• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Cessna 180 engine options

Piston diesel is not good for small (or large) aircraft. Continental Motors/Cessna is just telling people what they want to hear. "Look everybody it runs on JetA come and buy it"! Heavy fuels get less attractive as the combustion chamber vs charge size vs air intake get's smaller.
 
slowmover said:
Anybody have any experience running a Diesel engine on a 180?

i've read a couple interesting articles lately on the new diesel-powered 182 and I like what I hear. I also saw at Oshkosh this summer that Continental is working on the TD-300 which looks like an O-470 replacement to me.

I'll need to do something with my engine in about 5 years or less and a diesel might be the ticket. I can think of lots of possible advantages... Reliable fuel supply, lower burn/longer range, longer TBO, much reduced fire danger in an accident.
Click to expand...

It's been a couple of years since I did any reading about Jet-A recip motors but at that time the one impression they made on me was that they were heavy. That would be a deal breaker for me.
 
sierra bravo said:
It's been a couple of years since I did any reading about Jet-A recip motors but at that time the one impression they made on me was that they were heavy. That would be a deal breaker for me.
Click to expand...

SB: AOPA Pilot says the diesel installation in the 182 is 12-15 lbs heavier than the Lycoming mill it replaced. The lower fuel flows that are mentioned in the article more than make up for that weight gain. CG might be another problem, but 12-15 pounds isn't a deal breaker for me if those numbers turn out to be accurate.

TempDoug: I agree that's a consideration, particularly for you in ND. But I preheat now with a Reiff system now, so I think that's a solvable problem. Plus I don't have any plans to live any place as cold as ND!
 
slowmover said:
SB: AOPA Pilot says the diesel installation in the 182 is 12-15 lbs heavier than the Lycoming mill it replaced. The lower fuel flows that are mentioned in the article more than make up for that weight gain. CG might be another problem, but 12-15 pounds isn't a deal breaker for me if those numbers turn out to be accurate.
Click to expand...

Cool, if it turns out to be true. I applaud innovation. We've all complained about the lack of engine technology in GA. Maybe this is the future. I'll wait before I invest in it, however. There's much to be proven.

What is the expected pricetag for the total conversion? $75K? More?
 
Last edited:
I would need to see a fleet of "Diesels" making money over a broad range of ownership. Not going to happen.
 
sierra bravo said:
Cool, if it turns out to be true. I applaud innovation. We've all complained about the lack of engine technology in GA. Maybe this is the future. I'll wait before I invest in it, however. There's much to be proven.

What is the expected pricetag for the total conversion? $75K? More?
Click to expand...

I have no data on how much Continental might want for their TD-300. The new 182 with the diesel engine is $35K more than one with a traditional turbocharged engine. Even if the upfront cost is higher, it might work itself out over time given lower fuel burn, lower cost of Jet A, and longer TBO.

If I needed a new engine today, I'd probably go with the PPonk O-470-50. But 5 years from now, a diesel might make more sense for me. And given my use, I'm liable to keep an engine for 10-15 years. I'm no Chicken Little but I am pessimistic on 100LL's (or its replacement) availability 15-20 years from now. And the fire protection of Jet A vs. 100LL is worth something to me too.
 
Since Continental Motors is owned by the Chinese (now) maybe their engineers can do better than the French contention. Nobody ever says how much it weighs?

300px-TD300.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 300px-TD300.jpg
    300px-TD300.jpg
    13.3 KB · Views: 104
Slowmover,

I take it this is the airplane/engine you referred to earlier? The engine is not domestic, but French. The article makes a good case for Jet A recips. Time will tell. The fleet is diverse and engines are expensive. It won't be an easy transition. The most interesting point in the article is where it says once Cessna commences deliveries of the Jet A version of the 182 next year the avgas version will no longer be offered. It appears the new engine comes with FADEC as standard. I'll be curious to see how that works and how the performance compares to the 470s and 520s we're all used to, especially with a 2200rpm redline.

The nose on the NXT looks longer than normal and the engine is spaced further off the firewall. Maybe the heavier 4-cylinder engine necessitates it? I'd have thought the engine would be tucked back to maintain CG. The cowl cooling looks like it's focused on the turbo. That may explain the engine-to-firewall spacing. Very interesting.

