Thielert in serious trouble ?

[172driver]

Doesn't sound good. From AvWeb (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/MoreTroubleFor_Thielert_197722-1.html)

[IO540]

There was a thread on this here recently.

I recall making a *partly* tongue in cheek post suggesting that they forgot to make a provision in their accounts for nearly 100% of their engines coming back under warranty :)

[moggiee]

It's obviously not good news in the short term but I would be VERY surprised if they stop production. Whilst the product needs some "fettling" the market penetration they have means that someone will take them on.

If nothing else, Diamond have a vested interest in the continued supply of Thielert engines!

[BackPacker]

If nothing else, Diamond have a vested interest in the continued supply of Thielert engines!

For now, yes. But there's a well-established rumour that Diamond is developing its own diesel engine. In fact, somebody here mentioned that the prototype is already flying on a DA-40. Should not be too long before it's available. I think I heard the number 2009 in this context.

[smarthawke]

Dirty rumour put about by Diamond themselves....

http://www.flyer.co.uk/news/newsfeed.php?artnum=601

Might be a niche market for retro fitting Lycomings soon!

[rans6andrew]

Didn't Diamond take over the good work of Mid West Aero Engines? No mention anywhere on their website of the small rotary engines which showed such promise.

[EchoMike]

I doubt we're going to see any aviation Wankel engines any more. This seems a shame, but here is the reality of the Wankel.

THIRSTY!

LOUD!!!

Either of these alone is a deal killer for aviation use, both of them together drives a stake right through the elegant triangular rotor.

And I have hands-on first person experience with a couple of Wankel engines, not just "had one once" but take them apart, rebuild them, and they run properly afterward.

The Wankel makes a lot of horsepower for its size, but horsepower comes from burning fuel, and the Wankel does that very well - it isn't a wonderfully efficient engine compared to a regular four stroke engine, even less so compared to a diesel. Each time the price of fuel goes up, the Wankel's prospects go down.

The Wankel also has a very loud and strident exhaust - that means you must have effective mufflers, and the only way to have effective mufflers is to make them large, restrictive and heavy - not precisely what we want in aviation.

There's yet another problem - tip seal life isn't great. While there are some trick alloys and even ceramic tip seals, they are quite costly and still have a limited service life.

Wankels would probably be best suited for some kind of military drone which is expected to crash or be shot down within a few hundred hours anyway, they do not appear to be the holy grail of engines for light airplanes after all. (Darn - they are so fascinating, too!)

Best Regards,

Echo Mike

[BigEndBob]

Mazda RX7, 70000 miles if you were lucky before a rebuild. 45000 for the turbo.
Glad i'm not a RX8 owner!

[pilottab]

Do you always talk such rubbish. Presumably you have proof of this,because i can't believe anyone would be stupid as to make such a comment without:ugh:

[smarthawke]

Well welcome to Pprune, pilottab.

If your comment was pointed at my comment, then please note that my comment was made in a light hearted way referring to Backpacker's comment that the existence of a Diamond home-grown engine was a 'rumour', not the 'fact' which in actual fact it is, as shown by my link to Diamond's website. Happy?!

[BartV]

Pilottab, my friend visited the Diamond factory a few weeks ago, he bought a DA42, may i announce to you that he actually TESTED that DA40 with the Diamond engine in it ?

It's not a rumour but a fact.

[100LL]

Hmm, tab dont get drawn in. Not worth the effort.

BartV ask pilottab how many times he's been to the factory :E


Dont bite Tab


rans6andrew its here in black white and grey
http://www.diamond-air.at/diamondengines+M52087573ab0.html

http://www.thegoldenrivet.com/photogallery/albums/userpics/www_thegoldenrivet_com_Images_Smilies_0034.gif

[moggiee]

Interesting info on the Diamond engines - but I can't see a 75hp Avgas powered rotary getting us very far when the minimum needed is a 150hp Avtur powered motor!

[BartV]

I read that major engine maintenance can only be done by the Thielert factory as a certification (as opposed to warranty) requirement. That's gonna hurt.

[100LL]

I read that major engine maintenance can only be done by the Thielert factory as a certification
Anything in the bottom end yes, anything else at maintenance facility, I've got approval to change the Cylinder heads amongst other things.

On maintenace you can't treat the engine like a lycoming, read the service schedule and carry that out. If the Engine has oil leaks or rough running it wants further investigation, they do give enough warning before problems occur.

[Asrian]

Thielert aircraft engine GmbH as part of the thielert group filed for insolvency. Shares down to 0.43 eurocent today.

Source (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aZFtgi7zbwW4)

The flying club I just joined for PPL training was very satisfied with its C-172 with thielert diesel so they just re-fitted a second C-172 with a thielert.
I hope they can be saved somehow so that diesel engine development and support of fitted thielerts can go on...

[172driver]

Some more on here (http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/ThielertAircraftEnginesFilesForInsolvency_197735-1.html)

Sadly.. :(

[PlasticPilot]

As an early DA40-TDI and C172-TDI pilot, I'm quite sad with what goes on with Thielert. They made a great step forward possible. I'm sure others (Zoche (?), SMA, Mistral Engines, Delta Hawk - if you don't know them, check my blog (http://www.plasticpilot.net)) will follow, and there is this Diamond project, together with BMTech, but it's sad to see a pioneering company in such trouble.

That being said, I don't know if the financial errors by Thielert are the fact of M. Thielert or not, nor if they are mistakes or tentatives to hide a bad situation. This is now a legal question, not a flying question anymore. Sadly.

[IO540]

Quite likely, Diamond will buy the assets from the administrator at a knockdown price.

This is usually what happens in these situations.

[moggiee]

Quite likely, Diamond will buy the assets from the administrator at a knockdown price.

This is usually what happens in these situations.
That's what I've been expecting all along.

[coodem]

So what happens to all of us with thielert engines? We were promised a TBO of 2400 hours, if not they would pay the diff. I think TBO is at around 1300 hours at the moment, and we must be very close to that.

[BartV]

So what happens to all of us with thielert engines?

That is a big problem for you guys with Thielerts: warranty and TBO promises will vanish. First Thielert has to go bankrupt, afterwards it's impossible that the buyer of Thielert will buy the company and will pay for the promises of Thielert. The good thing is they will offer repairs, but you will have to pay for it. It's a sad moment for Thielert engine owners, i feel sorry for the trust you guys gave a new technology. It was promising and gave a real solution to the Avgas price problem in Europe.

I'm also wondering what Diamond will deliver in their Diesel machines in short/medium term, and what Cessna will do with the promised deliveries in 2008 of their 172Thielert Diesel. I guess these guys have some stressed meetings going on at this very moment.

Diamond will not buy Thielert, why should they ? They already have their own engine comming up in a few moments...
When they don't buy Thielert, they don't have to deal with the warranty issue's of planes with these engine's they sold.. smart of Diamond NOT to buy Thielert and just start their own engine line... hey it all was Thielerts fault and we made our own engine because of that...

[soay]

Diamond will not buy Thielert, why should they ?
Well, one reason would be to keep the faith with their existing customer base. Otherwise, who's going to trust them enough to buy an aeroplane from them?

I agree with you though about the warranties, so the resale values of any aircraft with a Thielert engine must have taken a big hit.

[spernkey]

I have 4 retrofitted 172's and i got a bit depressed when i heard TAE went bust. Had a think, made some calls, had another think.
Result will sound bizarre but i bought £30k of shares at 40 cents a pop.
Would the gloaters stand by to laugh when it all goes wrong!
The diamond engine is a joke - steel block - no fadecs - v.v.v.v heavy. Literally just a car engine with no redundancy. It's about one thousand light years from certification.
Another couple of days should see a buyer who needs access to the technology and certification emerge or start buying shares methinks.
Fav is Textron or Diamond.
I may just end up with a face full of egg though! Lets see.........

[coodem]

£30k thielert conversion, only get 1300 hours, that's £23 p/h for new engine fund excluding any maint.Add £14.50 of fuel an hour, thats £37.50 basic and hour

If we went for the Standard engine, I guess that would have cost around £15k, but would have got 2400 hours, so that's £6.25 and hour, then add fuel at £35 an hour, I get £41.25 basic per hour

Looks like it's not that bad, or am I calculating something wrong

[IO540]

Diamond cannot just walk away.

In Europe, a consumer can sue. Warranties mean very little if someone knows their consumer rights and is willing to sue. The whole edifice of 1-year etc warranties hangs upright only because most people are unable or unwilling to sue, and this is true in both Europe and the USA.

Those who sue get what they want, quickly and quietly. They have to sign an NDA but everybody would sign one of those if they get a solution to their problem.

You could probably enforce a 5 year warranty in Europe, maybe longer, and definitely longer if the product has been a lemon all along (as the engines certainly have been, for the majority of owners).

And a 5 year warranty would wipe out Diamond. It is totally and massively in their interest to keep a lid on this boiling saucepan and to buy off anybody who gets nasty. Buying off people who are about to get seriously nasty (and who have the resources to do it) is how aviation business works everywhere and Diamond are no different.

Diamond delivered a whole plane, which happens to include an engine (or two), and will be facing a massive legal exposure if Thielert engines cannot be supported.

It may be that Diamond will not buy Thielert but somebody else will, but Diamond is the obvious choice. Administrators are always willing to do a deal under the table with a credible buyer. And you bet Diamond will know every skeleton in Thielert's cupboard and aren't going to spend a lot of time doing due diligence.

[BartV]

IO540, I have to disagree with you. If Thielert was so important for Diamond why did they start their own engine project ? They know the Thielert company inside out, and they made a choice: let them die, fade away all the warranty issues and let somebody else clean the mess up, we're going with our own engine.

When Diamond gave that message I knew that would be a tough one for Thielert, and there was more behind it than a 'Thielert cannot deliver fast enough' reason...

When a warranty system is good enough separated with the engine warranty covered by another company like Thielert, it could be Diamond will stand up in court using that argument or referring to the 'accepted' warranty system by the clients.

It's Thielert who messed up big time and don't think Diamond isn't going to use this in discussions with their customers, they will say: "what could we do?"..

spernkey, I really hope you are correct, your speculation could pay off or just not... let's hope for the best! But I don't understand your move, a buyer will not buy the publicly traded shares ? He will only buy the assets from the bankrupted company ??!!!!


one reason would be to keep the faith with their existing customer base

Soay, Diamond itself has trouble making profits, let alone covering warranty issues from a company that is dead.. that would let Diamond stop producing their new models and put their money resources into the warranty issue's..impossible, I think they will make the move to support themselves, not the Thielert customers..

[englishal]

I wonder if it is possible to fit mini turbines to the DA42.....? Wouldn't that be a nice aeroplane ;)

[soay]

The diamond engine is a joke - steel block - no fadecs - v.v.v.v heavy. Literally just a car engine with no redundancy. It's about one thousand light years from certification.
I heard that the Diamond engine is based on the same 2 litre Mercedes engine as the Thielert, which has a steel block, so Thielert made their own out of aluminium. Are you just putting two and two together, or do you know that Diamond stuck with the steel block? Either way, it's got to have at least one ECU, so what do you mean by no fadecs?

[soay]

I think they [Diamond] will make the move to support themselves, not the Thielert customers
I still contend that it would be very bad for new sales, if Diamond were seen to be abandoning their existing customers. They're in a no win situation, which I hope doesn't bankrupt them as well.

[BartV]

Soay you are correct but I'm facing the dilemma that if Diamond takes responsibility they also go into bankruptcy, they just don't have the funds to take up the Thielert promises

Nobody is winning at this moment with the Thielert bankruptcy, except the other Engine manufactures?

[IFollowRailways]

£30k thielert conversion, only get 1300 hours, that's £23 p/h for new engine fund excluding any maint.Add £14.50 of fuel an hour, thats £37.50 basic and hour

If we went for the Standard engine, I guess that would have cost around £15k, but would have got 2400 hours, so that's £6.25 and hour, then add fuel at £35 an hour, I get £41.25 basic per hour


Very dodgy figures I think.

The Thielert tbo (actually tbr) AND WARRANTY is 2400 hours pro-rata, so the cost per hour on the conversion now works out to £12.50/hr.
The conversion cost is roughly twice the cost of a replacement engine. Your replacement engine is going to cost £15000, not £30000, so your engine fund needs to be £15000/2400 hrs = £6.25 hr. If you add your figure of £14.50 per hour for fuel, then you are probably looking at a cost of £20.75 per hour total.

The Avgas burner. Engine (your figures) £15000. 2000 hr tbo +20% = 2400 hrs. Will almost certainly need a top overhaul at about half life. Say £4000. Total cost of ownership for 2400 hours = £19000/2400 hrs = £7.91 hr. Fuel (say 30 litres/hr) @ £1.60 litre = £48.00/hr.

Total cost/hr = £55.91.

Or around £35.00 Hour more expensive than the Thielert!

spernkey, I really hope you are correct, your speculation could pay off or just not... let's hope for the best!

Thielert shares are still being traded - up 93% today. Mr Spernkey has made a lot of money today.........

Personally, I believe that Diamond must be as scared as anyone - If they are not able to sell diesel DA- 40's and DA-42's (the best sellers in the product range) and have huge support issues with aircraft already in the field, how long do you think that they will last as a viable company?

If the Thielert is as unreliable as some assert, can anyone realistically believe that a company like Cessna would not have realised this by now? The factory Cessna 172 TD is (was) due for release in the next few months. A company like Textron would not buy into this technology if, to use someones favourite line, they had not performed due diligence on the Thielert product?

[spernkey]

"Nobody is winning at this moment with the Thielert bankruptcy" said BartV. Chuckle.... chuckle......I just got a pm to say the shares are now 83 cents and rising!!!! Just approximately this means i have made £30,000 give or take so far, there may be a bit of cgt to pay but i reckon there is plenty of legs in this little bubble yet. You thought i was brave but someone has been buying 450,000 shares a day this last week! Most interesting. With one of my girlfreinds taking a punt also i think i have had a free engine in a way. I'm not saying that i will not get covered in egg just yet, but it seems likely i will be able to offset future quincyquonces of going diesel with my speculative gains. Er....i think!

Just as an aside, my stockbroker was horrified at this investment of mine. He has a lovely Cessna 182. He doesn't fly it as often as he used to. Every time he climbs aboard he puts his faith in the magnetos, and burns a whole load of leaded petrol. Actually to appease the pedants who frequent this forum i should say he only actually BURNS half of the fuel as the other half is needed to keep his jugs cool. I have now accepted that i cannot change the neo-conservative attitudes and prejudices in GA. In a way i have broken ranks and predated on the negativeness which pushed TAE shares so low. Isnt capitalism great?

Still seems likely i will, as an old man, say to my son "Did i ever tell you about when they tried put a diesel engine in a plane!" quickly followed by "Now will you take me up in your Lycoming powered PA28 one last time before i die, I'll give you 10 grand towards the fuel bill". Conservatism will always prevail in the end. The innovators WILL inherit the earth, but only when the speculators have already burned all the fuel. I shall now retire to re-calibrate my "Cynical-ometer", goodnight.
Spernkey Bowlock.:sad:

[VeriLocation]

I would assume that buyers about to invest in a new Diamond will now have their purchase options on hold pending the outcome of Thielert. This could go one of three ways 1. full closure with no buyer 2. breakup of the assets & IPR or 3. bought outright by a customer ( Diamond et al ) It is logical to assume that with Diamond's engine a long way off then an entire years sales could vanish as nervous buyers hold off. Therefore we can assume that it is in Diamond and Cessena's best interests to keep Thielert alive and producing engines. I see that Diamond and the the Chairman of Thielert did not exactly see eye to eye and maybe with his departure the way is now open to rekindle the early love affair and Diamond can concentrate on building superb aeroplanes and drop the idea of becoming a specialised engine builder ( from scratch ) which is both risky and costly. If they can pick up Thielert for a bargain basement price they would be mad not to, however Cessena may have other ideas. Either way as a Diamond owner I am pretty relaxed about things since I know that how Diamond handle this engine crisis will determine their own future for sure and I have an idea that what has happended may just play into their own hands plus as an added bonus they get to lose the old Chairman. Time will tell but our own experience is that the engine performs well, is highly economical and has never let us down which translates into a good product. Let's see....

[IO540]

Well done Spernkey - that was an amazing bet. I do wonder what that somebody else knew...

Incidentally I would have been very pleased if Thielert did succeed. We do badly need an avtur burning engine. I don't think anybody rationally disagrees with this.

What people don't like is being used as unpaid guinea-pigs, which happens all too often in GA.

If Thielert was so important for Diamond why did they start their own engine project ? Just showing Thielert that they didn't hold all the cards, would be a justifiable reason for doing this. Actually it would be stupid for Diamond to put all their eggs in one basket. I suppose they thought it was OK (unavoidable anyway) while the relationship was good, but when things started to go bad they decided to get a backup.

[vee-tail-1]

The Common rail diesel injection system is inherently unsuitable for aviation use. That's not conservatism, it's fact. Thielert has spent money and time to make it work in aeroplanes and failed. How very very sad. :ugh:

[gasax]

Common rail is more complex than a couple of magnetoes. But Thielert certified their engine and it is no more unreliable that any Lycon. Indeed without any cranshaft or cylinder recalls from factory built components, it has to be more reliable.

Solid state electronics are nearly always going to be better than badly made mechanical components.

Cerrtainly the financial tricks (explained in the Defense weekly article) suggest that making money (or avoiding losses) was a higher priority than selling and developing the engine. But here is a certified in production engine qavailable at probalby very modest cost. It would be amazing if someone did not snap up Thielert. Almost certainly they will ignore the warranties - which is pretty standard in aviation (and boats and specialist cars and and and ).

[vee-tail-1]

"Common rail is more complex than a couple of magnetoes. But Thielert certified their engine and it is no more unreliable that any Lycon. Indeed without any cranshaft or cylinder recalls from factory built components, it has to be more reliable."

Oh dear an engine that stops within 30mins of loss of electrics...reliable! you must be joking.:uhoh:

Edited to say that we discussed this topic ad nauseam not long ago. Diesels are still the way to go but not with an engine that is totally dependent on electrics to keep going.

[moggiee]

Diamond will not buy Thielert, why should they ? They already have their own engine comming up in a few moments....
But it won't be "a few moments" - it will be many, many months (if at all).

Diamond are liable for the provision of engines for the aeroplanes they supply (at the very least they are during any warranty period) because the warranty etc. is with Diamond. If Diamond are to ensure any sort of continuity of supply then they will need to make sure that the Thielert engine continues in production.

Diamond and the Austrian authorities have an advantage over a lot of other companies/countries as Austria is outside the EU and can get away with government subsidies. Don't be surprised if the Austrian government helps Diamond to acquire Thielert - they government has a vested interest in support its very successful aeroplane manufacturer.

[k12479]

...as Austria is outside the EU and can get away with government subsidies.Austria is in the EU. Maybe you're thinking of Switzerland.


Diamond are liable for the provision of engines for the aeroplanes they supply (at the very least they are during any warranty period) because the warranty etc. is with Diamond.Wouldn't Diamond only be responsible for the airframe, suppliers being responsible for the bought-in components?

[moggiee]

Austria is in the EU. Maybe you're thinking of Switzerland. Little slip up there! Actually, I was thinking of the Danish import deal for dodging Austrian VAT and that this was possible because Austria was non-EU. Still, that doesn't change the fact that the quickest and easiest way for Diamond to get hold of suitable engines is still most likely to be to buy Thielert.


Wouldn't Diamond only be responsible for the airframe, suppliers being responsible for the bought-in components?No. When you buy a VW car your warranty is with VW - not Bosch for the ABS, Sachs for the shock absorbers, Hella for the lights, Continental for the tyres etc. Most components (including much of the mechanical gubbins) will be bought in by VW but because VW sell the car, THEY have the liability.

