Wow - I coulda had a V8.

[aviatoreb]

Not this one

 

So have you all followed this company EPS that makes a really interesting V8 diesel?  The performance specs are amazing.

https://eps.aero/is-your-aircraft-an-stc-candidate/

They are currently certifying it for the Cirrus and asking who else wants one.  Huh!  Maybe I do!  WHO ELSE? Anyway, if you might go over and fill in their STC interest page for Mooney.  BTW it is supposedly a 320-450 HP solution, so a tad bit high for the M20, but I would think if 310 works - what does an extra 10 hp hurt?

Check out the performance curves, and fuel flow curves.  They are remarkable.  I don't think this is vaporware, and they have already been test flying in the Cirrus - by Dick Rutan no less.   http://eps.aero/the-eps-engine/flight-testing/    Supposedly they are "a year away from certification" so goes the ol' Oshkosh song.  And they are reaching out to probe interest - esp to Beech and Cirrus.  But I think this would be fantastic on an M20.

Edited August 6, 2017 by aviatoreb

[Mcstealth]

My only question is that of weight. In General terms, aren't Diesel engines heavier than their gas counterparts?

[aviatoreb]

4 minutes ago, Mcstealth said:

My only question is that of weight. In General terms, aren't Diesel engines heavier than their gas counterparts?

I don't know - I can't find the weight - but they claim it is lighter - even with the liquid cooling.  It is compacted graphite iron - whatever that is... ANd they claim it is lighter relative to the equivalent aluminum weight for a given strength.

On this page there is a picture of it on the nose of a cirrus - click on the liquid cooling button.

https://eps.aero/the-eps-engine/reliability-safety-durability/

Huh - they claim 3000TBO and they claim 230hp would take 10gph.  That 230 is like running my 305hp TSIO520NB at 75%...which takes a lot more than 10gph.

[KSMooniac]

IIRC it is around 50-60 lbs heavier than a typical turbo continental in the 300 hp range. Cost is also greater than 100k before any additional STC/mod/instl costs.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

IIRC it is around 50-60 lbs heavier than a typical turbo continental in the 300 hp range. Cost is also greater than 100k before any additional STC/mod/instl costs.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

Yeah - didn't say it was going to be easy.  And I would think long and hard before spending an extra 100k myself.  But I would love to have the option.  If this thing really did show that kind of fuel specifics, and TBO, then it would be a legit decision financially to spend the extra on the engine to save at the fuel pump and overhaul.  Just saying if....

OTOH in places like Europe with higher fuel prices even easier.

And in some parts of the world avgas is very rare.

I already saved 35lbs off my original prop by switching to an MT four blade.

Can you imagine the range running 10gph at 230hp?  I would say you could go coast-coast non stop relatively easy.

I think this thing would have a place.

Also in applications where it would make sense to tune it to 420hp, it becomes a turbine competitor, at much better fuel specifics.  Eg, some twins.

[KSMooniac]

I think it will be very viable on the "working twins" that run lots of power and fuel, and fly frequently. It wouldn't taker long for those economics to pencil out. If we could get an installation kit for $60-80K it would be feasible for our class of plane...we'll see!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[aviatoreb]

21 minutes ago, KSMooniac said:

I think it will be very viable on the "working twins" that run lots of power and fuel, and fly frequently. It wouldn't taker long for those economics to pencil out. If we could get an installation kit for $60-80K it would be feasible for our class of plane...we'll see!

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

A separate possibility - is if this really is a 420hp engine derated to ?310?320?  Then it might be happy running at 250/260/270 Hp continuously easy and that would make a very very fast Mooney!  So separate from economics is the need for speed which is always beyond all rational decisions.  People would buy it.

[shorrick mk2]

For what it is worth,  Continental has just certified a six cylinder turbodiesel that puts out 300hp at takeoff, runs up to 25k feet, has a 285hp continuous power rating, and is only 3kg heavier than the Acclaim TSIO-550.

http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=106&Year=2017&NewsID=186&L=1

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by shorrick mk2

[Guest]

Interesting that the test flight was 3-1/2 years ago. I don't see many gold and gray engine going to the retirement home anytime soon.

Clarence

[RLCarter]

RedBird in San Marcus TX is doing 172 conversions, very pricey with a higher TBO. My question is what will Diesel or Jet-A do to the sealants in our tanks

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, shorrick mk2 said:

For what it is worth,  Continental has just certified a six cylinder turbodiesel that puts out 300hp at takeoff, runs up to 25k feet, has a 285hp continuous power rating, and is only 3kg heavier than the Acclaim TSIO-550.

http://www.continentaldiesel.com/typo3/index.php?id=106&Year=2017&NewsID=186&L=1

 

That sounds promising.

[ArtVandelay]

I'd rather have a turbine engine, RR has one that's the same size and weight of the 550 and puts out 300+ HP.

[Wildhorsesracing]

It's only a matter of time before we all run Jet-A, this is all promising news.

[aviatoreb]

Just now, teejayevans said:

I'd rather have a turbine engine, RR has one that's the same size and weight of the 550 and puts out 300+ HP.

