Finally a diesel for the 206 (2025)

Been wishing for this for years. But the price!!

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/con ... 2558289E0U

I mean almost every diesel engine attempt into GA has become abandoned / orphaned

So with this engine
you now have a more complex FADEC electric based system of control
extra 100lbs hanging off the nose
A liquid cooling system to install/maintain/fail
a gear box vs the dirt simple direct drive
instead of a recommended time before over haul, this over quarter million dollar engine has a time between REPLACEMENT

The 206 turbine conversion was dropped by the maker of it, and really had little to no real world viable applications

The P&L lists and history show the 206 is a great money maker and sweet overall
plane, especially the older U models, it is best served with its factory (or slightly upgraded 550 etc) engine, why swim upstream? Dont think the juice is worth the squeeze on radically re-powering a tried and true 206

Given the size of that engine. it would likely require the forward gear box/cradle to be removed from the firewall and a completely new engine mount and cowl designed with firewall reinforcements if its offered as a retrofit.

Or are they planning on offering with Textron from New?

Either way gonna be expensive. the Soloy Mk2 conversion is also a financial rabbit hole. but at least an upgrade in U/L and performance (not fuel burn tho).

Why? It's really all a matter of opinion, but to me, it's because we're still running engines that were designed 80 or more years ago and the industry is dying because it's not innovating. I think we have a bit of Stockholm syndrome from progress being non-existent in GA for so long.

Diesel is a superior fuel by many measures, and by pushing towards burning Jet A in GA aircraft we can squash several of the current issues with 100LL and the joke that is unleaded avgas.

Currently, this is being offered as an STC but I have been bitching at Cessna salespeople for years about not offering a FADEC-controlled diesel in a 206. There's no reason why a 2024 206H should have the same style of engine and manual engine control as my 206 that's 40 years old. At sun and fun last year I told the sales lady that there is simply no reason anyone with an older 206 can justify buying a new one because it's the same plane with less performance due to the added heft, they need to change things up to draw customers back in. They're not going to make new aircraft lighter, and there's only so many technological gizmos they can put in them, they have to disrupt their designs in a bigger way to draw customers back in.

Is the CD-300 perfect? No, but it's a step in the right direction.

Would I install the diesel in my 206? Maybe, maybe not.

But, would I entertain the idea of purchasing a factory new 206 with a warranty, an engine that has simpler controls, more widely available fuel, and better economy? Yep.

CParker wrote:Why? It's really all a matter of opinion, but to me, it's because we're still running engines that were designed 80 or more years ago and the industry is dying because it's not innovating. I think we have a bit of Stockholm syndrome from progress being non-existent in GA for so long.

Diesel is a superior fuel by many measures, and by pushing towards burning Jet A in GA aircraft we can squash several of the current issues with 100LL and the joke that is unleaded avgas.

Currently, this is being offered as an STC but I have been bitching at Cessna salespeople for years about not offering a FADEC-controlled diesel in a 206. There's no reason why a 2024 206H should have the same style of engine and manual engine control as my 206 that's 40 years old. At sun and fun last year I told the sales lady that there is simply no reason anyone with an older 206 can justify buying a new one because it's the same plane with less performance due to the added heft, they need to change things up to draw customers back in. They're not going to make new aircraft lighter, and there's only so many technological gizmos they can put in them, they have to disrupt their designs in a bigger way to draw customers back in.

Is the CD-300 perfect? No, but it's a step in the right direction.

Would I install the diesel in my 206? Maybe, maybe not.

But, would I entertain the idea of purchasing a factory new 206 with a warranty, an engine that has simpler controls, more widely available fuel, and better economy? Yep.

For what it’s worth

The wheel was invented well over 3,000yrs ago, I’m not going to not use wheels anymore because it’s a old idea…sometimes the tried and true stuff is tried and true for a reason

The industry is having issues because of inflation and regulation and folks who have a unhealthy obsession with their idea of “safety” which isn’t a real thing, and also enviro wackjob extremists, ain’t the poor little io520s fault

Per the tech, a much better move would be to bring better basic tech over into existing plane engines, take some of the stuff that makes a old toyota corolla with zero maintance be able to run for decades and hundreds of thousands of miles and not even need extra oil between oil changes

Kinda like how GM morphed the old carbed leaky iron block 350 into the LS (but a little less on the electronic stuff)

There are no VALID issues with 100LL

Why do you want a more complex FADEC? I fly full auto throttles, Lnav/vnav, engine EECs with full auto start, flaps that will auto relieve if there is a over speed, and I have zero desire for fadec in my cessna

Lots of recreational pilots already have lacking systems knowledge, most have a hell of a time flying, navigating AND god forbid running a BASIC checklist, now we are going to add a QRH level engine systems into the mix?

Now look at performance, this chunky monkey will make a inferior aircraft, if the numbers are true it’s got the same power, but weighs more, is more complex and will require a less aerodynamic cowl, it’s adding “tech” for the sake of “tech” and at the expense of performance, PLUS if it’s a working airplane, and if I’m reading their documents right, when it hits TBO it ain’t a 30-40k overhaul it’s a new $300,000.00 engine!!

Now if we could make a 550 with a more modern valve train and more modern materials and seals, maybe add some slight tech into magnetos, perhaps add some legal protections so aircraft/engine manufactures could avoid having to blow yuuuge money putting 13 sumps into a 172 and having a army of lawyers etc, that would be AWSOME

As would rolling back the FAA, sourcing out the many areas they have proven incompetent

I think that would make a difference, but dumping a over weight, over priced, overly complicated engine that can’t be overhauled into a nice airframe, I just don’t get it

I’d also wager if you sold a diesel 206 right next to a 550ed 206, and your buyer was a working pilot running a lodge in AK, or a 7 day a week dropzone in Vegas, no one is going to buy that diesel

I agree that adding that engine to the mix would be a really bad idea. And, by the way, Cessna gave up the "working pilots" a long time ago, when they came out with the U-206H. I was at a large show with a friend, who is a long time 135 owner/operator/pilot, right when the first H model came out. First thing he and I both said was "I wonder what that thing weighs?". Lycoming engine, full boat leather luxo interior, etc.

The 135 guy was flying a G model 206, with nearly ten thousand hours of commercial time on it, and was interested in a new one. We talked to the Cessna sales guys, and he asked them for the empty weight on that H model 206. Their response was "We don't know". He asked them where that information was......didn't know, but oh, by the way, no worries, Cessna increased the gross weight on this baby.....

My friend said that was all he needed to hear. Then we found out that Cessna opted NOT to provide a seaplane kit on the H model.....period. But, you could go to Wipaire and buy an old G model tail and put that on your brand new 206, and forego corrosion proofing, and the rest of the float kit.

This guy then bought a late G model, with upgrades and a seaplane kit, and put it to work.

Cessna could care less about working pilots, unless it comes to Caravans, etc. And, the same company (Textron) now owns both Cessna and Lycoming, which was the reason that the H model was Lycoming equipped from the git go. That big 540 is a heavy engine compared to a Continental 550.

But, commercial operators buy a diesel like that one? I seriously doubt it. They'd have to take the gross weight to 4000 pounds to make it work.....

MTV