[Sunfish]

1. Theilert bit off a little more than they can chew. Taking an automotive diesel - which runs less than 20% of max power most of the time and making it work in an environment where it has to work at 50% or more max. power all the time was always going to be an ask. That's why they moved from the 1.7 to 2.0 litre engine without increasing the max. rating.

2. I would be dumbfounded if Diamond has any liability whatsoever for the Thielert engines, any more than I would expect Cessna to compensate me for a failed Lycoming. If by some perverse European law this was to be the case, then I'm sure Diamond, being rational, would have required Thielert to pay for and maintain an insurance policy in Diamond's name to cover this liability.

3. The question now is whether Thielert can be recapitalised or sold as a going concern. These measures would leave warranties intact. Selling the company's assets wouldn't. I wonder if United Technologies will bite?

[k12479]

No. When you buy a VW car your warranty is with VW - not Bosch for the ABS, Sachs for the shock absorbers, Hella for the lights, Continental for the tyres etc. Most components (including much of the mechanical gubbins) will be bought in by VW but because VW sell the car, THEY have the liability.But wouldn't they then reclaim for any of those parts from the supplier?

Just checked the warranty for Robinson Helicopters and according to that it excludes "...batteries, instruments, avionics or other trade accesories since they are usually warranted separately by their respective manufacturers. New aircraft are equipped with new engines which have a separate Lycoming limited warranty"

Similarly if you bought a boat I would assume Caterpillar, or whoever, would be responsible for the engine fitted. If I'm not mistaken even my lawn mower has a separated warranty from Briggs & Stratton for the engine.

[soay]

But wouldn't they then reclaim for any of those parts from the supplier?
When you but an aircraft from Diamond, they provide a warranty for the airframe, Thielert provide one for the engine, and Garmin have their own for the avionics. All claims are made directly to the warranty provider, not through Diamond.

[BartV]

Soay, unfortunately that gives a direct answer to the warranty issue on Thielert, the value of the complete Thielert fleet has dropped to a very low level because of this.

About spernkey his shares speculation: if i would be you, i would take the profit now, soon the stock will be suspended and your stocks will be 0 valued. About the high volume, it's a typical system when you bought shares at a high price to buy even more when they are almost dead so many people will buy your shares so you can get rid of them before they are 0 valued.

[IO540]

Common rail is more complex than a couple of magnetoes. But Thielert certified their engine and it is no more unreliable that any Lycon. Indeed without any cranshaft or cylinder recalls from factory built components, it has to be more reliable.
Solid state electronics are nearly always going to be better than badly made mechanical components.

The above confuses the causes. The Lyco crankshaft recall / 12 year life limit (SB569 - I've just paid out on this so I am rather familiar with it and the background) was caused by crap QA together with some material/process modifications which could easily have been avoided had the company (Lyco's crankshaft subcontractor, initially) given a flying **** about doing the job right. There is nothing actually wrong with the crankshaft design. Well, the 380HP TSIO-540 versions get a bit close stress-wise...

Lyco have dropped the ball on other items but these have been largely QA related. The basic engine has very few design defects, unless one regards the need for correct engine (thermal) management as a design defect (which could be argued both ways).

Solid state electronics (my profession and business for the last 30 years, so I know a bit about this too) can be made very very reliable but will never be as reliable as simple mechanical bits like cams and gears.

Which is not to say that a magneto (a fairly intricate bit of mechanics, in its Bendix implementation) is more or less reliable than really well built conventional electronic ignition triggered by a magnetic sensor. It's probably of similar order of magnitude. Nevertheless, engine failures due to magneto ignition failure seem to be incredibly unusual. And, vitally, any monkey can overhaul a magneto (and many do, as I well know) while virtually nobody in aviation understands electronics. Even avionics dealers are largely just wiremen, following wiring diagrams in the back of installation manuals.

When you but an aircraft from Diamond, they provide a warranty for the airframe, Thielert provide one for the engine, and Garmin have their own for the avionics. All claims are made directly to the warranty provider, not through Diamond.

That confuses the default legal situation with certain industry practices :yuk:

If you buy a Sony LCD monitor from say Dixons, your legal warranty is 100% (100%) through Dixons. However, if that monitor packs up, Dixons don't want you to take it back to their shop, because they have no facility for packing it up and returning it to Sony. They will give you a phone # at some call centre which you call and they will sort out a collection, or for smaller items they will get you to send it back to Sony, and Sony UK will have an agreement for warranty processing with Dixons, which absolves Dixons from having to handle large numbers of items being carted back to their High Street branches.

But if you want to exercise your legal rights you can just take the item back to Dixons and tell them to sort it out.

Same with planes. Aviation industry practice has tended to separate warranties, so if your Cessna engine (Lyco) needs work, you go to a Lyco dealer and not to Cessna. This makes practical sense, especially on items which are too big to be packed up and sent off somewhere. But if you want to, you can sue the Cessna dealer (yes I mean the dealer) who sold it to you.

The fact that the claim will then work its way back (the dealer will submit a claim to Cessna who will submit a claim to Lyco) is of no relevance to you the consumer.

The industry just doesn't want customers to know they have this option, because it enables them to fob people off by giving them loads of bull about the manufacturer no longer making or supporting the item, etc etc, etc...

There is a difference for business customers. A private customer has the legal right as I describe and he cannot sign any document which removes that right. However, a business customer can sign away his rights. So, potentially, the dealer could get a business customer to sign away some warranty rights. And lots of people do buy planes in the name of a Ltd Co... Got to watch that one!

Rest assured that consumers do sue and frequently, using the above rights. But 99% of people still don't know they can.

And in GA one needs to think twice about suing, because it's a very small world. If you sue some firm at your airport, you can lose your hangarage or be kicked off the airport altogether. If you sue an avionics shop, or even mess up the relationship at all, that is one less shop you can use, and there are so few avionics shops in the UK which know one end of a soldering iron from another (in fact many can't solder; they crimp everything) that you really won't want to narrow down your options.

Nobody is going to sue a single source like Diamond unless they have absolutely no option left and couldn't care less about burning all their bridges. This is what has kept the show on the road.

[moggiee]

Unfortunately, until Diamond start to talk to the industry about what they plan to do, we are all a little in the dark. There's been no official word from Austria yet.

[Fuji Abound]

But if you want to exercise your legal rights you can just take the item back to Dixons and tell them to sort it out.

There are some contradictory opinions on here regarding warranty but IO is correct in this far.

In the retail world all too often the retailer shirks his responsibility and attempts to palm off the consumer on a return to manufacturer. However your contract is with the supplier and he is responsibility for replacing the item or refunding the purchase price. In fact also too often he will attempt to claim your "warranty" with him is limited to a relatively short period of time. This is not so, and it can be argued with certain goods that his "warranty" is for rather longer than even a year.

In the case of Diamond the situation might interestingly be more complex. The aircraft might have been purchased via a dealer or direct from Diamond (the manufacturer). In the case of a dealer/agent I guess the situation is no different than above. (Always assuming as ever the dealer/agent doesnt go bust). In the case of someone buying directly from the manufactuer I wonder whether the owner can be bound to the terms of the manufacturers warranty in terms of the underlying warranty of the integral parts?

[Justiciar]

IO540 has correctly stated the position in (English) law. In the case of a business customer it is true that the dealer could try and pass on some of the liability for defects to the manufacturer. However, such conditions in a contract would have to satisfy a test of "reasonableness", which a court would scrutinise quite carefully.

I don't know is whan buying a Diamond you are contracting direct with them or with the dealer, i.e. the dealer may be acting merely as the agent for Diamond. In this case then your claim would be against the manufacturer and probably subject to Austrian Law as the proper law of the contract and to the jurisdiction of the Austrian courts, though again if you are a private individual buying not in the course of a business then the courts where you live have jurisdiction to determin such a claim.

[IO540]

I guess, Fuji, it would depend on where (geographically) the contract was consummated, so to speak.

There is a lot of case law on this (which I know nothing about) not least because it affects (among other things) whether VAT is due and at what rate.

But my guess is that if you buy a DA40/42 from a UK dealer then you have the full protection in UK consumer law.

Lots of UK companies would dearly love to pretend to be legally based outside the EU (based for the purpose of carrying on business with UK consumers) for example because it would sidestep EU consumer protection.

I looked at this in connection with SB569 which costs an aircraft owner somewhere around £10,000 and found out that every affected aircraft owner (purchasing as a private individual) could simply sue the dealer he got the plane from... I don't think many dealers would like this to be known. In practice it's a little more complicated because Lyco are offering a free crank swap if you use them (rather than a 3rd party engine shop) to overhaul the engine at its official 12 year life limit (which, Sir, you should do because we say so) so your recoverable loss is "just" the reduction in the aircraft value (which happens to be around £10,000 too, but only if you sell before the 12 year deadline) and not many people will bother to argue this because the sale is generally a free choice. However, it has become known that Lyco are doing "deals" on SB569, but they make you sign an NDA. These "deals" are based on them doing the job - they apparently won't do a "deal" on you using a 3rd party engine shop.

The whole business stinks.

[spernkey]

Lost my bottle at 93 cents today, never mind still made a bit of money which may proove to sugar coat a very bitter pill as the situation un-ravels.

All this clever manouvring and sharp business practice must be very distracting for people who could be concentrating on engineering and finding a viable way forward for little planes! Never mind twas always thus!

May i just add that after a few silly niggles these engines fitted as a retrofit in the 172 have been awesome. They just purr away at whatever power (the engine as fitted in a/c has little resemblance to the merc car unit with beefed up everything), smooth and cheap to run. Service every 100 hours. Downloads of engine data giving trends and alerts. Engine not asthmatic when hot n high - try Peyresourde on a hot day in a 150hp 172 if you dare. 2 of my engines which went to tbr showed no hideous wear indicating they were overstressed. The one engine failure we had was caused by a bit of the turbo getting a free tour round the engine when it came adrift, this got fixed with an a/d and cant happen on the 2.0. Anyway after losing all the oil in 30 seconds it flew for an hour back to base with a red light illuminated. Now that would not happen with a Lyco and also without an annunciator light and the famously vague engine guages i reckon the outcome would have been more drastic.

