I know Cessna has a Diesel-powered 182 Skylane for a bit over half a million simoleons. I didn’t catch how much the Cirrus was. In any case, 350 horses is a pretty big engine. There needs to be something smaller for the Skyhawk/Cherokee-sized airplanes.
I don’t know what happened to it, but there was a smaller 4 cylinder German made diesel being introduced in the 90s. Looked like an excellent highly efficient power plant, but I recall some questions about it’s reliability using electrical injectors.
Any idea if it runs on Jet A? As far as I know, diesels tend to work fine on jet fuel. It’s more expensive than diesel but available pretty much everywhere.
Whatever happened to the diesel the Venture was (almost) going to use (for about 10 years now)?
Did it ever go anywhere, or just another “Oppps - it’s going to take a wee bit longer” into oblivion?
That was a nice plane. Glad it survived the non-availability of the ehgine.
Nah… think “muscle planes”.
I believe so. There are STCs for mogas, but there are restrictions. I think the certification process for a Diesel powerplant would be similar: Use fuel that meets specifications, and then maybe get an STC if you want to BYOD.
Wasn’t the Venture designed by the guy who designed the Malibu? The Venture reminds me of a Malibu that went through the giant tuning fork think in Phantasm. Kind of a dwarf Malibu.
The point of something like a Skyhawk or Cherokee is that they’re supposed to be economical. The only problem with a Skyhawk is that it won’t cruise at 150 mph. That can be remedied by buying a Skylane instead, or by putting in a 180 hp engine. Either way, operating costs go up; but they go up less with the engine swap and you still get extra speed. Now, ‘new, entry-level plane’ is something that hasn’t been in the business model for 30 years. But given that Skyhawks are still being made anyway, it would be nice to have the option of a small (180 hp) Diesel engine.
Exactly! Who wouldn’t want a 260 mph Cherokee?
Wheeeeee!
Or maybe in an old Grumman Tiger!
Why should Mooneys and Bonanzas have all the 200+ fun?
Why do you hate America? 
The American dream is not efficiency. It is raw power with a punch of brutality covered by just a smidge of humility (which is becoming obsolete fast).
I logged my first five hours in an AA-5 when I was 11 years old. I wish I hadn’t lost that logbook. It was a dozen years before I got my license, but those hours were signed off by an instructor and would still count!
A popular conversion to the AA-1 is replacing the 115 hp engine with a 150 hp one. I’ve never had the opportunity to try one out. But it leads me to a question…
There is a 150 hp conversion for the Cessna 150/152. I recently read that while the conversion will make the 150/152 as fas as, or faster than, a 172, and while it makes for a fun and sprightly fast-climbing airplane, there is no increase in gross weight. Why not? With a more powerful engine, shouldn’t it be able to lift more?
Is this a payload question? Are you asking about maximum gross weight? I can certainly imagine a more powerful engine design that doesn’t weigh any more than less powerful one.
Yes, payload. A 100/115 hp 150/152 might be hard-pressed to carry two American-sized people and full fuel. I think (never having flown the type) that with full fuel a 152 can carry 433 pounds. Get a couple of 200-pounders in there, and it might be exciting on a hot day.
Damn. Velocity - pusher canard was the kit trying to co-develop with an engine (as did the Venture, but a very different situation). I do wish the Venture well (a crash killed both the owner of the plane and the guy building engines for them. They had one crash (the only TSO’d part on it (the prop) failed and walked away. Weren’t so lucky with that second crash.
I once (and briefly) owned an AA1A with a 135 h.p. (IIRC, per STC) O-290 - a Tri-Pacer powerplant.
Cruised about 160 mph.
I saw one fellow in an AA1 with an O-320 AND extended fuel tanks- the guy was over gross before getting into the rig. Luckily, the AA1 and AA5 were stone simple and super strong.
I’m too old and poor (and with failing health), but damned, I wish that had worked out.
I was at San Carlos, sold to an A/P in Concord (both CA). I looked it up on the FAA’s ownership DB - it was then in TN - somebody has a killer story about taking that little hot rod across the country.
Take care of my baby…
Ya know, the AA-1 was originally the BD-1 KIT - I wonder if somebody could buy the rights to the AA1 (as a 2-seater, should be dirt cheap) and put the kit back in production.
There used to be a decent-sized quantity of nose bowls, cowls. and misc plastic sitting around,
The type certificate is owned by True Flight Holdings LLC.
My first hundred or so hours were split between an AA-1C, a 152 of course, and a Tomahawk.
When you’re 17 and flying an AA-1 solo, it becomes a Spitfire or Corsair, and there’s nothing better in the world!
Maximum gross weight is dependent on structural strength of the aircraft, not the engine HP.
Here’s a decent write up Gross Weight
Did one of the old two who swapped the STC’s et all back and forth (Fletchair, Air Mods NW, ?) change names, or did we get a new player?
As usual, all attention is going to the Tiger - not a peep about the AA1 variants.
I wonder if there would be a conflict over parts and/or tooling if ownership were split?
The strength is what is so magical with the design - the Al honeycomb is difficult to taper, so the material is constant from firewall to close-out bulkhead.
The fuel is carried in the spar - a steel tube 8" in diameter and 1/8" wall thickness. For CG, the AA1’s seats mount directly over the spar.
One of the more over-engineered (Hi, Zenith!) out there.
Biggest problem was when Grumman bought them and substituted the “purple passion” adhesive to glue the wing skins to the ridges and wings started to peel in flight.
Sweet!
These are much better.