25 ( its less but why exaggerate )
Fuel Cost Per Hour: $45.90
Fuel Cost Per Lifetime (5,000 hr): $229,500 or $52,000 less than the SMA

I would say that while the mogas STC path has never been for IO's your pump/return system is about as close as it gets.

Hard to argue with the numbers.

I am sure you have told me before, but which grade of Mogas are you using? And is that MON or RON or (R+M)/2

Just for the apples v apples.
 
I think I got my first Zoche diesel hat in 84 (he had the best hats). 29 years ago. Don't see many flying. Continental's GAP diesel? Thielert? Why is it so hard to accept that the lycoming configuration we have fits the mission? Specific power? Durability? Installation ease? Give it up. Also, diesel stinks. So does jet. Nasty, messy stuff. Stone age fuel.
 
Go look at European gas prices and see which is cheaper. When I say everywhere, I mean everywhere on planet earth. Not the lower 48.
You are right, a quick google searched showed the price of diesel just a few
"slotskis" lower than high octane gasoline.
I based my assertion on some recent complaints from european pilots who report diesel prices climbing higher than gasoline prices. An increase in use will have that effect I guess.
I am merely trying to look in the future and not use what we have already and keep making it work, I am looking at what makes the most sense to work, I am looking at what would make it better.
I share your hopes and I wish for the same thing.
Bring a guy to the table like Van, put him in the engine development market, and build a better "mouse trap engine"
Ironically it was a write up in Vans Rviator a few years ago where Van himself answered the relentless onslaught and demand for an alternative engine that finally put me in the Lycoming camp. I can't recall his exact words but a diesel engine was the last of a list of possible solutions to a lightweight, inexpensive and reliable engine solutions.
Found this on the Adept airmotive website???
Incidentally it sound almost exactly what Van described in his opinion about a diesel option.
Question: Why is the ADEPT Airmotive not a compression ignition (diesel) engine?

Answer: Although diesel has certain advantages with regards to fuel consumption and economy, we don’t believe that compression ignition technology is best suited to GA applications. Among the reasons for this are:

Poor relationship between torque and power
Diesel engines have to be heavier to contain higher bearing loads
Diesel engines have poor power to weight ratios
Vibration
Satisfactory power generation generally requires high turbo boost with related reliability problems
Diesel fuel weighs more than gasoline
I am sure you have told me before, but which grade of Mogas are you using? And is that MON or RON or (R+M)/2
It's (R+M)/2 which when compared using the same metric as avgas turns into something like 87 Octane.
Using a low-octane gasoline whose ignition temperature is too low causes pre-ignition. Low-octane automotive gasoline (87-octane) has a typical ignition temperature of 300 degrees Celsius; high-octane (93-octane) automotive gasoline has a typical ignition temperature of 400 degrees Celsius. Aviation gasoline is blended to ignite at 500 degrees Celsius. High compression and high cylinder temperature will cause the fuel to ignite before the sparkplug fires.

Classic guy? Oz, what are you talking about I fly LOP and over square and I invested in a state of the art engine monitor:D
 
Last edited:
Classic guy? Oz, what are you talking about I fly LOP and over square and I invested in a state of the art engine monitor

:D:D:D:D

Not meaning classic as in old timer old ways and not up to speed you silly head ;)

Classic as in....well pick your hero...but you know, Burt Reynolds or John Wayne....

Aussie sense of humour failure again! :)



Ohhhand you run mogas.......you should have burned that engine up hours ago with all that engine abuse! :)
 
Just as a point of order, this fuel discussion appears to be trying to price out "on road" diesel fuel. I believe however, that "aviation" piston diesels are supposed to run on Jet-A. And that stuff is quite a bit cheaper than 100LL around here.
 
?????

Just as a point of order, this fuel discussion appears to be trying to price out "on road" diesel fuel. I believe however, that "aviation" piston diesels are supposed to run on Jet-A. And that stuff is quite a bit cheaper than 100LL around here.


I don't know that to be honost, but I do know my 4bt cummins diesel I put in a Bronco can be run on Diesel, Biodiesel, Kerosene, Jet A, Hydraulic Fluid, I think ATF but haven't tried it. Problem is its 760 lbs. and the crankshaft isn't in the right spot. As a point of comparison, the 135hp cummins will BLOW the doors off the 200hp 302 that was in there, but thats a discussion for another thread.

To me, the bottom line is my lycoming is working great, I am not a automotive conversion guy, not my thing. I respect all those that are, this is what experimental is all about. But those engines wheren't designed from the ground up to do what the mission needs, do they work, some yes, some no. However, put an engine like what Ecomotor (developing/showing) in front of me and I will think long and hard about throwing it on and start experimenting, cause its my opinion thats where the future is heading. Right now its pretty hard to beat my 0-360.

