Anticept Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I would like to make a point, however, that "losing money" will depend on accounting. A company could be losing millions, but if the owners are already paying themselves millions, then it's not really "losing money". The company entity isn't profitable, but I'm sure the owners would be quite upset if their gravy train derailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 I think the Cirrus jet may have been an overreach for the company. At one point I believe they stopped the project. The company went through a few investors before the Chinese bought them. It was after that that the project was said to be revived. I don't know if the sale was motivated by financial problems, or by taking a really good buyout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 1, 2014 Report Share Posted July 1, 2014 Cirrus is a prime example of how hard it is to actually make money selling planes. They were apparently cranking our more GA planes than anyone and still losing money. We'll lose money on each airplane...but we'll make up for it with volume!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here's the link, for those who don't get the mag... (link fixed) http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/rising-stars-5-planes-will-change-aviation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 The article is not about the CT, its about the new C4. The only thing the C4 shares with the CT is both are made from carbon fiber. That was established in the original post. How about the fact that they are made by the same company, based on the same design, or serviced by their service centers? Or supported by the same forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanik Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Here's the link, for those who don't get the mag... http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/rising-stars-5-planes-will-change-aviation That one little space at the end killed the link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingMonkey Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 It will sip 8.5 gallons of 93 octane mogas, 100LL or JetA (a turbo diesel version is also being offered) at 75% power and get 155 KTAS to boot. It is true that both the C4 and the TECNAM are going after a lower cost Cessna 172 Skyhawk niche. But it appears only FD is gonna make good on that promise. What is the engine used in the C4? Sounds like an IO-360 except the mogas part. I'm not sure I can see the FAA certifying a plane to use with gasoline contaning ethanol, and I have never seen non-ethanol mogas octane higher than 91, except maybe some $9+ per gallon blends of racing fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 What is the engine used in the C4? Sounds like an IO-360 except the mogas part. I'm not sure I can see the FAA certifying a plane to use with gasoline contaning ethanol, and I have never seen non-ethanol mogas octane higher than 91, except maybe some $9+ per gallon blends of racing fuel. Andy, you have to consider the source. The Continental engine they chose is de-rated in HP from earlier models. They are in fact calling it a multi fuel engine. The multi fuel in this case is 100LL or auto fuel. I think the lower octane fuel will be OK, but I don't know this for fact. I do know that Flight Design was insistent that it be able to use auto fuel. One thing for certain is the Continental IO-360 will not run on Jet fuel. There are talks of an alternate power plant for the European market that will burn Jet fuel. If there is enough interest it might show up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Who are you? Oh that's right.... I remember... The Continental IO-360 is based on an existing engine that Continental has used for years. The original was used in the Cessna 172 XP, and was also the base for the TSIO-360 used in the Piper Turbo Arrow. http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=c1d6620b-e932-4e7a-a109-89e97a956e06 The Continental Centurion 2.0 is based on the Thielert Centurion 2.0 made by a company that was purchased by Continental. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thielert_Centurion#mediaviewer/File:Centurion20.jpg These are 2 completely different engines. The first for 100LL and 100LL alternatives, and the other for diesel or Jet fuel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 It will sip 8.5 gallons of 93 octane mogas, 100LL or JetA (a turbo diesel version is also being offered) at 75% power and get 155 KTAS to boot ... And the burn rate for both engines is far lower than any other plane in the class. Thanks in part to the all carbon fiber low drag, low weight power to weight configuration FD is engineering... I see we slowed down 15kts, now we are in a speed range that I can believe. The low drag design doesn't contribute to the economy at 75%. 75% at a given mixture determines the fuel burn, the low drag contribution will be speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Baker Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Yes. Good catch, you noticed they are two different engines..who said otherwise? All engines are based on earlier engines. The AF is a hybrid created in large part because FD asked for a mogas alternative. They also added other lighter weight components, like the new starter in order to achieve the 1320 useful load, a benchmark, if achieved that puts this plane in a class all by itself. The AF engine can in fact burn 93 octane mogas - read the specs. The Centurion is supposed to fill the gap so customers can burn Jet-A. And the burn rate for both engines is far lower than any other plane in the class. Thanks in part to the all carbon fiber low drag, low weight power to weight configuration FD is engineering. So what's the real point? Flight Design is getting ready to destroy Cessna's dominance of the 4-seater class as I said months ago. Flight Design already beat Cessna out of the LSA market as we all know. The standard bearer 172 is coming face to face with the future. You should get one, I ordered mine almost a year