I would like to know what the poster who asserted that common rail's are not suitable for aviation meant? That pussles me as i found Carbs to be less than perfect to say nowt about carb icing!!!

Last summer i sat behind a Thielert for 1000 hours for a fuel cost of £7500. My Lyco would have cost nearer £45000 plus the dreaded top end overhaul for daring to operate at low power for protracted periods. I would not have been able to do 1000 hours in the Lyco however cos i would have had to keep having to break off working to go for fuel. Having a 12 hour duration gives you options!

With the PRO-RATA arr. the replacement engine cost me 9K fitted!!!!!!! No-one seems to understand the pro-rata against 2400 Lyco life.

TAE's warranties have been over generous to be honest, they have paid for allsorts of consequencial losses which Lyco would laugh at.

In short my foray into this brave new world has had a pay-back time of less than one year and six months per ship. I could not be more delighted with TAE any more than i could go back to burning petrol. They go, i go.

Fingers crossed.:sad:

[vee-tail-1]

"I would like to know what the poster who asserted that common rail's are not suitable for aviation meant? That pussles me as i found Carbs to be less than perfect to say nowt about carb icing!!!"

Sorry for going on about common rail, but it's about the tendency for things to be made unneccessarily complicated. The bog standard Lyco/Conti will keep on running regardless of failure in electrics, hydraulics, or any other system. So long as it has fuel it will run. Not so the common rail diesel, lose your electrics and you need somewhere to land soonest!
The diesel equivalent of the Lyco as far as reliability is concerned has a mechanical injection system which enables it to keep going so long as it has fuel. Aircraft diesels should be as simple and reliable as a Peugeot 205 car. Instead Thielert made them too complicated with FADEC and back up electrics etc. Like I said it's sad sad :(

[IO540]

Last summer i sat behind a Thielert for 1000 hours for a fuel cost of £7500. My Lyco would have cost nearer £45000 plus the dreaded top end overhaul for daring to operate at low power for protracted periods. I would not have been able to do 1000 hours in the Lyco however cos i would have had to keep having to break off working to go for fuel. Having a 12 hour duration gives you options!

I won't quite let you get away with that, spernkey :)

A Lyco will almost certainly make TBO if you fly it at 60-65% power. I've just had mine opened at 700hrs and it was mostly spotless inside.

You are right about the fuel price, which is why everybody would have an avtur burner if they had a reasonable option. Until the tax incentive goes, which will kill the retrofit market.

The 12hr duration is at what power setting and what IAS?

[soay]

Sorry for going on about common rail, but it's about the tendency for things to be made unneccessarily complicated.
It's simply impossible to get a suitable power to weight ratio using a diesel engine without common rail and fadec. The technology isn't the problem, it's the compromises in the way it has been implemented to keep it affordable, given the small production runs available for GA engines.

[Andy_RR]

It's simply impossible to get a suitable power to weight ratio using a diesel engine without common rail and fadec.

Absolute codswallop! Common rail diesel technology was developed to improve noise quality and reduce emissions, neither of which are key players in an aero diesel engine. Mechanical systems can deliver equivalent power/weight ratio, except you don't see them these days as most of the visible diesel development is in road vehicles, which require the NVH and emissions capability of electronic control.

A

[soay]

Mechanical systems can deliver equivalent power/weight ratio
Do you have a reference for that statement?

This article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_rail_diesel) on Wikipedia compares the two technologies:

"In older diesel engines, a distributor-type injection pump, regulated by the engine, supplies bursts of fuel to injectors which are simply nozzles through which the diesel is sprayed into the engine's combustion chamber. As the fuel is at low pressure and there cannot be precise control of fuel delivery, the spray is relatively coarse and the combustion process is relatively crude and inefficient.

"In common rail systems, the distributor injection pump is eliminated. Instead an extremely high pressure pump stores a reservoir of fuel at high pressure — up to 2,000 bars (29,000 psi) — in a "common rail"; basically a tube which in turn branches off to computer-controlled injector valves, each of which contains a precision-machined nozzle and a plunger driven by a solenoid. Driven by a computer (which also controls the amount of fuel to the pump), the valves, rather than pump timing, control the precise moment when the fuel injection into the cylinder occurs and also allow the pressure at which the fuel is injected into the cylinders to be increased. As a result, the fuel that is injected atomises easily and burns cleanly, reducing exhaust emissions and increasing efficiency."

As you can see, common rail wins hands down.

[IFollowRailways]

"In older diesel engines, a distributor-type injection pump, regulated by the engine, supplies bursts of fuel to injectors which are simply nozzles through which the diesel is sprayed into the engine's combustion chamber. As the fuel is at low pressure and there cannot be precise control of fuel delivery, the spray is relatively coarse and the combustion process is relatively crude and inefficient.


Usual Wiki rubbish............

A modern radial injection pump such as a Bosch, runs at 1850 bar (27,000ish psi). The "simple" nozzles are also extremely accurately machined and are balanced as a set.

I do however agree about the degree of timing accuracy available from the computer controlled common rail versus the mechanical pump, although as previously said, this mostly effects NVT and emissions rather than power, which with any diesel is smoke limited.

[vee-tail-1]

Mechanical injection diesel as found on French home-builts:
(1) Propeller.
(2) Toothed belt reduction gear (absorbs torque fluctuations),
(3) Engine with injection pump and injectors.

Common rail Diesel as fitted to certified aircraft:
(1) Propeller.
(2) Torque compensator & reduction drive (gears & slip clutch..has TBO)
(3) Engine with common rail.
(4) Electric HP pump for common rail.
(5) Computer operated electronic injector nozzles.
(6) ECU and FADEC.
(7) Dedicated engine management electric circuitry, supplied by:
(8) Two alternators,
(9) Main & back-up batteries.

Assuming you started off with the same basic alloy engine, which version might be lightest and more reliable?

[k12479]

A modern radial injection pump such as a Bosch, runs at 1850 bar (27,000ish psi).These are electronically controlled too though.

I do however agree about the degree of timing accuracy available from the computer controlled common rail versus the mechanical pump, although as previously said, this mostly effects NVT and emissions rather than power, which with any diesel is smoke limited.Common rail systems decouple injection pressure from engine speed, as in the case of distributor and in-line piston pumps, meaning improved sprays at lower engine speeds, although as you say this has mostly been used to improve emissions & NVH rather than power.

Common rail Diesel as fitted to certified aircraft:
(1) Propeller.
(2) Torque compensator & reduction drive (gears & slip clutch..has TBO)
(3) Engine with common rail.
(4a) Electric LP pump for common rail.
(4b) Engine driven HP pump.
(5) Computer operated electronic injector nozzles.
(6) ECU and FADEC.
(7) Dedicated engine management electric circuitry, supplied by:
(8) Two alternators,
(9) Main & back-up batteries.

[Asrian]

update: Today the parent company, Thielert Holding, filed for insolvency too. Stock was suspended from trade at the stock exchange.
Thielert aircraft engines is a 100% subsidiary of Thielert Holding.

Link (http://www.yoome.de/news.61858.html)

:uhoh:

[spernkey]

IO540 - back when i had to use 0-320-e2d Lycoming engines in my 172's we would spend most of the day at 1800 rpm which i think translates to 40-50% power. What we found over a (statistically useless) spread of 8 engines was that they all needed new top ends at around 1000 hours due to the valves guides been worn and seating problems. I think for someone patient enough to trawl through the myriad of Lyco a/d's and s/b's there is now a mandatory inspection for this. Other irritations i had with these were too many to list here but the galling one was the crankshaft corrosion a/d which not only required a NDT test every few weeks but then invalidated the ability to get a core value when the time came!!!

Listen to me i always appear to be moaning when i get on here!

As to the duration on my diesel it goes like this. 195 litres in the tank. Cruise at 90kts at 20lph BUT 12-14lph on site doing my photo work. I have always had enough after 8 hours personally, even if they are smoother and quieter than the petrol's!

I believe my little diesel put-puts are right in the sweet spot torque-wise for my work and i have been impressed with all aspects of the Thielerts.
I hope there is some continuance with this product but i am rapidly getting past caring franckly. I am well known as an optimist with a "GA can make it!" kind of outlook, but i have to admit that if i now came accross anyone with that belief i would find them disturbing.

Due to the bizarre certification process innovation in GA is rare enough, it'll be even scarcer now.:ugh:

I now have to decide where to deploy my speculative gains, normally this would be easy for a GA enthusiast, as there are always aviation thingy's to blow dosh on. Maybe not this time, at least till i stop sulking.

[IO540]

back when i had to use 0-320-e2d Lycoming engines in my 172's we would spend most of the day at 1800 rpm which i think translates to 40-50% power. What we found over a (statistically useless) spread of 8 engines was that they all needed new top ends at around 1000 hours due to the valves guides been worn and seating problems

It sounds like photo work, spernkey. high AOA, low speed, poor airflow, high CHTs. Bad for these aircooled engines. Did you collect engine monitor (e.g. EDM700) data?

The Thielerts should be great for your application. Their problems all appeared to be related to continuous high power operation. Which, no doubt, is why some private owners are delighted with them (especially the more clever ones) while those schools who had fleets of them spent much of their time instructing lawyers.

[moggiee]

Thielerts ..........................those schools who had fleets of them spent much of their time instructing lawyers.
No we don't - because we maintain them properly. Look after the engines and they will serve you well.

Thielert's customer support has been good - if only we could say the same of Diamond UK.

[BartV]

Stock was suspended from trade at the stock exchange.

As I predicted, I hope spernkey took his profit, otherwise bye bye your money... as I predicted

[spernkey]

Thank you BartV, as i said i got out at 93 cents having gotten in just over 40 cents. The £30,000 ish i made this week is gonna get squandered on my beach property on the Abel Tasman.

I am fatigued from continually re-investing in GA and think i have reached a watershed in my attitude both to it and my co-habitants. With a bit of good luck parts supplies will be OK for my existing units. Either way I aint gonna burn petrol again.

[IO540]

Cessna drops Thielert option

http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080501thielert.html

Not really suprising.

[TWR]

I wonder what Apex will do with their excellent Ecoflyer...

