DA42 Musings......... (Split from another thread and Merged with older thread)

[sternone]

Jut make sure you get 2.0 Thielert diesels with it, i just read the december article in aviation consumer and diamond says they had 22 in flight stoppages of the 1,7 diesels !!! 22 ? Blimey!!

[Three Yellows]

sternone,
I would have thought that you would have learnt your lesson regarding posting opinions on technical issues after the PA28 'incident'. :}

[hobbit1983]

Sternone - do you have a link to that article? (genuinely curious!)

[englishal]

they had 22 in flight stoppages of the 1,7 diesels
I had one once...but that was because I turned the engine master off ;)

[BackPacker]

Jut make sure you get 2.0 Thielert diesels with it, i just read the december article in aviation consumer and diamond says they had 22 in flight stoppages of the 1,7 diesels !!! 22 ? Blimey!!

My club can vouch for two inflight stoppages of 1.7 Thielerts. Well, in both cases not in-flight stoppages but severe loss of power leading to forced landings. Both with good outcomes, fortunately.

Having said that, one of the inflight problems was an almost full loss of power and the incident was fairly recent. I do not know if the cause was already determined and what the cause actually was, but the issue was sufficiently complex that this aircraft (a Robin DR200-135 CDI Ecoflyer) had to spend a week or two in the field where it landed. (And for those who are not familiar with the type - the Robin has wooden spars and are normally hangared. Yes, the aircraft was thoroughly inspected before being brought back into service.)

The other incident involved a Diamond DA-40 TDI with the 1.7 engine, and was traced back to a damaged ECU Auto/B switch, leading to perpetual FADEC resets and eventually an undocumented (as in "not in the POH but in the maintenance manual") "failsafe" mode where you have 0% or 100% power, but nothing in between. As all Diamond owners will know, this ECU Auto/B switch is dangerously close to the "flightpath" of your feet when entering/exiting the aircraft. All our switches now have guards on them to prevent further similar problems.

So in at least one case, the cause was not the 1.7 engine itself but to faulty input to the FADECs. I doubt whether the 2.0 engine would have less problems with that. I mean, we all know that intelligence is normally inversely related to cubic inches, do we? :)

What worried me more when reading about the DA-42 is the fact that a sufficiently charged battery is absolutely essential when retracting the gear. The alternator(s) cannot, on their own, supply sufficient current for the gear motors, leading to a loss of voltage which in turn leads to all four FADECs packing in. Long thread about this about a month or two ago. If you ever need to use external power to start, read the POH!

[FatFrank]

Heard in the pub on Friday (yes, in the pub so you need to take it as that) that there had been problems with low voltage (power) on the battery causing the system to reset in flight that causes the prop to feather fully.

Please this is what I heard not a definative fact :rolleyes: so don't shoot

[camlobe]

Had a flight on Friday to France in a DA40 with the modified Mercedes 1.7 litre turbodiesel. Quiet. Economic at 5 gallons per hour. Back seat comfy for two hours. 110 kts @ 70%. Screaming engine, almost Rotax-like with the tacho reading prop rpm (lower figure doesn't upset the older aviating generation). Didn't really notice it go into auto-rough over the Channel. Not bad at all, really.

In the DA 42, as I understand it, the engine ECU's have had their back-up batteries enlarged as well as software changes following the previously mentioned incident.

Now picture yourself...

At point of no return in the middle of the Atlantic, your Lo-Volts light comes on. The alternators will not reset. You have battery power alone. At least 3 1/2 hours to landfall. Battery will last about 1/2 hour.

In a Beech/Cessna/Piper etc, you loose all electrics...But the engines will run until the fuel tanks are dry.

In a DA42, what would be the limiting factor, fuel or battery life? How long will the batteries last? Will you be subject to double engine auto-feather for protective purposes after one hour or so, handing you a low-drag and rather expensive and usless glider?

A number of people, myself included, are interested in knowing the true answer to this, not the rumours or pub gossip. (No offence to the gossiping pub rumour networkers)

P.S. How did it get certified in the first place? Was the certification
department of EASA manned purely by graduates with no real-world experience?

camlobe

[soay]

Sternone - do you have a link to that article? (genuinely curious!)
Thielert Diesel Reliability (http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/37_12/industrynews/5729-1.html). Worth spending $12.95, if you really are interested.

[Fuji Abound]

Jut make sure you get 2.0 Thielert diesels with it, i just read the december article in aviation consumer and diamond says they had 22 in flight stoppages of the 1,7 diesels !!! 22 ? Blimey!!

Did you read the whole article?

Whatever your personal view your quote misrepresents the article - neither fair to the authors or Diamond.

Significantly the authors conclude:

That they dont know whether the "failure" rate of Thielerts is higher or lower than Continentals or Lycomings - because the data does not exist. Moreover Diamond suggest they do have the data and reliability is better.


In a DA42, what would be the limiting factor, fuel or battery life?

Clearly the battery - with no battery power the FADECs will fail and so will the engines. A conventional system has two fuel pumps - if they both fail so will the engine. The DA42 has two alternators, in addition to the main and backup battery - if all fail so will the engines. That might be a good reason for not flying the aircraft out of sight of land for more than three hours but that is hardly a typical mission. Moreover the reliance would seem less dependant on the redundancy of the systems than a traditional engine on just two fuel pumps.

[DX Wombat]

What worried me more when reading about the DA-42 is the fact that a sufficiently charged battery is absolutely essential when retracting the gear. The alternator(s) cannot, on their own, supply sufficient current for the gear motors, leading to a loss of voltage which in turn leads to all four FADECs packing in. Long thread about this about a month or two ago. If you ever need to use external power to start, read the POH!There has been a mandatory modification to prevent this happening again. The shutdown was ENTIRELY pilot induced - they didn't follow the POH. :ugh::ugh::ugh: As all Diamond owners will know, this ECU Auto/B switch is dangerously close to the "flightpath" of your feet when entering/exiting the aircraft. :confused::confused::confused: Not in the one I fly! I'm amazed you can hit the ECU switch on entering or exiting, I certainly couldn't.

[IO540]

Sadly, the spread of publicity re engine issues with Thielert is limited only by the fact that most owners prefer to apply quiet pressure on their dealer before washing their dirty laundry in public which would just ensure they get cut off from any co-operation.

That's how aviation works... and don't I know it.

Everybody I have spoken to who owns a Diamond says the same things, more or less. Great aircraft, mediocre finish (metal fittings rusting immediately, etc), dreadful dealer support.

Such a shame, because there is nothing else out there that is modern. The avtur engine removes a whole lot of Euro touring issues in one go, too.

[englishal]

I'd trust a DA42 over a "conventional" twin any day. I can list many many reasons to go with a DA42.

I've not seen this bad finish mentioned? I've flown Diamonds for the past couple of years now, and they still look good as when I first flew them. Mind you maybe this is a difference between Canadian built ones and European ones? In fact one of the last ones I saw had full leather interior plus all the options :)

Let me know if you plan to base one at Bournemouth and I'd be delighted to talk ;)

Cheers

[IO540]

The corrosion issues appear to be internal. Mostly not important stuff.

I am sure they will learn.

[hobbit1983]

soay - thanks for the link. EnglishAl- again also out of curiosity, what would your reasons to go with the Da-42?

[englishal]

1) situational awareness. G1000 makes it virtually impossible to fly into a mountain as my mate did in a steam gauge drived Seneca 2
2) FADEC - engine mismanagement by the pilot is extinct. How many people have overboosted a turbo or cracked a cylinderhead by mismanagement?
3) Build - Composite structure, tough UC. The wheels can be put down at Vne, meaning you can slam the throttles shut, drop the gear, pitch 30 deg down and come down like a bat out of hell if the s*it hits the fan. Try that in a seneca and a) your wheels will fall off, b) the engines will die.
4) Fuel burn - 6 USG jet A1 per hour per side at 150kts TAS :ok:
5) Stick - I prefer it
6) Turbos, managed by FADEC. Great for altitude.
7) Looks cool, especially with the "Ice" lights on ;)
8) lovely to fly, good performance even with 4 adults and full fuel in a hot climate.
9) Not too much of a handful like some twins.

To name but a few....

[BackPacker]

What worried me more when reading about the DA-42 is the fact that a sufficiently charged battery is absolutely essential when retracting the gear. The alternator(s) cannot, on their own, supply sufficient current for the gear motors, leading to a loss of voltage which in turn leads to all four FADECs packing in. Long thread about this about a month or two ago. If you ever need to use external power to start, read the POH!
There has been a mandatory modification to prevent this happening again. The shutdown was ENTIRELY pilot induced - they didn't follow the POH.

I'm glad there's been a mandatory mod with regards to the gear retraction issue. Yes, the pilots did not follow the POH but in the thread mentioned we've established that virtually no single-engine POH (including the DA-40) mentions anything about an external power start, and on twin-engined aircraft the exact way on which you start the engines doesn't really matter. Plus, would you intuitively expect two engines to go into auto-feather mode just because you retracted the gear? Both if you come from a DA-40 background, and if you come from a "traditional" piston twin background, this was a completely unexpected failure. That's what scares me: it was a complete novel failure chain-of-events.

As all Diamond owners will know, this ECU Auto/B switch is dangerously close to the "flightpath" of your feet when entering/exiting the aircraft.
Not in the one I fly! I'm amazed you can hit the ECU switch on entering or exiting, I certainly couldn't.

DX, where is the switch located then on the DA-40 you fly? In ours, it is on the extreme lefthand side of the panel, about 10-15 cm above the door sill, completely exposed to feet, flight bags and everything when the canopy is open. At least, the thinking in our club is that that is exactly what happened: somebody bumped into this switch and did not report it. As said, we subsequently had guards added to all switches located there to prevent further similar incidents.

The failsafe mode, as related to me, by the way, is very interesting. If the FADECs reset themselves too often within a particular timeframe they fall back to some sort of auto failsafe mode. Pull the power lever all the way back and you get 0% power. Nudge it forward, even if just a little, you get 100% power, or at least something close to that, assuming ISA conditions. I think in this mode the FADECs don't even trust their OAT and MAP sensors anymore so they pick a power setting that works sort-of optimal without damaging the engine, regardless of OAT, MAP and so forth.

This failsafe mode is NOT described in the POH! After a long hunt, the gent from our club who had to make a forced landing because of this, found it in the maintenance manual, of all places. Not something your average pilot has access to, particularly not in-flight.

[BackPacker]

5) Stick - I prefer it

Me too. But I have found that in the DA-40 the stick is located so far into your crotch (halfway up your thigh) that it is impossible to use a traditional kneeboard. You need to use a loose A5 clipboard and jam it in between your hip and the centre console instead. No other place to put plogs, maps and such except for the map pocket near your knee or on the coaming.

I've only flown VFR but I can imagine that especially for IFR flying you need to think seriously about where you're going to locate all your stuff to have it to hand, and visible, even if you need two hands to fly the plane.

With a yoke, you can either clip things to the yoke or use a kneeboard. Don't expect any of these solutions to work in the DA-40, or the DA-42, assuming the stick location is the same.

Having said that, if you can make the G1000 sing and dance for you, including things like displaying approach plates superimposed on a moving map, who needs paper maps, clipboards and such anyway?

[DX Wombat]

BackPacker, it sounds as if the switch is in approximately the same place, 30cms or so up from the base of the panel and immediately above the ECU power check button - but in that case I would have expected the HSI switch to the left of it to be hit rather than the ECU Swap. I'm amazed that anyone managed to hit it. From what I remember being told, the problem with the DA42 was that there is (or was - I'm not sure what the modification is) NO back-up electrical power available unlike the DA40 which has approx 30 mins available.
All this just serves to demonstrate the importance of actually reading the POH and not just making assumptions that because you have flown something similar (2 wings, 2 engines, retractable gear etc) that everything will be exactly the same. I was very fortunate in that my conversion to the DA40 was done by the CFI who laid great stress on the importance of reading the POH, especially before a new aircraft was flown.
virtually no single-engine POH (including the DA-40) mentions anything about an external power start,The POH for the C152 does. :ok:

[englishal]

I've only flown VFR but I can imagine that especially for IFR flying you need to think seriously about where you're going to locate all your stuff to have it to hand, and visible, even if you need two hands to fly the plane.
I too thought that not being able to use an A4 clipboard and not having a yoke clip would be a problem. But no...I use an A5 clipboard strapped to my leg which is fine for holding approach plates, A5 plogs, pen, paper, timer, whatever...Not that you need all that rubbish ;) Load the approach into the G1000, reference the approach plate, start the timer soft key and you're all set .....:)

[soay]

I have found that in the DA-40 the stick is located so far into your crotch (halfway up your thigh) that it is impossible to use a traditional kneeboard. You need to use a loose A5 clipboard and jam it in between your hip and the centre console instead.
I've found this (http://www.transair.co.uk/product4.asp?SID=2&Product_ID=954) A5 kneeboard works well for me. It has a stretch velcro band to wrap around your thigh, to keep it in place.

