← Back to Squawk list
  • 20

Continental Jet-A piston engine certified

Submitted
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) More...

Sam Negrete
TrendsetterNews junkiePromoterAutobiographer

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


staphory
Chris Phillips 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?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bartmiller
bartmiller 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 2
Good Point... Never thought of Lack of Avgas when you can get Jet Fuel would be reality!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
1mooneymite
1mooneymite 5
"Jet A piston engine"? Diesel with a fancy name?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 3
Jet A is actually a kerosene (paraffin in the UK) not a diesel.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
btweston
btweston -1
You’re sick burn gets zero points.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
renb
Ren Babcock 5
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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
CrowleyKenai
Charles Henry 5
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
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
LeftlySC
Stephen Leftly 2
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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
CCW1
John Prukop -4
There's no such thing as "fossil fuel"...
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 4
It’s a commonly used term that is universally accepted.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
btweston
btweston 3
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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
gwroclaw
gwroclaw 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Doodybutch
Doodybutch 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?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 1
That was supposed to be “weight to power ratio”. Sorry that I didn’t proof read
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I wonder if they will be required to have DEF!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
gwroclaw
gwroclaw 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
m4design
Andre Page 1
Uh, this is "the internet"... two clicks later...
http://www.continental.aero/diesel/engines/cd300.aspx
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
bbabis
bbabis 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
TimDyck
Tim Dyck 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 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!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
linbb
linbb -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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
btweston
btweston 1
Like the DA50? Don’t sweat it I know you didn’t read the article anyway.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
jimbabwe
jimbabwe -3
Useless, empty article. Why did you waste my time by posting it?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
CCW1
John Prukop -3
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?
Reply ↓•Permalink•Report
Propwash122
Peter Fuller 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.
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report
sparkie624
sparkie624 1
I doubt it... By the time you put that Engine up front, it will never get off the ground! Way too heavy!
Reply ↓•Permalink•Parent•Report

Login

Forgot password?
Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!
Join FlightAware
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss