SMA Diesel- Any thoughts?

[morrisond]

What does everyone think of the new SMA diesel engine STC for 182's? I assume that due to different engine mounting it would be very difficult to put in an 260SE, but could it be done? How difficult would it be.

Is this the future of Single Engine Aviation? Single lever replacing three, projected TBO of 3000 hours, Very low Fuel burn(10GPH WOT of Jet-A, Manual Back up System(no electrical power needed to operate), Fadec, low noise.

Theoretically unless something is fundamentally wrong with the design, combine this engine with the 260Se airframe and a chute and you could enter another realm of single engine flight safety and economics(Capital cost not that much more than 260hp conversion).

Maule will have this engine from the Factory as an option in 2007, but have you seen the build quality?

Alternatively assuming you can't do an 260SE with Diesel, How close could you get to it's low speed performance with Wingxstol, Robertson Stol Kit and VG's(Known to work on canard-less 182's) and the SMA engine?

[morrisond]

Another neat tidbit is that TKS Deice is now available for 182's, Does Todd do anything to the leading edge of the wing on a 260Se so you couldn't use this system?

[kwmoore]

Another neat tidbit is that TKS Deice is now available for 182's, Does Todd do anything to the leading edge of the wing on a 260Se so you couldn't use this system?
No

I saw one on a 182 at the 2004 AOPA Expo in Long Beach. Keep in mind AFAIK it's NOT certified for FIKI--flight into known icing conditions. Therefore its use should be confined to facilitating escape from "inadvertent" icing encounters.

[kwmoore]

What does everyone think of the new SMA diesel engine STC for 182's?
Perhaps it has improved since 2002 when I saw one at AOPA Expo in Palm Springs, but what struck me the most was the smell. Just standing near the aircraft, let alone sitting in the cabin, the odor of jet fuel was prominent. Some folks like it I guess but after a half hour or so of flying with it I would be ill for sure, can't imagine how non-pilot passengers would react.

I thought the tail number should have been N104GB (ten-four, Good Buddy). :rolleyes:

I think it will be much more popular abroad where the price of jet fuel is dramatically lower (and availability much better) than Avgas.

Moreover one can run the IO-470 quite nicely at 10.5-12 gph lean-of-peak with good performance, narrowing considerably the fuel consumption gap. In the US the fuel cost differential is small; combined with the very high installation cost of the diesel engine--nearly equivalent to three IO-470s, installed--I just don't see the value proposition. Of course, some pilots just gotta have the latest new thing, so I'm sure some will be sold here.

[morrisond]

Never thought about the smell. That would make it a non-starter for me.

On the TKS, inadvertant iceing is all I would want it for. I live in Ontario which means lots of ice.

In iceing conditions do the Canards pick up a lot of ice? Assuming the TKS cleaned everything else(although the fluid coming off the prop might clean the canards), could the ice accumulating on the canards cause so much drag that it would cause problems? Or are they so small it really wouldn't matter?

The cost is about $23,000 installed which for those that have to deal with Ice seems like not a bad deal.

[LEVON HOPKINS]

In an inadverdent icing encounter on an ILS in Asheville, NC from 5000 down to 2700 picked up 1/2 on leading edges of wing and struts had 35 - 36 nearer bottom of same clouds. It was clear ice. I don't think there was any ice on the canard and none on the prop based on the ground after parking. Should have flown the approach at 120K but the encounter was less than 3 - 4 min. Sure would have like TKS, warm spit, or anything else certified or not. Also should have touch down around 80K but stalled at 68K with 20 degrees almost 18" above the runway....not smart...not good. Mains took the real load it was just "surprising" in ground effect etc. Took 54 min. for the ice to release. Three were on the approach with a Hawker 1st the 182 2nd and a Lance third...all in about 20 min. I was the only one with ice! So I used 80K the Hawker was 125K and the Lance was at 100K. Speed seems to be the answer here.
Saw another forum statement that the prop slinger kept the windshield clean and the owner would not have had the windshield unit installed if done again. I wonder how much ice/wt. would be over the cabin back to the tail. I think I'd install it everywhere the STC allowed. Certified planes are sometimes "overcome" so certification is good especially if the "fuel vents are HEATED," but not the real answer..."in" adverdently "out" with the plan. Once went IMC over Richmond, VA at 7,000 around July 5 with 102 degrees on the ground in a 1981 Mooney 201 at "full bore"...one cloud less than a mile through it...went from 156K to 101K descending 300'/min.. "the plan..was not going to let that laminar flow wing go below 100K if I had to point it straight down." Continued on at 7000 up to Dulles in an out of warm clouds. Levon PS: Diesel yes; but, I don't like first, second, or third I enjoy "late." I'm going for the 260 conversion when needed with Todd. PS PS Windows defroster had been on prior to cloud on the ILS and the PITOT HEAT and I was "pretty hot too!" All remain 95% clear

