Page 2 of 3

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:47 pm
by ememic99
chili4way wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 8:30 pm One of the reported differences between the cast iron core/block and the aluminum core/block is that the former can be overhauled and the latter cannot. This is not an issue for typical passenger vehicle automotive applications. Appreciate the history and perspectives of the previous posts on this thread. Thanks!
https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 181017.pdf
http://www.tmg-service.de/doc-download/ ... fetime.pdf

If you check EASA documents above for CD (Thielert/Cenurion) engines, you’ll see that only 1.7 (TAE 125-01) engine have TBR while 2.0 engines (TAE 125-02) have TBO (Note 7). However, I’m not aware of any overhaul done on CD engines.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 12:31 am
by TimS
CFIDave wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:47 pm
Colin wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 4:29 pm They re-certified to put the NG on the DA42 in the first place, it seems short-sighted not to use the opportunity to move up in engine technology. But I'm not writing the checks and I don't know what that effort cost them.
Diamond didn't have a choice back in 2008 with Thielert going bankrupt; it was temporarily stuck with DA42 airframes with no engines until the DA42NG with Austro engines was certified in 2009. So Diamond HAD to spend the money for AE300 certification.

Diamond today is in a completely different (i.e., MUCH better) position. But the economics of spending large sums of money to certify an all-new aviation engine that will only ship a few hundred per year are still unfavorable. That's why Lycoming and Continental are still building antiquated piston engines with tractor magnetos -- they can't afford to certify newer engines with so few engines being produced.
My question is how the FAR Part 23 rewrite affects this thinking. If Diamond Canada chose to go for FAA certification first it is should be much easier than back in 2009. Anecdotally, I have read a few times that Diamond spent 67 million Euro to get the AE300 certified with EASA. The budget certification estimate with the FAA at the time was over 200 million USD; apparently back then the FAA was harder to deal with for engines than EASA. (Reverse was true for airframes, FAA was easier to get deviations). In either case, they always honor the other countries certifications with minor caveats,
I have seen two companies requesting investment money with new proposed power plants with the FAA. One requesting 10 million USD, the other 20 million USD for certification portion. This is significantly less than the old numbers. The question, is what is reality?

Tim

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 2:04 am
by chili4way
Emir/ememic99: Thanks for the information about the differences between TAE 125-01 and 125-02. This was news to me. I looked at the current Continental Diesel offerings (CD-135 and CD-155) and these all show TBR (replacement), not TBO (overhaul). Not sure why...

http://www.continentalmotors.aero/diese ... gines.aspx.

Were Diamond to shift to a future all-aluminum engine to replace the cast iron OM640-based AE300 (DA40NG), I'd want to know what would be different in that design that would enable overhaul vs. replacement (and, importantly, what the price difference would be).

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2019 6:12 am
by ememic99
I seriously doubt on accuracy and up-to-date of this site because it hasn’t been updated for years. It doesn’t provide info on any recent STC, SB or any related info e.g. there’s no info on CD-155 STC for DA42 which exists 4 years.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:17 am
by Boatguy
I think it's clear that Austro does not develop engines, it adapts engines. I believe an entirely new engine from scratch is beyond both their interests and capabilities. The evidence is in the DA50 which is being introduced with an engine from SAFRAN/SMA.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 6:24 pm
by Keith M
ememic99 wrote: Wed Mar 13, 2019 11:47 pm https://www.easa.europa.eu/sites/defaul ... 181017.pdf
http://www.tmg-service.de/doc-download/ ... fetime.pdf

If you check EASA documents above for CD (Thielert/Cenurion) engines, you’ll see that only 1.7 (TAE 125-01) engine have TBR while 2.0 engines (TAE 125-02) have TBO (Note 7). However, I’m not aware of any overhaul done on CD engines.
I wasn't aware of that, so thanks for the information.

The first document mentions the TAE 125-02-114P variant, but I can't find any reference to where it's used. I guess not in DA4x aircraft, as it weighs 153kg compared with 134 kg for the TAE 125-02-114. Does anyone know more?

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2019 7:07 pm
by ememic99
I think it’s used in drones.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:50 am
by TimS
Boatguy wrote: Thu Mar 21, 2019 4:17 am I think it's clear that Austro does not develop engines, it adapts engines. I believe an entirely new engine from scratch is beyond both their interests and capabilities. The evidence is in the DA50 which is being introduced with an engine from SAFRAN/SMA.
Likely HP was the largest factor; also SMA has been working on the engine for a couple of decades and sold an earlier version to Continental.
So in theory, a fair number of the bugs should have been worked out.

Tim

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:50 pm
by Keith M
Just read this announcement regarding the DA50 on Diamond's web site:
In December 2017 a new owner took over Diamond Aircraft with the promise for a long-term commitment: Diamond wants to be the leading company in General Aviation. The transition year 2018 was spent with re-evaluation of all ongoing projects.

After re-evaluation and changes on the DA50 project including a value-added package, Diamond Aircraft has come to the conclusion to change its engine concept and found a partner for it in Continental.

"After careful consideration, we determined that the CD-300 engine aligns with Diamond’s jet fuel philosophy and that it is a suitable solution for our DA50 platform," said Liqun (Frank) Zhang, CEO of Diamond Aircraft lndustries GmbH.
Given the low production volumes of Austro engines, this makes sense, as would switching to the CD-155 for DA40s ...

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:20 pm
by chili4way
I noted this with interest. It makes sense that Diamond would pick an 'existing' 300-HP aviation diesel engine for the DA50. It's faster time-to-market than developing a more powerful version of the AE300/AE330. The CD-155 for DA40s would be a slight step-down (in the performance curve over altitude) from the Austro engine, albeit with a lighter engine. Since Austro only last month announced their own licensed production of the AE300/330, the move to the CD-155 seems unlikely. And the CD-300 makes sense for the non-Avgas international market and the 'what's after leaded fuels' for the North American GA market.