Diesel C-172

This forum has been developed to discuss aviation related topics.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog

Post Reply
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4318
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Diesel C-172

Post by 2R »

Anyone flown one yet ?
Any thoughts on the conversion ?
---------- ADS -----------
 
avieye
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by avieye »

It is an expensive conversion, and at this time has a 1200 TBO. Unless you have limited access to avgas, or high utilization the numbers do not really justify the expense.

The engine is running at fairly high continous speed for a deisel, as the propeller is geared.

As far as I can see, there was not a great deal of consideration given to cold weather starting.

PM me if you have any specific technical questions, and I will try to answer them.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by 7ECA »

Flew two out of three of them at CZBB (CFC has two, the other belongs to International Flight Centre, and last I saw of it, it was prop-less).

CFC's birds are Thielert conversions, TDI is a R model, while TAE is a P model 172. All in all, they are good planes, and I ended up with around 65 hours between the two while time building for my CPL. Five gallons an hour in cruise, burning JetA (which is always fun to order at other airports, when you say type is a 172), FADEC, constant speed MT prop, extended endurance, and much quieter.

The issues, that I found, was the heavier fuel (7 pounds/gallon for Jet, versus 6 pounds/gallon AvGas) - the R model can hold 47 gallons, so you end up with very little payload at full tanks. Normal category only, no spins, so limited use for training, other than time building. Your cruise TAS is lower, so it will take a bit longer to get there. And the Diesels don't particularly like cooler weather - the coldest I started one was around -5°C and it was not an easy start. Another consideration with the Thielert's are the 1500 hour gear box replacements, no way to get around it. And from what I've heard, getting parts can be a real pain.
---------- ADS -----------
 
avieye
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by avieye »

Afer reading 7ECA, please note, I thought you were referencing the new Continental EC 135 or 155 that Cessna is planning to put in their 172 as OEM.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
FenderManDan
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:40 am
Location: Toilet, Onterible

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by FenderManDan »

Spoke with buch of people this year At Oshkosh about the brand new 172 with the D engines and experts claim that it is not worth it at over $400k. The gist is that if the 100LL is not available as in some parts of Africa, Asia then it opens the opportunity for cessna to sell training aircraft.

On our continent you will never break even as long as there is other fuel types and alternatives.
---------- ADS -----------
 
7ECA
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1281
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2014 4:33 pm

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by 7ECA »

avieye wrote:Afer reading 7ECA, please note, I thought you were referencing the new Continental EC 135 or 155 that Cessna is planning to put in their 172 as OEM.
Might be good to know whether or not 2R is referring to conversions, or the new 172's.
---------- ADS -----------
 
avieye
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 6:28 am

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by avieye »

Fendermandan.

I was also at Oshkosh. Who, specifically, were the experts you spoke with that made the comments you attributed to them. The Continental engine for the C 172 had not yet been certified when Oshkosh was held. It was only the C182s on display that had the Continental diesel engines installed.

The impression I took away from the various seminars and meetings with Cessna officials was auite different than those that you suggest.

So, I ask again. Please identify your expert sources.
---------- ADS -----------
 
GyvAir
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1804
Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 7:09 pm

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by GyvAir »

avieye wrote:It is an expensive conversion, and at this time has a 1200 TBO. Unless you have limited access to avgas, or high utilization the numbers do not really justify the expense.
avieye wrote:Afer reading 7ECA, please note, I thought you were referencing the new Continental EC 135 or 155 that Cessna is planning to put in their 172 as OEM.
FenderManDan wrote:Spoke with buch of people this year At Oshkosh about the brand new 172 with the D engines and experts claim that it is not worth it at over $400k. The gist is that if the 100LL is not available as in some parts of Africa, Asia then it opens the opportunity for cessna to sell training aircraft.

On our continent you will never break even as long as there is other fuel types and alternatives.
avieye wrote:Fendermandan.

I was also at Oshkosh. Who, specifically, were the experts you spoke with that made the comments you attributed to them. The Continental engine for the C 172 had not yet been certified when Oshkosh was held. It was only the C182s on display that had the Continental diesel engines installed.

The impression I took away from the various seminars and meetings with Cessna officials was auite different than those that you suggest.