:sad:

[coodem]

Anyone know what the current spares situation is? Do most UK repair agents have sufficient. Just getting a bit worried now, as half way through my IR on the DA42, and it is just about to go in for a 100 hour. I just hope it gets the all clear and that its gonna last for my last 15 is hours I still need to do on it. If not, god only knows. The only other people I know who have DA42's are SFC, but all theirs have gone tech. Then there is CABAIR, and they are so far behind in their training, I doubt they will let me join to finish my training.

What should I be planning for my plan B?

[IO540]

If you can afford to finish off in an old dog of a piston twin at £250/hr or so, do it in a Seneca like all "proper pilots" have done :)

Or, do the IR in a single and convert to ME later - "just" another checkride in your case I guess since you must have had the diff training by now.

IMHO, doing endless NDB holds to 0.001 of a degree and 0.1 of a second in a twin is a waste of money. Any form of practical IFR (airways) is so vastly easier than the training that there is little to be gained from grinding oneself into the ground unnecessarily.

[PlasticPilot]

According to AOPA, Cessna announced they stop the delivery of the C172TDI for 2008. None were delivered now.

More at 8pm (CET) on my blog www.plasticpilot.net (http://www.plasticpilot.net)

If Diamond buys Thilert, I'm worndering how Cessna and PIper will react

[Fuji Abound]

I would agree with IO540 - there are plently of other twins around that will not cost a vast amount more than a DA42 - unless you are getting an exceptional deal.

The DA42 obviously has the advantage of low fuel and maintenance cost but to square the circle the higher fuel burn of a conventional twin will be offset by the much lower amount of capital employed in the aircraft on which the operator needs to secure a return.

There is not a great deal to converting from a 42 to most other twins. If you have not flown another twin an hour or two to familiarise yourself will do the job. I guess you will need to do so anyway if your only MEP type is the 42.

IMHO the avionics suite will of course be no where near as slick but hey it does the same job in a sort of old fashion way! :O

Who ever buys Theilert (or there assets) it may take a while before the supply chain of parts is in full swing again (depending of course on what inventory Theilert had on the shelves, and often when this happens stocks have been run down) so you might find it is some while before the maintenace back log has been settled. If the aircraft is waiting for parts I might not hold my breath if completion of your IR depends on it in the near future.

[wsmempson]

What I can't believe is that we haven't had a post from Sternone by now...:rolleyes:

[Fuji Abound]

Dont tempt fate.

[IO540]

If Diamond buys Thilert, I'm worndering how Cessna and PIper will react

What a lovely political dimension.

Or, if Cessna buys Thielert, what will Diamond do?

:mad:

I wonder where from (geographically) Cessna's claimed 3-digit # of diesel orders have come from. If it's [mostly] Europe, I doubt Cessna will be bothered.

[moggiee]

Car manufacturers and other aerospace companies seem to be able to sort themselves out with component sharing so why won't Cessna and Diamond be able to? It's hardly as if their products REALLY compete with each other, is it?

Ford and Peugeot share engines for competing models and BAE/Airbus UK build components for Boeing!

[coodem]

I have around 8 hours on a PA44, so guess will end up doing it on that, should the worst happen. Not got a huge problem with that. But I am really starting to enjoy flying the DA42, Once you are in it, that is

[BackPacker]

If Diamond buys Thilert, I'm worndering how Cessna and PIper will react
Or, if Cessna buys Thielert, what will Diamond do?

Well, it depends on the agreements that they can make. But it would not be a problem outright. Jabiru makes engines and airframes and yet supply the engines to others as well without a problem. And on the other end of the scale, Jeppessen is owned by Boeing but supplies data to Airbus as well.

It's all business. And to be honest, the larger the party that snaps up Thielert, the better the survival chances of those engine models. As long as the party is committed to continue the line, instead of finding this a cheap way to get rid of a competitor. In that respect, Cessna might be the best candidate to buy Thielert. More so than Diamond who are, after all, already developing their own engine.

[IO540]

However, Lyco/Cessna have much bigger resources to develop an engine than Thielert or Diamond.

It's really obvious to me that R&D at Thielert has been massively under-resourced.

That's before we get onto the subject of Lyco or Conti having developed diesel technology but are not launching it because they will obviously not move ahead of their main (US) market.

The Americans are more likely than anybody else to buy a company to close it down.

[BartV]

Today I got confirmation that :

* Thielert emailed all spare part customers that they had a new bank number
* Thielert emailed later to say there was an error in that email that they bank number was changed again togheter with a new bank number
* An email from a curator that there should be no payements at all made at those new bank numbers
* The TNT shipping number of the spare parts of the Thielert factory was deleted at the system at TNT so no more shipping from them for spareparts

If that doesn't sound like some weird stuff I don't know!!!

[BackPacker]

How about Rotax? The 2.0 135/155 HP Centurion would be a fine addition to their existing line of aero engines which currently goes to 115 HP (Rotax 914). Both Rotax and Thielert are based in German-speaking countries and are actually already very close, geographically speaking. And Rotax is independent of any aircraft manufacturer, supplying both uncertificated and certificated engines to all sorts of aircraft manufacturers.

[BartV]

Yeah, they could exchange some information about the troubles they had with their gearboxes :}

[BartV]

May 4, 2008

Cessna Suspends Diesel 172 Sales, Diamond Steps Up Support

By AVweb Staff



AOPA says Cessna has suspended its delivery schedule of 172 TD models in light of the crisis at Thielert Aircraft Engines, which supplies the engines. According to AOPA, Cessna intends to continue with certification of the diesel Skyhawk but none of the 100 on order will go to customers just yet. “At this point we have decided that we will not deliver 172TD aircraft during 2008, and we have informed our customers accordingly,” AOPA quotes an unnamed Cessna spokesman as saying. Meanwhile, Diamond Aircraft appears to be moving aggressively to establish technical and parts support for its installed base of Thielert diesel engines, following Thielert’s bankruptcy filing last week. In a series of letters to owners, Diamond says it plans to order a “significant spare parts inventory” and is asking dealers and owners for status reports on parts needs. It has also established a North American hotline for owners and shops which can be reached at 888-613-0096 or via e-mail at [email protected]. As we reported last week, Thielert declared bankruptcy due to a looming liquidity crisis and on news that German authorities were investigating the company for financial anomalies relating to its IPO filing in 2005. The board last week dismissed company founder Frank Thielert and the chief financial officer, Roswitha Grosser and, this week, appointed a new CEO, lawyer Marcel Kleiss. Further, Bruno Kuebler, who Diamond calls “one of Germany’s preeminent insolvency administrators” was appointed to oversee Thielert’s insolvency proceedings. Diamond currently has more than 30 new DA42 Twin Stars awaiting engines and intends to continue production, but it warns customers that “given the current situation, there may be unusual delays in service and response to technical inquiries.”

[moggiee]

It's good to see that Diamond are being pro-active with support. To be honest, I expected nothing less from them.

[BartV]

Diamond says it plans to order a “significant spare parts inventory” and is asking dealers and owners for status reports on parts needs.

Another reason that Diamond does not need to buy Thielert they just ordered the spare parts they need to assure their customers...

[moggiee]

Obtaining spare parts to support existing engines is not the same as obtaining whole, new engines - which would be needed for new orders and ultimately to replace existing engines.

Diamond still need the Centurion to remain in production - otherwise they will be unable to supply new aeroplanes.

[soay]

According to this article (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/05/12/223583/diamond-to-avert-thielert-crisis-with-own-diesel-engine.html) from Flight International, it seems that Diamond are planning to switch to their own engine, rather than buying out Thielert:

"Diamond Aircraft is launching its own diesel engine as an alternative to the Thielert Centurion 2.0 in its single-engine DA40 and DA42 twin.

Diamond hopes the 170hp (125kW) Austro engine will be certificated by July and aims to introduce it on all new-build DA42s and diesel-powered DA40s, as well as its new, larger DA50, from September or October.

From the first quarter of next year, it will offer a retrofit package on the around 500 DA42s and 360 diesel-powered DA40s in service."

Even if they get the certification as quickly as they hope, it could mean up to 12 months on the ground for any of the existing fleet that need engine replacements. Given that it's essentially based on similar technology to the Thielert engine, which didn't turn out to be too reliable, they may find that the EASA examiners are more cautious this time around.

[IO540]

IMHO, Diamond will go bust if they lose the cashflow from a year's new aircraft sales.

July 2008 for a new motor is impossible, unless they have been working very secretly for a long time, and working very closely with EASA and the FAA.

It's possible however and that is exactly how I would have done it. I would have kept Thielert nervous by "slowly" working on my own engine (must never make a supplier discover they have you over a barrel) and then drop them suddenly when the new engine is ready.

Whether any customer will take a risk on another less than reliable diesel, I don't know. I spoke to Diamond at various trade shows and they never accepted there was much wrong with the Thielert; they blamed it on pilot error, etc.

Diamond will however always be able to fit a new engine under their prorated warranties. The customer in that case is in NO position to question whether the new engine is any good. So their cash flow will be maintained to a large degree, until the engine is proven.

This is aviation - never forget!! ;)

[BartV]

Does anybody has any information/data on the Diamond engine ?

[soay]

The only information I've seen is Diamond's press release (http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M53d00057d45.html) from last July:

"In collaboration with Austro Engine GmbH and Diamond Aircraft Industries, whom both have their Headquarters in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, MB-technology GmbH (MBtech) in Germany and other distinguished partners, a 170 HP Turbo Diesel Engine with a maximum torque of 570Nm has made its initial test flight in a DA40 Diamond Star. Christian Dries, CEO of Diamond Aircraft Industries and Sören Pedersen, Managing Test Pilot at DAI carried out the maiden flight together. They were both enthralled. The engine showed high performance while also being economical. Through consequential implementation of MBtech developed combustion technology, in comparison to ‘normal’ engines, we succeeded in lowering the overall fuel consumption, employing identical performance, by 20%. These results make this engine a very attractive option for unmanned aircraft (UAVs).

