What's new
Van's Air Force

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

Continental's new TD- diesel series

sbalmos

sbalmos

Well Known Member
Granted, the first engine (TD-200) is too powerful for me, in the 200-250hp range. But that TD-220 they say they're going to develop and have around in the 2016 range has me drooling and reconsidering my long-term options as I build. Originally I was going to find a run-out O-320 core and rebuild it for full mogas, dual P-mags and everything. Now when the time comes (2014-15 range), I may just find a mid-life O-320 or even a cheap high-time one to get the plane flying, and just swap for the TD-220 when they're released.

Anyone else hoping we might actually finally have a viable piston diesel coming off the production line here? :)
 
While the promise of better fuel economy and performance are there. Consider the additional costs (the SMA 230HP eng is, I think, around $100K) . And, of course we should consider the additional weight of the fuel and the heavier diesel engine. I think there is a good reason to stick with conventional aircraft engines and Avgas.

Jet A is significantly heavier than Avgas, and contains more energy per gallon.

But, by weight, Avgas and Jet-A's energy content are well matched. As aircraft operators, we fly by weight, even if we purchase by gallon.

It's not unusual for today's experimental Lyc/Cont to achieve "very near diesel" levels of efficiency. And, I'd suggest that the lightweight, reliable, powerful conventional aircraft engine is better suited for sport flying.

I'm not certain an aircraft diesel would have any "return on investment", especially early on in the development of such engines.
 
Last edited:
My dream Engine

Yes, I do dream to have one of those nice smooth running diesels.
I get to fly a DA42 with Thielert diesel engines every now and again and love it.

Though my default is the the IO360 180hp, but I'm still dreaming :)
 
had a very interesting discussion with one of their test engineers today at osh.

definitely a development to follow closely, overall a very solid and thoroughly thought through concept.

one of the downsides for RV/experimentals is that the focus is mainly on certification / initially targeting a different/heavier, more powerful segment. also, because of certification, the approach is rather conservative, not necessarily pushing the limits of what could be squeezed out. then again, having a reliable jet-a1 option is worth just as much.

one important thing that i took away from the conversation is that each of the three engine models is significantly different with all the lessons learned on the previous development being included in the next and not just e.g. adding/removing cylinders. so look at the model that fits the RV's in the 2016 timeframe as the third generation which can be an advantage as well.

i certainly wish them luck and it's not just vaporware, the thing is flying in a 182 and by all indications flies very well...

regards,
bernie
 
I'm a diesel fan...

I guess it's time for me to weigh in...

I've been flying my turbo diesel (WAM) RV9 for almost 4 years and pushing 400 hours. I can't say enough good about it. It's a joy to fly. I didn't realize how good it was until I recently started flying an avgas plane again. It has taken me awhile to get used to the complication and expense.

With the diesel, there's no priming, boost pump, mags, mixture, carb heat, flooding, plug fowling, egt to worry about or mess with. Just get in, start up, cycle the prop, and fly. Plus, the fuel is much safer in the event of an accident.

You can do math any way you want, but in the real world, the diesel is much more efficient, especially when you consider the entire flight profile. An avgas engine running LOP may start to approach diesel efficiency at cruise, but never for the entire flight.

I'm sure I'll get burned for this, but I still believe diesel (Jet A) is the future. Just look at all of the investment dollars being poured into it's development. Someday someone will get it right (I don't believe the "right" engine is available yet) and people will begin to understand all of the advantages.

Kurt
RV9 / WAM 120 diesel, 380 hours.
 
Love JET-A

Kurt, I think you are totally right. I hope when it comes to my install I can get me a diesel engine.
For me its the price right now that is holding me back.
Also since I am planning to install EFIS I am looking into an engine manufacturer that has software that will talk to that EFIS.

I would be very interested what system upgrades you had to make, other then larger fuel filler cabs. (Fuel lines, Gaskets, Fuel pump etc.)
Will that engine fit on a -8? It looks real big on there website.

Thanks
 
Love JetA

Michael,
The WAM is actually quite small. It will fit into any Van's, except maybe the '12. And it is very light, weighing less than the comparable Lycoming. The problem is that it doesn't make enough power for an RV8. When they finally introduce the 140 hp version, it may be enough. I believe that with 140 hp the performance will approach that of an O-320. This is based on testing we did between my 120 hp turbodiesel and Van's O-320-powered RV9A.

I did not modify my fuel caps, although I should have. There have been a few instances (in Mexico mostly) where I've had to use a funnel that I carry on board. The only modification I had to make to the airframe is the 1/4" fuel return lines and Andair fuel selector valve.

Obviously, the FWF installation itself is basically custom, requiring a special mount, provided by WAM, cooling system and cowling.

Kurt
RV9 / WAM 120 diesel
 
Thank you Kurt
Good info, maybe by the time I get to install one there is some more upgrades. I just love the way those diesels work. Like I already mentioned above, the Diamonds diesel are awesome. Start up at any temp, smooth and easy maintenance. I'm so looking forward to more development. Diesels are the future, you are right about that.
Take care
 
engine choice

Why are the Diesel motors that are used by Diamond not more widely used? Is there a issue with them? I ask because I am totally unaware ! Who makes the engines Diamond uses on the diesel?
 
Thielert

Thielert made them, went under. Diamond bought what remained and kinda went their own direction with it as I understand. Now they are made by Austro engines (who also make aviation rotary engines in fact).
 
Only 140 HP

Its strange that people just look at one figure and think that they have the answer to the whole question.

The thin about the available power from Turbo diesels is that it is available throughout the flight envelope, from the ground to 12/15 thousand feet. Unless an engine has boost it will drop off power at higher altitudes so your 160 Hp lycoming is actually producing a lot less at 8k feet and above.

Most WAMs run on constant speed props, so full power on the ground on take off. So again set alongside a FP lyco the power available for the climb is similar at least until some airspeed is achieved.

Having run the diesel like Kurt for 5 years I love its simplicity/fuel economy. When the upgrade from 120 to 140 comes yes I will take the extra HP.......I think then we will be out performing 160 hp lyco powered 9's.
 
I'm pretty sure the Continental TD-300 is a licensed SMA. I'm also interested in this for a -10, but don't think one will really be available for a another 5-10 years, tested at a competitive price. I'm in the camp of amateur built but not necessarily experimental! :)
 
I think you are right. Continental bought out the SMA rights - I think. Shame it's not available to the experimental market because I think it would be a great engine for the -10.
 
kgood said:
With the diesel, there's no priming, boost pump, mags, mixture, carb heat, flooding, plug fowling, egt to worry about or mess with. Just get in, start up, cycle the prop, and fly.

You can do math any way you want, but in the real world, the diesel is much more efficient, especially when you consider the entire flight profile. An avgas engine running LOP may start to approach diesel efficiency at cruise, but never for the entire flight.
Click to expand...

All good points, especially about "entire flight" efficiency. Diesels will use considerably fewer gallons per trip. And, certainly Jet-A is less prone to wildfire...

But a valid comparison is by weight of the fuel burned, any additional engine mass, etc. Cost is not a valid comparison, as costs vary wildly by location. the types of turbodiesels used in aircraft may suffer some efficiency losses when compared to the "ideal diesel".

AND, there is no reason not to produce a direct injection, high compression, electronically controlled, forced induction Avgas burning engine.

I feel that from an engineering standpoint, it's absurd to compare a turbocharged diesel engine (especially a modern one) to a normally aspirated gasoline engine of antiquated design.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top