Zuluworks (http://www.zuluworks.com/prod/zuluboards/economy_mini-z.htm) do one specially designed for the DA40, but the shipping costs three times as much as the board!

[BackPacker]

but in that case I would have expected the HSI switch to the left of it to be hit rather than the ECU Swap.

I checked the pictures of our panel and there's nothing to the left of the ECU swap switch in our DA-40. However, the POH of the DA-40 lists several panel variations depending on VFR/NVFR/IFR and avionics fit, and in some configurations there is a "slaving meter" left of the ECU swap button. Is that what you mean? Just out of curiosity, what does this do?

[DX Wombat]

I was taught to use the HSI switch (it's a little smaller than the engine master switch and a bit bigger than the ECU swap) to reset the HSI if it was inaccurate. I can't remember anything about a slaving meter and I can't read what it says on the dial on that side as the photo isn't too sharp. Unfortunately I won't have access to the DA40 or its POH for quite a while to come so can't look it up. When I DO get the opportunity to find out I'll let you know. The FTO blurb describes the DA40 as a full IFR DA40 Diamond Star . It's got more bits and pieces than you can shake a stick at. :)

[soay]

there is a "slaving meter" left of the ECU swap button. Is that what you mean? Just out of curiosity, what does this do?
That's part of the HSI in steam gauge equipped DA40s. It's actually a Bendix King KA-51B (http://www.seaerospace.com/king/ka51b.htm), which indicates a magnetometer error, if it shows a continuous needle swing.

[BackPacker]

Okay, I understand now. Our DA-40 is fully IFR with dual GNS430, but with an old-fashioned DI, which you need to align manually with the magnetic compass. So no slave meter and HSI switch in ours. Thanks.

[soay]

Just in case all this talk about problems with Thielert engines has put USD off his plans for a shared DA42 ownership, the following three part article at Dielseair.com is encouraging:

Part 1 (http://www.dieselair.com/#4120493531700276390)
Part 2 (http://www.dieselair.com/#8757281956793129521)
Part 3 (http://www.dieselair.com/#1742714972720983362)

[hobbit1983]

That's interesting; part 3 mentions a "new engine project" which should, amid other things, give 170hp/engine & 200kts cruise on the DA-42.

"the DA42 version will fly in September" -anyone heard anything more about this? The Diamond website doesn't mention it, and the blurb for the DA-42 still quotes 135hp engines.

[Life's a Beech]

Flown with the engine, though not on type. Awful thing. Forever getting red warnings (have to land and see engineer). One engine failure, fortunately on the taxiway. Was not a popular aircraft!

[sternone]

Many pilots look at the DA42 with hopes high.....

* twin engine power with higher thrust levels and faster air speeds
* redundancy , safety of a second engine
* building twin hours for later eclipse conversion..
* Jet fuel available everywere in europe
* cheap tax free jet fuel, thielert diesels have a very good fuel economy
* easy FADEC operation
* ...

But when you really look into it you get dissapointed fast, you soon find out that they don't have their engines sorted out (yet) !! One who is claiming here on the forum that there is not a huge problem with Thielert Diamonds is just lying to himself, even Christian Dries had to face the facts!

As long as there is no dude running around with a tattoo on his chest of a Diamond logo i remain sceptic ;)

Some weeks ago a familiar sight ? I saw a DA40 not able to fire up, not even with the external power...(the red box) that bird did not fly.. i saw him running true the checklist for a half an hour, then it was grounded, i think it happens more with Diamonds than we can imagine

http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z210/stern1_2007/Afb009.jpg
http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z210/stern1_2007/Afb008.jpg

[DX Wombat]

Soay - thanks, I thought that was what it was but didn't want to say definitely until I had been able to check. :ok: Guess who will be re-reading the POH before I fly the DA40 again. ;) It's been grounded for almost four months now :{:{:{ but there is light on the horizon, the procedures for fitting the new engine have now been worked out. :ok: :D

[soay]

there is light on the horizon, the procedures for fitting the new engine have now been worked out
A lot is hanging on the reliability of the new 2 litre engines. After your extended AOG, I hope it lives up to expectations!

[Rod1]

If you want a modern twin with low operating costs, full IFR, 4 seats and nice reliable engines (Rotax 912S) why not go for;

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_P2006T.htm

Should burn 30lph (Mogas) at 147kn

Rod1

[DX Wombat]

Some weeks ago a familiar sight ? I saw a DA40 not able to fire up, not even with the external power...(sternone, what ARE you on about? I have never seen "our" DA40 grounded even though it stays outside all year round. The reason it is grounded at the moment is because the ENGINE IS OUT OF HOURS and they have been waiting for the procedures for fitting the new 2L one to be written. :ugh::ugh::ugh: It is also possible that this was down to pilot mis-management - did that ever occur to you? I have seen plenty of other types of aircraft refusing to start - INCLUDING Mooneys. This doesn't make them any better or worse than the DA40 it simply means it can happen. Ever seen a car with a flat battery? Would you blame that on the manufacturer? Actually, going on your past record, if it wasn't a manufacturer you approved of, you probably would. :\
Soay, I hope so too. How is yours getting on? :confused:

[soay]

Soay, I hope so too. How is yours getting on?
No engine problems, so far ... ;)

[Contacttower]

But when you really look into it you get dissapointed fast, you soon find out that they don't have their engines sorted out (yet) !! One who is claiming here on the forum that there is not a huge problem with Thielert Diamonds is just lying to himself, even Christian Dries had to face the facts!



Sternone have you really looked into it? I'm not having a go...I'm just curious.

I've flown the DA40 and sat in the DA42 before and I have to say I was impressed with the plane. The whole electrics thing sounds rather worrying but I'm sure they'll sort it out.

[Three Yellows]

Sternone,

You don't learn do you? :ugh:

Why don't you get back to your PPL course. How many P1 hours do you have now? 2 or maybe even 3?

3Y

(Very Happy DA42 owner with over a 120 P1 hours on my own DA42 in the last 9 months)

[Contacttower]

Three yellows what sort of performance are you getting from the DA42 in terms of fuel burn/TAS?

[wsmempson]

QUOTE "Some weeks ago a familiar sight ? I saw a DA40 not able to fire up, not even with the external power...(the red box) that bird did not fly.. i saw him running true the checklist for a half an hour, then it was grounded, i think it happens more with Diamonds than we can imagine"

Probably trying and failing to power up the armrest?

[DX Wombat]

i saw him running true the checklist for a half an hour, then it was grounded, i think it happens more with Diamonds than we can imagine"
Pilot induced battery flattening? It happens with others too, INCLUDING MOONEYS, not just Diamonds. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
I'm beginning to think we should send your poor FI a card expressing our heartfelt sympathy for him or her. :((Very Happy DA42 owner with over a 120 P1 hours on my own DA42 in the last 9 months)You lucky person 3 Yellows - long may that continue for you. :ok:

[sternone]

Hehe, you guys must admid that i amuse most of you and vice versa!

[Contacttower]

Hehe, you guys must admid that i amuse most of you and vice versa!


Amuse is perhaps not the right word. Sterone did you really, apon seeing this poor guy trying to start his plane, think to yourself:

'Ha :p, I see this loser can't get his Diamond to start, I must go and get my camera and photograph him in his misery'?

[100LL]

Sternone you obviously know absolutely everything about Aircraft, Aviation and Birdmen. I do truly look up to you. Have you considered a career in aviation management?


Or you could offer your services as a consultant to Diamond, Cessna, Mooney (Delete as necessary) seems that you have all the answers.


Any Ideas on what happend to the Ethiad A340-600 at Toulouse. Would love to hear your rants on this.


I have worked with Diamonds for the last 9 years and the only non start incident I have seen was caused by a leak on the fuel filter bleed screw.


Hows yours comming on DX

[sternone]

Ofcorse i know it all, don't you read my posts ? I'm happy i can be your daddy.

I also take note that you have 9 years expierence with the Diamonds and i'm the first bloke telling you about the massive owners problems with the thielerts diesels right ?

[bjornhall]

in the thread mentioned we've established that virtually no single-engine POH (including the DA-40) mentions anything about an external power start

It's in the C172N/R/S, Archer III, Archer II, and Piper Cadet POH's, and then I only checked the ones in our club...

Doubt much of any substance is ever "established" in a forum thread... It can give you a useful hint for what info to look up in a reliable source though...

[100LL]

No massive problems this end at all. Can't answer for the aircraft we don’t maintain. All our ECU warnings went away with the Oil and fuel pressure wiring mods.

Nine years ago when i started working on Diamonds we had major problems with the Rotax engines, now we never see them between checks.

Why is that you ask? Because engineers get to know them, stick to the manufacturers schedules, not treat them like 1940's Lycoming technology and low and behold no problems.

I'm happy i can be your daddy.

With that remark i would be more than happy to be an Orphan.

[Three Yellows]

Contacttower


Three yellows what sort of performance are you getting from the DA42 in terms of fuel burn/TAS?


155 knots TAS AT 70% POWER AT FL100. Using 5.6 USG PER SIDE. .... and we buy the JET A1 for less than 50p a litre inc VAT! (at the moment!).

3Y

[Contacttower]

155 knots TAS AT 70% POWER AT FL100. Using 5.6 USG PER SIDE. .... and we buy the JET A1 for less than 50p a litre inc VAT! (at the moment!).



Thanks. That sounds pretty good to me (compared to traditional twins).

[BackPacker]

It's in the C172N/R/S, Archer III, Archer II, and Piper Cadet POH's, and then I only checked the ones in our club...

Bugger. I remembered from the thread that I checked some POHs and found nothing. But I just grabbed the POH from the Cadet and it's right there.

I humbly stand corrected.

[DX Wombat]

Hi 100LL - I've not been down for a bit but apparently the engine is at the maintenance facility, the aircraft is there and it's just a case of waiting. :ok: I'm sure they will get around to it as soon as they can. :) I'm itching to get back to it but I'll be giving the POH a good re-reading first.
Would you care to have a fellow orphan? Perhaps, along with fellow sufferers, we could form a nice little family of orphans? :E

[DX Wombat]

i'm the first bloke telling you about the massive owners problems with the thielerts diesels right ?You could also consider the fact that your claim to be the first is because apart from in your jaundiced opinion there haven't actually been massive problems. (I'm assuming you mean massive problems and not, as you have written, massive owners.) :uhoh:

[wsmempson]

I think the real problem here is with a massive knob - and I don't mean the mixture control. You don't have a mixture control knob in a twin-star.:}

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone - well you have stirred the pot, and that isnt a bad thing.

You might also want to consider an application to the Sun who have perfected the art for a particular style of reporting for which you have a natural talent.

With any new aircraft it is vital that the assessment of its safety and reliability is accurate - on that all our lives depend.

It is also important for another reason.

If there are unwelcome concerns about the aircrafts safety then rightly sales of the aircraft should suffer. The natural consequence of this is for the manufacturer to fail, which if the concerns are founded would be welcome. However, it would be a great shame in my view to see the manufacturer suffer in consequence of unsupported scare mongering because our "hobby" desperately requires innovation of the level brought by Diamond.

There are a large number of schools using both the 40 and 42. I suspect the aircraft is accumulating hours far more quickly that almost any new design before it. Not surprisingly there will be lessons to learn. What is important is how well Diamond learns the lessons - adapting and improving the product.

I have more than a few hours on both the 40s and 42s in pretty much all conditions of operation.

For me the aircraft has a number of draw backs but at present these are far out weighted by the advantages.

We can debate these shortcomings from a position of experience gleaned from pilots flying the aircraft to advantage which rightly should be distinguished from uninformed gossip, rumor and sensationalism.

[scooter boy]

"I would have thought that you would have learnt your lesson regarding posting opinions on technical issues after the PA28 'incident'. :}"

Three Yellows,
are we to suppose that bullying people into silence is acceptable?

