← Back to Squawk list

20

Continental Jet-A piston engine certified

提交時間：4天之前

Continental reports it has received an FAA Validated Type Certificate (VTC) for its CD-300 Jet-A piston engine. The certification “validates the engine’s compliance with the FAA’s strict airworthiness and safety standards,” according to company officials. Since the CD-300 received its Type Certification from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) in 2017, the engine has celebrated numerous milestones, including being named the powerplant for the Diamond Aircraft DA50 RG, according to… (generalaviationnews.com) 更多...

Sam Negrete

32 個會員評論

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

Charles Henry 3天之前 6

If the United States was actually concerned about efficiency and reducing fossil fuel consumption, we would see a lot more small diesel vehicles on the roads. Such silliness.

HOW DARE YOU! LOL

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Stephen Leftly 大約一天之前 1

Well while diesels are more efficient than gas engines they do come with significant issues with particulates and NOX emissions.

EVs are better especially in denser urban environments

Bikes are better still but clearly there are many parts of the country where the climate for parts of the year and typology make them not realistic.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

John Prukop 2天之前 -3

There's no such thing as "fossil fuel"...

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Tim Dyck 2天之前 3

It’s a commonly used term that is universally accepted.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

btweston 2天之前 2

So you’re the guy who says, “Technically…” and everyone just kind of ignores you for the rest of the evening.

Giant brain over here guys.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Ren Babcock 3天之前 6

No doubt a good engine but weighs around 600 lbs wet. Power takeoff is at 3880 rpm so it isn't your basic marine diesel engine. 3.0 liter 6 cylinder. If it doesn't work in your plane, you can put it in your truck.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Chris Phillips 3天之前 3

I don’t see the point. Heavier engines that can’t fly into any ole podunk airport and will have astronomical repair costs when something goes wrong? What’s not to love?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

bartmiller 3天之前 4

In the Americas, you're right. And in large parts of Europe and Aus/NZ. However, there are large parts of the world that don't have avgas easily available, but have Jet-A. China for example.

So, this makes piston engines and light aircraft more available in those areas.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 3天之前 2

Good Point... Never thought of Lack of Avgas when you can get Jet Fuel would be reality!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Tim Dyck 2天之前 1

A lot of northern airports would love to have only one or two fuels to stock. The cost of shipping and storage is high in remote places were the only way in is by plane.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

1mooneymite 3天之前 5

"Jet A piston engine"? Diesel with a fancy name?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Tim Dyck 2天之前 3

Jet A is actually a kerosene (paraffin in the UK) not a diesel.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

btweston 2天之前 -1

You’re sick burn gets zero points.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

gwroclaw 3天之前 2

The CD-300 is based on a Mercedes auto engine design. I doubt the Hindenberg had a DOHC 4 valve per cyl FADEC controlled turbocharged engine that produced that much power for its weight. Diesels still have a weight penealty vs gas but due to their much better BSFC vs gas, the lower fuel consumption mitigates a lot of the weight penalty. Turbines are nice but have a BSFC that is 70-80% higher than diesels. This engine is used in the new Diamond DA-50RG. It had over 880lbs of payload with full fuel. I currently fly a SETP powered by a PT6A-35 and I'm burning 17gal/hr idling on the ground. This engine burns about 2gal/hr idling.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Doodybutch 3天之前 4

It looks like a geared turbocharged aviation diesel engine, smaller but similar to the engines that powered the Hindenburg almost 100 years ago. What is innovative about that?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Tim Dyck 2天之前 1

It uses Jet A so you can find fuel at most airports. It’s eight to power ratio is also better than those old diesels.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Tim Dyck 大約7小時之前 1

That was supposed to be “weight to power ratio”. Sorry that I didn’t proof read

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 大約一天之前 1

I wonder if they will be required to have DEF!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Andre Page 2天之前 1

Uh, this is "the internet"... two clicks later...
http://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd300.aspx

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

gwroclaw 3天之前 1

Look at the specs of the DA-50RG. It can fly in and out of 2500ft strips. Not bad for a high performance SE airplane. In addition, Jet-A is cheaper at most airports in the US especially if you have a Jet Fuel card such as CAA. In Europe it is much cheaper than 100LL.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

bbabis 3天之前 1

I think the Jet-A world should concentrate on developing smaller turbines to replace gas piston engines. This looks like a frankenstein engine that will be destroyed the first time a new lineman puts avgas in the tanks.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Tim Dyck 大約9小時之前 1

Avgas probably won’t hurt an engine designed to run Jet A too badly. But Jet A will destroy an engine designed to run avgas.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Peter Fuller 大約8小時之前 1

Gasoline has a much lower flash point temperature than diesel or Jet A, so will cause premature ignition which risks diesel engine damage, though a high-compression diesel engine probably won’t self-destruct as quickly as a gasoline engine would. Also gasoline won’t play nice with fuel pumps and injectors not designed for it.

Either way, if engines trying to run on the wrong fuel present problems above a v1 speed or after takeoff, you’re in a world of hurt.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

Tim Dyck 大約7小時之前 1

Avgas will not start without a spark. The engines in the article use compression to fire and has no spark plugs. Try running gas in a diesel truck, it doesn’t work.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 3天之前 1

You have a good point... I remember years ago for fuelers to test to see if the plane was AVGAS or Turbo prop was to spin the prop.. If it was Easy, Jet Fuel, If it was hard AvGas... This blows that test out of the water!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

linbb 3天之前 -2

Gee seems they already have done so problems with cost and fuel usage over recips is one of the huge problems there. Sounds great on paper but again the small engines are already available but too costly.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 3天之前 0

Interesting to say the least... I cannot see that mounted on a Single Engine Aircraft... you would have no extra weight left to use and since All Diesels are Heavier than our engines now, I am sure they would have to be wing mounted for Weight and Balance to even come close to being in.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

btweston 2天之前 1

Like the DA50? Don’t sweat it I know you didn’t read the article anyway.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

jimbabwe 3天之前 -2

Useless, empty article. Why did you waste my time by posting it?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

John Prukop 2天之前 -2

Oh BOY! Won't all the 172 and 182 wannabees be happy to know they can now fly like the Big Jet Boys with their Citations with a "JET-A" piston engine. LOL. More silly marketing to consumer 'BUT IT NOW' flyboys who must already be smitten by Cessna's "new interiors" that were recently announced. What's next? Ice chilled air cooling and curtained windows?

回覆 ↓•永久連接•Report

Peter Fuller 大約一天之前 2

I doubt this engine is really much aimed at STC mods of existing single-engine airplanes. A diesel-powered 182 was developed by Cessna but I don’t think there was enough market interest to get it certified.

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

sparkie624 2天之前 1

I doubt it... By the time you put that Engine up front, it will never get off the ground! Way too heavy!

回覆 ↓•永久連接•上層•Report

登入

本網站使用cookie。您使用並繼續瀏覽本網站，即表示您接受這一點。

退出

您知道FlightAware航班跟蹤是由廣告支持嗎？

通過允許展示來自FlightAware.com的廣告，您可以幫助我們使FlightAware保持免費。我們努力使我們的廣告保持相關性，同時不顯突兀，以創造一流的體驗。在FlightAware上將廣告加入白名單快速而簡單，或者請您考慮選擇我們的高級帳戶.

退出