china bought Continental
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do all my PPRuNeing on a Macbook Pro and an iPhone. They are made in China and the build quality and reliability is superb, as you would expect when the buyer is Apple.
On the other hand, I have read from a seemingly knowledgeable source that there are instances where Chinese suppliers of high-quality electronic parts for US companies, build shadow factories that produce the same branded parts and sell them for their own account.
Sony (historically the leaders in QA but nowadays the masters of shafting customers with dodgy schemes and restrictive practices) did their best with chips in batteries but almost nobody else bothers.
Getting back to Continental, I suspect the discussions about the Chinese interest in diesel technology may be correct. On the other hand, maybe Plan B is to close the plant after a few years due to "continuing losses" and sell the parts and equipment to a scrap company who then coincidentally finds a willing buyer in China
In the case of the British motorcycle industry what they were making 40 years ago was non-engineered crap.
The fact that Continental is offering a carburetor O-200 for the new Skycatcher 162 should forever disqualify them from being in that bracket - which car manufacturer has carburetted engines in this day and age? A company willing to appear on or at the very forefront of development would have yanked that offering 15 years ago... It's a joke.
I understand the reliability issues with well proven aviation engines. So did everyone else in Detroit 60 years ago when they knew the longevity and reliability of an engine is down to low compression output from huge displacement.
It's really not rocket science. That doesn't mean we should have to tolerate carburetor, carb ice rings and old school magnetos (that break time and time again) when there are clearly both proven and reliable alternatives. Just call Bosch up and they'll be able to send you not only electronic ignition and injection, but even fadec.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, the reliability issues come when too much power is wrung from engines with not enough displacement. Then you have to resort to increasing compression and/or increasing rpm. That's when the reliability issues come. That's exactly why turbo engines don't last - because they in effect increase compression. Or why auto engines don't last - they only produce their power at high rpm's. It has nothing to do with the electronic ignition or the injection.
A direct drive aircraft engine runs at very low rpm's. That's the key. By increasing displacement, you can add power without increasing the compression and the rpm's. In Detroit they used to say; "There is no substitute for cubic inches". They should have added "if you want longevity". They were right.
I mean, show me the big marine ship engine that has to have a teardown at 2000hrs? Doesn't exist. Because they run big displacement, low rpm. Obviously, like you pointed out, there's less efficiency with low compression. So it's a balance. I'm not criticizing the core engines per se, just the archaic stuff around them. No overhead cams? No 4 valve? No injection? No electronic ignition?
A direct drive aircraft engine runs at very low rpm's. That's the key. By increasing displacement, you can add power without increasing the compression and the rpm's. In Detroit they used to say; "There is no substitute for cubic inches". They should have added "if you want longevity". They were right.
I mean, show me the big marine ship engine that has to have a teardown at 2000hrs? Doesn't exist. Because they run big displacement, low rpm. Obviously, like you pointed out, there's less efficiency with low compression. So it's a balance. I'm not criticizing the core engines per se, just the archaic stuff around them. No overhead cams? No 4 valve? No injection? No electronic ignition?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reduced life of turbo engines is probably caused by high power operation for a lot longer (like, the whole flight ).
This is because there are many turbo installations (e.g. the TB21) which have the same max rated HP as the non-turbo version (e.g. TB20) yet few if any of the former make TBO without cylinder cracks, at least. And nowadays the "management" knowledge is fairly widespread, so one can't blame it on ignorant pilots.
Overhead cams and 4 valve heads probably do very little at the low revs involved. The SFC of the big Lycos is unmatched by any current petrol car engine, which really proves that point.
The rest I agree with. There are multiple reasons why the industry lags behind on FADEC etc. but one of them, whether one likes this or not, is that FADEC is not going to deliver a significant MPG improvement when running at constant power, peak EGT or LOP. If there was a 30-50% gain to be had (as there is with car engines which spend much of their life delivering 10-20% of max rated power) we would have it by now.
).This is because there are many turbo installations (e.g. the TB21) which have the same max rated HP as the non-turbo version (e.g. TB20) yet few if any of the former make TBO without cylinder cracks, at least. And nowadays the "management" knowledge is fairly widespread, so one can't blame it on ignorant pilots.
Overhead cams and 4 valve heads probably do very little at the low revs involved. The SFC of the big Lycos is unmatched by any current petrol car engine, which really proves that point.
The rest I agree with. There are multiple reasons why the industry lags behind on FADEC etc. but one of them, whether one likes this or not, is that FADEC is not going to deliver a significant MPG improvement when running at constant power, peak EGT or LOP. If there was a 30-50% gain to be had (as there is with car engines which spend much of their life delivering 10-20% of max rated power) we would have it by now.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are multiple reasons why the industry lags behind on FADEC etc. but one of them, whether one likes this or not, is that FADEC is not going to deliver a significant MPG improvement when running at constant power, peak EGT or LOP. If there was a 30-50% gain to be had (as there is with car engines which spend much of their life delivering 10-20% of max rated power) we would have it by now.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think so, because all the FADEC could do in cruise is set up peak EGT (or LOP - no MPG gain there over peak EGT) which is what "we" do manually.