Sternone (irrespective of his level of experience) has his own point of view (which is backed by by fact in this case).

He is entitled to it just as you are entitled to yours.

SB

[Fuji Abound]

(which is backed by by fact in this case).

In which case it would be interesting for him to set out the facts - having had some fun.

The report earlier referred to (which I have read in full) seems to me to be a relatively balanced analysis and the reporters did not reach the conclusion advanced. That would suggest that there is other evidence on which Sternone is relying of which the reporters were either unaware or chose not to include in their analysis or that the conclusion I reached was unjustified.

I would be interested to know which it is.

[100LL]

If you really must have a table top on your knee when flying try these
http://www.pooleys.com/images/products/1305.jpg
designed for the Diamond

[sternone]

The report earlier referred to (which I have read in full) seems to me to be a relatively balanced analysis and the reporters did not reach the conclusion advanced. That would suggest that there is other evidence on which Sternone is relying of which the reporters were either unaware or chose not to include in their analysis or that the conclusion I reached was unjustified.

I think it must be more difficult to admit faults on your favorite or selected plane than on your wife. If Diamond says to Aviation Consumer they had 22 known in flight stoppages then you must admid there is a problem. I cannot post the article in full since i'm a paid subscriber and due to copyright infringements you should pay for your own subscription. I took one due to earlier posts here on PPRune advising me of their unsponsored clean and to the point honest style of writing, they always let positive and negative people about a product or service speak, give their advice, and let the reader himself descide what he thinks about it.

When i read that article, i get confirmed that Diamond's crappy planes even have more crappy engines.. as stated above, for most pilots like me, what diamond promises is amazing, the reality is different, they need to sort out their problems and urgently, or they will loose credibility, i hope sincerely that they succeed in building a bullet proof engine themselfs, let's see what the future gives, but for me, no diamonds... and in this case, diamonds are not a girls best friend, all girls i asked, they all hate that plastic glider look, they really couldn't make a more ugly plane did they ?

So, if you ever end up with a very very good technology Diamond aircraft plane, you still end up with the most ugly duck in the water...

[Fuji Abound]

Sternone

1. It is not my favorite,

2. Why use the word stoppages, when the report uses the word shut downs. Do you know the difference between the two?

3. Thielert (note not Diamond) are reported as saying the number of shut downs per hour flown is three times less than other piston engines. Thielert identify the source of the data on which they rely, but the reporters say they have not so far been able to find the same data source. Whether it exists or not we therefore do not know. What the reporters do say is they dont have creditable data from which to make a comparison. That means the reporters at least cannot prove or disprove Thielert's claims.
That seems to me to be a balanced summary of part of the report on whcih you have commented. It is not what you have said.

Back to the more flamboyant school of journalism for you me thinks - you do have a natural ability for it :). Always enjoy your posts though.

PS I think you have taught me a few tricks though - I am going to try something.

[Contacttower]

When i read that article, i get confirmed that Diamond's crappy planes even have more crappy engines.. as stated above, for most pilots like me, what diamond promises is amazing, the reality is different, they need to sort out their problems and urgently, or they will loose credibility, i hope sincerely that they succeed in building a bullet proof engine themselfs, let's see what the future gives, but for me, no diamonds... and in this case, diamonds are not a girls best friend, all girls i asked, they all hate that plastic glider look, they really couldn't make a more ugly plane did they ?

So, if you ever end up with a very very good technology Diamond aircraft plane, you still end up with the most ugly duck in the water...

sternone you may well have a point about the engines...but it is interesting that so far more people have defended the Diamonds than not. But the rest you've written is very subjective.

[Three Yellows]

"I would have thought that you would have learnt your lesson regarding posting opinions on technical issues after the PA28 'incident'. :}"

Three Yellows,
are we to suppose that bullying people into silence is acceptable?

Sternone (irrespective of his level of experience) has his own point of view (which is backed by by fact in this case).

He is entitled to it just as you are entitled to yours.

SB



Scooter Boy,

The smiley (toothy) face at the end of my line was meant to indicate that I was pulling his leg in a half friendly way. I apologise if that wasn't how it was received.

I'm certainly not the only one here who disagrees with some of Sternone's wild generalisations. I agree we are all entitled to an 'opinion' but sometimes hard facts 'sexed up' by someone with very limited experience of the GA world is not ideal and could potentially leave him/her and Pprune open to legal action by Diamond/Piper etc.

I also feel that Sternone is beginning to enjoy his/her notorioty on here and now spends his/her time looking for the next 'grenade' to lob in...... I for one will try to resist rising to the bait in future.

[172driver]

I think it must be more difficult to admit faults on your favorite or selected plane than on your wife

must be the quote of the week on Pprune !

[wsmempson]

I'm not sure that in this case this is about "bullying someone into silence" - more that it is about telling someone with the hide of a Rhino when he is talking bollocks that it might be time to listen rather than talk.

I'm all for freedom of speech - and for goodness sake this is an open forum - but when someone is wrong, has been told that they're wrong (and why they're wrong) over and over again - a bit of plain speaking is called for.

3 yellows is on the same field as me and owns and runs a DA42; He seems to be making sense and I at least know that he flies an aeroplane. Sternone, on the other hand, claims to be a ppl student in Belgium (which may or may not be true) and has a track record of sending some of the nastiest PM's to people that I've ever seen. For all I know, he may be a "care in the community patient" - or he might be Bob Davey in disguise.

In an earlier post he thought all DA42's were rubbish because they didn't have a central armrest; Now he doesn't like them because they are terribly unsafe....

If I were in his boots I'd probably try to listen more and transmit less - but for some reason this isn't happening. He might be a great bloke - if only we could find out?:rolleyes:

[englishal]

Gimme a TwinStar over a PA28Mooney lookalike anyday.....I suppose Mooney's were good 50 years ago, but times have moved on I am afraid.....;)

[Contacttower]

3 yellows is on the same field as me and owns and runs a DA42; He seems to be making sense and I at least know that he flies an aeroplane. Sternone, on the other hand, claims to be a ppl student in Belgium (which may or may not be true) and has a track record of sending some of the nastiest PM's to people that I've ever seen. For all I know, he may be a "care in the community patient" - or he might be Bob Davey in disguise.



Well that is one of the advantages/disadvantages (depending on how you look at it) of forums...more often than not we don't know each other. I love the way I can 'take on' a slightly different persona when posting and perhaps from time to time come across as more experienced than I really am.

Clearly though not all think of it that way :E.

[wsmempson]

I just think that the joke (if it is a joke) has worn thin with a certain individual, and I don't think that I'm alone in this; furthermore, I think that firing a load of personal abuse by pm to forumites is BAD news and a sign of someone who is actually not a crusading fighter for free speech, but a nutter. presumeably there is no-one left in Belgium to talk to?

[Contacttower]

Just bear in mind sternone what a small world aviation is.

[sternone]

Just bear in mind sternone what a small world aviation is.


I would love to know what you actually mean by that ? Do you think i sh!t my pants in a discussioin with other pilots at the bar ? Absolutely not.

What a ridiculous way of arguing are you folks doing, get a grip, this is a forum were people can share their ideas and learn from each other, sometimes think you like, sometimes thinks you see proving you were wrong.

I personally like it that people now even say that i'm not even a pilot maybe i don't even exist ? Anyways, like said before ? Just click the other way, how easy can that be ? I always love it when people actually type in facts to show me i'm wrong.. Shouldn't be that difficult knowing that i don't know anything...right ?

PS: I just heard that to work on Diamonds avionics you need to connect external power ? Is that with other G1000 installations also the case ?

[100LL]

PS: I just heard that to work on Diamonds avionics you need to connect external power ? Is that with other G1000 installations also the case ?

Yeah it stops the battery going flat you :mad: muppet.

And two rules which apply

1. Don't argue with a fool. The spectators can't tell the difference.

2. Never argue with a fool, they will lower you to their level and then beat you with experience.

So lets all be warned :ok:

[wsmempson]

Some of our Gallic chum's exchanges rather remind me of this;

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mXpxEqo-KZQ

Although, this was intended as a joke.:rolleyes:

[sternone]

Yeah it stops the battery going flat you muppet.

Yeah, please sing that song again so i can dance for you, i just loooove dancing!! Yihaaa!

So that means that when you have a G1000 problem, and you know you can fix it, you can't when you do not attach an external power ?

[soay]

So that means that when you have a G1000 problem, and you know you can fix it, you can't when you do not attach an external power ?
It depends how quick you are and how well charged the battery is.

[englishal]

The G1000 mean time between failures is about 4x that of conventional instruments......For your info ;)

[smarthawke]

Sternone, I'm sure you know the answer really.... but any engineer with a bit of common dog will use an external power source if the aircraft electrics/avionics (G1000 or not) need to be left on for any time without the engine turning.

Aircraft batteries are not the most powerful in the world so will flatten quickly with a large load applied and an external power source is more likely to give a stable power supply which is preferred by the G1000.

[Justiciar]

Sternone really has got to some of you people.

I am still no nearer to an answer of the real question which started this thread: how reliable is the DA42 or other aircraft with the 1.7 or 2.0 diesel as compared to a conventional single or older twin?

If you had £500k to burn, and wanted an aircraft to take you long distance and on extended flights over water or sparse terrain would you buy one or would you save you money and go for an old but tried and tested twin such as an Aztec or twin Comanche at a third the price, or perhaps a modern but conventional engined single, i.e Cirrus? Where really do the advantages, if any, lie with the DA42?

[172driver]

Justiciar, with 500k to burn, you got get something really nice - this (http://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft-for-sale/PILATUS-PC-12/1995-PILATUS-PC-12/1124592.htm?guid=5F67DD390AD3432E8769D71756582338)

Would be my choice (alas, a theoretical one :{ )

[englishal]

Justiciar, with 500k to burn, you got get something really nice
Unless I am mistaken, that PC12 is up for $2,295,000, which is a little over £500,000 ;) Plus you'd need to find another $130,000 for the engine in a few hundred hours...:eek:

Depending on how rich I was (over and above the £500k) I'd either get a top of the range twin star and pocket the rest of the cash, or a Beach Duke with Royal Turbine conversion ;)

[Mister Jellybean]

I'm afraid that $2.3m is some way off £500k, even with the best will in the world and a weakening dollar.

And a new DA42 will set you back somewhere between £300-360k, depending on the options you want on it.

[hobbit1983]

Currently £329,129.53 for a new DA-42 with LR tanks, deice, TAS/Stormscope, DME/ADF & that trim option.

(Daydreaming...moi? ;) )

[172driver]

I'm afraid that $2.3m is some way off £500k, even with the best will in the world and a weakening dollar.


Well, we are talking round figures here, aren't we ? ;)

Seriously, though: having the money (I don't....) I would buy a turbine and not a piston. Of course it depends what you want to do with it. Long IFR legs in more or less any wx or rather idle touring. Horses for courses, really.

[Justiciar]

Long IFR legs in more or less any wx or rather idle touring


Single pressurised turbine must then beat un-pressurised twin in these circumstances for speed and altitude. Socata, Piper and Pilatus obviously think so. So what is the benefit of a twin (other than being cheaper than your turbine single)?

[172driver]

So what is the benefit of a twin (other than being cheaper than your turbine single)?

Frankly, I don't think there is one. In addition, in a turbine you don't have the AVGAS availability problem. Not an issue in the UK, but definitely in parts of southern Europe, to say nothing about Africa, where you have to be very careful in planning your routes around possible fuel stops.

[IO540]

I don't have the reference for this but IIRC, NTSB data shows SE turboprops five times less likely to go down than piston twins.

For the ultimate mission capability for £500k I would get a used Jetprop which is a PT6 conversion of a piston Malibu. It would be a bit old at £500k; £700k seems to get much better stuff. < 2000kg means no Eurocontrol charges, it's pressurised and goes to at least FL250 and does at least 260kt TAS.

I doubt the DA42 has been around for long enough in big enough numbers to generate useful data. Especially as engine failures on privately owned twins are usually not reported.

[Rod1]

A P2006 is 235k Euro...

Rod1

[172driver]

A P2006 is 235k Euro...

I know and was trying to elicit comments on it in another thread, but got no replies. Anyone care to opine here ?

[Justiciar]

A P2006 is 235k Euro...


OK - I'll bite.

