New CD170

[blsewardjr]

Tecnam has certified a 170hp version of the CD series diesel in its P2010 aircraft -- https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/tec ... p2010-tdi/

[TimS]

Looks like a nice competitive trainer. I wonder how Piper has been doing selling their diesel planes.

Tim

[Soareyes]

Is this CD-170 a new engine or just a software tweak of the CD-155?

Should Austro be worried? The new CD-170 makes 170 hp and weighs 344 lbs. An Austro AE300 makes 168 hp and weighs 414 lbs. Why get an Austro? Any advantages remaining for the Austro engine?

Will the CD-170 be available for retrofit in Diamonds with CD-135/155/Thielert variants?

[TimS]

Based on the article, no this is not just a software change. This involved a common rail change, plus likely water pumps and cooling systems to handle the additional heat, and then the ripple effects into the gearbox and other down stream parts.
The largest delta between AE-300 and CD-170 is the TBR vs TBO concept with overhaul expected to be much cheaper than replacement; combined with AE-300 having a longer life to begin with. To be fair, most pilots will not own a plane long enough to notice; but training sites will. And this plane is aimed straight at the training market.

As for retrofit; someone would need to develop the STC.

Tim

[Davestation]

The specs I read on the continental website showed that the 170 had the same max continuous as the 155, so if the only difference is takeoff power is this thing just purpose built for heavier aircraft or shorter runways?

[ememic99]

I don’t think DA42 would benefit from CD-170. CD-170 is heavier than CD-155, has lower critical altitude (6000 ft vs 8000 ft) and lower TBR (1200 vs 2100) while having practically same continuous power.

[CFIDave]

I don’t think DA42 would benefit from CD-170. CD-170 is heavier than CD-155, has lower critical altitude (6000 ft vs 8000 ft) and lower TBR (1200 vs 2100) while having practically same continuous power.

Compared to the CD-155, it appears that the CD-170 software simply applies a higher turbo boost, where the same size turbocharger on both engines can maintain this higher boost only to a lower altitude.

This is similar to Austro engines, where the DA62 AE330 engine's additional turbo boost can be maintained only to a lower critical altitude (about 12,000 feet) compared to the slightly less powerful AE300 engine of the DA40NG and DA42 -- since the same size turbo is used on both engines. Above that altitude, both engines produce about the same horsepower.

[Davestation]

I don’t think DA42 would benefit from CD-170. CD-170 is heavier than CD-155, has lower critical altitude (6000 ft vs 8000 ft) and lower TBR (1200 vs 2100) while having practically same continuous power.

That’s weird, I didn’t notice that. I wonder why that is.

The TBR on the 155 started at 1200, I’m sure this one will follow the same path

[TimS]

I don’t think DA42 would benefit from CD-170. CD-170 is heavier than CD-155, has lower critical altitude (6000 ft vs 8000 ft) and lower TBR (1200 vs 2100) while having practically same continuous power.

That’s weird, I didn’t notice that. I wonder why that is.

The TBR on the 155 started at 1200, I’m sure this one will follow the same path

The turbo is likely the same. Since they are using more boost, it runs out of headroom earlier.

Tim

[neema]

Just stumbled across this. I'd say it's a good prospect for a DA42, it's an AE300 that weighs less, but has a TBR instead of TBO. I haven't see if any difference in maintenance like the AE300 vs AE330.

Before we get too deep thinking about the differences, the reality is that Diamond likely will never bless a software load that reflects any new limitations, which are surprisingly little (temps, pressures, etc all seem the same from this EASA TCDS). The 5 min power/max continuous power and perhaps a new Vmc and Vyse won't be accurately reflected and thus, I don't think we'll ever see it on our airframes.

I really dislike this aspect of the G1000's marriage to the airframe and manufacturer. In practice, it's a few adjustments to the software load. Sometimes some luck and creative tricks can be used, like Dr Crosby's STC getting by with Vmc and Vyse by using VGs on the tail and getting lucky with CD155s having exactly the same airspeed and engine limitations reflected in the G1000

Maybe someone can figure out how to use the AE300 software load on a DA42, but Vyse and Vmc would have to be "the same." Such a silly dance

Last thing of note: this spec sheet says the engine weighs ~50kg more than the CD155 and has lower compression (15.5:1 vs 18:1) and despite critical altitude being 6,000', it holds max continuous power to a slightly higher altitude (~11,000'ish) than the CD155.