Alternate Engine

[Jim Meade]

Flight Design is installing the Continental IO 360 AF (alternate fuel - auto gas) in the C4. It looks like we can start talking about Continentals on this site.

What other engines has Flight Design looked at or would you look at for a CT series plane?

Lycoming http://www.lycoming.com/

Continental http://www.continentalmotors.aero/

Jabiru http://www.usjabiru.com/

Viking http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/

UL Power http://www.ulpower.com/

Rotec http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

Limbach http://www.limflug.de/en/products/engines-76kw-125kw.php

Verner http://www.vernermotor.com/old/indexdd6f.html?sec=4

Deltahawk http://www.deltahawkengines.com/diesel00.shtml

Sauer http://www.sauer-flugmotorenbau.de/

And many more, some noted above and some too small but others may be of interest at

http://www.pilotmix.com/ultralight-engines

 

The Viking is getting some traction in the US, with installations in Rans, Zenith and RV.

 

Auto gas and jet/diesel are interesting, as 100LL days are numbered and the fuel infrastructure already supports Jet A. Auto fuel or an alternate 100LL could replace 100LL in airport pumps, and the nod will go to a fuel that works in big bore flat engines like the IO-520, 540 and so forth, so auto gas may not have much chance.

[FastEddieB]

Just for background...

 

...diesel engines such as these have been "right around the corner" for at least 10 years.

 

And with the Continental, at least, get used to prices like this:

 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/champsprkplugs.php

[WmInce]

Just for background...

 

...diesel engines such as these have been "right around the corner" for at least 10 years.

 

And with the Continental, at least, get used to prices like this:

 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/champsprkplugs.php

 

Thanks, but no thanks.

I am perfectly happy chugging along in my CTSW at 4.3/gph.

To each his own, eh?

[FastEddieB]

Just caught myself in a rare (?) error.

 

Diesels don't use spark plugs!

 

[Doug G.]

Thanks, but no thanks.

I am perfectly happy chugging along in my CTSW at 4.3/gph.

To each his own, eh?

I agree, I prefer my Rotax to a lowered compression, "derated" IO-360, old style, oil burning engine. It is touted as an advance when it is actually a step backwards as far as I can tell.

[WmInce]

It burns Jet-A...you know the fuel that doesn't dump lead on kids on the ground like those using 100LL.  The diesel option is a customer demand.  Some people have a conscience about lead, and getting lower cost fuels.

 

Holier than than thou . . . condescending crap.

[Tom Baker]

It burns Jet-A...you know the fuel that doesn't dump lead on kids on the ground like those using 100LL.  The diesel option is a customer demand.  Some people have a conscience about lead, and getting lower cost fuels.

 

The de-rated IO-360 does not burn jet fuel!

[Tom Baker]

Just for background...

 

...diesel engines such as these have been "right around the corner" for at least 10 years.

 

And with the Continental, at least, get used to prices like this:

 

http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/eppages/champsprkplugs.php

 

Eddie, I know you caught your error, but the cost of sparkplugs is a poor way to compare cost. Yes the aviation plugs cost more, but they get cleaned, teasted, and run for several hundreds of hours. I just replaced a set in a Cardinal that had 700 hours, and a few were just starting to get close to the go/no go point. The little NGK plugs that we use get replaced often. I replace at 100 hour and condition inspections. They really should be replaced anytime they are removed, because the gasket is intended to be one time use. Anyway if you figure cost per sparkplug hole compared to time you will likely spend more for the little NGK than a Champion aircraft sparkplug.

[Doug G.]

Hamburgers, I didn't say anything about that engine, did I? This forum is about many things...saying a gopro camera doesn't burn any fuel makes as much sense in the thread!

Look again, see the IO-360AF? That was the topic of discussion! It does not burn Jet-A, does it?

[Jim Meade]

Does anyone know if Flight Design tested any engine other than Rotax for the CT?

Does anyone know of any FD that has been reengined with other than a Rotax?

It's a curious trait of human nature that as soon as an alternative is mentioned, many people get defensive about what they have rather than discussing the merits and demerits of the other engine.

Some alternative engines have more power than a Rotax, for example. Some have a larger U.S. mechanic and parts base. Some have a mixture control. Some have a long history of fuel injection. We have different turbo charging options.

The Viking is based on a well-proven car engine, but one acquaintance questioned the accessory quality. That is the kind of discussion we could all benefit from.

[Anticept]

Let's amuricanize our planes with these diesels!

 

[Tom Baker]

The Continental CD-155 which is based on the Thielert Centurion 2.0 turbocharged diesel Flight Design is offering customers on the C4 DOES BURN JET-A.  It's why they are offering it.  And this thread is about the engines going into the C4.

Maybe you should read the post you are quoting before you start typing your response. Go back and look at post #7 for an example.

[Tom Baker]

Jim, I am not aware of any other engine being used or tried in the CT. There are no a lot of engines in the power and weight range of the Rotax 912 that would work well with the airframe. They did experiment with the Rotax 914 hybrid power plant in the planning stage for the C4.

[sandpiper]

I keep hearing the C-4 will cruise 155KTAS with diesel option and 165KTAS with gas. I hope they are right but I won't believe it until I see customer owned aircraft actually making those numbers.

[Doug G.]

A ) Burgers, you didn't say anything about talking about a different engine in that post. So the fault ifs yours if you were talking about a different engine. I was referring to what everyone was actually talking about - the IO-360AF.

B ) I was also going by what the FD C4 news site says-

http://www.flightdesign.com/index.php?page=c4_timeline

C ) !!!!!

[Jim Meade]

Well, we're giving the Connie a good working over.

I'm thinking rather strongly about a n on_Rotax engine for my next plane, which I intend to build to replace my Champ. Or, I could re-engine my CTSW and use that Rotax 912 ULS for the new plane.

Since I fly mostly solo, I'm not quite as concerned about weight. For longer trips, I like to get up high and use the higher TAS so a turbo is of great interest to me. So is an injected engine, so that I can precisely control the air-fuel mixture. In that vein, maybe a different carburetor or a HACman addition to the Bing would be worth pursuing.

Some of the listed alternate engines are not well known and may have distribution problems or weak support. That is one factor in looking at engines. At the same time, maybe we get more open discussion of the engine, a broader base of knowledge, such as with the Lycomings, Continental and perhaps the Viking. It is quite tempting to know that there is a good Honda mechanic in nearly every good sized town.

As you can tell, my next plane will be my own E-AB or ELSA so I can work on the engine and sign it off.

[S4Flier]

For an EAB that is in the general LSA weight class, I'd be checking out the Viking.  110HP on 178 lbs is probably around the 912i, is designed to handle ethanol and should have readily available parts.  I also saw a youtube with a Turbo version of the plane which jumps it up to 130hp for an extra $3K: 

[FlyingMonkey]

I don't care about any of this engine crap, I just want to find a way to get more lead into the environment.  

[FlyingMonkey]

For an EAB that is in the general LSA weight class, I'd be checking out the Viking.  110HP on 178 lbs is probably around the 912i, is designed to handle ethanol and should have readily available parts.  I also saw a youtube with a Turbo version of the plane which jumps it up to 130hp for an extra $3K: 

 

Ooh, scary.  Jan Eggenfellner has had a very spotty history of delivery, and has stiffed customers before on other engine projects.

 

I think the Viking is probably a very decent engine, but I don't trust the source.

[ralarcon]

I don't care about any of this engine crap, I just want to find a way to get more lead into the environment.  

 

 

LOL

 

Cheers

[WmInce]

I don't care about any of this engine crap, I just want to find a way to get more lead into the environment.  

 

Right on Andy! . . .

[IrishAl]

Flight Design is installing the Continental IO 360 AF (alternate fuel - auto gas) in the C4. It looks like we can start talking about Continentals on this site.

What other engines has Flight Design looked at or would you look at for a CT series plane?

Lycoming http://www.lycoming.com/

Continental http://www.continentalmotors.aero/

Jabiru http://www.usjabiru.com/

Viking http://www.vikingaircraftengines.com/

UL Power http://www.ulpower.com/

Rotec http://www.rotecradialengines.com/

Limbach http://www.limflug.de/en/products/engines-76kw-125kw.php

Verner http://www.vernermotor.com/old/indexdd6f.html?sec=4

Deltahawk http://www.deltahawkengines.com/diesel00.shtml

Sauer http://www.sauer-flugmotorenbau.de/

And many more, some noted above and some too small but others may be of interest at

http://www.pilotmix.com/ultralight-engines

 

The Viking is getting some traction in the US, with installations in Rans, Zenith and RV.

 

Auto gas and jet/diesel are interesting, as 100LL days are numbered and the fuel infrastructure already supports Jet A. Auto fuel or an alternate 100LL could replace 100LL in airport pumps, and the nod will go to a fuel that works in big bore flat engines like the IO-520, 540 and so forth, so auto gas may not have much chance.

Jim, 

 

If you're thinking about an alternative engine, I'd like to offer a few thoughts.

 

Avoid the Jabiru.  Their original engine manufacturer went bust and they took the (bad, in my view) decision to design their own.  It seems it was a rush job and it has been troublesome from the outset.  There's lots of them here in the UK and they are consistently troublesome across a range of issues.

 

The UL Power is well thought of, and I has a new competitor from Belgium called the D Motor, which is a genuine flathead design.

 

However, there's another one that might meet your need for a turbo and it's the best of the crop of new aero engines in my view. It's a 3 cylinder 1.0 litre diesel with turbo charger & common rail direction injection, making 100hp max and using just 7 litres per hour at 95kts cruise - that's 1.75 US gallons!  You might find that hard to believe, but diesel technology has come on in leaps and bounds in recent years.

The most attractive thing about this engine is that it is a completely unaltered production Mercedes engine from front to back.  All the R & D has been done and it has many years of reliable service in European Smart cars.

 

The Continental diesel engine mentioned in this post by Burgers is also based on a Mercedes engine but it's completely re-engineered and has had it's own share of problems as a result.   Fly Eco are wisely riding on Mercedes' back.

 

I can't help but think that if a unit like this could get some traction in the aviation world it could very quickly become a real competitor for the Rotax ULS.  I'm a real fan of modern diesel engines, particularly for their high torque, low fuel consumption and long range.

 

Here's a Paul Bertorelli report on the engine.

 

 

L

 

 

[IrishAl]

Here's more detail, on both a petrol and diesel alternative, as well as a flying example.

http://www.ecofly.de/english.htm

[FastEddieB]

I'm salivating!

 

Want one in my Sky Arrow!

[Jim Meade]

Very interesting! I'd not heard of that one before.