Two things immediately occur:

Single engine performance near MAUW?
Cost of operation when Mogas is no longer available due to the bio fuel content?Would guess fuel consumption around 40 litres/hour at cruise? That would put the fuel costs at around the same as a conventional light single, but much higher cruise speed. OK then if you need 4 seats - I will stick with my Pioneer.

[Rod1]

Repeated...

If you want a modern twin with low operating costs, full IFR, 4 seats and nice reliable engines (Rotax 912S) why not go for;

http://www.tecnamaircraft.com/Tecnam_P2006T.htm

Should burn 30lph (Mogas) at 147kn

Rod1

PS Biofuel will probably be no problem, just bioethanal which is only one version.
Climb rate, s.l. (single engine) 380 fpm

[172driver]

Had a look at the spec sheet, sounds pretty good (on pdf at least :E). One thing that would bother me a bit is the range, this could be better. Also the service ceiling on one engine isn't too great - if one donk fails, you'll be heading down pretty quickly, by the sounds of this (have to admit very little twin knowledge, so don't know how this compares).

What is very nice is the Mogas which makes a lot more places accessible.

How reliable are Rotax 912s ?

[Rod1]

“How reliable are Rotax 912s ?”

It has been certified for some time and there are very large numbers in use. In the UK PFA fleet the Rotax 912 range is considered to be the most reliable engine in the fleet, beating the old US engines. I am very impressed with my 912s, but like you I know next to nothing about twins.

On the surface it looks like a revolutionary approach, which will give the DA42 a hard time on the value for money front. Tecnam have a good name in the VLA/Micro/LSA world.

Rod1

[Fuji Abound]

Look dont kid yourselves the DA42 is not an all weather go any where airways aircraft.

At the top end of GA are the turboprops. The aircraft are designed for "serious" airways operation. They have the performance, the redundancy of equipment, and the "technology" to deal with most weather. Dont bother if you want to fly extensively outside the airways and appeciate you will need not only an IR but a type rating.

At the next level are the more robust twins - most of vintage. Aircraft like the Aztec, Beech etc with a modern instrument refit are capable of coping with most weather and have the performance to ensure a reasonable safety margin on one engine in most circumstances. For example an Aztec fully loaded even with a reasonably ham fisted pilot will have the power to climb away in most circumstances at a healthy rate.

At the next level comes the 42. It does most of the things achieved by the more robust twins but its single engine performace at MTOW is hardly staggering, and I am not convinced it gives the best ride in rough conditions. Personally I think you would rather be in an Aztec for example when the going gets rough than in a 42 - if not by a wide margin.

Finally may come the new Tecnam. Of course the jury is out and it would be unfair to reach any conclusions yet. Probably its performance will be less good by another margin from the 42. Moreover, I dont think the engines are injected and I guess it will not be deiced - significant restrictions for an all weather twin. What it might offer is relatively cheap capable touring with the added security of two engines over water or hostile terrain.

[sternone]

I suppose Mooney's were good 50 years ago

Please tell me then why in 2007 this 50 year old model is still one of the most economic planes around ?

[172driver]

At the next level comes the 42. It does most of the things achieved by the more robust twins but its single engine performace at MTOW is hardly staggering

Indeed. Chap I know now sees the world from a wheelchair, thanks to this :(

[Fuji Abound]

Indeed. Chap I know now sees the world from a wheelchair, thanks to this

I am very sorry to hear that.

[scooter boy]

I suppose Mooney's were good 50 years ago "Please tell me then why in 2007 this 50 year old model is still one of the most economic planes around ?"

Englishal,
You are correct that Mooneys were good 50 years ago - in fact they were great and still are. A 30 year old Mooney will outrun a new DA-42, use less fuel in the process, not have the risk of in flight engine failure the Thielert has (22 in flilght stoppages so far according to aviation consumer) and look a damned sight better.

The Mooney airframe (like the bonanza airframe) is an iconic design which is very difficult to improve upon.

Next time you are near a new Mooney, take a look at the build quality, you cannot even get a credit card between the elevator and the tailplane, or rudder/fin, or aileron/wing. Look how thin the tail plane is in cross section and compare it to a PA-28/DA-42. Notice the all-trimming tailplane to avoid the extra drag of trim tabs. Look at the fully enclosed gear doors - these enclose the gear and cause less drag than most bizjet RG systems. Look at the FIKI approved TKS system. In addition to the genius design skills of Al Mooney this airframe has been tweaked and improved progressively over 50 years by visionaries such as Roy Lo Presti. But efficiency is the key to how good the machine is and the Mooney is unbeatable. Let me repeat that, the Mooney is unbeatable in its class.

The Mooney build quality is also incomparably better than anything in its class. Diamond have a long way to go before they begin to get close to this (or the 200+ kt figure they promised with the twinstar).

But I suppose, you may prefer 155kts in a plastic bathtub as opposed to 192kts in a handcrafted piece of Texan aluminium? :ugh:

Chacun a son gout,

SB

[vee-tail-1]

Have followed this thread so far, and it seems as if people would rather defend their particular viewpoint than admit to problems.
Fact is there are two ways to operate diesel engines, mechanical or electronic.
Mechanical ones (with fuel pump & injectors) keep going without electrical power. Electronic (common rail & ECU) do NOT keep going without electrical power. Thielert chose to develop an electronic system and this is inherently unsuitable for aircraft use. The inevitable back-up systems that are needed defeat the main advantage of diesel power, reliability, economy, and long life.
Sad really. :{

[soay]

Diesel engines with mechanical injectors don't have sufficient power to weight ratios for use in aeroplanes.

[Mister Jellybean]

Having flown both Mooney M20J (now a 30 year old model) and DA42, guess what? They are both great aeroplanes.

The M20J cruised at 155kt at 9,000ft and burned about 11 US gal per hour at 50 degrees rich of peak. Never could get it to run smoothly lean of peak, a common problem with stock avgas engines and their very primitive fuel injection systems. The higher cruise figures (192kt was mentioned) are for the current Mooney models with bigger engines, and they have far higher fuel burns of course.

And the DA42 cruises at 155kt at 9,000ft burning 12 US gal per hour. Rather impressive that a twin, carrying all the weight and drag of the second engine and the fuel to feed it, can pretty much match the performance and economy of that old Mooney. And this DA42 is equipped with TKS, which knocks several knots off cruise speed. The M20J had no de-icing. I've also flown a non-TKS DA42 which gave the same performance at 10.5 US gal per hour.

Vee-tail-1, could you explain why you think FADEC controlled diesels are inherently unsuitable for aircraft use? What are the back up systems you refer to? Surely it's difficult to substantiate such a statement with hundreds of diesel-powered aircraft out there and order books for hundreds more?

[englishal]

But I suppose, you may prefer 155kts in a plastic bathtub as opposed to 192kts in a handcrafted piece of Texan aluminium?
Yep. Although I said what I said primarily to wind up Sternone ;) I would actually prefer a TS over a Mooney. No doubt the Mooney is an excellent aeroplane (though both would be too much of a handful for Sternone's level of experience), but I'd prefer the second engine. I "failed" the critical engine in a TS in California and managed to climb quite comfortably to 9500 3 up and lots of fuel at over 300 fpm all the way up. I left Palm Springs a few weeks ago with 4 up, full fuel and 30C, and had no problems with performance.

The problem with these old designs like the Mooney is that were never designed with safety in mind - just like old cars. You'd be more likely to survive a crash in a TS than a Mooney, the TS has been designed with a 25G safety cell and seats for a start....

Anyway, eash to their own....On the subject of the TKS, I thought that actually increased the top speed of the TS due to the differences in leading edge of the wing with and without.

[vee-tail-1]

soay. Please keep up with progress, particularly in France.
The Dieselis, has a mechanical Isuzu turbo-diesel, the Gaz-ailes has a mechanical Citroen AX 1.4 diesel. Jodels like the Delvion and other models use a variety of mechanical diesel engines, from Citroen, Peugeot, and Toyota.
http://gazaile2.free.fr & http://delvion.free.fr


mister jellybean.
Surely you are aware that a complete electrical failure on a Thielert powered aircraft means loss of the engine. The electronic control of the diesel injection system works by electricity. No electricity..no injection..no motor. Call it FADEC or ECU or whatever, if the electrics fail, and the two batteries(one for backup) go flat, you will lose the motor. Makes no difference how many FADECS or backup control systems you have, the common rail diesel injection system is totally reliant on an electrical power supply. Long ago aircraft engines were fitted with magnetos so that if everything failed at least the motor would keep going. Not so this new Thielert electronic diesel.

[Life's a Beech]

Jellybean

Statistically you are safer in a single than a twin. OK, that ignores several factors that vary the risk, but even though I have more than 1000 hours in MEPs I would prefer, day VMC, to be in a light single than a light twin unless I was over an inhospitable surface, such as water, for a long time. Twin has twice the chance of failure. Even higher with the TAE unit.

What I can't believe is that an operator got an AOC for the things. There is no way that they could fly safely at night, because it is almost impossible to stay within 30 mins of a suitable alternate when most are closed. Any more then you could lose an engine, have the overload blow the other alternator if it's weak, and be completely screwed!

[Mister Jellybean]

Vee-tail-1, I am aware of that. Without singling out any particular engine or aircraft, the point is that it is possible to engineer the electrical back up arrangements such that the risk of an undesirable outcome following, say, alternator failure, is mitigated to an acceptable degree. This is the philosophy on modern jet FADECs, which have no mechanical backups.

I was just picking up on the phrase 'inherently unsuitable', which seems inappropriate given the current state of play with diesels in the marketplace.

Life's a Beech, don't really understand the point you're trying to make. Where does the 30min figure come from? Are you talking about the DA40 or 42, or something else?

[vee-tail-1]

Jellybean. It is indeed a question of what is an acceptable undesirable outcome. So would you take someone flying in an aeroplane which will become a glider within 30 mins of an alternator failure?
Thats assuming you off-load non essential electrical loads quickly enough to conserve your batteries. To go back to a time when engines could be expected to stop because of a simple electrical failure is not progress, and it is not safe.
If you can read French, the discussion on the Gazailes forum is very much to the point. There have been one or two close shaves with electronic diesels, and now the general feeling is that mechanical injection is essential. Some are even retrofitting mechanical fuel systems to modern engines.
Diesels are,( or should be) RELIABLE as well as economical, and with long life.

[soay]

soay. Please keep up with progress, particularly in France.
The Dieselis, has a mechanical Isuzu turbo-diesel, the Gaz-ailes has a mechanical Citroen AX 1.4 diesel. Jodels like the Delvion and other models use a variety of mechanical diesel engines, from Citroen, Peugeot, and Toyota.
http://gazaile2.free.fr & http://delvion.free.fr
I'll try. The Delvion uses a 2.2 litre Citroen HDI engine, which has a common rail and an electronic control system, according to this (http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/TECHNOLOGIES/ENVIRONMENT/Hdi/) information. The mechanical Citroen AX 1.4 diesel is no longer made, but the current engine available in the C1/2/3 models uses common rail, according to this (http://www.citroen.com/CWW/en-US/RANGE/PrivateCars/C3/default/MOTORISATIONS.htm) information. All current Toyota diesels use common rail and ECUs. I don't know about Peugeot, but as they own Citroen, they probably use the same engines. I doubt any diesel would be able to conform to current emission standards without ECUs.

[bjornhall]

So would you take someone flying in an aeroplane which will become a glider within 30 mins of an alternator failure?
Thats assuming you off-load non essential electrical loads quickly enough to conserve your batteries. To go back to a time when engines could be expected to stop because of a simple electrical failure is not progress, and it is not safe.

But an electrically controlled engine does not need to fail just because you have a complete electrical failure.

Do what you do on the larger aircraft: Fit dual FADECs/ECUs/equivalent to each engine, powered by their own permanent magnet alternators (PMA). The aircraft's electrical system provides FADEC power for engine start, ground tests and backup only.

In normal operation the FADECs are isolated from the aircraft electrical system, and thus unaffected by any transients or outages. Only if you have a PMA failure or if the engine is stopped is there a link between FADEC and ship's power.

Have a single FADEC failure: Engines keep running.
Single or dual PMA failure: Engines keep running.
Complete electrical failure (PMAs operating): Engines keep running
Two or even three FADECs fail, and dual PMA failure: At least one engine still running.

You'd need four FADEC failures, or failure of both PMAs and ship's power, to have a dual engine failure.

A diesel single could still have dual FADEC, powered by a PMA and isolated from the aircraft's electrical system, for increased safety.

IMHO, the reliability problem with modern diesels is not that an electronically controlled engine is inherently unsafe, but that they have not bothered making it as safe as it should be. Of course, that is due to cost.

[soay]

IMHO, the reliability problem with modern diesels is not that an electronically controlled engine is inherently unsafe, but that they have not bothered making it as safe as it should be. Of course, that is due to cost.
I'm not familiar with permanent magnet alternators, except that they seem to be popular for wind power generation - for obvious reasons. Do they have issues with size and/or weight, compared with field-wound alternators?

[Life's a Beech]

Mister Jellybean

The time the battery is likely to last! I'm not talking about what the POH says, but the experience in use, which is around 30 minutes.

[vee-tail-1]

Oh my god! Lets see if I have got this. Because of the decision to fit an electronic injection diesel, rather than a mechanical one we will need:
Two alternators per engine (one for the aircraft electrics, and a PMG alt for the FADEC) and that means two separate alternator drives (gears or belts)
Two FADECs per engine and the associated wiring to interconnect with the aircraft system and the other engine.
That is a serious amount of extra kit which is going to have a weight penalty, OK for twin jets, but we are talking GA aeroplanes here.
Perhaps there is some kind of buzz in flying a little aeroplane with all that electronic stuff, but is it reliable? It seems like the difference between the latest Audi TD which can only be serviced by experts, and a Peugeot 205 which is totally reliable and easy to fix by it's owner.

[IO540]

What I don't get is why Diamond/Thielert did not fit a small alternator on the back of each engine, to power the ignition/FADEC box?

For example, you can get little alternators which go in place of a standard vac pump, and these are certified for vac pump replacement - you use an electric horizon. And you end up with a far more reliable horizon system than the old vac pump setup.

[bjornhall]

I'm not familiar with permanent magnet alternators, except that they seem to be popular for wind power generation - for obvious reasons. Do they have issues with size and/or weight, compared with field-wound alternators?

Yes, I believe that is their drawback... Less of a problem for a very small unit that is only required to power the engine electronics; not avionics, lighting, starters etc.

Is it all really needed...? *shrugs* I don't know. But unless you want an electrical failure to stop your engine(s), that's what you have to do. On FAR 25 aircraft they consider it a necessity...

[englishal]

Really though, in a DA42 you must have BOTH alternators fail to be running on reserve....It has 4 ECUs, so all 4 must fail to lose both engines, if 3 fail, you still have one engine. Or you need to have a double ECU failure on one side followed by an alternator failure on the other side....hmmm......It'd not be your day if that happened!

I'll take my chances with it........

[scooter boy]

"You'd be more likely to survive a crash in a TS than a Mooney, the TS has been designed with a 25G safety cell and seats for a start...."

I doubt this - the Mooney has a built in tubular steel NASCAR style roll cage - the only evidence of this that you can see as an external onlooker is the central bar down the windscreen. Also airbags are now standard, does the Diamond or Cirrus come with these?

"On the subject of the TKS, I thought that actually increased the top speed of the TS due to the differences in leading edge of the wing with and without."

No that would be Diamond lying to you again! You lose 5-10kts in cruise with a TKS equiped Twinstar just as you do with a TKS equiped Mooney. I was amazed by the cost of retrofitting a TKS system to a Twinstar when it was quoted to me by a friend. Much cheaper I hope if it is put on at the factory but I bet it is still a more expensive option than for the Mooney. According to Mooney the TKS speed loss is due to the extra prop boots/grooves/slinger ring rather than any loss of laminar flow due to the titanium leading edge panels.

The modern Mooney is slipperier than any Diamond, Cirrus or Columbia and independent reviews back this up. Another example of the efficiency of this magnificent airframe is the massive range achieveable with a long-body Mooney. Just make sure you pack your pee-pot and you can cross continents and oceans in a single hop, at max economy with Monroy long range tanks (also standard in new Mooneys) your range is closer to 2000nm than 1000nm.

IMHO the diesel engine is not yet ready for aviation use and equally 2 engines are not necessarily safer than one. My friend has a twinstar and lost an engine in IMC shortly after he took delivery due to one of the ECUs shutting it down in flight. He could not override this feature but fortunately made a safe landing on one engine on the ILS through a low overcast.

Maybe in a few years Diamond/Cirrus will have a fraction of the experience with the airframe/engine combination that Mooney has.

Would I buy a Cirrus, Columbia or Twinstar while Mooney are still in business, absolutely not! I am swayed by hard fact rather than glossy marketing and popular appeal of a particular type.

My next aircraft may well be a Mooney Acclaim-S when the newly tweaked aircraft becomes available next year - 243kts at 20gph @ 25Kft!

Sorry but it is difficult not to be proud of your aircraft when you fly a Mooney.;)

SB

[IO540]

According to Mooney the TKS speed loss is due to the extra prop boots/grooves/slinger ring rather than any loss of laminar flow due to the titanium leading edge panels.

I don't think that is correct in general. The TB20 goes exactly the same with and without prop TKS. The rubber boots are very thin and extend only about 1/3 up, and the slinger ring is totally hidden by the spinner.

Prop TKS is a brilliant system. Legally useless by itself (the CAA initial CofA inspector mandated an INOP sticker on the switch :) to stop pilots using it) but of all the legally useless things it gives you the best safety enhancement of all.

[wsmempson]

I think the Mooney looks like a very good, efficient piece of kit; if I fitted in one, I'd have it after the Arrow - but I don't. The twinstar looks great, but I can't name anyone I know, with either DA40's or DA42's, who have much praise for Diamond or their UK agents vis-a-vis sales aftercare. It would also appear that the product development is being left to the customer.

IO540 thanks for the email about the FAA IR - I hope the reply got through; I had a few problems emailing you back.:)

[sternone]

if I fitted in one

Pilots as tall as 6’8” fly in comfort in a mooney, i understand you must be much taller ? Have you ever been in one ? Please do so, i don't get it when people tell me the problem with mooney is that they don't have enough leg room, then i know they never have been in one.

[deice]

SB, are you sure the Mooney is slipperier than a Diamond? Probably when compared to a DA42, but it's got two engines hanging in the breeze. I'd like to see your Ovation engine stuck to a DA40 airframe. I think you'd get a run for your mo(o)ney... :} The DA40 is reminiscent of a glider which is very evident in the landing phase and when you put your nose down. Unlike a PA28or C172 you need not add power to increase speed in a descent! :E

I don't know if people forget, but a DA40 will easliy do 115-120 knots at 70% of 135BHP and low level (1000 feet). The DA42 is not alot faster with two engines, but twins aren't in general. Just compare the Saratoga/Seneca or Arrow/Seminole types. In fact, the Seneca 1 cruises only about 10 knots faser than a Six! 400 vs 260 horses but the weight and the drag increase is substantial!

I'm only jealous SB...:ok:

[wsmempson]

Yes, I've sat in a Mooney.

I've flown a Mooney P1, so I simply speak from 1st hand experience, rather than regurgitate something that someone told me in a bar, or something read in a magazine.

Legroom isn't the problem, I am long in the trunk and broad shouldered and the cockpit layout means that I am rubbing shoulders with p2 whilst I sit with a crick in my neck from the lack of headroom.
:confused:

[smarthawke]

never flown a Mooney but we maintain two M20Js and I have a fair bit of time taxying/ground running them and it isn't a total height thing that is the problem, more of a body part ratio thing as Mr Empson has described.

Fully enclosed retracted gear on a Mooney? Not exactly, their may be more faired in than an Arrow but it isn't total, the lower doors stop half way down the wheel and the wheels don't hide fully in the wings hence the lump of plastic fairing rivetted to the wing aft of the wheel well. Lo Presti speed kits (Knots 2 U also) for an Arrow copy this idea - does it really work?

Remember the Thielert/Centurion (1.7) engine is a modded Merc A Class motor. I don't think Thielert had a lot of input when it came to the fuel system design, all they did was take a perfectly good car engine and mod it to be a not particularly reliable aircraft engine.

My diesel car is happiest cruising below 3000rpm (max torque from 2-3k). At 70mph car engines are running about 12% power. Put a car engine in an aircraft and make it turn over fast enough to produce 65% power for hours on end and wonder why they object (not to mention relatively non-lubricating properties of Jet A1 screwing up the designed for diesel fuel pump etc etc).

[100LL]

Ok so we know that there are confirmed luddites on this forum. A FADEC could fail, Magnetos could and have failed, Re the mooney sadly in October 2004. Or the Aeronca champ in August 2006. Not everything can be foreseen it’s only Diamond that fit the ECU backup battery and that’s good enough for EASA, LBA, Austro Control and even the FAA.
192kts in a handcrafted piece of Texan aluminium? It’s taken the USA's finest nearly 50 Years to achieve this.
Lets face it when Hugo Junkers built the first metal skinned aircraft back in the 20's people said it would never work, it’s a bad idea, it will never last. Diesel power is still relatively new technology in aviation and no amount of testing can foresee all the problems. It takes a bold manufacturer to develop a completely new product and only when it’s right do the other manufacturers jump on the bandwagon ala Cessna. But then again that a 1940’s airframe with 21’st century engine.
Even Cessna have had to buy Columbia to keep up with Europe.

Smarthawke, the pumps are not the standard pump fitted to the Merc, TAE do modify them, and at cruse the engine is turning around 3500 Rpm / 2100 prop and flat out at 100% its running at 3800 Rpm / 2300 prop.

[scooter boy]

"Fully enclosed retracted gear on a Mooney? Not exactly, their may be more faired in than an Arrow but it isn't total, the lower doors stop half way down the wheel and the wheels don't hide fully in the wings hence the lump of plastic fairing rivetted to the wing aft of the wheel well."

Smarthawke, you are talking about an early marque of Mooney gear door on an M20J, the more recent versions completely enclose the wheels with inner and outer doors - occasionally people who operate out of rough strips elect to remove the door in order to avoid their becoming damaged.

SB

[englishal]

Well everyone has their prefered aeroplane....mine just happens to be the DA42 at then moment ;)

I have a fair few hours in the DA42, the one I fly has full TKS and manages 155 kts TAS at 9500 at 75% power sipping around 6.1 US Gal per hour of JET, so if it didn't have TKS then just imagine how fast it would be (I don't think so....)...

JET A is the big thing for me. I would NEVER buy a NEW AVGAS powered aeroplane now. You'd be nuts to...If for no other reason as Avgas going out of fashion. Jet has got to be less hassle, and is also cheaper at the moment. But even if it wasn't cheaper, imagine a Twin burning 12 gals per hour.

Not sure why your mate lost his engine, unless both FADECs on that side packed up. It should have automatically switched to ECU B and there is also a manual selector switch......

[sternone]

JET A is the big thing for me. I would NEVER buy a NEW AVGAS powered aeroplane now. You'd be nuts to...If for no other reason as Avgas going out of fashion. Jet has got to be less hassle, and is also cheaper at the moment. But even if it wasn't cheaper, imagine a Twin burning 12 gals per hour.

The oil dropped dramaticly the last days below 90 dollar a barrel...(good news!) My idea is when the AVGAS will not be available anymore in let us say 10 years ? We will have diesel replacements that will work from Lycoming & Continental who will fit in current airframes. Continental is making a diesel engine right now.

[soay]

We will have diesel replacements that will work from Lycoming & Continental who will fit in current airframes. Continental is making a diesel engine right now.
I wonder if it will take them as long to get those engines right as it did with their current 50 year old designs.

[172driver]

My idea is when the AVGAS will not be available anymore in let us say 10 years ?

sternone, you are missing something. AVGAS already IS difficult to obtain in many places. Anything running on Jet A or Mogas definitely has a huge advantage.

[IO540]

I agree, avtur is a big plus in general.

Not always though - there are still many smaller airfields in Europe which have 100L and no avtur.

However for European touring there is no contest. One always has to fly to an international airport anyway, and they all have avtur, but many don't have avgas. The matrix of avgas+customs gets increasingly tricky as one goes further south, and that's before you get onto the stupid PPR business.

Re Mooneys - I have never flown in one but have sat in a few, and I think they get their (undisputed) aerodynamic efficiency simply from having a low cockpit cross-sectional area. I don't believe there is any other magic involved.

