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 Continental officials.
Over the years, Continental has extended the Time Between Replacement (TBR) to 2,000 hours, they added.
The engine also powered the Diamondo Earthrounding flight around the world to promote sustainable aviation, showcasing the 6-cylinder engine’s fuel efficiency, company officials said.
I it a good idea if you have a plane that you want a 500 lbs. motor in… I worked a machine shop job in college getting my a&p’s and it seemed very attractive to take a VW diesel and turbo the mess out of it, , some of the sport car fanatics ; got above 400lbs torque and close to 300hp at some times, n it could certainly be tamed to compete with the current lycombing stuff for the lighter planes…. there is certainly a future since the fuels you can use are many , even bio fuels…
At 584 pounds, I don’t know what aircraft could use this engine.?
A TCM O-550 weighs 437 lb. So, this diesel is 147 pounds heavier..!!
The turbocharged Continental and Lycoming engines are pushing 600 pounds.
Aircraft engines are unique in that they are designed to run efficiently at a constant rpm, like a lawn mower engine. Thae engine in a Cessna 172 will happily run all day at 2500rpm while sipping 7.2 gallons of avgas. It’s just as efficient as the aforementioned diesel. The diesel is an argueably more appropriate choice universally speaking due to the availability of diesel fuel worldwide. The Kodiak aircraft is a good example. It was created by a fellow who spent his adult years flying a Cessna 206 around the bush in Africa. He spent as much time on the ground as in the air due to issues with parts and fuel availability. When he retired, he set the goal of designing an aircraft specifically suited to avoid theses issues. Hence, an aircraft with a PowerPlant with few moving parts and running on whatever form of diesel because of the availability of the fuel just about everywhere. The PowerPlant is a PT-6a…solid as a rock and efficient. Diesel is the fuel of choice of militaries around the world for the same availability reason. A drawback I see with the engine in this article is its complexity and problematic puts availability out in the bush.
Diesel also has higher energy density. It also allows higher compression ratios, which inherently makes them more efficient.
In terms of delivered energy oer lb of fuel, the diesel/jet A will will more effecting. It’s basic thermodynamics.
No offense but a 8:1 or even 10:1 compression petrol engine won’t have higher specific efficiency that a 13:1 or higher diesel.
Who stated that this engine is designed for the bush?
I’d also contest the maths on efficiency. Speaking to Thielert back in the day, this engine would lower the total mission weight trading engine weight for lower fuel consumption, so I’d be interested to see, the power figures on the 172’s engine at 2,500 and 7.2gal.
Lawyers and product liability folks !
Turbo charged, 15.5 comp. ratio., liquid cooled, geared engine running at 3880 rpm. What could go wrong?
Nothing at all its a trusted mercedes
It’s not a souped-up lycosaurus. It was originally designed to do more.
How much Noise does it generate?
The CD-300 is a 4-valve, 6-cylinder Diesel engine in V configuration with Common Rail Direct Injection. The engine is Twin-Turbo-charged, Liquid-Cooled and incorporates a Wet Oil Sump as well as a Dual Redundant FADEC System, Integrated Gearbox and Propeller Governor. Take-Off power is 300 HP @ 3880 RPM. EASA Certified, FAA Validation Pending.
Certified fuels Jet-A1
Displacement 2987 cm182.3 in³³
Take-Off Power (5 Mins) 221 kW296 HP
Max Continuous Power 200 kW268 HP
Torque 918 Nm677 ft./lb
Maximum Rated RPM 3880 RPM
Bore x Stroke 83 x 92 mm3.26 x 3.62 in
Compression ratio 15.5:1
Height 700 mm27.6 in
Width 790 mm31 in
Length 980 mm38.6 in
Dry Weight 265 kg584 lbs
Cruise Fuel Consumption 34.9 l/hr 9.2 gal/hr
Time Between Replacement (TBR) Increased TBR 2000 hrs
A little actual useful information on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thielert_Centurion
Looks like a typical over complex unit. They could have used the opposed concept with a new strengthen crankcase and cylinders. The gear box is a point of failure because of the severe power pulses, would be better off with a fluid dampener for the power pulses and a 6 cylinder design to lessen these.
Sounds less than stellar
They used an existing Mercedes-Benz diesel automotive engine. It was already in “V” configuration.
It’s the m642 tested and trusted mercedes diesel
Power pulse inputs presented to a gearbox can be a problem. As an initial thought, using a 6 cylinder platform may develop other issues. The frequency of power inputs will be reduced at the same RPM. But amplitude of the sine may increase.
Did you not read its a twin turbo common rail diesel v6? As in 6 cylinders. You should really know what you are talking about before commenting….
I had hoped to actually learn something about this engine, but alas, this is naut but clickbait. Sadness.
Useless, uninformative, misleading, ridiculous article… I’m thinking written by an AI.
“to promote sustainable aviation, showcasing the 6-cylinder engine’s fuel efficiency, company officials said.” Oh please…… Rudolph Diesel developed his famous engine in the late 1800s based on his knowledge of efficient combustion cycles. He developed the fuel to go with it, too. It was all about increasing range, endurance, and saving money – not the planet. “Sustainability” is based on the false premise of limited resources. What is always left out of this discussion is man’s unlimited capacity for innovation, driven by a quest to create and the profits that can be made from innovative products people are willing to buy. See “The Ultimate Resource” by Julian Simon. Of course the ideal aircraft engine should be a diesel, burning Jet-A, Diesel, or Kerosene, which are all available in vast quantities around the world and are easier to refine than gasoline. The US in particular has vast reserves in oil thanks to US-made drilling and refining technology, especially fracking. Diesels in aviation though are anything but new. Zeppelins used them a century ago, as did some German bombers in WWII. “There is nothing new under the sun.” Book of Solomon
Amen brother! It’s always good to hear from rational informed folks. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Thank God there are folks that can still think and analyze outside the box
Why bother writing a article about an engine and not include any info about the engine !? What a useless article !
Title of your article is very misleading! A compression ignition engine is also known as a diesel engine, my Kubota and tractor have always run on jet a since new as I get it for free
We would like to know who is paying for the jet fuel you are getting for free
We are also interested. Asking for a friend and also manager of regional airport.
Fuel used in white bucket visual test, hygrometer test, dissolved water test after EACH tanker delivery and fuel drained from filter bodies during filter changes and fuel drained during routine maintenance. This fuel is NOT put into aircraft. It tends to accumulate if not disposed of. One could PAY for it’s disposal, I guess, if one doesn’t like someone else getting “something for free”.🤔
We did the same thing on a smaller scale back in the stone ages of the 80s. We put safety cans on the flight line for fuel samples. At this time it was normal to just toss the samples on the ramp. We used the collected avgas in the lawnmower. No intentional environmental purpose just economics of free gas.