It certainly could optimise spark timing but you don't need a full FADEC (computer controlled throttle and mixture) for that.
Peak EGT / LOP saves 20-30% over operating full rich, but you don't need FADEC to make that saving
It certainly could optimise spark timing but you don't need a full FADEC (computer controlled throttle and mixture) for that.
Peak EGT / LOP saves 20-30% over operating full rich, but you don't need FADEC to make that saving
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: LKBU
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter, I was actually talking of a slightly different animal - not X degrees LOP but rather opening the throttle all the way, and then adjusting power with the mixture knob. However, when above 75% power, you need to enrich the mixture. According to its advocates, this method not only saves fuel (allegedly better than X deg LOP, but this remains to be explained), but also keeps the plugs and the oil much cleaner and the engine in general somewhat healthier, allowing it to be operated on condition well past TBO (wherever permissible).
Anyway, coming back to FADEC, it should just plot the right trajectory in the "Throttle-Mixture" space in response to the quadrant position and other process variables. This would certainly make caring for the engine much easier for them non-engineering types. Meanwhile, the engineering-minded folk would indulge in programming a handful of different control algorithms (X deg LOP, LOP WOT, whatever) and then trying them all to satisfaction
Anyway, coming back to FADEC, it should just plot the right trajectory in the "Throttle-Mixture" space in response to the quadrant position and other process variables. This would certainly make caring for the engine much easier for them non-engineering types. Meanwhile, the engineering-minded folk would indulge in programming a handful of different control algorithms (X deg LOP, LOP WOT, whatever) and then trying them all to satisfaction
I prefer carbs over fuel injection for most aircraft applications - more reliable, no fuel pump required for high wing aircraft, and only low pressure in any case. That makes it safer too. Fuel injection is good for acro.
My background includes EFI tool development, engine tuning, and subsequently selling firmware upgrades for motorcycle fuel injection systems, about 1500 units shipped to date. My current professional work is in replacing a 90000 lb hydraulic actuator design with an electomechanical equivalent. The budget would buy quite a few new aircraft.
FADEC (including the propeller) is very interesting in principle but will also be very time consuming to bring to the same standard or reliability/serviceability as current hardware. The volume of sales will not justify an automotive style hardware and software budget... and the result will inevitably be more stuff like Diamond engine failures due to software bugs, battery voltage control or whatever it was.
As much fun as it sounds, I really don't want FADEC on my little aircraft, the one I'll be maintaining year after year. I already have an electric CS prop and (lo and behold) last week the wiring had a tiny little short and that had to be fixed. I think it's a neat gadget, but it needs more engineering to bring it to the level of a McCauley hydraulic prop.
My background includes EFI tool development, engine tuning, and subsequently selling firmware upgrades for motorcycle fuel injection systems, about 1500 units shipped to date. My current professional work is in replacing a 90000 lb hydraulic actuator design with an electomechanical equivalent. The budget would buy quite a few new aircraft.
FADEC (including the propeller) is very interesting in principle but will also be very time consuming to bring to the same standard or reliability/serviceability as current hardware. The volume of sales will not justify an automotive style hardware and software budget... and the result will inevitably be more stuff like Diamond engine failures due to software bugs, battery voltage control or whatever it was.
As much fun as it sounds, I really don't want FADEC on my little aircraft, the one I'll be maintaining year after year. I already have an electric CS prop and (lo and behold) last week the wiring had a tiny little short and that had to be fixed. I think it's a neat gadget, but it needs more engineering to bring it to the level of a McCauley hydraulic prop.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 19th Dec 2010 at 22:25.
Silvaire1, just curious - would you equally discount old continuous injection systems like a.g. Bosch K- or Ku-Jetronic? From my recollections, virtually unkillable stuff.
The advantage of the modern digital systems is that you can theoretically integrate everything including the prop.
Just my considered opinion, FWIW and all that.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not X degrees LOP but rather opening the throttle all the way, and then adjusting power with the mixture knob
The other solution would be individual injector control, which we do have on modern car engines.
Also electronic ignition is not completely trivial to do. In a car, if your alternator fails, and after your battery has run down, the engine stops. This is totally unacceptable for an aircraft (yes I know there are some
) and a safe setup would be self powered. You can have a sort of magneto-powered ignition (like Lyco have just developed) or you have a little alternator to power it. Then you would need to double it all up (2 ignition systems, 2 alternators). But electronic ignition won't by itself give you the full benefit unless you sense the engine conditions, which means some sensors have to go in, and these are not all that reliable (on cars).I had the K-Jetronic system on my 1983 Escort XR3i
But the car still broke down when a wire came off the alternator...