Randy
8A
 
You are right, a quick google searched showed the price of diesel just a few
"slotskis" lower than high octane gasoline.
I based my assertion on some recent complaints from european pilots who report diesel prices climbing higher than gasoline prices. An increase in use will have that effect I guess.

I share your hopes and I wish for the same thing.



Ironically it was a write up in Vans Rviator a few years ago where Van himself answered the relentless onslaught and demand for an alternative engine that finally put me in the Lycoming camp. I can't recall his exact words but a diesel engine was the last of a list of possible solutions to a lightweight, inexpensive and reliable engine solutions.
Found this on the Adept airmotive website???
Incidentally it sound almost exactly what Van described in his opinion about a diesel option.




It's (R+M)/2 which when compared using the same metric as avgas turns into something like 87 Octane.


Classic guy? Oz, what are you talking about I fly LOP and over square and I invested in a state of the art engine monitor:D

Do you remember what issue RV8er that was, I would be interested in giving that a read.



I believe it will happen, given enough time, maybe we'll see it!!!
 
Rviator Issue?

I think it was about 8 years ago or so but I am sure someone might remember, Van would I am sure.

Aussie sense of humour failure again!
A Swiss living in California trying to get an Aussie joke, good luck:D

I all fairness to the posters who believe in diesel engines, it appears that the
SMA would be an interesting option if made available to experimenters.
Not trying to rehash the game of saving money on one over the other but the engine is in fairly widespread use it seems.

It also appears that I may not have done my homework on prices of avgas vs. JetA. Although it is always more expensive on my homefield it seems to be lower in most places than 100LL.
The cost comparison on diesel is a mute point, since we don't have an engine to put it in.
Red Farm diesel??? you are right on the price but that stuff is really not available except in rural farm areas.
One more thing, I don't know anyhting about Jet A vs. Modiesel
SMA doesn't want to do business with experimenters, they are probably worried we are going to use unaprroved biodiesel with ethanol.:rolleyes:

However, the mogas option is the only solution for lower operating costs that is available now for everyone with an experimental aircraft, except those with high compression engines.

If everyone gets to tell me some day in the future about the availability of a diesel engine ,"see I told you so",
I'll be just as excited as you are.
 
I've seen several people mention "the future" of general aviation - it's not going to be a noise maker. The long term future is electric. Cars are beginning to do it, but it's going to take some time before we see it.

As for me, I am doing just fine with my Corvette LS1 from Geared Drives. Second condition inspection coming up. Sure, I've had issues, but it works. As far as gas, I burn 100LL, mogas, or ethanol-free mogas. I don't like using the regular mogas because the ethanol is full of corn silks and corn syrup - builds up in the filters.

As far as the GearedDrives company, it's back in business with a new owner. Here's the web site:
http://www.autopsrus.com/

Constructive comments or inquiries are welcome, flamers are not.

John
 
I've seen several people mention "the future" of general aviation - it's not going to be a noise maker. The long term future is electric. Cars are beginning to do it, but it's going to take some time before we see it.

As for me, I am doing just fine with my Corvette LS1 from Geared Drives. Second condition inspection coming up. Sure, I've had issues, but it works. As far as gas, I burn 100LL, mogas, or ethanol-free mogas. I don't like using the regular mogas because the ethanol is full of corn silks and corn syrup - builds up in the filters.

As far as the GearedDrives company, it's back in business with a new owner. Here's the web site:
http://www.autopsrus.com/

Constructive comments or inquiries are welcome, flamers are not.

John

Nice of you to post here. How many hours do you have on it? Any major problems? What sort of TAS vs. fuel burn are you getting?
 
I think it was about 8 years ago or so but I am sure someone might remember, Van would I am sure.


A Swiss living in California trying to get an Aussie joke, good luck:D

I all fairness to the posters who believe in diesel engines, it appears that the
SMA would be an interesting option if made available to experimenters.
Not trying to rehash the game of saving money on one over the other but the engine is in fairly widespread use it seems.

It also appears that I may not have done my homework on prices of avgas vs. JetA. Although it is always more expensive on my homefield it seems to be lower in most places than 100LL.
The cost comparison on diesel is a mute point, since we don't have an engine to put it in.
Red Farm diesel??? you are right on the price but that stuff is really not available except in rural farm areas.
One more thing, I don't know anyhting about Jet A vs. Modiesel
SMA doesn't want to do business with experimenters, they are probably worried we are going to use unaprroved biodiesel with ethanol.:rolleyes:

However, the mogas option is the only solution for lower operating costs that is available now for everyone with an experimental aircraft, except those with high compression engines.