So, I ask again. Please identify your expert sources.
avieye: Looks to me like Fendermandan more or less paraphrased what you had written earlier. Why is it misinformation when he writes it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
2R
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4318
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 2:25 pm
Location: left coast

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by 2R »

I was looking at the conversion kit for a plane that might be going around the world .Some parts of the world Avgas is hard to get .
The success of the C-172 was the versatility .
I was just trying to determine if the time was right for going diesel. Loads of ex-military diesels might be available as surplus for kit planes if peace breaks out :)
There has been a lot of research into Diesels for cars I was just trying to determine if anyone has transferred that technology for aircraft use.
Gearboxes scare me ,I would want a chip detector ,but that is just me I am getting less bolder the older I get :)
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
FenderManDan
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:40 am
Location: Toilet, Onterible

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by FenderManDan »

avieye wrote:Fendermandan.

I was also at Oshkosh. Who, specifically, were the experts you spoke with that made the comments you attributed to them. The Continental engine for the C 172 had not yet been certified when Oshkosh was held. It was only the C182s on display that had the Continental diesel engines installed.

The impression I took away from the various seminars and meetings with Cessna officials was auite different than those that you suggest.

So, I ask again. Please identify your expert sources.
Perhaps my punctuation confused you. I was typing on the phone with the silly keyboard. :D Cessna has a special cert and that is why is 1200 hrs for now. IIRC, I read a month ago or so that Piper is closer to getting it certified for 1800 or 2000 TBO with the same Continental setup.

These "experts" as I call them are bunch of guys with mixed aviation and engineering backgrounds during the light hearted chat around the plane. I agreed with the opinion that if you are in the position that 100LL is not available and MOGAS is of non controlled cocktail, then it's worth looking at the new Cessna Diesel variant.

I am not sure how it would work out if someone converted the avgas older platform to diesel. What kind of hoops would you need to go through in regards to the paperwork.

I don't know it just seems wrong to have C172 with the diesel her in Canada and US. Why not converting the C206 workhorse?
---------- ADS -----------
 
Meddler
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 3:18 pm

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by Meddler »

Someone said 400K. You won't catch me paying that for anything with pistons.

Someday soon a student pilot will climb into an aircraft for the first time, hear the tic tic tic whoosh of a turbine, and never know what it's like to be connected to the complex synchronized ever-changing roar of a piston engine all day.
Kinda sad, but we might as well get on with it. There should be relatively affordable small turbine conversions for everything.
---------- ADS -----------
 
iflyforpie
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 8132
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 12:25 pm
Location: Winterfell...

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by iflyforpie »

Not likely. The specific fuel consumption of a turbine is still too high, the capital costs astronomical, and the maintenance costs fairly hefty too.

What turbine are you going to get for $400K? A Quest Kodiak or Piper Meridian are over 2 million each if we're going to do an apples to apples comparison of a brand new, certified, and fully supported turbine aircraft. If Cessna were to do a version of the 206 with an Allison 250... there is no way the price would be under 1 million.

Even if there were a certified turbine engine in the 200HP range for a 172... you'd have to look for a place to land as soon as you were airborne because of the lack of fuel capacity.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Geez did I say that....? Or just think it....?
niss
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6745
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 8:54 pm
Location: I'm a CPL trapped in a PPL's Body.
Contact:

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by niss »

iflyforpie wrote:What turbine are you going to get for $400K?
I'll build you one out of some old turbo chargers for the bargain price of $50K a piece.

You can trust me. I'm an Enginear.
---------- ADS -----------
 
She’s built like a Steakhouse, but she handles like a Bistro.

Let's kick the tires, and light the fires.... SHIT! FIRE! EMERGENCY CHECKLIST!
User avatar
AOW
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 465
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Re: Diesel C-172

Post by AOW »

7ECA wrote: The issues, that I found, was the heavier fuel (7 pounds/gallon for Jet, versus 6 pounds/gallon AvGas) - the R model can hold 47 gallons, so you end up with very little payload at full tanks.
On the other hand, don't forget that you actually burn fuel in pounds, so this leads to even more endurance. I would be interested in seeing the comparison of payload for a given range, comparing the diesel with the petrol burning version. As with many aeroplanes, you can get range or payload, but not both.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Post Reply

Return to “General Comments”