"As the worlds’ biggest manufacturer of aircraft with diesel engines, it was obvious that Diamond Aircraft Industries would strive to perfect a tried and tested new generation of JetA1 engines for the general aviation."

If its development is so far advanced, I'm surprised that they haven't released any more information since then.

[BartV]

Diamond hopes the 170hp (125kW) Austro engine will be certificated by July and aims to introduce it on all new-build DA42s and diesel-powered DA40s, as well as its new, larger DA50, from September or October As IO540 said if this is true, they were working on it very hard for a long time. Let's hope it is true for Diamond and their owners. Let's hope they do something special price-wise for people having Diamonds now and retrofitting their planes with a Diamond Engine.

[moggiee]

From Flight Global:

According to the insolvency administrator, the company, based in Lichtenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lichtenstein), eastern Germany, is continuing to manufacture engines as negotiations with suppliers and potential investors take place, with its 300 staff guaranteed pay until the end of June.

[Loewe_at]

Today, Christian Dries and a test pilot from DAI started for the maiden flight of the DA50 equipped with the new engine. The flight took about one hour and was witnessed by quite a crowd of spectators, press people and cameras. I can only tell you, the engine starts very easy (well, like a car engine ...) and it sounds good too. Not very loud, a low, dark sound and also during the take-off run, it sounded strong but relaxed - not as strained and hard working as the Thielert engines of the DA42 chase plane taking off right after the DA50. From the comments I overheard, I take it, that the electronic engine control is totally different from the Thielert and the combustion is more efficient and softer. And yes, development of the engine started about 2 years ago.

[Super Galeb G4]

What are you talking about? DA50 has 350 hp engine, how can they replace it with 170 Hp uncertified diesel???

Second of all, speaking from the experience of person who is dealing with certification on a daily basis, I'd say that Christian Dries is very very very optimistic guy, and if he thinks that he is going to certify an engine by the end of summer and get it right and working as expected, than he doesn't know what he doesn't know about certification, flight tests, ground tests etc.

In the mean time production line is standing and waiting for what, new engine to be certified? Crap, no way, oh and what is he going to do leave some 700 other aircraft with Thielert engine without support, legally not possible!

[Loewe_at]

There is also a DA50 prototype with a 350HP Conti TSIOF-550, thats true. But because of the fuel flow of around 30gph the Conti seems to make a fast airplane with very short legs. Certification efforts for this DA50 variant are currently on hold.

So we'll have to wait for some facts and performance figures for the 170HP variant.

[moggiee]

DA50 News from the Diamond website. "Austro 300" engine - sounds like a 300hp unit to me.

http://www.diamond-air.at/news_detail+M5ab5ebf608e.html

The 170hp unit flew last year in a DA40 - so certification could be well underway by now.

http://www.skycontrol.net/business-general-aviation/diamond-aircraft-new-engine-for-general-aviation/

[BartV]

I really hope to fly the 170hp DA42 soon... when they have it I will directly visit their factory to test fly it

[Loewe_at]

@BartV ... test flight soon? Do you mean to test fly a prototype DA42 or a production model ? I don't believe you'll get your hands on a certified production model "soon".

[BartV]

Well according to Diamond in the comming 'months' ...

Who knows that better than Diamond themselfs ?

[Superpilot]

I'm currently doing my IR and all the DA-42's at my school are gone tech awaiting parts. What a f*cking cock up.

[BartV]

The bad thing is that if they are under warranty, well they aren't anymore. and that is some very unexpected heavy costs for them... I don't know if every school/club can bear that for long...

[Papa Charlie]

Same thing with Flying Time at Shoreham - only a couple of DA40's left flying 'cos of no spares..... :confused:

[BartV]

Oh yes, they have spares, if you pay upfront for them... 15.000.- euro for a gearbox change that you do every 300 hours... (and that was supposed to be in warranty)

I guess we will not be hearing from Mr. Thielert soon...

[vositis]

If you are a current Diamond aircraft owner with a Thielert engine (or two), please send me an email at Diamond @ LakeWW.com with your name, contact information, type of aircraft, serial number, registration, and location.

I would like to put together a group of owners so that we can investigate our options for protecting our investment and communicate with Diamond and "the administrator" as a group.

Thank you,

Vilis Ositis

[Super Galeb G4]

It seems that Diamond is working hard on trying to make TAE work cheap now, but it has hurdles with the insolvency administrator. My guess is that insolvency guy is trying to save TAE and he doesn't care for Diamond, lol, this is going to be interesting, I think Diamond has no other way but to acquire TAE if they want to continue supporting their aircraft, which on the other hand might actually turn out good since then they get know how and in house capabilities for manufacturing of their own engine which they brag about so much these days.

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?ContentBlockID=6dd57ffd-afc0-4bf4-81dc-823a4ec89292&

It is funny how they offer a retrofit of course at customers cost, this will never work, nobody will in their right mind go for additional cost to put another engine in the new aircraft. Unless Diamond plans to give away some 1300 engines for free, hehehehhehe like that is going to happen, that would be financial suicide.

What do you guys think?

[moonym20]

i simply feel sorry for diamond aircraft owners at this dark time :(

it cant be fun if your pride and joy is waiting on spare parts

[S-Works]

There is a darkly humorous irony to this after all the gleeful posts about how great these things were and how cheap they were to run. They are cheap to fly because the cant leave the ground most of the time, saves a fortune in fuel...... :p

I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.

[moggiee]

There is a darkly humorous irony to this after all the gleeful posts about how great these things were and how cheap they were to run. They are cheap to fly because the cant leave the ground most of the time, saves a fortune in fuel...... :p

I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.
We've run the numbers and the DA42 still makes sense.

Even if we lose all warranty support and have to pay full price for all spares and labour and even allowing for the payments on the loan for the aeroplane itself -THE DA 42 IS STILL CHEAPER PER HOUR THAN A SENECA 2!

[BartV]

What do you guys think?

I suggest you read the previous posts here, Thielert engines are REPLACED instead of OVERHAULED, so the unfortunate Thielert owners will replace them with Diamond engines.

Anyone buying Thielert will see that Diamond will not be a customer for them but a compatitor, the warranty issue with the current Thielert owners is the worst thing that could happen.

[S-Works]

We've run the numbers and the DA42 still makes sense.

Even if we lose all warranty support and have to pay full price for all spares and labour and even allowing for the payments on the loan for the aeroplane itself -THE DA 42 IS STILL CHEAPER PER HOUR THAN A SENECA 2!

How about a malibu, 225kts for £180 wet. Same purchase costs as a DA42 get you an aircraft 80-100kts faster, 25,000ft and pressurized. Full known ice certification.

I have yet to see a DA42 come in for an hourly cost sub £200.

All that glitters is not gold!

[IO540]

The Malibu is not an answer to long range touring.

According to a report I read a while ago, more than 10% have suffered an in flight engine failure.

Most of these would have been in the USA, where from FL250 one can glide to some runway for more than 50% of the time. But in Europe, nearly all would have been forced landings and a smashed up $1M plane. This is no Pitts Special capable of landing in 100m.

The Seneca is not really a good example, combining the worst of everything: an ancient airframe, ancient engines (two of them, one is a spare 80% of which is used to drag itself along), and a new one costs a fortune. New Seneca sales are negligible now.

Thielert will not exist without Diamond. The retrofit market is negligible and will die immediately that the EU puts duty on avtur, so this is a hopeless business case. Cessna know this, of course, too... which is why they dropped the Thielert option so fast, because they got too far down the line with actual deliveries.

All this proves is that - with very few exceptions - there are basically three kinds of aviation businesses:

1) Crooks with a good product
2) Crooks with a bad product
3) Honest people who don't know what they are doing

Any aircraft owners discovers this pretty fast, and this is probably the biggest learning curve in aircraft ownership (not flying the plane itself).

The best future hope is that Diamond survives this. This is not assured, with the long interruption in new sales cash flow resulting from the awful customer perception (would YOU buy a Diamond right now???) and from lack of engines, both new and replacements. They are not stupid and will learn lessons. With a new engine, they will have an opportunity to fix the known problems, and maybe they might even have an alternator on each engine just for the FADEC box :)

I am sure that 5-10 years from now things will be different, but unfortunately Diamond/Thielert have screwed it up for the time being.

The DA42 is probably still the cheapest to run (after all, there is no such thing as a free warranty; any warranty deal is merely an insurance policy and you always lose on average on insurance) but if you are AOGd and cannot get parts then you are stuffed.

[S-Works]

The Malibu is not an answer to long range touring.

According to a report I read a while ago, more than 10% have suffered an in flight engine failure.

Rubbish, show me the proof. Nothing on the Malibu Owners Foum indicates that type of reliability problem. As for long range touring, 1600nm in pressurised comfort above the weather at 25,000ft strikes me as perfect for this.

I have done 18hrs in the last month like this. Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Guernsey, France.

[vanHorck]

Bose-X

Could you do the number crunching for me on 180 pounds wet for a Malibu?

What's in and what's out?

thx

Bert

[S-Works]

Thats it. Wet rate per hour. VAT on top of course.

Monthly Group fees of £125 plus VAT.

[IO540]

"Nothing on the Malibu Owners Foum indicates that type of reliability problem"

They haven't heard of google.com then :)

Nothing on www.socata.org (http://www.socata.org) indicates anything bad about Socata aircraft, either, because that kind of posting is not encouraged as it devalues any aircraft currently for sale (and many are for sale discreetly if the owner does not want to advertise his financial problems) and anybody guilty gets a quiet word in one ear.

It's a good aeroplane, very capable, but I don't think any of them make TBO, and the failure history is quite appalling. Whether this is due to pilot ignorance or just the usual turbo engine business (very few turbo engines seem to make TBO) is open to argument. Of course if I was defending Thielert/Diamond on the engine reliability front then pot and kettle would come to mind...

£180/hr plus VAT wet for a Malibu means it's a Benefit in Kind defence arrangement. Fair enough, make the best of it.

[S-Works]

Benefit in kind for what? You know this might amaze you IO, but there are some of us who just pay for our flying out of our tax paid income and don't try screwing the costs through some company somewhere in the hope that they can get away with it. I don't run a company, I am on PAYE of a FTSE200 company. When I use the aircraft for work I claim expenses in an approved manner. The aircraft is a group aircraft just like people run chipmunks and arrows.