If everyone gets to tell me some day in the future about the availability of a diesel engine ,"see I told you so",
I'll be just as excited as you are.

I won't be saying "I told ya so", I would be saying, "hey look at this"!!!!
 
Now, here is something I agree with!
I've seen several people mention "the future" of general aviation - it's not going to be a noise maker. The long term future is electric. Cars are beginning to do it, but it's going to take some time

On the other hand I don't understand what you mean to say here.
I agree, that ethanol is made from corn, silk and syrup and all but it is distilled
or is it not?
Makes me wonder how the Vanguard Squadron ever made it for so many years.

http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=58334
 
...Constructive comments or inquiries are welcome...

I think the apostrophe in "Auto PSRU's" should be used to indicate possession, not plurality. So when I look at your website's title bar that says "Welcome to PSRU's," I wonder "Welcome to PSRU's what?"

Correct usage (posession): "The PSRU's output flange has a hole pattern for..."

Correct usage (plurality): "The XYZ PSRUs are equipped with mounting pads for..."

Incorrect usage (plurality): "The PSRU's are manufactured with..."

This page on Grammar-Monster shows typical rules for the use of apostrophes with abbreviations. See the part at the bottom titled "No Apostrophe for Normal Abbreviations":

http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/apostrophes_show_plural_of_abbreviations.htm

Thanks, Bob K.
 
I'll chime in....

I've posted a number of times in the Alternative Engines forum, but I'd like to share my experience with aerodiesels.

I built an RV9 with a Wilksch WAM 120 diesel and have been flying it for over 4 years. I have 431 trouble-free hours as of today. I am VERY happy with engine/MT CS prop combination.

To dispel a few myths in this thread:

Vibration is no problem. Same as a Lycoming. This was verified by several Lyc RV drivers, including Ken Krueger, then-head of engineering at Van's.

Weight is less than the Lycoming of similar power (o-235). Thus, power to weight ratio is better.

Hours flying: There are about 20 of us flying with this engine now. The highest hour plane is an RV9A pushing 700 hours. There are 8 or 9 RV's flying with diesel. The Centurion/Thielert diesel aircraft engines have accumulated more than 3.5 million hours flying time to date. The Centurion is an automotive conversion, which has had its issues, but its stoppage-in-flight rate is less than Lycoming or Continental.

The Wilksch, and SMA are not automotive conversions. They are direct drive (no PSRU), designed and produced for aviation use.

The Wilksch has no electronics at all. It is mechanically controlled. Once running, it is like a Lyc or Cont; no electrics required.

The diesels are very economical. I can fly cheaper than I can drive, even a Prius.

My RV9 performs on par with Van's numbers, same as the Lyc. powered RV does.

I agree with those who believe Diesel/Jet A is the future of GA. Here's why:
1. The military's goal is a one-fuel battlefield - heavy fuel. They are investing many millions in diesel aviation.
2. As mentioned, 100LL is going away eventually. It's replacement will be expensive. I believe we can count on that. Auto fuel has it's own risks.
3. The rest of the world (outside the US) is moving towards diesel, both in aviation and automotive. China is opening its skies to GA and they are clear - no 100LL. They are investing heavily in Diesel Aviation (Continental and others).
4. Diesel and Jet A are safer fuels. Much more difficult to ingnite.
5. Diesel and JetA are available worldwide, and at lower pricing than avgas. I fly all over the Western US, and Jet A is always cheaper. Non-taxed diesel is even less costly.
5. The technology exists TODAY. Myself and many others flying diesels can attest to this fact. The engines do not have to be heavier, more complex, less power-to-weight ratio, or have a re-drive. In fact, the opposite is true, especially in the case of the 2-stroke diesel, which I think is the best for aviation.
6. Look at Cessna. They wouldn't be offering the JT/A if they didn't believe it was the future.
7. Long-range electric flight is a LONG ways off, IMO.

I see no reason why an SMA wouldn't be a great option for an RV10. Someone will do it eventually. When I told Van's I was building a diesel RV9, they and many others told me I was crazy. I'm sure glad I didn't listen...

Just my $.02.

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9 / WAM 120 turbodiesel.
 
...The Centurion is an automotive conversion, which has had its issues, but its stoppage-in-flight rate is less than Lycoming or Continental...

I'd sure like to see the backup data on this, particularily to see if the common "pilot ran out of gas" scenario is included.
 
I was hoping we could flush you out.
Thanks for posting.
The OP was looking for an option for his RV-10, any chance the WAM folks are working on something with a little more horsepower?