The new really fast Mooneys get their high TAS figures through the usual aviation marketing sleigh of hand: high altitude (FL250) which has nearly impractical oxygen requirements, very high fuel flows into a turbocharged engine, and continuous operation at high powers (75%+) making it highly unlikely it will make TBO. The Lancair 400 is exactly the same.

My TB20 has quite a lot of rivets which really should be flush rivets, but Socata evidently decided that the airflow in those places isn't critical enough to be worth the extra cost of flush riveting. I haven't got a clue how much TAS those rivets are worth but the fact is that a TB20 is no worse on real MPG than the super smooth SR22.

[vee-tail-1]

"It takes a bold manufacturer to develop a completely new product and only when it’s right do the other manufacturers jump on the bandwagon ala Cessna."
Agreed and top marks to TAE for doing so. Their choice of the Merc engine was logical as it has lots of alloy parts, so minimum weight. Perhaps they will eventually crack the vulnerability of common rail injection for aviation use. But what a waste of time & effort when the more suitable mechanical system is available now.
Diesel has many advantages over AVGAS burners, but not if the motors become so highly technological that an army of specialists is needed to keep them running. :ugh:

[Fuji Abound]

I haven't got a clue how much TAS those rivets are worth but the fact is that a TB20 is no worse on real MPG than the super smooth SR22.

Albeit the 42 is lifting over a third more weight.

[172driver]

One always has to fly to an international airport anyway

Not once you've entered Schengen-land. In any case, Jet A is always available somewhere (even if you have to do an en-route fuel stop), whereas AVGAS is not.

[soay]

Perhaps they will eventually crack the vulnerability of common rail injection for aviation use. But what a waste of time & effort when the more suitable mechanical system is available now.
How do those mechanical injection systems compensate for altitude, and what are their power to weight ratios and specific fuel consumptions, compared to engines using common rail systems? Their only advantage is that they can run on old chip fat and vegetable oil.

[vee-tail-1]

soay. I am not sure which of your buttons I have pressed with my posts, but it might be a good idea if you bone up on diesel theory. :* There is no mixture control on a diesel, and no throttle. A turbo-charged diesel will maintain full power up to 10,000 ft and beyond. More than enough for an unpressurised spam can. Power / weight ratio is just that..the ratio of power output to engine weight. It depends on the number of alloy or plastic parts in the engine, and rpm, torque, and efficiency of the engine/prop combination.
An alloy Merc engine is going to have a better p/w ratio than a cast iron Peugeot.

[soay]

here is no mixture control on a diesel, and no throttle. A turbo-charged diesel will maintain full power up to 10,000 ft and beyond.
A DA-40 has an operating ceiling of 16,400 ft.
Power / weight ratio is just that..the ratio of power output to engine weight. It depends on the number of alloy or plastic parts in the engine, and rpm, torque, and efficiency of the engine/prop combination.
... and the efficiency of the combustion process, which is affected by the pressure and duration of the fuel injection process. Figures for the performance of Thielert's engines are readily available, but I haven't seen any for the mechanical injection engines you have referred to. There must be a good reason why modern diesel engines all use common rail injection and have better power to weight ratios and specific fuel consumptions than their predecessors, but I'm open to persuasion that there is no connection, if you can show me the data.

Incidentally, the Mercedes 2 litre engine that Thielert based their TAE 125-02 on has a steel or cast iron crankcase, so Thielert have to fabricate their own aluminium crankcase as well as the cylinder head. I suppose they know what they're doing.

[moggiee]

There must be a good reason why modern diesel engines all use common rail injection and have better power to weight ratios and specific fuel consumptions than their predecessors, but I'm open to persuasion that there is no connection, if you can show me the data.
You are are quite right sir - there is more to it than weight.

In order of efficiency, indirect injection is bottom of the pile (Peugeot 205, Ford Orion), mechanical direct injection next (Austin Montego, Rover 25) and common rail top of the pile (most current production diesel cars).

Direct injection (DI) systems run at higher pressure than indirect injection (IDI) systems, thus gaining better fuel atomisation - giving more power and better MPG at the expense of higher noise levels.

Compared to mechanical DI, common rail (CRD) system have use the electronics to fine tune injection timing and duration, giving further improvements in noise output, power, MPG and emissions. With a change of ECU, their outputs can be fine tuned for different applications - the same engine size may give 3 or 4 different levels of tune.

It's fair to say that motor manufacturers would stick to the cheaper mechanical DI if CRD wasn't better. If you can find an car maker who is currently fitting mechanical DI diesel engines in Europe then you're doing well.
I also suspect that given the fact that CRD is the standard fit on Daimler-Benz engines then retro fitting mechanical DI would be a lot more difficult than first thought, for little or no benefit.

It's fair to say that the 1.7 litre Centurion has had its share of teething trouble, but I would be surprised if the 2 litre version didn't do a lot better.

Let's not forget, though, that the "venerable" Lycoming has its faults.

For example, you don't get carb icing on diesels (no carb!), they don't destroy themselves if over revved by a couple of hundred PM and spark plug fouling/magneto problems are eliminated, too.

Let's not forget either that there was a period of several years not so long back where Lycoming engines had a dreadful failure rate due to their crankshafts apparently being made of a metal with the consistency of soft cheese. You'd think that after building the same engine for over 50 years they might have got that right!

[vee-tail-1]

Not sure what we are arguing about here. Car manufacturers are constantly upgrading, and looking for better efficiency and cheaper production. They get both from the common rail injection system.
Also more alloy parts means less weight and better performance.

But this thread is about diesels powering aircraft, where there are different priorities.

Can we agree that an all alloy turbo-charged diesel with mechanical injection, would provide good p/w ratio, good reliability, good economy, and be simple to maintain. Sure it might sound like a tractor on start up, but the efficiency in cruise would be the same as an equivalent common rail injected engine. Above all is the knowledge that no matter what happens to the aircraft systems, the engine will keep going for as long as it has fuel.

[IO540]

For example, you don't get carb icing on diesels (no carb!), they don't destroy themselves if over revved by a couple of hundred PM and spark plug fouling/magneto problems are eliminated, too.

Let's not forget either that there was a period of several years not so long back where Lycoming engines had a dreadful failure rate due to their crankshafts apparently being made of a metal with the consistency of soft cheese. You'd think that after building the same engine for over 50 years they might have got that right!

None of the above (except for carb icing, and nobody should use carbs anyway since FI has been around for yonks) are actually true, but its OK as a tongue in cheek comment :)

[soay]

Can we agree that an all alloy turbo-charged diesel with mechanical injection, would provide good p/w ratio, good reliability, good economy, and be simple to maintain.
It's a big if that it would match the power output of a common rail system. Even if it did, I'd rather have a second alternator, just for the ECUs, than all the extra bits to go wrong with mechanical injectors.
As an indication of the effectiveness of ECUs, consider the Toyota 2.2 D-4D (http://www.toyota.com.mk/default.asp?ItemID=DBF8EDBF1840E44F857A6CE84086E790) diesel engine, which is available in two versions. By swapping the program in the ECU, and using piezo-electric injectors, the power is increased from 150 to 177 bhp. Those injectors switch so fast that they can make up to seven discrete injections per firing cycle.

[wsmempson]

Surely for £500,000 this must be the biggest bang-for-buck that money will buy right now?

www.planecheck.com/image.asp?Imgname=6623/MERIDIAN%20NEW%20PAINT.jpg

[IO540]

Surely for £500,000 this must be the biggest bang-for-buck that money will buy right now?

In terms of raw mission capability, without a doubt the PA46 Meridian is the biz at that price.

Or the Jetprop conversion of a piston PA46 Malibu - a very similar animal but much cheaper to run under IFR because it is 1999kg. This saving is worth about £150 from say Bournemouth to Cannes - comparable to the cost of the avtur. Allegedly it is also a lot faster in cruise though not officially....

Unless you want to carry a lot of weight and have the range as well, say, 3-4 people and have space to move about, in which case probably the best way (looking at ones I actually know a little bit about) is to buy an old pressurised piston twin (a 421C for example), strip it right down, and rebuild it. The end cost will be similar.

Remember that the Jetprop can be only N-reg. Also any PA46 requires a type rating if on a G-reg (not a big deal).

[soay]

Surely for £500,000 this must be the biggest bang-for-buck that money will buy right now?
http://www.planecheck.com/image.asp?...EW%20PAINT.jpg
Chocks in the hangar. I bet you have to wear high vis indoors as well there!

[moggiee]

None of the above (except for carb icing, and nobody should use carbs anyway since FI has been around for yonks) are actually true, but its OK as a tongue in cheek comment :)
Want to tell the authorities that?

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/regulatory/lycoming-crankshaft.html
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=lycoming+crankshafts&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=com.google:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

The issue
On July 11, 2005, Textron Lycoming issued a mandatory service bulletin (SB) requiring the replacement of more than 1,100 Lycoming crankshafts installed in certain 360 and 540 engines manufactured, rebuilt, overhauled, or repaired after March 1, 1999. The FAA subsequently issued two airworthiness directives (AD), making Lycoming SB 566 and its associated supplement 1 mandatory for Part 91 aircraft owners.

UPDATE:
On February 21, 2006, Lycoming issued Mandatory Service Bulletin 569 (later superseded by MSB 569A) calling for the retirement of over 5,000 crankshafts in engines ranging from the O-360 to the IO-720. And the FAA is considering an airworthiness directive (AD) that would make Lycoming MSB 569 mandatory for Part 91 aircraft owners.

UPDATE:
On May 25, 2006, the FAA issued a proposed AD that would require the replacement of certain crankshafts in some 3,800 Lycoming 360- and 540-series reciprocating engines in popular Piper, Cessna, Mooney, and Beechcraft aircraft, among others. The FAA would permit the replacement to be done during overhaul or during maintenance on the existing crankshaft.


This SB is a continuation of the problem that affected crankshafts in high-powered, turbocharged Lycoming engines three years ago. Improperly hammer-forged crankshafts resulted in several crankshaft failures, prompting the FAA to issue AD 2002-17-53 and later AD 2002-19-03, which required replacing the deficient crankshafts with press-forged crankshafts. And now Lycoming has determined that this same faulty process could also cause problems in lower-powered engines.

The terminology may have been tongue in cheek, but the facts are there. Thousands of faulty crankshafts.

It is also true to say that with pistons the size of bricks, these engines do NOT take kindly to being over-revved.

[scooter boy]

"Surely for £500,000 this must be the biggest bang-for-buck that money will buy right now?

http://www.planecheck.com/image.asp?...EW%20PAINT.jpg (http://www.planecheck.com/image.asp?Imgname=6623/MERIDIAN%20NEW%20PAINT.jpg)"

What a beautiful aircraft.
I have also looked closely at the Jetprop DLX.
The pressurisation is just wonderful.
It is far and away the only reasonably priced turboprop and I really like to piss eurocontrol iff with that 1999kg weight; however
for me the main issue against it is payload/range and operating costs.

Great plane nonetheless but my next step will be the Acclaim-S.

SB

[moggiee]

Merc A Class engines aren't known for being particularly unreliable. Thielert/Centurion 1.7 engine is predominantly the same engine but with many other bits fitted by Thielert. Reliability isn't exactly outstanding and one might want to question the wisdom of a belt driven water pump rather than using an accessory drive off the reduction gear box.

Well, that engine is no longer in production and within 3-4 years there will be very few left, anyway. The 2 litre looks like it's a better engine, anyway.

[sternone]

DA42 had alternator belt failure on Dec 30, which drives water pump.

Does this plane has the 2.0 thielert model ?

[Three Yellows]

Sternone said

i'm also glad to see i made name with 'Sternone-induced comments'


Sternone - this may all be a huge laugh, winding people up and spouting off as though you were a 25,00 hour airline captain. BUT, when you are old enough to wear long trousers and do actually have PPL, you will then perhaps realise that there are many many things your school didn't teach you about real life flying and going places. A good source of such knowledge is Pprune where there are many experienced GA and commercial pilots, so why don't you wind your neck in - 'cos one day you're gonna need us and our advice.

[smarthawke]

'Pprune where there are many experienced GA and commercial pilots'

And some are experienced engineers as well....!

PS I heard the DA42 took off a while ago from gatwick. Presumably thy paid the landing and parkings fees first. Discount for cash?

[moggiee]

Does this plane has the 2.0 thielert model ?
Probably not - given that there are very few 2litre engines around yet.