I agree with IO540: modern car engines run with extensive help from ECU. Electronic ignition itself without data (measured by multiple sensors) which is then processed by ECU, isn't really that much more efficient from magneto ignition. Involving numerous sensors and ECU into engine management can be very beneficial, but it also brings complexity to an entirely new level. And the more complex the system is, the more it is prone to failures. As far as economy goes, even the most sophisticated engine management system can't bring fuel flow to zero. Looking at C172, Thielert 2.0 burns around 1,5 USgph less than Lycoming O-320 for same TAS, which is actually not that much of a reduction - especially for 40 or so years of development.
Nevertheless, diesel engines are the future of GA, especially because of their ability to burn Jet A-1, which is by far the most common aviation fuel. The only problem for now seems to be that they haven't accumulated enough hours to convince traditionally very conservative GA market - especially in USA.
Nevertheless, diesel engines are the future of GA, especially because of their ability to burn Jet A-1, which is by far the most common aviation fuel. The only problem for now seems to be that they haven't accumulated enough hours to convince traditionally very conservative GA market - especially in USA.
Diesel fuel is no cheaper than gasoline. Any difference is tax, so the diesel concept is based on tax avoidance. The fuel consumption for diesels is lower, but not nearly enough lower unless tax issues are a factor.
The life cycle cost/hour for something like a Thielert is much higher than what most potential customers are now paying for aero-engines: throw-away engines (ie no overhauls), clutch replacements, no third party (PMA) parts availability or competitive market for parts. In the sense of conservative meaning cost averse, the potential buyers are indeed conservative.
The life cycle cost/hour for something like a Thielert is much higher than what most potential customers are now paying for aero-engines: throw-away engines (ie no overhauls), clutch replacements, no third party (PMA) parts availability or competitive market for parts. In the sense of conservative meaning cost averse, the potential buyers are indeed conservative.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the Chinese also bought Thielert.
By buying Continental the Chinese have got a name that people trust and a ready made distribution network. The fact that the future product will share nothing but mounting hole positions with its predecessor is neither here nor there.
Thielert would give the Chinese the hard-won knowledge of what needs to be done to get a diesel engine to work in an aeroplane, and as well as that, Thielert already make a lot of the aftermarket replacement parts such as crankshafts and piston/barrel assemblies for Lycomings (although not sold under the Thielert name). These parts also overcome the known problem areas on the originals, so there is a lot of know-how up for grabs.
My guess is that the Chinese will keep US Continental going to support their existing range but make the component parts in China. If they bought Thielert they could then use it as an R&D operation, as many far-Eastern companies have done with automotive companies in the UK (Lotus bought by Proton and IAD (International Automotive Design) bought by Daewoo).
The four cylinder Thielert engines share precious few components with their Mercedes source now, so a full break away isn't that unlikely.
I am quite sure Continental would be very pleased to get an engine with their badge on it back in the Cessna 172 after that market was taken by Lycoming 42 years ago (for the US built C172s anyway) and a Continental badged Thielert 2.0 could do that right now.
By buying Continental the Chinese have got a name that people trust and a ready made distribution network. The fact that the future product will share nothing but mounting hole positions with its predecessor is neither here nor there.
Thielert would give the Chinese the hard-won knowledge of what needs to be done to get a diesel engine to work in an aeroplane, and as well as that, Thielert already make a lot of the aftermarket replacement parts such as crankshafts and piston/barrel assemblies for Lycomings (although not sold under the Thielert name). These parts also overcome the known problem areas on the originals, so there is a lot of know-how up for grabs.
My guess is that the Chinese will keep US Continental going to support their existing range but make the component parts in China. If they bought Thielert they could then use it as an R&D operation, as many far-Eastern companies have done with automotive companies in the UK (Lotus bought by Proton and IAD (International Automotive Design) bought by Daewoo).
The four cylinder Thielert engines share precious few components with their Mercedes source now, so a full break away isn't that unlikely.
I am quite sure Continental would be very pleased to get an engine with their badge on it back in the Cessna 172 after that market was taken by Lycoming 42 years ago (for the US built C172s anyway) and a Continental badged Thielert 2.0 could do that right now.
Thielert is selling mainly to the US military now, and I think their product is better suited to military budgets.
The Continental SMA diesel thing is still complex, but less so. Maybe it will find a commercial market someday.
The Continental SMA diesel thing is still complex, but less so. Maybe it will find a commercial market someday.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I sincerely hope that the Chinese have the good sense to avoid the not suited to purpose (pile of cr**p) Thielert engines that have soured the diesel market, and account for the suspicion/conservatism of potential diesel customers. 