[n2099x]

I'm with Kevin, you could smell that diesel plane at AOPA 25 feet away. Also diesels can be hard starting even with an engine heater if everything is not set correctly.

How much ice the canard picks up is a good question. By the time it would have any the windows are already iced over. So who know's?

Glen

[LEVON HOPKINS]

Diesels I like. They're simpler, more reliable, more economical, and our "road" choice and where "real work" is involved...of course diesel. Trucks, tractors, and trains..cars, boats...and bull dozers...BUT..p l a n e s..not so sure. Put gas in a diesel pick-up once ran perfect for 20 min. then got a little rough finally figured it out the next day still running at about 180,000 S10 Chev. When the diesel plane is misfueled and it will be "misfueled" : the gas will probably not be on the bottom or will it?...maby it could fly for a while but I sure would want someone to "check it out" before it happen to me. WILL THE NEW ENGINE RUN ON 100LL begs for an answer. The "smell" I would consider a safety feature hum "must be a leak" but smelling "gas" is akin to sniffin a lighted dynamite fuse..not good. FINAL thought: Without bonifide experienced READILY AVAILABLE S E R V I C E or atleast mobile SERVICE....not interested at any price. Levon

[kwmoore]

What does everyone think of the new SMA diesel engine STC for 182's?
I found a post by Todd (http://www.260sepilots.org/forums/showthread.php?t=140) on his reaction to the diesel 182 at the 2002 AOPA Expo. It's about the third post down in the thread.

[Todd Peterson]

Just an update on the diesel question.

I have not considered a diesel because it is fundamentally too heavy. As we all know the flight characteristics of our airplanes are sensitive to weight at slow speeds and more weight on the nose is not what we want. In addition the intial cost is high and when operating the IO-470 engine LOP the savings in fuel is minimal. Finish that off with needing to find a shop able to quickly fix a diesel engine in the middle of no where and it becomes a non starter.

Regards,

[LEVON HOPKINS]

See Airworthiness Directive 2006-23-08 This AD applies to SMA SR305-230 and SR305-230-1 reciprocating engines. "Over a period of time, the alteration of one electronic control unit (ECU) electronic component can cause a rapid uncontrolled power increase. Several occurrences have already been reported during engine start or during engine warm-up. The event described in EASA AD can also occur in flight which can result in loss of control of the airplane."

We have American Bosch Systems using ECU's in our electronic fuel injection on 26 and 31HP motors with the 31 water cooled. The economy is unbelievable. Our 31HP uses less fuel than a 13HP Kawi Motor on basically same mower. BUT BUT let a spark hit the circuitry as in "jumping off" a weak battery and the ECU is out. We operate the circuits at 3 millionths of an amp. Any interruption as in water or even too much diaelectric grease causes problem. Another quirk is: Always disconnect the battery by disconnecting the positive 1st then the negative. After charging to reinstall we connect the negative first then the positive. And finally, never add or take away any electrical connection without first disconnecting the battery. There's more to learn but we've done it by experience. We distribute commercial mowers. There is opportunity for both good and bad. When it is sorted out, maby the diesels will be good.

Any diesel without a mechanical fuel shut off might be less than safe.

I like "proven" reliability as in Todd's IO470 STC or the PT6. Being first can be really expensive.

The above may not be appropriate in an aviation setting but then an ECU seems to have its' own way. Perhaps our four years of experience getting this system to market has certain "crossover" knowns and unknowns that some good info/experience might cause a second "look."

Would a lightning strike upset things? Dunno. Levon