|Quoting Baw2198 (Reply 8):|
SMA, ok so they have the bucks to convert a 182 to diesel but they still burn the same GPH the avgas engine does, so there's virtually no incentive to make the switch. According to the last aviation magizine that I read (can't remember which one at the moment).
|Quoting Dougloid (Reply 21):|
Seems like Mr. Junkers made a pretty good aero diesel way back when....don't know why everyone's so surprised....
|Quoting TripleDelta (Reply 22):|
What is interesting now is that there's finally a compact, GA-usable diesel-based engine that works and has, so far, shown some great results. It may have taken 50+ years, but the advancement from the Junkers to the Thielert is a noteworthy one.
|Quoting Pope (Reply 23):
The 100LL versus alternative fuels debate is largely chicken or the egg. Ask yourself this, do you think that most FBO's are going to put in a new diesel tank until their is sufficient demand to justify the investment? I'd guess no.
Do you think most people are going to buy an aircraft if it significantly reduces the number of places they can fly to because of the availability of fuel? My guess is NO.
|Quoting Aviopic (Reply 7):|
Yes i tried it in my car(no diesel of course) as well and it runs even better then normal fuel hehe Smile/happy/getting dizzy especially my bike goes like a rocket ship but tends to run a little hot though.
|Quoting Pilotpip (Reply 25):|
Most FBOs already have Jet-A tanks and many at larger airports would love to get rid of 100LL all together.
|Quoting TripleDelta (Reply 22):|
But the Junkers diesel was a big & bulky affair that was somewhat prone to failures and complex to maintain. Plus it was a military design with safety limits and lifetime cut down, not exactly the ideal for civil aviation.
|Quoting Pope (Reply 27):|
Most FBO's do not have Jet-A. You might have said, most large FBO's have Jet-A but the vast majority of airfields in the US served by FBO's do not .
|Quoting Dougloid (Reply 28):|
The Jumo 205 weighed 1,257 pounds, gave 560 hp, and had a sfc of .375-.396 out of 1,104 cubic inches. The 206 gave 1050 hp from 1525 cubic inches, and the 207 was a high altitude turbocharged engine that gave 1,000 hp with stellar high altitude performance. German photorecon aircraft, particularly the JU86P could operate at high altitudes because of the efficiency of its diesel engines. They were at their best in steady state cruising, which made them not so good in military emergency situations.
|Quoting Pelican (Reply 24):|
I wonder why (or what) it needed so much time. I - as a layman - have wondered why nobody (?) followed Junckers Jumo 204, which was btw a civilian engine.
|Quoting TripleDelta (Reply 30):|
Probably the abundant reserves and sources of oil in the post-WW2 world made fuel-efficient engines - that didn't perform, in all aspects together, as well as avgas ones - just plain unnecessary. Before and during WW2 the diesel was still an uncommon solution, aviation-wise, one that was probably tried to see if it will give any notable advancement or benefit over "normal" engines. Nowadays it's the question of fuel prices.
Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe
Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days
Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit
Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior
Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft
Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials
Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions
Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin
Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon
Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos
Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft
Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries
Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground
Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos