Diesel 182 Emergency Landing

[KSMooniac]

This should be interesting... a prototype Cessna diesel 182 "blew an engine" yesterday and had to land in a field.  Fortunately no major damage/injury.

 

http://www.kansas.com/2013/08/23/2960058/plane-that-made-emergency-landing.html

 

 

[jetdriven]

nice find

[DS1980]

Like I've been saying this whole time, diesel is not the answer. Now, I need to go delete a few posts.

 

Maybe just had a setting wrong in the FADEC. Growing pains.

[David Mazer]

I'm really interested in the natural gas engine modification.  Now that sounds promising.  More power, less polution, no lead, much cheaper.  The engine modification seems minimal but the gas tank issue could be a challenge.

[FAST FLIGHT OPTIONS LLC]

I had a natural gas powered police car. The tanks in the trunk were literally hundreds of pounds.

[danb35]

Like I've been saying this whole time, diesel is not the answer.

Because engines fueled with 100LL have never blown up.  Seriously?  Diesel may or may not be the answer, but a single engine failure really isn't relevant at all to answering the question.

[DS1980]

Because engines fueled with 100LL have never blown up.  Seriously?  Diesel may or may not be the answer, but a single engine failure really isn't relevant at all to answering the question.

Wow, read my other posts. This was a sarcastic comment, as I'm all for diesel. I know that this is a forum where anyone can personally attack someone with anonymity, but don't be so hasty. I realize that one failure is not an accurate indication of reliability. 

What was my second sentence in the post? Wondering if it wasn't human error.

[danb35]

Obviously missed the sarcasm--sorry about that.  I've seen a few too many posts go that way (a single example of X failed -> X is crap), even on this very board.

 

Can't help but notice the irony, though, that the one talking about "anyone can personally attack someone with anonymity" is posting anonymously...

[aaronk25]

Well info think the technology that delta hawk diesel has is simpler and more efficient. Hopefully with the new bill in congress they will let certified GA aircraft use LSA certification requirements....then we could have a better diesel. Might be smoking something funny though......

[ChrisH]

Screw diesel, give me a fusion turbine, according to Back to the Future, Mr. Fusion is way past due, and let's not even talk Jetsons. It is nice to see someone trying to innovate in a very challenging market, hopefully it doesn't bankrupt someone, as seems to be the typical reward for GA innovation. 

[M016576]

Screw diesel, give me a fusion turbine, according to Back to the Future, Mr. Fusion is way past due, and let's not even talk Jetsons. It is nice to see someone trying to innovate in a very challenging market, hopefully it doesn't bankrupt someone, as seems to be the typical reward for GA innovation.

Best way to turn a big fortune into a small one: aviation....

[1964-M20E]

Best way to turn a big fortune into a small one: aviation....

Because of the excessive sucking sound from the FAA and the insane quantity of regulations and rules to adhere to and follow.

[Mooneymite]

My Mooney has a gasoline engine that is based on 1930's technology.

 

Fusion turbine?  Heck, I'd be happy if we could just bring our gasoline engines into the present century!

 

Innovation marches on.  The FAA protects us from it.

[AndyFromCB]

I love my Mooney. Once, and only once, there was a car I loved: a Honda S2000. Little, tiny 2.0 liter, smoother than a turbine, making 240hp out of regular fuel, 89, happy at 9000rpm all day long. If only, if only. That engine, during the entire time I've owned it, never saw less than 6000rpm. And yet, between the 10,000 mile oil changes, it never ate an ounce. A drunken monkey should be able to design an engine better than what we have. I would fly at night, low IFR and deep mountain airport behind any engine currently in one of my cars, however, I will not fly those conditions with my TIO540AF1B. 

[DS1980]

Obviously missed the sarcasm--sorry about that.  I've seen a few too many posts go that way (a single example of X failed -> X is crap), even on this very board.

 

Can't help but notice the irony, though, that the one talking about "anyone can personally attack someone with anonymity" is posting anonymously...

How else would I post? I can't imagine anyone feeling safe enough to give personal info over a forum. 

What's your name, date of birth, address and social security number?

Now with that being said, I am one of the most open minded and empathetic people you'll chat with on a forum. Always willing to help if I can.

[DS1980]

 I would fly at night, low IFR and deep mountain airport behind any engine currently in one of my cars, however, I will not fly those conditions with my TIO540AF1B. 

Have you been the sole operator of that engine since overhaul? If not, I'm with you. When I get into an airplane for the first time, I ask how the operators run the engine. If it's per the engine manufacturer's recommendations, I fake an illness.

[danb35]

How else would I post? I can't imagine anyone feeling safe enough to give personal info over a forum. 

What's your name, date of birth, address and social security number?

How else would you post?  Well, you could do as many here (including me) do and just use your name--mine appears in my sig at the bottom of each of my posts; others use it as their sign-on name.  You could also determine my address pretty easily if you were so inclined.  BeechTalk requires using your real name, and I tend to think that's a good idea, but obviously opinions vary on that.

[DS1980]

Naw, rather not.

Back to the topic.

Diesel is the answer.

[N201MKTurbo]

That engine, during the entire time I've owned it, never saw less than 6000rpm.

That is an awfully high idle speed.... Must have been hell in stop and go traffic.

[Alan Fox]

^{I always get a kick out of the auto - aviation comparison ,   Are car engines better ?  yes , but they don't run at 75% percent power , they probably average in the low 20 to 30 % percent of power on average.....Our aviation engines run at 100% probably almost 8% of their life ... Car engines usually NEVER see 75% ..... Food for thought......}

[aaronk25]

^{I always get a kick out of the auto - aviation comparison , Are car engines better ? yes , but they don't run at 75% percent power , they probably average in the low 20 to 30 % percent of power on average.....Our aviation engines run at 100% probably almost 8% of their life ... Car engines usually NEVER see 75% ..... Food for thought......}

And most new 360cu inch auto engines make 400+hp so 200hp is only 50% of 400hp. So the question really is % of what????

[jetdriven]

After you add the iron block, prop reduction drive, water cooling, EFI, etc etc etc it burns more gas, weighs more, and is not as reliable as an aircraft engine.  Thats the reason most auto conversions are not feasible, or else you would see more of them.  Even small aircraft diesels havent lived up to their claims, but this one or that copy Continental TD-300 might.

[DS1980]

Didn't Continental just buy the assets of some diesel company? I think Thielert? Maybe not. But regardless, they are in the diesel hunt now.

 

Update--page 38 of AOPA pilot.

 

Byron-135 through 230 horsepower. Working on a 350 horse version. Would you use one?