[72856]

Apropos an earlier comment about Sternone, which I heartily agree with, I post this link that may be of interest. I think it speaks for itself.

http://youtube.com/sternone

It seems our hero may have a PPL, but one wonders if he should! Clearly he is not prepared to abuse a beloved Mooney, just some poor Cessna and two very unfortunate girls along for the ride. One wonders why they were suckered into going with such a blatant ‘poseur’ and menace to aviation! Perhaps it is something to do with what he has in his wallet, it can’t be anything to do with what he has in his head. One just hopes the likes of Sternone are not about when I am flying, but I will try and avoid Belgium just in case! I think I may avoid Belgian roads as well! That was always a good move in any case.

Also apropos the earlier post; I also happen to be an old retired captain who had the misfortune to fly for SABENA many years ago! Sadly there were a few F/O who slipped through the net like him. Fortunatly they did not last too long before their services were dispensed with. They usually had a rich Daddy so the implosion of their career was no great hardship to them. They were usually 'poseurs' as well.

As for the original reason for this thread; good to see that the DA42 is on its way, but sad to say they will now be less inclined to lease mine! No matter, it is far to shiney new and beautiful to let ham-fisted students loose on.

[sternone]

Please tell me what the meaning of your message is ? I don't see were you are going to ?

I also don't see were you having a ****ty life because you choose to be an 'airline pilot' does come into my way of having a not so ****ty life ? I feel really sorry for you, even with your job at SABENA it didn't help you to become the man you wanted it to be. Sorry you made the wrong choices in life. It must be hard to look in the mirror each morning, but hey, it was your choice wasn't it ?

For the rest, i don't seem to read anything in your post that proves me that the DA42 is a reliable plane, i also feel sorry for the people who bought it and now have to deal with the messed up service delivered by Thielert and Diamond, these are the facts.

[DX Wombat]

the messed up service delivered by Thielert and Diamond, Sternone it is precisely that - the after sales service from Diamond(Austria) which is at fault, NOT the aircraft, that is a beautiful aircraft and, according to those who have had the privilege of flying one, very nice indeed to fly.
If you are hoping that your opinion of any aircraft on here is going to be taken into consideration by anyone who may be thinking of learning, buying or renting an aircraft, then you are much mistaken. Your narrow-minded attitude to anything other than something manufactured by Mooney has seen to that. It will also have put many people off Mooneys. I happen to think they are ugly things which, from seeing the experience of others on the RFDS Outback Air Safari, are absolutely dreadful in hot climates - but that is my personal opinion, it won't be that of others and it doesn't mean they are bad aircraft. I am restricted in what I can fly by height and reach but I have had the good fortune to be able to try several different aircraft PA28(both fixed and retractable gear), PA38, AA5 to name a few. My first, unofficial, lesson was in a Seneca quite some time before I decided to learn to fly. :) Some I do not really like, others, such as the DA40 and my favourite Cessna 152, I really enjoy flying. Just because I don't particularly like an aircraft doesn't mean it is rubbish, dangerous, not worth flying or owning, it simply means it is not my personal preference and the fact that other people happen to like the aircraft doesn't make them stupid. I keep an open mind and next time I am in Australia I hope to be able to fly the brand new Whitney Boomerang. Would I like the chance to fly a DA42? Absolutely! I would also love to try several others - Hercules for a start :) the Lancaster would also be wonderful but they are things of my dreams I'm happy simply to be able to fly at all.

[BackPacker]

the after sales service from Diamond(Austria) which is at fault, NOT the aircraft

I don't know whether it's Thielert or Diamond, but with planes all over Europe that have been grounded for months due to lack of spares - presumably while new aircraft are being rolled out the factory so the parts somehow are available - I don't think this is limited to the "after sales" department anymore. There's something far more fundamental going on, and upper management simply has to know about this.

Heck, even a mere rumour that the company I work for might get sued by a customer, wanting their money back because of severe dissatisfaction with the support, not with the product per se, would come to the immediate attention to the highest levels of management. And I work for a company that's far bigger than Diamond Austria.

I would love to hear the inside story on this, but I fear that's something that will never be told in full if Diamond gets its act together soon. But I don't think Diamond can continue like this for much longer without losing a lot of reputation, goodwill and loyalty.

Is anybody here member of the Diamond Owners users group? What's the general consensus on the current situation there?

[soay]

Is anybody here member of the Diamond Owners users group? What's the general consensus on the current situation there?
The only such group I know of is the US based DAA (http://www.diamondaviator.org/). As Diamond don't sell the DA40-D there, most owners seem very happy.

My understanding of the situation with extended downtimes is they were caused by the transition from the 1.7 to the 2.0 engine. Mercedes stopped making the 1.7 before the 2.0 was certified for retrofitting to the existing fleet, hence no replacement work could be undertaken. Certification is now complete, but I don't know if current delays are due to a backlog, or some other excuse.

[DX Wombat]

Whatever is going on it's a crying shame. FP's engine has arrived and, when I last heard, (about a week ago) the engine was sitting next to FP in the Maintenance Hangar at Bristol waiting for some parts to arrive from Diamond. It's been like that for some time now - engine and aircraft sitting next to each other. :(
Sternone (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWqkQp1sC8I) says:Please tell me what the meaning of your message is ? I don't see were you are going to ?
so I've posted the full link which 72856 tried to do and I'll leave it up to you to decide.

[BackPacker]

Sternone says:
Please tell me what the meaning of your message is ? I don't see were you are going to ?
so I've posted the full link which 72856 tried to do and I'll leave it up to you to decide.

Although I don't always appreciate sternones comments here, in his defence, I'm pretty sure he didn't make that video himself and/or flew the plane with somebody else making the video. He did bring this video to our attention though a few weeks ago:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=302696

So he might have violated copyright rules and have a strange sense of humour, but to turn that into an argument on whether he should hold a PPL or not is one bridge too far for me.

[BRL]

Split off from the other thread and merged with an older one.

As you were....

[DX Wombat]

but to turn that into an argument on whether he should hold a PPL or not is one bridge too far for me.That wasn't my intention but unfortunately I didn't make myself very clear and I apologise for that. I was trying to work out why he allegedly didn't understand what was being said. I do think he left himself wide open to that sort of criticism by posting that video as his own. I certainly thought he was the pilot and didn't have any clues to tell me otherwise. No sensible, caring, responsible adult would deliberately make his or her unsecured passenger sick. I shall leave it at that.

[sternone]

Ofcorse i would never do that to a passenger, one girl sitting in the back with already a bag, don't do negative g's .. it's nice to know some of you think i'm a monster...

Anyways, let's keep this discussion to the Thielert please, with every pilot i talk about, who owns a diamond or not.. it's a complete disaster..

[BackPacker]

DX, thanks for PM.

My comment wasn't so much directed at your post, but more as a response to 72856s post. Anyway, I did look a little deeper into Sternones initial post and it appears that the "biertijd" site actually links through to the Youtube site. (Video ID SN2J3HI3aME to be exact.) So I think my accusation of sternone violating copyright might have been unfounded: he actually downloaded the video from Youtube, to publish it under his own name on (roll the drums) Youtube!

The only such group I know of is the US based DAA. As Diamond don't sell the DA40-D there, most owners seem very happy.

I checked out the DAA site and it was not what I remembered. Being in a research mood today, I also found a reference to the Diamond Aircraft Pilots and Owners forum (DAPO). They used to have a website at www.dapo.org, but that's now defunct. Thanks to Google cache however, I managed to retrieve this:

The Diamond Aircraft Pilots/Owners Organization is an organization that was established to support the owners and pilots of certified aircraft manufactured by Diamond Aircraft Corporation and to educate, promote the safety of and encourage ownership of these aircraft.

As of Friday, November 2, 2007, DAPO has merged with the Diamond Aviators Association (DAA). All DAPO content and members will be merged over to the Diamond Aviators Association website.

It still does seem to be US-centric though.

[IO540]

The really interesting development will be when Diamond is willing to risk selling a diesel SEP in the USA.

Twins are OK because the vast majority of twin engine issues don't get reported and can be handled quietly by the dealer.

[soay]

As of Friday, November 2, 2007, DAPO has merged with the Diamond Aviators Association (DAA). All DAPO content and members will be merged over to the Diamond Aviators Association website.
Yes, there was an insurrection on DAPO, because its founder was running it as his personal fiefdom, and DAA was formed as a breakaway group. The two ran in parallel for a few months, until sense prevailed. Unfortunately, there are very few European members, so there's not much discussion of these issues. You can get a free trial membership, if you want to liven things up!

[BackPacker]

The really interesting development will be when Diamond is willing to risk selling a diesel SEP in the USA.

I was thinking about Diamond over dinner. Here's this relatively small company in a country which doesn't exactly flourish with General Aviation, selling a fairly simple, composite motorglider with a proven Avgas/Mogas engine (Rotax 912/914 series) called the HK36 Super Dimona. And then, in a very short period of time, they did the following:

- Developed and certificated a two-seat composite SEP with a traditional avgas engine (DA20 Katana/Eclipse)
- Developed and certificated a four-seat composite SEP with a traditional avgas engine (DA40-180)
- Developed and certificated a four-seat composite SEP with a diesel engine from a third party who's also fairly new to the game and used a car engine which isn't known for its reliability as the basis (DA40 TDI)
- Developed and certificated a slightly bigger variant of said airframe, with a more powerful avgas engine and an integrated glass panel, and promising the availability of a diesel version too.
- Developed and certificated a composite twin with retractable gear, integrated glass panel , de-ice and everything, again with said diesel (DA-42).

And right now they're rumoured to be busy with
- Getting the slightly bigger engine certified for their normal-sized four-seat aircraft, and getting the parts supply logistics working to roll out that engine earlier than expected, due to the original diesel engine not making TBO by the masses.
- Developing their own aero-diesel engine.
- Developing and certificating a single engine personal jet.

I don't know about you, but the word "overstretch" comes to my mind. Although I still admire the guts of the company, and I still like the DA-40 TDI.

[IO540]

I don't know about you, but the word "overstretch" comes to my mind

I've been in business (electronic design/manufacture) for 30 years this year, and I can draw parallels between aviation and other types of mfg.

There is a whole spectrum of risk-takers out there.

At one end you have people who start very small, sell only carefully tested products, avoid selling products which involve unverified technological risk or have the potential for big tech support workload, and gradually build up the business entirely from the cash flow. That's what I have always done. The upside is that, so long as you are selling stuff, you have little stress and sleep at night knowing nobody had got you over the barrel. The downside is that it takes an awfully long time to grow the business, and small businesses have enough headaches e.g. getting good staff. You also need more capital up front. This option is for careful honest people, but for various interesting reasons aviation doesn't attract those types.

At the other end you have the megabuck high flyers, backed by vulture capitalists, who have zero morals, borrow up to their neck, sell anything that remotely appears to work, palm off customer service to a phone # in India, and hope to shift enough stuff early enough to finance the debt interest, cover inevitable warranty issues, pay off suppliers just before they obtain court judgements for non-payment, and generally hope to keep the wolf away from the door for long enough to reach the IPO and then you make a whole load of money and to hell with the customers; you were never in business for the customers. The upside of this approach is that you can make a lot of money very fast - not necessarily from customers though but by drawing a huge salary from investors' funds... The downside is that as often as not the venture fails and when it does the crash is spectacular, with investors losing 99.9% and hundreds of small suppliers not getting paid and your name stinking for years (not that you will care).

And you get various sorts in between the two ends. I've seen them all :)

I guess Diamond are playing the game near the latter end. They obviously haven't tested the product properly, but I am sure they have a reasonable revenue stream to keep the whole boat above water and they will probably pull through. 10 years from now they will be #1.

You could say something very similar about Eclipse. They have done unimaginable stunts on their long road to shifting some hardware, and they continue to do more stunts. They are in a completely different universe to most decent businesses, never mind the same planet. But they will probably pull through too.

But aviation is different. The normal standards don't apply.

[sternone]

"We are being bullied," says flying school owner.
A small flying school at Rochester Airport is suing a giant Austrian aircraft manufacturer for around £100,000 over the ineffectiveness of two aircraft.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=310819

[chuks]

I used a DA-42 for a UK IR ride, hence my interest in this fascinating little corner of PPRuNe.

