Diesel/Jet A Piston Engine

[MTpilot47]

I was at OSHKOSH this year and EPS has a Jet A/Diesel engine, 8 cylinder, turbo charged, intercooler, Liquid Cooled, full FADIC control, 425 HP.
EPS.aero Burns 10.5 Gallons of Jet A per hour at 60% power, Prop RPM of 2000.  Should be certified early next year.  They are projecting a TBO of 3000 hours.

How would it be to have the power of a 680 that burns 20 gallons per hour of Jet A fuel?

[drwho67]

I was at OSHKOSH this year and EPS has a Jet A/Diesel engine, 8 cylinder, turbo charged, intercooler, Liquid Cooled, full FADIC control, 425 HP.
EPS.aero Burns 10.5 Gallons of Jet A per hour at 60% power, Prop RPM of 2000.  Should be certified early next year.  They are projecting a TBO of 3000 hours.

How would it be to have the power of a 680 that burns 20 gallons per hour of Jet A fuel?

Check out DIAMOND Piston Twin DA 42 or DA 62 they are interesting TWINS but I guess that is heresy here.

Brian

[MTpilot47]

If you look at Continental's web site, these little engines at 155HP have a Time before replacement of 2100 hours.  You buy a new engine at 2100 hours.  You also replace the gear box at 600 hours.  You would have to have three of these engines to equal one 425HP engine.  EPS talked about running their engine on a dyno up to 450HP just to see if they can break it.  It is still running, I am told.  This is an engine for the 685 or 680V or any other Twin Commander.

[Adam Frisch]

In the Aerostar world (when I owned one) there was a lot of excitement for this engine. Some owners invested in the company. I really hope they bring it to market and succeed, as it seems like a great engine and from a company that has the right tools to be able to succeed (as opposed to DeltaHawk and many others who've just been taking peoples money for decades). Unfortunately, I don't see the economics working out. The competition from a used turbine is just too big, and the number of sales not enough. I really wish I'm wrong, but these engine will realistically cost $150k/each. Then someone needs to develop the STC to put it on a 500, 680, 685 etc or even a 680V or 690. That's going to be at least $50K/side for that STC. All of a sudden you're now spending $200K/side, or $400K to update an old 685. For that, you can get into a turbine that has twice the TBO and will go much faster. People spending half a mill, will move to a turbine is my guess. 

I think this engine will live and die on OEM. It's retrofit business will be marginal. But I really hope they succeed.

[ghancock]

I agree with Adam.  Thinking of putting one on my airplane along would be daunting.  You'd have to have new cowlings, intake, exhaust, I'm sure the diesels weigh more than the lycoming/continentals and you'd need new wiring and cabling...  It would be a massive job. On the surface it sounds awesome, so does me putting turbines on my plane :-) .  But at the end of the day it is almost always a better idea to just get a new airplane that fits your new needs.

So who do I call to get these put on my airplane :-)

Glenn

[donv]

Why would you go to the trouble of STCing one of these engines over a small turboprop engine, like an Allison or Walter?

For the sub-200 hp market, I can see why diesel makes sense in areas where avgas is hard to come by (and some day, that might include the US, but probably not in my lifetime). But given the turbine alternatives for 250hp and above, I can't see why you would do this.

[MTpilot47]

The answer as to why is simple.  This diesel engine burns 1/2 the fuel that a AVGAS engines uses and cost 25% less in the USA.  Overseas where AVGAS in not available, but Jet Is at low prices, it make all kinds of value.

A turbine has a hot section at 1800 to 2500 hours at a cost of $95,000.  This engine has a TBO of 3000 hours and a cost of about 1/2 of a turbine hot section.  You may have to replace injectors or glow plugs along the way.

It may not make sense for someone that only flies 100 hours per year.  The customers will be commercial operators that fly 400-600 hours per year and the number work. 

Our first customer has 18 Cessna 402's. 

[donv]

I guess I can see why it makes sense on a 402... how does the 402 with diesels compare to the 406?

The availability of fuels is the big thing, but again, you can also fix that through a turbine conversion.

Where you might find some interest in Commanders would be in the 500s-- there are enough airframes in use that it could make sense there, especially in over-water applications (like the Bahamas, for instance).

[ghancock]

Hey,  there are at least 3 flying 680FP's damnit, I want one too :-)

Glenn

[JimC]

I was at OSHKOSH this year and EPS has a Jet A/Diesel engine, 8 cylinder, turbo charged, intercooler, Liquid Cooled, full FADIC control, 425 HP.
EPS.aero Burns 10.5 Gallons of Jet A per hour at 60% power, Prop RPM of 2000.  Should be certified early next year.  They are projecting a TBO of 3000 hours.

How would it be to have the power of a 680 that burns 20 gallons per hour of Jet A fuel?

No offense, but I'm pretty sure I've seen this post on the internet every August since 1995 - just play mad-libs and fill in the blanks.

"I was at OSHKOSH this year and <insert name of under-financed engine development company>  has a Jet A/Diesel engine, <insert any even number> cylinder, turbo charged, intercooled, Liquid Cooled, full FADEC control, <insert some number greater than the HP of what's on your wing today> HP.
Burns <insert some number less than your current fuel flow> Gallons of Jet A per hour at 60% power, Prop RPM of 2000.  Should be certified early <insert "next year" - it's always next year>.  They are projecting a TBO of <insert any number over 2400> hours."

[ghancock]

Lol. So true