Thielert's Centurion 2.0 Diesel Engine

[kevinsky18]

Thielert produces certified aircraft diesel engines.

Their Centurion 2.0 is already being shipped in factory certified aircraft from Diamond Aircraft.

They also have STCs for all models of Cessna 172 and a good number of other certified aircraft including but not limited to Piper and Beach.

One of the largest flight schools in the US converted all their C172s approx 75 over to this engine well over a year and a half ago and have been absolutely impressed.

The Centurion 2.0 is replacing up to 180hp gas engines. It?s full FADEC, constant speed, has 2500 TBO, 18000? service ceiling, turbo charged, and burns a miserly 4 gal/hr.

Compared to an 0-320 this would translate into higher service ceilings, faster climb rates, water cooled so no shock cooling, higher cruise speeds, 60% lower operating costs and because it only burns 4 gallons an hour double the range with standard fuel tanks.

The only draw back is it is just ever so slightly heavier due to the water cooling.

I believe this engine is more than mature and would be an ideal choice for a number of RV builders. However Thielert will not sell directly to private builders. They will only sell through ?kit plane OEMs.?

If Van?s is willing to work with Thielert, Vans will be the first kit plane company to make this great engine available to the homebuilt community.

Will or is Vans considering working with Thielert to help bring this new technology to the kit plane market?

I think more people need to get turned onto this engine and the 250hp and 350hp versions and let Vans know that we would like them to assist us in making this happen.

Read more here
http://www.centurion-engines.com/

 

[rv6ejguy]

I think these are about 70 lbs. heavier than an O-320 which is getting pretty porky but workable with a composite prop. Hopefully they will be getting the hp up a bit more soon here and maybe the price down a bit. Looks like Thielert takes this seriously and is doing a nice job with these engines. They are the only real player in this market presently IMO.

It would be cool if Van's would start taking to them about an installation in an RV, especially for our European friends.

 

[osxuser]

While the hype make these engine sound great, there are drawbacks.

Thielert produces certified aircraft diesel engines.

Their Centurion 2.0 is already being shipped in factory certified aircraft from Diamond Aircraft.

They also have STCs for all models of Cessna 172 and a good number of other certified aircraft including but not limited to Piper and Beach.

One of the largest flight schools in the US converted all their C172s approx 75 over to this engine well over a year and a half ago and have been absolutely impressed.

The Centurion 2.0 is replacing up to 180hp gas engines. It?s full FADEC, constant speed, has 2500 TBO, 18000? service ceiling, turbo charged, and burns a miserly 4 gal/hr.

Now up to here, it was pretty accurate, but it doesn't do all of these things. While it does replace engines up to 180HP, it doesn't produce the same sea level performance as those engines, which is a huge factor for most RV builders. Also, the turbo can be looked at as a negative for the RV airframe and the 4GPH fuel burn is throttled WAY the heck back.

Compared to an 0-320 this would translate into higher service ceilings, faster climb rates, water cooled so no shock cooling, higher cruise speeds, 60% lower operating costs and because it only burns 4 gallons an hour double the range with standard fuel tanks.

Ok, thats pushing it big time. higher service ceilings is accurate, but the intial rate of climb, compared to an O-360 would be lower, and probably even lower than an O-320. Water cooling works fine, but is less-than-ideal in the RV's so far, radiator setups vary in efficiency. And 60% lower operating costs are a pie-in-the-sky DREAM! In reality, the fuel weighs more, so payload is reduced for the same amount of fuel. Additionally, at similer airspeeds, I doubt the fuel benefits would be as apparent. For example, at the same airspeed, assuming the same amount of drag, the same amount of HP would have to be produced. Therefore, it is necessary that a similer amount of fuel would be burned, so maybe 1-2gph savings max at the same airspeed. Lycomings can lope along a 5-7gph all day long as well at LOW power settings.

The only draw back is it is just ever so slightly heavier due to the water cooling.

I believe this engine is more than mature and would be an ideal choice for a number of RV builders. However Thielert will not sell directly to private builders. They will only sell through ?kit plane OEMs.?

If Van?s is willing to work with Thielert, Vans will be the first kit plane company to make this great engine available to the homebuilt community.

Will or is Vans considering working with Thielert to help bring this new technology to the kit plane market?

I think more people need to get turned onto this engine and the 250hp and 350hp versions and let Vans know that we would like them to assist us in making this happen.

Read more here
http://www.centurion-engines.com/

While I don't disagree with trying to get this engine put on an RV or two, I think it's definitely best to consider reality rather than fantasy when comparing engines.

 

[Pilottonny]

No py in the sky !!

I posted it several times on these forums: JETA1 is 1/3 the price of Avgas in Europe!!! in addition there is the lesser fuelburn, that is where the benefit is!

A heavier engine only brings the useful load down. Did you ever compare the useful load of an RV with a C152? than you will know that, even with a Diesel engine, you will have a couple of hundred lbs more in the RV!

Did you notice that the, British, flying RV9A with the WAM120 Wilksch engine, has an empty weight that is lower than most RV9?s? It still makes 130 kts at 2.000 ft and 140 kts up higher, with its 120 bhp. Weight is not an issue.