The SMA diesel engine is fine for the part of the market it occupies, but what about larger and smaller engined aircraft?
Thielert certainly had their problems, firstly with getting the design right, then once they had done that, with the company's financial difficulties which voided warrantees and didn't win them any friends.
If you base all your views on Thielert engines on the original 1.7 engine, then you aren't giving the company the credit they deserve for identifying and rectifying the shortcomings of their product.
I would have a hard job believing that the Chinese bought Continental because they want to continue making air-cooled petrol engines for any significant number of years.
I don't know much about Continentals, but Lycomings have certainly had enough problems with corroding crankshafts and cracked cylinder heads, so there's somothing to be said for buying a product on which the problems have been found and cured.
Regarding complexity, you only get piston engine efficiency with a reduction drive and proper engine management. Its about time aeroplane engines moved into the last two decades of the last century, let alone this one.
Thielert certainly had their problems, firstly with getting the design right, then once they had done that, with the company's financial difficulties which voided warrantees and didn't win them any friends.
If you base all your views on Thielert engines on the original 1.7 engine, then you aren't giving the company the credit they deserve for identifying and rectifying the shortcomings of their product.
I would have a hard job believing that the Chinese bought Continental because they want to continue making air-cooled petrol engines for any significant number of years.
I don't know much about Continentals, but Lycomings have certainly had enough problems with corroding crankshafts and cracked cylinder heads, so there's somothing to be said for buying a product on which the problems have been found and cured.
Regarding complexity, you only get piston engine efficiency with a reduction drive and proper engine management. Its about time aeroplane engines moved into the last two decades of the last century, let alone this one.
I think complex, expensive diesel aircraft engines are unlikely to sell outside of areas with high fuel taxes and/or poor fuel distribution - there is no economic or technical reason why they should. Given that situation its hard for me to imagine manufacturers investing in ground-up diesel development projects, or passing the associated R&D cost onto the customer base. Diamond only put together their own version of the Mercedes diesel because Thielert went south on them, and because they sell to the high-tax, low availability European market more than some others.
The SMA engine has been certificated for 10 years but has never taken off due to limited demand. So I imagine Continental (which was not exactly flush with cash) bought the rights at a price that recognizes return on investment is limited, taking advantage of what must surely be a large and unrewarded SAFRAN development cost over 15 or more years. Maybe that "donation to the cause" will help.
I think eventually (say within 15 years) the US will switch to unleaded avgas because of the perceived environmental issue. The Diamond/Austro engine will continue, and the SMA/Continental diesel might get developed for sale in small volume and high life cycle price. They won't sell in the US unless some new third world no-avgas market (like China!?) increases volume enough to lower life cycle costs. In addition, I think light aviation in high tax areas will move further towards Rotax powered VLAs and Mogas, because that seems to be more politically palatable to their governments on several different levels.
The technical challenge I can see with higher powered aero-engines now is that the pursuit of low weight has led them to large cylinders, which tend to need 100 octane fuel given highish compression ratios or high boost.
The SMA engine has been certificated for 10 years but has never taken off due to limited demand. So I imagine Continental (which was not exactly flush with cash) bought the rights at a price that recognizes return on investment is limited, taking advantage of what must surely be a large and unrewarded SAFRAN development cost over 15 or more years. Maybe that "donation to the cause" will help.
I think eventually (say within 15 years) the US will switch to unleaded avgas because of the perceived environmental issue. The Diamond/Austro engine will continue, and the SMA/Continental diesel might get developed for sale in small volume and high life cycle price. They won't sell in the US unless some new third world no-avgas market (like China!?) increases volume enough to lower life cycle costs. In addition, I think light aviation in high tax areas will move further towards Rotax powered VLAs and Mogas, because that seems to be more politically palatable to their governments on several different levels.
The technical challenge I can see with higher powered aero-engines now is that the pursuit of low weight has led them to large cylinders, which tend to need 100 octane fuel given highish compression ratios or high boost.
Last edited by Silvaire1; 22nd Dec 2010 at 02:24.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think complex, expensive diesel aircraft engines are unlikely to sell outside of areas with high fuel taxes and/or poor fuel distribution
My club was one of the first in the Netherlands to start flying diesels but I know quite a few clubs who have followed, both in NL and elsewhere in Europe. We flew *new* DR400-135CDIs for about 2/3 the price of *2nd hand* PA28-161s. Fuel costs were slashed from being about 50% of the overall costs to something like 20%.
If Thielert would not have the technical problems with the 1.7 engine (which indeed caused a significant loss of confidence in diesel technology in general) and subsequently ran into financial trouble, almost our whole fleet would have been converted to diesel by now.