Wow big shock someone not trying to work the system!!!!

LOL, as far as the Malibu is concerned, I am not going to get into a fight with you, I will just wave as I go past you a hundred Kts faster, assuming you can actually see me that far above you......... :p:p:p:E

PA-46-310P Malibu
The first example of the initial production version flew in August 1982, and FAA certification was obtained in September 1983. Deliveries started one month later. 404 aircraft with Continental TSIO-520 engines were built before this model was replaced in production by the 350P.
The PA-46-310P is powered by a Teledyne Continental Motors TSIO-520BE engine rated at 310 hp (230 kW). The PA-46-310P has several advantages over newer aircraft, including the Mirage. Fuel consumption, range, and the ability to cruise at "lean-of-peak" are three interrelated advantages of the original Malibu. The PA-46-310P has a maximum cruising range of 1550 nautical miles (with reserves), while the PA-46-350P initially had a maximum cruising range of only 1,055 nautical miles (1,954 km), although it has since been increased to 1,345 nautical miles (2,491 km).[1].
The Continental-powered Malibu was discontinued in 1986 following a series of incidents and accidents attributed to engine failures. One such accident resulted in a settlement in which Teledyne Continental Motors paid over USD$32,000,000 to a pilot injured in the crash of a Malibu.[2] The poor record of the original Malibu may be attributed to improper engine operation. Unlike virtually every other Continental engine in production at the time, the TSIO-520BE was designed to be operated with mixture set to the lean side of peak TIT ("Lean of Peak"). However, due to habit, misunderstanding, or poor advice, many pilots chose to operate with the mixture on the rich side of peak TIT ("Rich of Peak"), which is how most other airplane engines were operated at the time. On that engine, such operation caused excessively high engine temperatures and cylinder pressures, and led to premature failures. Owners of original Malibus who operate the engine Lean of Peak as recommended have had excellent reliability. [3]

[moggiee]

How about a malibu, 225kts for £180 wet. Same purchase costs as a DA42 get you an aircraft 80-100kts faster, 25,000ft and pressurized. Full known ice certification.

The Malibu may be a nice aeroplane, but it's not much use at an FTO doing MEP and MEIR work!

[S-Works]

Moggieee, Good point well made!!!! Some of us had to do the MEIR in old Senecas and Seminoles out of Cranfield!!

[BartV]

would YOU buy a Diamond right now???

I heard from a friend who works at the Diamond factory that new orders have halted abruptly and completely, current orders are not being delivered because the buyers don't accept the delivery.

Their press-statement of Diamond that they have stopped production is partly true, the ones that are 70% or more finished will be delivered, as said the buyers refuse to accept them. This is the beginning of a serious cash problem for Diamond. I don't think they have piles of cash waiting for moments like this...

[soay]

Anyone interested in the gory details of what went wrong at Thielert should read this article (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Thielerts-Troubles-Criminal-Investigations-and-a-Cash-Crunch-04801/). It seems they've been very naughty!

Any owners interested in forming a group for representation at the bankruptcy proceedings, or just comparing notes with other Diamond owners, should check out the DAA forums (http://www.diamondaviator.org/). A free trial membership is available.

[Fuji Abound]

It could be argued that Diamond has an excellent airframe in both the 40 and 42.

Both aircraft would now appear reasonably well built, the airframe is modern and efficient and many like the idea of a new aircraft in the hope that maintenance will be minimal for the first five years or so.

They are both pleasant to fly.

The G1000 system is imo the best avionics package on the GA scene and has proved itself to be reliable.

As we all know it is the engines that have let he package down.

Diesels were heralded for their low running and operating costs but the gap between JetA1 and Avgas is being eroded.

The DA40 with a Lycoming engine performs better and has all the advantages of the DA40Tdi. A Lycoming powered 42 was produced although quite where the levers were put is a mystery to me at least.

However Continental has (or very nearly has) a certified true single lever FADEC.

Diamond might do as well to capitalise on having a very pleasant and modern single and more especially twin which they are able to offer with a single lever conventional engine.

[VeriLocation]

Interesting letter from Diamond Canada to it's North American customers then passed to UK customers suggests that Diamond have been rebuffed in their attempts to purchase spares and engines at historical costs. The administrator for Thierlet is not stupid, he knows probably that if Diamond can buy enough spares and engines to see them through to the release of their new engine then they will not need to buy Thierlet. Thus the price for the company is much less as one of it's main customers will then go it alone. There will be plenty of nail biting going on as the two parties play business poker, however Diamond do not have time on their side as cash will dry up , plus the insolvency will run it's course and must be concluded in it's initial stages by July - that's when we will see what will result - not before. Until then I'm keeping my DA40 hours low - hoping I don't need a spare part....

[Life's a Beech]

IO540

"very few turbo engines seem to make TBO"

I am not saying you're wrong, but is this true? It doesn't fit my experience, but we have well-maintained machines.

I have taken 4 such engines to TBO+20% (OK, one was 9 hours short but it could have gone the whole way except it needed a small repair not warranted for 9 hours of use). Currently flying one of the most sensitive turbo-charged engines around (Continental GTSIO-520) 100 hours into extension. In that time have had two rebuilt before TBO, but one was a maintenance error and the other was probably avoidable pilot handling. So taking out the maintenance error that's 80% going well into extension, and the only exception avoidable!

[IO540]

It seems to be a regular pattern.

Perhaps operating practices play a major role? A turbo itself should not affect things (except the failure rate of the turbo itself).

When I fly airways, say FL160, flat out, the engine is going at something like 50% power - nothing really. If I had a TB21 and flew it at 50% power at FL160, it should last just as long; the CHTs etc will be similar. But who is going to do that? You have a turbo - you "will" fly at 75% power :) The Mooney advert: life is short, fly fast.

[S-Works]

When I fly airways, say FL160

Do you really fly that low? How do you avoid weather and hitting things like the alps?
:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p:p

[Fuji Abound]

You should stand on the ramp and watch the rental guys returning the 40 and 42s, park up and immediately shut down - that really does the turbos a lot of good.

Diamond came up in discussion today.

I was lead to believe they are part of a well funded group. Is this so? A strong capital base will give them a good chance of surviving this set back.

[BartV]

I was lead to believe they are part of a well funded group. Is this so? A strong capital base will give them a good chance of surviving this set back.

No matter how much capital you have behind you, when you mess up, you mess up. No matter how low capital you have, if you have a good project you always find money for it.

Every venture in aviation has capital behind them, the question is, will they keep supporting them when they mess up or will they pull the trigger.

As far as I know, Diamond did NOT made any money in the past, so that's not really something to yell about in business...

[soay]

In a press conference yesterday, the bankruptcy administrator at Thielert accused Diamond of "playing poker here at the expense of its own customers". Details are here (http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=530&backPID=530&tt_news=1235&L=1).

[IO540]

In terms of the customers we are in a difficult situation – particularly with regard to the end customers. German insolvency law does not permit the assumption of warranties or guarantees free of charge for products and services supplied prior to the declaration of insolvency. At present we would not even be in a position to do in economical terms. For this reason we hope that the airplane manufacturers will step into the breach here. In the European legal realm this represents a valid obligation in any case.

Exactly as I said a while ago [my emphasis]

Anyway, it looks like TAE are happy to sell engines and parts direct to dealers and end customers, but they won't sell to Diamond at the previous OEM price.

[BartV]

IO540, true with European end users, wrong IMHO with sales on a company/trust/outside EU

Most of the Diamonds are sold to flight schools, persons who own a business etc... so you can make the calculation yourselfs, how many real 'end' user full non refund VAT paying customers have they ?

[n5296s]

This is no Pitts Special capable of landing in 100m.
I'd like to see it done. Maybe you're confusing it with a Husky... A really skilled pilot can maybe get it down in 3-400m. After several hundred landings I have made the first exit (about 400m) exactly once. People talk about it kind of like getting a hole in one.

I would hate to have to deadstick the Pitts into a field for real. I know someone who did and survived the experience, although the plane was a writeoff. People talk very seriously about bailing if the engine stops (always an option given that the only reason to fly one is for acro).

n5296s (or maybe n15ta for this discussion)

[Life's a Beech]

bose-xWhen I fly airways, say FL160 Do you really fly that low? How do you avoid weather and hitting things like the alps?That's really quite high! What's wrong with FL100? Weather isn't often a problem above FL70-80. You just have to accept that you'll rarely go to Italy, and if you do you have to stop for fuel at Nice or Cannes unless you have really good range.

[Life's a Beech]

bose-x When I fly airways, say FL160 Do you really fly that low? How do you avoid weather and hitting things like the alps?That's really quite high! What's wrong with FL100? Weather isn't often a problem above FL70-80. You just have to accept that you'll rarely go to Italy, and if you do you have to stop for fuel at Nice or Cannes unless you have really good range.

IO540

Actually we tend to use 60-65% power in the cruise, depending on type. The extra 10-15% gives little extra speed with much higher fuel flow and somewhat more unplanned maintenance. Fuel use can be critical when considering payloads.

[IO540]

true with European end users, wrong IMHO with sales on a company/trust/outside EUThe default position applies to all purchasers for EU transactions/deliveries, but a business buyer can sign away his rights. Whether any/many have depends on what contract they signed.

It would be pretty unusual to have an explicit warranty with the engine mfg direct. Such a contract would be automatically void (to that extent, anyway) if stuck under the nose of any private buyer. I know this is a common try-on in both aviation and on the High Street (Dixons/Comet all do it) but it's not the legal position.

However one can always sue conventionally. Most judges would regard a plane as something that ought to last longer than this. Most owners won't sue however because they want to hang onto any thread of a relationship with their dealer. The situation of a Diamond/Thielert owner suing his dealer is a bit like a Spitfire owner suing his one and only mechanic :)

Actually we tend to use 60-65% power in the cruise, depending on type. The extra 10-15% gives little extra speed with much higher fuel flow and somewhat more unplanned maintenance. Fuel use can be critical when considering payloads.Same here, and I agree why.