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2012/07/cessna-turbo-diesel/
 
Last edited:
As for me, I'd still rather stick with unleaded gasoline blended with some percentage of ethanol. E10 works just fine for low compression and if you really needed close to 100 octane, E30 would work----30% ethanol and 100LL minus the lead would still net you close to 100 octane and range of flight would not be affected much. I keep talking to more people that are putting E30 from the blender pump in their unmodified cars and pickups and seeing almost no reduction in fuel mileage. If you only fly once a year, placard the plane with (drain fuel and replace with fresh before flight).
 
sierra bravo said:
Most of the Cessna noise reputation comes from 185s and 206s spinning long props at 2850 RPM. 0-470s are limited to 2600 RPM. 0-520s and all 550s are limited to 2700 RPM. Not particularly quiet but not excessively loud, either.
Click to expand...

lots of the noise is from tips breaking the sound barrier, hence the higher rpm engines on the 185 and 206 being loud. However, put a C66 (if I remember correctly) on an 0470 and it will rattle all your windows just the same.

There is more to it than just rpm and length it seems. Older propellors were designed for thrust, now they think about noise also...
 
The engine weight is only one consideration. The conversion will require new plumbing, revised controls, revised instrumentation, new engine mount, new exhaust, new cowling, and new prop and prop governor. The weight of those component parts might be reduced to offset any engine weight gain. A carbon fiber cowl could make a huge difference in itself. Total weight of the installation would be all I cared about, but with that quick list of components that would be required to be replaced on an existing airframe, the cost will certainly be prohibitive as long as avgas engines continue to be a viable option.
 
Last edited:
..would need to know dry weight. I am not the trusting guy type that Cessna wants to sell to.

Can get auto fuel in Kipamarangi? Where can't we get mogas? Everything is always so vague with the new generation of engineering.
 
slowmover said:
Anybody have any experience running a Diesel engine on a 180? i've read a couple interesting articles lately on the new diesel-powered 182 and I like what I hear. I also saw at Oshkosh this summer that Continental is working on the TD-300 which looks like an O-470 replacement to me. I'll need to do something with my engine in about 5 years or less and a diesel might be the ticket. I can think of lots of possible advantages... Reliable fuel supply, lower burn/longer range, longer TBO, much reduced fire danger in an accident.
Click to expand...
If you really like the idea there are some things that need to be addressed. Does the engine have a T.C.? Does anyone have a STC to install it in a Cessna 180? Do you think that there will be someone (you?) willing to spend the $$$$ to acquire the STC to install this engine in an old out of production airplane? I think that it is unlikely to happen to a 180 unless you want to spend big $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
 
sierra bravo said:
I take it this is the airplane/engine you referred to earlier? The engine is not domestic, but French.
Click to expand...

That's it. Cessna is calling the airplane the 182 JT-A, and once they start selling that they won't sell the turbo avgas model any more.

There's alot of naysaying going on here. I'm not saying you should rush out and buy one now, just that I've noticed some interesting developments that might turn into a viable engine option for me in a few years. Were you all equally pessimistic on GPS? Glass cockpits? Smartphones? If not, why not? You must believe in innovation to some extent or you wouldn't be on an internet forum to discuss aviation...
 
Were you all equally pessimistic on GPS? Glass cockpits? Smartphones? If not, why not? You must believe in innovation to some extent or you wouldn't be on an internet forum to discuss aviation...
Click to expand...
That's why I'm a big advocate of a perfectly viable fuel-----ethanol. There is a flight school,using Cessna 150's or 2's in the Dominican Republic using ethanol from the rum distillery instead of imported 100LL. Just read this on the "other forum" this morning.
http://www.vansairforce.com/community/showthread.php?t=58334

http://www.eri.ucr.edu/ISAFXVCD/ISAFXVPP/IBAGAM.pdf
 
Last edited:
I mentioned this engine to a diesel engine tuner that was re-programming the computer in my truck yesterday. He said the diesel technology is advancing almost daily, with most of it in the injection process which is allowing compression ratios to come down to 13:1 and less. And if it's like the trucks, it's all fly by wire. Big horsepower and torque numbers with good fuel economy. Fun stuff!
 
