co2bruce Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 Have you read the report from Oshkosh about the new Cessna 182 NXT. Turbo Deisel 230 HP that burns Jet A. Reportedly burns 11 gal hour and produces 230 HP. The Cessna reports 155 kits , that would push the Mooney at about Mach 1? Seriously I woudn't mind that being my next engine.
jetdriven Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 515,000$ list price, and I bet the 155 KTAS is quoted at 20,000'. Otherwise, its likely the same as the other 182s, around 135-140 knots. Remember that last "new" diesel 182, the Thielert? One more thing, 11 GPH at 75% power is a .43 BSFC. Worse than gasoline piston engines. However, the major benefit is using the plane in places where 100LL gasoline is not available, such as Africa.
co2bruce Posted July 24, 2012 Author Report Posted July 24, 2012 It produces 230 HP, I don't know what it weighs but it should push the Mooney at at least 160 - 170 kits. Jet A is the future and we all must look forward. I did notice the price but that should come down. At the current rate 100 LL is going to be 15.00 gallon in a few years, if it's available.
jackn Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 I was thinking the same. I undrstand that it is rated for 90" of MP and cruises at 60"! The Turbo is really screaming.
AndyFromCB Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 Quote: jetdriven 515,000$ list price, and I bet the 155 KTAS is quoted at 20,000'. Otherwise, its likely the same as the other 182s, around 135-140 knots. Remember that last "new" diesel 182, the Thielert? One more thing, 11 GPH at 75% power is a .43 BSFC. Worse than gasoline piston engines. However, the major benefit is using the plane in places where 100LL gasoline is not available, such as Africa.
M016576 Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 Quote: jetdriven 515,000$ list price, and I bet the 155 KTAS is quoted at 20,000'. Otherwise, its likely the same as the other 182s, around 135-140 knots. Remember that last "new" diesel 182, the Thielert? One more thing, 11 GPH at 75% power is a .43 BSFC. Worse than gasoline piston engines. However, the major benefit is using the plane in places where 100LL gasoline is not available, such as Africa.
ChrisH Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 Wikipedia is our friend http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMA_SR305-230 Talks about conversion programs at $75,000 for Cessna's in 2008, not bad. But the weight could be the problem, 430lbs dry. If Mooney was going to make a come-back re-fitting aircraft, I think this (or another high efficiency Jet-A engine) would be the way to go, given that when China opens it's market it's only going to have Jet-A. Course, then all of our Mooney's might get more expensive if a new demand from a new market emerged. Chris - N1163D
Immelman Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 Now you all know I love my Mooney, but... If Cessna can deliver on these claims they have a really nice, solid, capable utility plane that's approaching Mooney efficiency. If its true and not just marketing fluff, color me impressed.
jetdriven Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 at 515K its definately approaching new Ovation pricing.
podair Posted July 24, 2012 Report Posted July 24, 2012 There are quite a few C182s in Europe converted with the SMA engine (230hp). They are certainly not 155kt aircraft... When SMA launched the engine a while ago (mid 1990s?), the TB20 was the launch aircraft, Maule had an OEM variant, and Cirrus looked at it too early 2000s. SMA also planned to look at Piper Senecas, Aztecs, Cherokee 6, A36s and... M20s! So there is hope! I think I might even have an email from them listing what they were looking at. In the end I think they only finished the 182 STC and the OEM Maule all the way to certification. From what I heard it is a good engine and directly designed for aircraft use (as opposed to adapting an automotive one like Thielert), but it had its share of initial troubles, which is why Cirrus abandoned the idea. However SMA entered into an agreement with Continental a couple years ago I think, which hopefully ironed out some of the quirks. As always however, the retrofit option is probably not going to be economical, at least 2 or 3 times the cost of an overhaul, so only worth it if you fly a lot of hours , Jet A1 cheaper (half the cost of avgas in Europe), or can't get avgas at all!
jackn Posted July 25, 2012 Report Posted July 25, 2012 http://www.aopa.org/oshkosh/2012/news/120724continental-motors-unveils-plans-for-trio-of-diesels.html The plot thickens.
jackn Posted July 25, 2012 Report Posted July 25, 2012 I see a pattern. Chinese buy TCM, shut down Mattituck, Build new engines in China, You need a new engine?
co2bruce Posted July 25, 2012 Author Report Posted July 25, 2012 You guys can fight it all you want but I believe Avgas will disappear sooner than we would like. It won't be he environmentalists it will be the costs. As his article states, it represents only 1% a best of the gasoline market. http://www.epi-eng.com/aircraft_engine_products/demise_of_avgas.htm
Recommended Posts