135 bhp is plenty for the RV9, remember that it is designed to fly with the 118 bhp Lycoming. With the turbo you will get up high quick and be able to cruise as fast as any Lycoming RV9 at altitude. (you can not fly faster than Vne anyway!)

It is a shame that we can not buy the centurion engine for our RV?s. With more than 1.500 flying, It has proven to be a good concept. I am waiting for information on the delivery time of the WAM140, which will be perfect for the RV9 at the same weight of the Lycoming O-320.

Also the emissions of these modern engines are a lot less than any Avgas burning engine. If you do not have kids, maybe you do not have to care about the future of our planet?

Regards,
PilotTonny

 

[airguy]

I am waiting for information on the delivery time of the WAM140, which will be perfect for the RV9 at the same weight of the Lycoming O-320

Now that has possibilities - the large majority of my flying is high XC, I'm really stoked about the idea of a turbonormalized engine for that purpose. I was unaware WAM was looking at upping the output to 140, where did this information come from?

 

[Pilottonny]

Hello Airguy,

I already mentioned this in another thread. Julie Robinson and also Martin Long, both from Wilksch, confirmed it to me: their plan is to manufacture the 3 Cylinder with a bigger bore, to be able to put out 140 bhp and the four cylinder (that has not been in production yet) is supposed to put out 180 bhp. The weights will not go up more than the extra weight of the slightly larger radiator.

Now, to me, the WAM140 is the ideal engine for the RV9! Its light (not heavier than an O-320 Lycoming anyway), no carb ice, no shock cooling, no mixture to control, turbo for mucho power at altitude, up to date technique with very good emission levels, less fuel burn, and most important of all: burning JET-A1 (or any diesel-equivalent you can get your hands on, I do not know if Wilksch approves the "el cheapo" agricultural diesel, though).

The 140 bhp should be enough to get you going between 145 and 150 kts at 2.000 - 3.000 ft and faster up higher.

The bad news is that they have stopped production at the moment, because the "owners" are not sure at the moment weather they want to continue production in the UK or start up a production facility abroad. Apparently the shareholders of Wilksch are looking to certify these engines to be able to install them in certified planes like Thielert does. Although, as Martin mentioned, they will still support the experimental market, because they learn so much from the installations in experimentals.

At the moment they have several planes flying (two RV9's, a Europa and a Thorp, that I know of) they have supplied about 15 to 20 engines to customers building and they have orders for another 20 to 25 engines yet to be delivered.

Maybe I may have some more info later, because I might visit them on my next trip to the UK.

What has never been mentioned before is that Wilksh has a FWF-kit for the RV9 for their 3-cylinder engine, including engine mount! (without cowling though, because at the moment there are 3 different setups that are being tested). I received the price lists from Martin Long yesterday.

Regards, PilotTonny

 

[Dave_Boxall]

I was unaware WAM was looking at upping the output to 140, where did this information come from?

I spoke to Martin Long at Wilksch on Tuesday & he confirmed it to me - they'll be increasing the displacement on the new production engines.

Dave

 

[airguy]

It will be more than likely 2 years before I'm forced to make an engine decision (I'll be ordering the tail feathers this fall), so I'm hoping they will have this ball rolling by then. A turbonormalized diesel and CS prop in this horsepower range is my ideal engine in a 9A for the type of flying I do. In the meantime, I'll build the airframe with several fuel/engine choices in mind - namely keeping in mind the CG shift that I'll produce hanging all that stuff up front!

The 140 bhp should be enough to get you going between 145 and 150 kts at 2.000 - 3.000 ft and faster up higher.

Those are APPROACH altitudes I prefer to cruise at 10k-12k, where a turbonormalized engine will really shine. Better weather, better visibility, better radio range, increased glide time for engine-out, less traffic, and better performance from the aircraft - all around a better place to be for XC cruise.

And George - before you say it - yes I'll have onboard oxygen, and no I'm not going to whine about drying out my sinuses. Hush.

 

[rv6ejguy]

I spoke to Martin Long at Wilksch on Tuesday & he confirmed it to me - they'll be increasing the displacement on the new production engines.

Dave

How is Wilksch financially? I think buyers over here especially want to be sure they are around for a while. Thielert has deep pockets and has been putting their money where their mouth is for a few years now and already has certifed installations.

 

[RVbySDI]

How is Wilksch financially? I think buyers over here especially want to be sure they are around for a while. Thielert has deep pockets and has been putting their money where their mouth is for a few years now and already has certifed installations.

All may be true but how does that help us if they will not sell to experimental builders?

 

[rv6ejguy]

I think that engine companies fade away on a regular basis and there is no way I'd drop 20-30K on something unless it is well supported. Just asking the question. When some of the original people leave a company like this, misfortune is often close behind. I hope, not in this case.

I was merely hoping that Thielert would see the light in talking to Vans about a collaboration that would benefit users and themselves.

The 1.7 engines have demonstrated fuel flow vs. TAS close to 40% better than Lycomings at 10-12K and straight SFCs around 25% better.