This is not in line with certified aircraft engines, but have read about a guy in England that has a diesel in his Murphy Rebel and is very pleased with it. I am thinking it is a WAM diesel. Since I am about 1,000 years from completing my Rebel I am looking to the future and have to agree with 180Marty, in the fact that we will have to eventually use a blended fuel or a diesel of some sort. Fuel burn is reportedly less than 4gph!!! Maybe Wayne will respond here since he knows more about it than I do.
With the cost of fuel and flying skyrocketing anything to ease the pain is good. Of the 3 different planes I fly, they all cruise close to the same speed. The two certified planes burn nearly double what the RANS with the 912 Rotax burns. Makes a huge difference in the amout of flying I do in each. Flew down to the Fagen Fighter Museum this weekend putting on nearly 3.7 hrs. flight time. Burned right at 16 gallons of fuel (unleaded Premium) TOTAL!!! Came out to 4.325gph....I'm starting to like that little Rotax more and more. Total cost for the day...about $70 fuel bill. :)
What are you guys in your 180's-185's burning? 14-16gph? The faster speed would help but the fuel bill would have been 2-3x what I spent. Besides, it was a beautiful day to fly and the more time in the air means less time dealing with idiots on the ground.;)
 
Speaking for myself? I flight plan for 16gph. Does that consumption bother me? Not at all. I don't fly for a hobby. I fly to get myself and gear to where I want to go. To do it in an airplane that can carry a big load on and off short spaces and go 150+ mph enroute seems like the best way to maximize my flying efficiency. As to the diesel thing, I can't imagine a 230hp 2200rpm engine can hold a candle to my 0-520. Until somebody comes out with an acceptably priced option that does I'll figure out how to feed the motor I have. Considering how stable avgas pricing has been in my area I'm not too worried about it. I like technology. I think diesel av engines have promise, but I accept that the area of GA that I'm interested in represents a sliver of the GA market and will be the most difficult for diesel to penetrate. High power, high revving, flat props, less weight, etc. Development has to start somewhere. I admire the effort.
 
Are you familiar with that new-fangled Google thing? Use it to look up diesel aircraft engines and you'll find quire a bit of info from this century. It appears you're in need on enlightenment. :)
 
Diamond Aircraft in Europe has been putting diesel engines in airplanes for several years. It isn't really all that new a technology anymore.

Yes, it is new for the stalwart American airplane industry but over all we will be seeing more and more diesel and multi-fuel aircraft.

I've seen the Diamond twin flying out of Liege, Belgium quite a bit. I'm sure the lower cost of jet-A has a lot to do with it.
 
Boy, I really want a brand new Diamond Twin Diesel! I can train low time pilots in it.
 
I'll be keeping a eye on the new diesels, they are advancing rapidly. Bought a VW Passat with the new diesel. Driving it you don't even know it's a diesel till you have to fill the tank. It's just a very efficient reliable quiet motor with lots of torque. Aftermarket diesels are making incredable power, just visit your local drag strip and watch the trucks. If I was a experimenter I'd be looking hard at the new engines out there....

The diesel on the 182 will also power the new PA25. With $6 avgas the new norm with no end in sight this new tecnology may be the only thing to pull GA up off its death bed.

Also, I have not found a max torque on the new diesel, wonder if that number is out there and how it compares to gas. Peak torque at low rpm would be a good thing when turning a prop.
 
Last edited:
Boz someone must have hacked your password and be posting with it...:)

Do you have an axe in the passat?

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Matt 7GCBC
Cessna 180 changing -U engine to S,R,K?
Replies
8
Views
5K
Steve Pierce
Steve Pierce
hotrod180
470J to 470R
Replies
6
Views
836
hotrod180
hotrod180
E
1955 Cessna 180 Engine Mount Change
Replies
1
Views
2K
hotrod180
hotrod180
acroeric
Fwd Induction vs updraft induction on a new build
Replies
10
Views
1K
stewartb
S
D
CHT's revisited
Replies
23
Views
10K
cplne
C
Back
Top