Well, it is only a couple of years ago that 10,000 faulty certified ECi cylinders had to be replaced after 800 h on certified Lycomings with 1800 h TBO. After 50 years, and they still haven't got it right It was FAA that finally issued the requirement for replacement, and the customers had to contact ECi in Texas themselves. How many experimentals are still flying with these cylinders without even knowing about it?
In contrast to Lycoming and Continental, Thielert has a constantly updated user database. For isntance in 2005, 80 clutches were replaced by Thielert, free of charge by sending out mechanics. The engine computer together with the customer database enabled Thielert to sort out other possible problematic clutches based on three incidents within hours, and contact all the customers within 48 h, all the 80 clutches were replaced within one week (If the FAA/EAA had to be involved, this would have taken months). They could do this without first investigating the cause of the error. They only knew that the three engines of concern had recently had a clutch overhaul, and so had the other 80. Later they found that the error was due to several people using wrong cleaning agent when overhauling the clutch, leading to a chemical reaction of the surface which changed the friction number. This is the same support principle as RR, GE and PW uses together with most car manufacturers. Why aren't Lycoming using it? Why do Lycomings, a 50 year old design, cost so much as they do when they are not offering something even close to this level of support?
Things happens to everyone, but to achieve 3000 h TBO can only be done in full openess and close cooperation with the customers. Thielert is doing this, Lycoming is not.
I cannot say anything about the gearbox of the Thielert, but it looks like the whole package originally is designed with very small margins to get the weight down. The engine itself (the 1.7 L) comes from a MB A-type that in the car only produces 90 HP max. In the airplane it produces 135 hp continous. The 2.0 is probably much better (or easier to get right) and it also has a lighter gearbox. A clutch is probably needed. This is a diesel with a tremendous torque (very high power peeks) at low RPM. It probably has 200 Nm already from 1200-1300 RPM, or maybe the FADEC limits this?
There are some other diesel conversions in the 100 HP range meant for the uncertified market. eco-motors. 1.4 L TDI engine (PSA? VW?) with 80/100 HP to be used as a replacement for Rotax. Compared with Rotax it weigh 24 kg more or approx 30% more. eco-fly (why this eco-xxxx ? ). This is a converted smart engine, also as a replacement for Rotax, but it doesn't look like much is happening there.
Then there is the Raptor. A turbodiesel made from the ground up to be an aircraft engine, but have not been flown. They claim 105 hp at 81 kg at 2800 engine RPM. At 2800 RPM, only 1.55 L and no intercooler, this is hard to believe, but who knows.
I would place the Egg well below the eco-motor regarding technical complexity, more in the class of the hundreds of BMW conversions flying. When Jan makes a conversion with the new diesel Subaru incl a gearbox that can manage the diesel pulses, and within weight limitations making it flyable, at the right price (preferably way more economically than a gasoline engine), then we can start comparing the Egg and the Thielert. With the same logic, the Egg (existing gasoline conversion) is probably at least just as good as the Thielert is today
In contrast to Lycoming and Continental, Thielert has a constantly updated user database. For isntance in 2005, 80 clutches were replaced by Thielert, free of charge by sending out mechanics. The engine computer together with the customer database enabled Thielert to sort out other possible problematic clutches based on three incidents within hours, and contact all the customers within 48 h, all the 80 clutches were replaced within one week (If the FAA/EAA had to be involved, this would have taken months). They could do this without first investigating the cause of the error. They only knew that the three engines of concern had recently had a clutch overhaul, and so had the other 80. Later they found that the error was due to several people using wrong cleaning agent when overhauling the clutch, leading to a chemical reaction of the surface which changed the friction number. This is the same support principle as RR, GE and PW uses together with most car manufacturers. Why aren't Lycoming using it? Why do Lycomings, a 50 year old design, cost so much as they do when they are not offering something even close to this level of support?
Things happens to everyone, but to achieve 3000 h TBO can only be done in full openess and close cooperation with the customers. Thielert is doing this, Lycoming is not.
I cannot say anything about the gearbox of the Thielert, but it looks like the whole package originally is designed with very small margins to get the weight down. The engine itself (the 1.7 L) comes from a MB A-type that in the car only produces 90 HP max. In the airplane it produces 135 hp continous. The 2.0 is probably much better (or easier to get right) and it also has a lighter gearbox. A clutch is probably needed. This is a diesel with a tremendous torque (very high power peeks) at low RPM. It probably has 200 Nm already from 1200-1300 RPM, or maybe the FADEC limits this?
There are some other diesel conversions in the 100 HP range meant for the uncertified market. eco-motors. 1.4 L TDI engine (PSA? VW?) with 80/100 HP to be used as a replacement for Rotax. Compared with Rotax it weigh 24 kg more or approx 30% more. eco-fly (why this eco-xxxx ? ). This is a converted smart engine, also as a replacement for Rotax, but it doesn't look like much is happening there.
Then there is the Raptor. A turbodiesel made from the ground up to be an aircraft engine, but have not been flown. They claim 105 hp at 81 kg at 2800 engine RPM. At 2800 RPM, only 1.55 L and no intercooler, this is hard to believe, but who knows.
I would place the Egg well below the eco-motor regarding technical complexity, more in the class of the hundreds of BMW conversions flying. When Jan makes a conversion with the new diesel Subaru incl a gearbox that can manage the diesel pulses, and within weight limitations making it flyable, at the right price (preferably way more economically than a gasoline engine), then we can start comparing the Egg and the Thielert. With the same logic, the Egg (existing gasoline conversion) is probably at least just as good as the Thielert is today