ago. Maybe I read your earlier post wrong or maybe you wrote it wrong, but it seemed like you were trying to make the point that the same engine would "sip 8.5 gallons of 93 octane mogas, 100LL or JetA". This is also a point you tried to argue using one of your earlier alter egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CT4ME Posted July 23, 2014 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 That one little space at the end killed the link Fixed... thanx Kurt http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/rising-stars-5-planes-will-change-aviation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Cesnalis Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 ... We are asking FD to provide mounting places for oxygen bottles since the cruise can easily be between 14k and 16k most of the time. Great Idea Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 23, 2014 Report Share Posted July 23, 2014 Great Idea With one's head so high in the clouds, pretty essential I'd say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishAl Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Interesting discussion, especially regarding the diesel C4. 100 Hamburger, I think it's interesting that you're considering diesel power for your C4. You'll definitely get better gph, and as far as the 'reduced cruise speed' is concerned, the fact that you'll have a turbo will more than make up for it if you're planning on cruising anywhere near those altitudes! The engine is based on a Mercedes Benz unit and it has steadily matured into a fairly well sorted power plant. Diesel has a bright future here in Europe, I think, at least until electric power is perfected. Do any of you guys think that it will catch on and go 'mainstream' in the USA? (As far as electric power is concerned, it seems to me that the rate of R & D in battery technology is bound to soon produce a breakthrough in light, high powered batteries that could make all piston engines obsolete in a very short space of time. Wouldn't it be greto have at a nearly silent, vibration-free engine to sit behind?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anticept Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Irish: Even with lightweight batteries, the big problem is longevity. Battery technology has come an incredible long way, but it's got an ASTOUNDINGLY long way to go to beat the amount of energy per unit volume OR weight of fossil fuels. Solar panels also have a very long way to go as they still only extract a tiny portion of the electromagnetic spectrum (they have an efficiency band), meaning that the energy that they could produce is from but a tiny percentage of the actual electromagnetic radiation emitted from our sun. I've seen news about new solar panel designs that are coming out of MIT that greatly expand the efficiency band, but so do I hear that hundreds of other times and it falls short when they realize how difficult it is to produce those designs in mass. Also remember two other things: As we burn fossil fuels, we dispose of the used material through the exhaust. Imagine how much less efficient it would be if you had to carry the spent fuel around with you until you could dispose of it. That's a big downfall of batteries from the weight point of view. People forget about oxygen too. We don't carry it with us, we suck it in from the atmosphere. There's a reason that rockets for space travel are so heavy and expensive: they need to pack liquid oxygen tanks, or pack it into the solid fuel in the case of the booster rockets. As for diesel: as the negative stigma goes away, yes, I think we will see more and more diesel engines. Since we've developed technology for lightweight diesels, it makes them a realistic powerplant for use in reciprocating engine design. I do not believe it will ever completely displace gasoline powered engines though, unless they figure out a way to be able to extract more diesel per gallon. As it stands, almost half of the product produced from a single barrel of oil is gasoline. I am willing to bet that they CAN produce more diesel, but I do need to ask, how much can they feasibly shift from gasoline to diesel? As my last thought: there's already a lot of alternative fuel sources out there: the problem is economics. When it comes to cheap vs expensive fuel, people will go cheap almost every time. Rightfully so though, because in (simplified) economics, that which *just* achieves the need is the most efficient bang for buck. I'm not trying to be a negative Nancy, but these are the hurdles that need to be overcome. The chance of a revolutionary technology coming out overnight that completely changes the face of our society almost never happens. Even computer technology, something that is taking leaps and bounds forward, I am willing to bet has tens of trillions of dollars of R&D stretching back a century (maybe hundreds of trillions). Still, we know that petroleum is running out, and having other sources of energy would be a boon! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug G. Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 Iceland was going to go all hydrogen produced by wind turbines for ground vehicles before the mortgage mess almost bankrupt the country. I haven't heard anything about it since. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted July 24, 2014 Report Share Posted July 24, 2014 The Thielart diesel engine has had a pretty chequered history over here. Although being based on a Mercedes car engine which you would think might guarantee reliability it has had quite a few "challenges" resulting in them going bankrupt. The business was then bought out of bankruptcy by a Chinese company and is manufacturing again. A number of issues remain, it has a pretty low life expectancy and (certainly in the UK) few maintenance shops that can deal with it. A flying school at my local field had a new PA28 with the diesel which they ended up sending back to the distributor because of these and other problems. Googling "Thielart engine problems" will reveal quite a bit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.