No me - not necessarily - I could see a diesel that is significantly more reliable than current aviation pistons, and this one claims 40% more efficient than a standard avgas diesel, and massively more efficient than a turbine.  If 300hp is the goal, and below 20k, and fuel efficient, then diesel is the leader in my opinion.  600hp....high altitude, 25k, turbine no question.

I dream of a 450hp turbine mooney - but in reality - despite my pining for one - it doesn't make sense - you would need to carry so much fuel because it burns so much, that it would either be very heavy, or very short range.  I always loved the idea of that bonanza turbine conversion - and I wouldn't say I would never get one - but....I doubt it. 

 

[carusoam]

I recall sitting down with Erik... ( not that long ago...)

Discussing the next possible levels of Mooney power plants...

He likes his TC'd Rocket...

I've been a happy NA, IO550, more RPMs, the better, kind of guy...

 

1) The economy is expanding. Slowly, in a controlled manner 2% year over year....

2) Unemployment has been going down almost every month. 4.3% according to the federal gov.

2a) Inflation has been very well in the near non-existent area. Consumer price index shows 1+% inflation year over year...  https://www.bls.gov/cpi/news.htm

2b) raises in income look like they may begin to rise.... need a reference here...

3) The Mooney factory is turning out new models of the O and Acclaim.

4) Instrument Panels are being updated with the latest in hardware and software. Pilots don't get lost as often as they used to.

5) The price of fuel has leveled off at a useable level.  Technology improvement in horizontal drilling and oil exploration are impressive, and world politics has been quite stable with an 'ordinary' level of hiccups (not going any further on this topic)

6) people are carrying around pocket sized computers with color HD screens.. Giving them continuous access to weather and their growing retirement fund...

7) when is it time to get this back into this funky discussion...

8) I estimate, that I may be a buyer 10 years after the first one is mounted in a Mooney...  I just need to line up a few more stars once this one is in place...

9) From San Jose AOPA expo November 2008.   I believe that there were more-than-subtle signs the economy was in deep trouble, it was heading downhill quickly when I first saw this.  This was one of the last deck chairs being arranged at the time...

10) Its been a long strange trip over the last 10 years.  I hope the next 10 go a lot smoother....

Have at it, let me know your thoughts...

Best regards,

-a-

[triple8s]

7 hours ago, teejayevans said:

I'd rather have a turbine engine, RR has one that's the same size and weight of the 550 and puts out 300+ HP.

Now youre talkin!

[Mark89114]

16 hours ago, KSMooniac said:

IIRC it is around 50-60 lbs heavier than a typical turbo continental in the 300 hp range. Cost is also greater than 100k before any additional STC/mod/instl costs.

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

You summarized it accurately except for the cost....saw on another forum with installation $150k......do we need a new AMU?  That kind of money buys a lot of avgas.

[1964-M20E]

At 40 to 50hp per cylinder they are talking about expanding it to 12 cylinders for more HP.  Sounds like the 40's and 50's when they kept making the radial engines bigger and bigger.

For the EPS 8 cylinder at 85% or 300hp they are reporting 14.24GPH fuel flow and the Lycoming 32GPH.

For the EPS 8 cylinder at 90% or 316hp they are reporting 15.62GPH fuel flow and the Lycoming 34GPH.

For you guys flying the 300HP  or 310hp versions of the Mooney what fuel flows do you see at max HP just for a comparison to their claims of high fuel efficiency EPS is claiming 32GPH to 34GPH for the Lyc?  Can you run max HP straight and level continuous if so what is your fuel burn rate?

I think the economics would be hard pressed for K models and below unless you are already looking to get more speed from your Mooney by doing a Rocket conversion or something like that.   

I would mind seeing them do a 6 cylinder version and rate it at 300hp that would be nice for the M20 frame lighter than the V8 probably 15 to 20%.  Maybe that would put the weight somewhere between the 6cyl and 4cyl LYC.  Make it so you can put it on the F model and above.  I'm not sure if the shorter E& C frames would be good with a heavier more powerful engine out front but they would run like a scared cat though.  IMHO

 

[carusoam]

Book value for max FF setting according to the STC...  27.4 gph(?) some pilots prefer to set that up slightly higher for better CHT control. 28 or 29(?) or so...

There is something funny about the 310hp book number at 2700 rpm. It may be an under estimate of reality.  Fortunately, the engine is rated and used in other applications at much higher hp...

Want to have a great conversation..?  Talk to the guy who wrote the STC.  Take good notes. The interesting details come fast and deep... with all my practice,  I couldn't write fast enough! 

I have to rely on @StevenL757 to remind me of the author's name.  I think Cris urged me to make the call to get the details...

Its been about five years since I went through this effort...

keep in mind, acceleration from zero to climbing out at 2kfpm and arriving at 12,500' doesn't take that long... followed by cruising LOP at some decent efficiency goes on for quite some time.

Power, when you need it. Efficiency, when you want it... and the ability to set it up for the day.  If you wanted to run it like the original settings of the O1, you could, or the original (low power) Eagle settings if you wanted to....

Best regards,

-a-

 

[StevenL757]

Yep.  Bob Minnis (Minnis Aviation).  678, Three Six One, Five Six Niner Six.