And I am glad that engine is working well for you.

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9 / WAM 120 turbodiesel.
 
WAM for RV10?

I'd sure like to see the backup data on this, particularily to see if the common "pilot ran out of gas" scenario is included.

I got the data from Dieselair.com. A site dedicated to diesel aviation. I believe that Centurion also published this on their website.

I was hoping we could flush you out.
Thanks for posting.
The OP was looking for an option for his RV-10, any chance the WAM folks are working on something with a little more horsepower?

And I am glad that engine is working well for you.

I couldn't help myself. I'm a "cautiously optimistic" true believer in diesel aviation - based on experience, not dreams.

I don't see WAM producing a diesel for the RV10 anytime soon. But it could happen. They're being very quiet as they develop their WAM series, so as not to create hype and unsupported rumor. However, the series was designed to be "modular". The first engine to fly was a 2 cyl. The first production engine was a 3 cyl. They're beginning testing on the 4 cyl, and I believe the idea is to make a 5 cyl. version. The series is capable of a reliable 45 hp per cyl, which would mean that the 5 cyl. version would produce 225 hp. Based on my experience with the WAM engine, that would be just fine for a '10. Given the lighter weight and the turbcharger, performance may come close to the Lyc verson.

I'd be the first to buy one!

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9 / WAM 120 Turbodiesel
 
Nice of you to post here. How many hours do you have on it? Any major problems? What sort of TAS vs. fuel burn are you getting?

Not as many as I should - about 88. I have another life. Major problems were in the first 5 hours - not to be an issue for others in the future since we talk on our own forums. As far as TAS / Fuel burn - It's just like an IO-540. I can go faster, but it takes more fuel. The real advantage is the 300 horses I get at peak torque.

Somebody questioned the ethanol gas and corn silks. I have discovered that the gas you buy for your car at the local Quicky Mart is full of corn silks and corn syrup. I'm sure that you can get better filtered/distilled stuff when you're doing research, but that's what I found. I have the proof in a ziplock bag. There are plenty of gas stations close by that sell ethanol free gas. Check out http://www.pure-gas.org/ As far as 100LL, I burn it a lot when I can't find the ethanol free stuff.

John
 
Well, I'm a huge fan of alternative engines, but not at the expense the traditionals. The alternative crowd is often touting aircraft engines as "unreliable", but I'm not seeing airplanes falling out of the air... Unless the pilot did something stupid, which is common. and no fault of Lycoming or Continental.

It's possible current diesels are more reliable, but that should not be construed to mean traditional engines are UNreliable.
 
Unreliable?

Well, I'm a huge fan of alternative engines, but not at the expense the traditionals. The alternative crowd is often touting aircraft engines as "unreliable", but I'm not seeing airplanes falling out of the air... Unless the pilot did something stupid, which is common. and no fault of Lycoming or Continental.

It's possible current diesels are more reliable, but that should not be construed to mean traditional engines are UNreliable.

I hope that no one took my post to mean that i think traditional engines are unreliable. Quite the opposite. I believe that traditionals are super reliable, and the best bet for most GA fliers for now. And I'm not saying that diesels are more reliable, because I'm not sure that they are. Time will tell. I quoted the Centurion stats only to show that diesels are more common and reliable than a lot of people give them credit for.

Kurt Goodfellow
RV9 / WAM 120 Turbodiesel
 
I emailed Thierry Argaud at SMA in Nov 12 about this. His response was:

Thank you for your interest in the SMA engine.
I share your analysis in term of avgas cost, scarcity and SMA-RV10 compliance.

SMA is not providing kit, even if in the past, to demonstrate our previous engine version, we created a C182 STC & kit.
So, at that time, we focus on the certified market, the OEM designing the installation.
If a company (not SMA) wanted to propose certified Vans, SMA would study the business plan.

So I am back to looking at IO540 variants. I understand Barrett and Areo Sport have stopped making their versions. Are there any other choices?
 
Diesel is the easy winner, its everywhere. The engine is dirt simple, a lycoming simplified, no ignition, one less thing to go wrong, takes no power to run, as long as its mechanical injection that is, and they red line in the right area, 3200ish RPM, no gear box, one less thing to go wrong, one less thing consuming wasted power, more efficient, less fuel consumption-flying further. Figure out how to make it light and you'll be a rich man.

I really like my Lycoming, don't get me wrong. But looking at what makes the most sense. Hands down! And dyed diesel isn't anywhere near 5 bucks a gallon.

Randy
8A
0-360

Correct me if I am wrong on this but the engine in the discussion is a diesel engine however in operation it burns Jet A.

George
 
Back
Top