I had already been attracted to the idea of a diesel-engined light twin, since Avgas is simply unavailable in some of the places I might like to visit. Then I was also attracted to the idea of the Garmin 1000 glass cockpit, the composite airframe and the TKS system, plus the weird looks of the DA-42 so that I was excited about the idea of using one for this IR ride.

My base-line is two engines for anything serious. Call me old-fashioned but I just do not want to rely on only one engine and never mind what the statistics say. That is just a matter of personal choice; I have flown singles over water out of gliding distance of land, for instance, but I prefer twins.

The first DA-42 problem I hit was figuring out a way to keep all the crap in order that I needed for a single-pilot flight under IFR. I am used to two-crew operations anyway, or at least either putting whatever I need in the empty right-hand seat or perhaps getting the person sat there to hold stuff and hand it to me on demand. No chance of that with a CAA examiner, of course, so that I was really struggling at first. I finally bought a standard clip-board and chopped a chunk out of the middle to accomodate the full throw of the stick. That sorted out one problem for about 5 quid but I still found it a cramped cockpit compared to something such as an Aztec.

Then there was getting used to using the Garmin 1000. Whatever it is, it isn't simple! There are one hell of a lot of sub-routines to learn, I found.

I did read the POH from cover to cover several times, when I noticed the injunction not to fly the aircraft with a dead battery after a jump-start. No electrics, no engines: it is right there in the book and it reads as if the guys who had that accident just didn't pay attention to that. You cannot blame that one on Diamond can you?

I spent as much time as I could just sat there doing cockpit drills, walking around the parked aircraft, that sort of thing ... one way to get to know an airplane on a tight budget. I was struck by the extensive use of CNC-machined parts and the general light standard of build. It did make me wonder how robust the machine might be in extended service, all that shiny plastic. It looks a bit cutting-edge, all in all, when that might be a matter of paying for someone's lack of development. In fact, I was just reading about this business of swapping the 1.7 for the 2.0 engines.

It does look like Diamond might be overly-adventurous with this machine, that it might not be the safest choice for a purchase unless that involved OPM.

You guys keep up the good work popularising aviation: maybe you could take my mother-in-law for a ride in your 172.

Back when in the States we always held Mooney pilots to be a bit weird. I have no idea where that one came from.

[Three Yellows]

Thanks for that Chuks... especially the bit about the Mooney pilots. We are finding that here too, recently.


As for the DA42, its a serious bit of kit, no one could expect to read the POH cover to cover several times, sit in it and then take a check ride. It takes time to adapt, look you even have to get a new approach to get in and out of the bloody thing, never mind the Garmin.

But after a few hours (well quite a few hours actually) it all works out ok and you really begin to see what a fantastic aeroplane it is.... you just need time to learn and adapt from the Aztec or whatever.

As for the G1000, you will never pick it up from a book. I learnt the very basics from and instructor, then as I discovered more and more pages of menus, I practised those at home with the G1000 simulator and then tried it out next time I flew. Long cruises over Europe are also a good time to "play" with it and helps relieve the uneventfulness of long flights in the DA42. (I can wait for the DVD option for the MFD)

[chuks]

The thing was, I was coming from flying a small airliner, the Dornier 328 Jet! It has a Honeywell Primus 2000 "glass cockpit" so that it is not exactly uncomplicated but the Garmin 1000 was even more sophisticated.

The big shocks were having to figure out cockpit organisation, flying single-pilot, no auto-pilot, in the London TMA, with this Garmin 1000. Even if I had been using something like an Aztec I would have had my hands full with this one but the DA-42 probably added another 25% to the workload.

The most difficult thing was not being allowed to use the autopilot. The norm is to use it, of course, so this was just totally weird, having to keep the aircraft under control while talking, tuning radios, looking up approach plates, doing checklists ... it was bizarre!

The best part was flying back to base after the check with the lights of London glowing off to the south when I could finally relax and simply enjoy flying the aircraft.

I hope that Diamond get things sorted out with the engines and spares support.

I think the only way forward is with aircraft that use either Jet A, Diesel or Mogas (car fuel).

Avgas is going to be very difficult to find because of rules banning lead that are coming into force, plus the marketing considerations of making low-volume products. You also have the environmental rules about storing fuel, another headache. I get the impression that the Eurocrats really do not give a damn about GA, seeing it as just something for rich bastards. Jerks like your Mooney owner really don't help much if he is this way with everyone.

My local German flying club, last time I checked, were trying to switch aircraft for this reason. Their budget won't stretch to a DA-40, even, so that I think they are looking for either a Mogas STC or else perhaps a Cessna with a Thielert engine.

[DX Wombat]

I was struck by the extensive use of CNC-machined parts and the general light standard of build. It did make me wonder how robust the machine might be in extended service, all that shiny plastic. It looks a bit cutting-edge, all in all, when that might be a matter of paying for someone's lack of development.I know this doesn't involve a Twinstar, but perhaps you should have a look at this thread. (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=312468&highlight=Diamond) Whilst it doesn't really reflect the potential longevity of the aircraft, it does demonstrate how tough the DA40 actually is. I was just reading about this business of swapping the 1.7 for the 2.0 engines.
- which came about because Thielert, in their wisdom, decided to cease manufacturing the 1.7. :*

[172driver]

Garmin 1000. Even if I had been using something like an Aztec I would have had my hands full with this one but the DA-42 probably added another 25% to the workload.


Did you get the G1000 sim beforehand ? You can get the G1000 sim trainer for various types of a/c from the Garmin website (https://buy.garmin.com/shop/shop.do?cID=153&pID=6420).

One of the a/c I sometimes fly has a 430 and after the first flight (with a friend who was current on it), I made sure I got the CD/DVD presto. Still give myself a quick refresher before every flight in this one (get to fly her only very sporadically).

[chuks]

I had used the little Garmin FTD, a PC hooked up to a real Garmin 1000, even, but I really needed more time in the aircraft using the thing in anger. A lot of the problem was the general level of stress which often prevented easy recall of just which button or knob to manipulate under test conditions.

Right now I am using a Twin Otter retro-fitted with dual Garmin 430s. Another pilot who had lots of time with Garmin 420s showed me some of the little tricks but I still get out the book to edit flight plans, for instance. It's all too easy to push "Enter" instead of "Menu", for instance and end up a bit lost. Part of this is being from a generation that didn't grow up with all the electronic toys young people today take for granted.

Another big problem was simply that the school was overbooked, with time in the DA-42 FTD and in the DA-42 itself limited. They must have forgotten to tell me this when I paid the deposit! I ended up in a manky old Seneca FTD much of the time I was there. That made me a better person, I suppose. Suffering purifies the soul.

I had been out of flying for almost a year while I was doing my ATPL writtens, then I went to the States to renew my Dornier type in a simulator plus re-do my FAA Flight Instructor licence in a Cessna 172Q. None of this really got the rust off before I got busy in the UK with a short IR course before doing an IR ride with a CAA examiner.

The DA-42 and the Garmin 1000 were not the problem as much as my lack of currency in small aircraft coupled with the British way of training and testing. That left me looking up at a very steep hill to climb. It might not have been any easier using a conventional light twin, so that I don't regret choosing the DA-42.

I think aircraft like this are the way forward if GA is to have a future. When I learned to fly Avgas cost something like 30 cents US per gallon and you could rent a Cessna 150, an old clapped-out one, for about $8 per hour "wet". In fact I got a Beech Travel Air for $80 per hour "wet" when I did my FAA ATP test, and that was in mid-1981! Your 2006 UK prices were a real shock of course.

In Germany I joined a small flying club just to get some time in before the last time I re-did my Flight Instructor licenses. That was back in 1987.

The first thing was asking the instructor to run through some commercial manouevers with me, when he went all wide-eyed with anxiety. I had no idea that he only had a PPL! It turned out that the club had about 3 guys with night and airways endorsements and the rest were all day VFR, even the head honcho with his "Top Gun" jacket, his cabbage-sized watch and his TB-20. Jeez!

Now I am looking for a way to get a JAR FI licence, thinking to teach my own children some basics and perhaps do a little bit of pleasure flying.

Your environment looks very difficult and GA-unfriendly compared to the U.S.A., even with all the current problems there due to anxiety about terrorism. When you add a few of your, ah, "stars" to the mix I can see that you might have a real problem! Good luck with all of this and I look forward to logging a few more diesel-powered hours.

[richatom]

and the general light standard of build. It did make me wonder how robust the machine might be in extended service, all that shiny plastic.


I can assure you that it is a very strong aircraft. I visit the Diamond factory regularly, and see the occasional crashed planes that are in for repair - some have been badly crashed and yet the passenger cell is intact. More importantly in my view, the aluminium fuel tanks in the wing are encased on either side by twin wingspars making them well protected in case of an accident - and if they do rupture, you are of course only releasing JetA1. Compare that to the likes of Mooney and Cirrus with Avgas in a wetwing - a flying bomb.

The G1000 is an absolute joy to use once you have learnt it properly. It is so capable and multi-faceted however that it does take a long time to really be able to exploit it to its full potential.

[soay]

I was just reading about this business of swapping the 1.7 for the 2.0 engines.
- which came about because Thielert, in their wisdom, decided to cease manufacturing the 1.7. :*
- which came about because Mercedes stopped making the 1.7 litre engine, on which it was based. The 2 litre engine that they replaced it with has a cast iron block, so Thielert now have to manufacture their own aluminium blocks as well.

[DX Wombat]

which came about because Mercedes stopped making the 1.7 litre engine, on which it was based. Ah! I wasn't told that (doesn't surprise me though, coming from the person it did - NOT Diamond) but that makes a more sensible reason. Thanks Soay. :ok:

[IO540]

Another factor is that a 2 litre engine will be thrashed less in cruise than a 1.7 litre one. It should make them last longer. Currently, I am reliably informed by a multi-aircraft operator, none of the engines have yet made 700hrs.

[englishal]

none of the engines have yet made 700hrs
?

I've flown the DA42 (same ones) in the USA several years in a row, and they have clocked up > 1000 hrs with no problems?

[IO540]

Maybe it's usage dependent. I would expect it to be. That 700hr figure apparently came from Diamond UK. But of course it depends on how this is measured. It's a bit like Lyco not making TBO - what does this mean? 1 cylinder cracked, 2 cracked, making enough metal to warrant opening up?

[Fuji Abound]

The engines are turbo charged. Running the engine for a good two minutes at idle makes very good sense, but you sould see the number of pilots who park up on stand and have both engines shut down before you can blink.

[englishal]

What I do is when I taxy off the runway get a bit of speed and close the throttles, start the two minute timer and taxy on idle...So that when it comes time to shut down, I have already done the two minute "cool down"....

Of course if the throttle is opened anywhere during the taxy then the 2 mins starts again....

[soay]

According to Mike Busch (http://www.savvyaviator.com/bio.html), of AVWeb (http://www.avweb.com/news/savvyaviator/savvy_aviator_53_dark_side_of_maintenance_196909-1.html)fame:

It's actually not a cool-down period, it's a spin-down period. The turbocharger center section is lubricated by oil. When you shut down the engine, the oil flow to the turbo stops. They don't want the thing still spinning at 50,000 RPM when that happens.

Typically the last thing you do before you shut down the engine is to taxi at something close to idle power, which provides all the spin-down time the turbo needs.

[kms901]

You should always run any turbo charged engine for a minute at idle before switching off, to cool the turbo snd run some relatively cool ol through it. The turbo should not be running at idle and ground level, as it reles on exhaust gas pressure to run.

My ancient Jeep Cherokee has a tiny pump which pumps oil through the turbo after I switch off for exactly ths reason.

[deice]

IO540, don´t know where you get your figures but our 1.7 engined DA42 has 850 hrs and the DA40 has more than 900 on the original engines. Sure, the gearboxes are replaced at regular interval and there is repair work done for various reasons but we have yet to replace a complete engine.

[spernkey]

I have 4 diesel 172's and have had no trouble as far as reaching tbr but had a load of bother with fuel supply till they fitted dual selectors. Wonder why the Diamond's cant get to tbr - it does not make sense as the engine is the same? Two of mine are now 2.0 versions and the other two will be within a year. New installation looks better engineered but to be fair you can see real improovements with clutches/gearboxes as they got revised anyhow. I know diamond felt they had to do some of their own accessories and in the process set the TAE head up as a sacrificial anode but surely that got sorted out? It is statistically possible that i have been lucky of course but i just cant help wonder why my retrofits have faired better - most odd.