Re cloud tops, FL100 gets you above most of the time but they are quite often FL150-180. I suppose it depends on one's acceptance of extended IMC enroute...

[Justiciar]

It would be pretty unusual to have an explicit warranty with the engine mfg direct. Such a contract would be automatically void (to that extent, anyway) if stuck under the nose of any private buyer. I know this is a common try-on in both aviation and on the High Street (Dixons/Comet all do it) but it's not the legal position.

Agreed. Any supply to a private customer in the EU would struggle to exclude the rights of the customer against the dealer as the person with whom the customer has the contract. A buyer acting in the course of their business is in a different position, but many EU countries have laws preventing the blanket exclusion of liability of a supplier even towards a business customer unless those exclusions are "reasonable". These rules would be applied by the courts in the EU irrespective of the law governing the contract.

A sale wholy outside the EU is in a different position to the extent that the contract may be with the dealer in a state where it is lawful to exclude liability completely, though again many countries outide the EU have similarly framed rules preventing blanket exclusion of liability.

In each case the dealers, whereever they are, will have their own claims against Diamond if their customers sue them, so in practice Diamond may deal directly with the customer, though that is not necessarily a route to quick resolution of any claims which arise. The buck definitely stops with Diamond as Thielert being in Administration means that they will have little recourse to that company for any warranty claims.

[Fuji Abound]

Of course an agent could simply fold his company if the claims warranted.

[S-Works]

That's really quite high! What's wrong with FL100? Weather isn't often a problem above FL70-80. You just have to accept that you'll rarely go to Italy, and if you do you have to stop for fuel at Nice or Cannes unless you have really good range.

It was a playful dig at IO540, an in joke between friends. ;)

The pressurised v unpressurised debate.....

[IO540]

When Pose-X had his C150, nobody needed more than a C150 to fly airways. Especially as his C150 flew 10kt faster and 5000ft higher than anybody else's, on a 20% lower fuel flow.

When Pose-X had his C172 "rocket", nobody needed more than a C172 to fly airways. Especially as his C172 flew 20kt faster and 8000ft higher than anybody else's, on a 30% lower fuel flow.

Now Pose-X is flying a Malibu, nobody should fly airways unpressurised. Of course this Malibu is a special one; it can carry 500kg of passengers (probably about what he was carrying from Berlin, looking at the pictures I saw) plus full fuel, 1500nm, with IFR reserves.

I just hope he never gets into a real plane, because then I will have to tear up all those bits of paper I have laboriously collected over the last 8 years :ugh:

:)

[S-Works]

I just hope he never gets into a real plane, because then I will have to tear up all those bits of paper I have laboriously collected over the last 8 years

What all those 'plastic' ratings...... :p:p;) Why can't you get real ones?

I assume a proper plane is a TB20 that goes 100% further than anything else on earth while being fitted with the best autopilot that goes wrong 10 times a flight....... ;)

People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.....

[Fuji Abound]

Oh, you must hate it when you have figure trouble with the keyboard IO it is er so easy to inter change some the letters. I got my Ts and Rs muddled once. :) :) :)

[soay]

Dear Moderator, how about setting up a separate forum for Bose, IO and Fuji to bitch at each other in. Perhaps that'll stop them hijacking so many threads!

[Life's a Beech]

With good currency, de-icing and an autopilot extended IMC en-route is not a problem, IO540. Can be a pain if speed or fuel is critical and icing persistent, but otherwise just a poor view!

Anyone know what's happening in the charter companies that use DA-42s?

[Fuji Abound]

One might add a storm scope or Nexrad is not a bad thing either for extended ops and maybe an extra engine with a low base.

I would guess there are some pretty annoyed 42 operators. A significant part of the costings must presumably be the belief that warranty will cover most issues in the early days - if that ceases to be so the maths changes, never mind the current uncertainty about continuity of engine parts supply which will eventually ground the fleet unless resolved.

[BartV]

We've run the numbers and the DA42 still makes sense.

Even if we lose all warranty support and have to pay full price for all spares and labour and even allowing for the payments on the loan for the aeroplane itself -THE DA 42 IS STILL CHEAPER PER HOUR THAN A SENECA 2!

Aopa today:

Diamond production falls as Thielert problem grows

By Alton K. Marsh
Things should improve for Diamond Aircraft once it receives certification of its own diesel engine later this year, but for now, the feud between Diamond and the Thielert Aircraft Engines (TAE) is escalating.

Diamond officials have customers with airplanes on the ground, waiting for Thielert parts or engines. They feel the court-appointed bankruptcy officials in Germany aren’t responsive to their efforts to find temporary customer support. The officials, in turn, have countered with complaints about Diamond. It’s war via press release.

In the meantime, more than 50 Thielert-powered Diamond aircraft are on the ground due to lack of support or parts. Diamond has stopped 60 percent of the company’s annual production of 500 aircraft (whether Thielert powered or not). The cost of operating a Thielert engine, based on a boost in parts costs by the bankruptcy administrators and the lack of supported warranty programs, has gone from $13 an hour to $85 an hour.

“This effectively makes the engine, and TAE-powered aircraft, commercially non-viable at the current point in time,” Diamond officials said in a press release.

[172driver]

CJ, you got a point. Would change the title to include Diamond if I knew how to do this. Guess there's not much sleep in the engine development department down in Wr. Neustadt at the moment :eek:

[IO540]

Can one convert a DA40TDi to a DA40-180?

The -180 goes a LOT faster.

[172driver]

Can one convert a DA40TDi to a DA40-180?


I'm not a mechanic, but I doubt this is in any way straightforward. Think weight, mounting points, cowling, air intakes.....

I guess it can be done but most likely at significant cost. If it was easy, Diamond would surely have trotted out that possibility already.

[IO540]

They sell a DA40-180 in the USA, and used to sell it in the UK in 2002 when I was looking around.

It must be a CAA (and thus EASA) and FAA certified configuration.

I know the Thielert engine is slightly more efficient (maybe 30% more MPG) and (obviously more importantly) avtur costs a lot less than avgas, but a Lyco -320 engine, in a slippery motor-glider-like airframe such as the DA40, is going to be pretty economical.

Especially if you are happy to fly very very slowly, which a TDi owner has to do anyway.....

I don't know the pricing but the Thielert engines were never cheaper than Lyco ones, so I bet you that if you were in a zero-warranty situation and facing a completely new motor, this may be worth looking at. The -180 engine can be bought mail order from the USA from some "cost plus" resellers and you would need a conversion parts kit.

Different on the DA42 of course - think of six levers!

Anyway, if I can think of it, I am sure that Diamond (who will go bust quick if they cannot sell new planes) are already working on it. And for them the process would be trivial. All the certification has been done.

[10069]

I think i read somewhere i think it was in loop that when a PA28 is converted to a diesel aircraft it cannot be converted back to Avgas :bored: (some rules and regs)so i dont know 100% but wouldnt the same be true for wanting to convert a DA40:confused:

[wsmempson]

This does seem to be a rather mysterious mess that Diamond and Thielert have got themselves into; I always understood that new products (such as aircraft engines) had to carry a guarantee, and a guarantee which amounted to a bit more than "my word is my bond" or such-like schtick; such a warrantee is usually backed by an insurance policy (provided by a 3rd party - once you get into the situation where companies are underwriting their own 'bottoms' you get a really sticky situation).

In that situation, Thielert would not be supplying a "free" engine in the event of a warrantee claim, but one that is paid for by their insurers - the same insurers that provide Professional indemnity?? Or is the truth here that neither of the companies have any form of insurance whatsoever, and have simply been hoping that everything will be ok?

Seems a damn shame the way things have worked out; the only recent credible effort to introduce some new technology into the stone-aged world of group-a aircraft founders in a legal mess.:bored:

[Domi]

Please be aware of issue of Emergency AD with regards to TAE 2.0 clutch replacement within 50 FH after last inspection : http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_ad_2008_0106E.pdf/EAD_2008-0106-E_1

Effective date: 03rd june.

[Fuji Abound]

IO540

There are many Lycoming fitted 40s in operation including more than a few in Europe. So far as I am aware only one Lycoming fitted 42 was ever produced - I would like to see that example because it would be interesting to work out how all six levers were accomodated on a narrow quadrant - but I guess it could have been made wider at the expense of the foot well.

I suspect retro fitting a Lycoming is equally as possible as retrofitting a diesel BUT I guess the cost is likely to be substantial - after all almost anything is possible.

However as you know there are significant differences to the fuel system which would doubtless require a significant rework of this aspect of the aircraft.

[BackPacker]

Especially if you are happy to fly very very slowly, which a TDi owner has to do anyway.....

Well, I guess it's a matter of what you compare it with. I flew our DA-40 TDI just yesterday and although it was smeared with bugs I got the book value of 115 knots IAS at 70%/5 USG/hr.

The other aircraft at our club, with the exception of the Robin Ecoflyer, all deliver slower speeds with a higher fuel consumption (PA28-161, C172, R2160, DR200-120 and -160).

[IO540]

Sure, very true but a DA40-180 flying at say 65% power (at which the Lyco engine will easily make TBO) should go a lot faster than a DA40-TDi flying at any power setting at which its engine will have a long life.

[Rod1]

“go a lot faster than a DA40-TDi flying at any power setting at which its engine will have a long life.”

I would have thought that the only way to keep a Thielert operational long term would be to wrap it in cotton wool and never start it up…

Rod1

[Brian Abraham]

From http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/AVwebInsiderBlog_Thielert_FlawedEconomics_197998-1.html
Thielert's Flawed Economics (And Why the Company Knows It) Email this blog |Print this blog

By Paul Bertorelli

The war of words between Diamond Aircraft and Thielert Aircraft Engines continued this week, reaching a low arc at the Berlin Air Show. Bruno Kubler, who heads the firm overseeing Thielert's insolvency, used the forum to blast Diamond for what Kubler claimed was a disinformation campaign aimed at making Diamond customers "massively insecure." Why Diamond would want to do this is baffling, since it has on its hands some 800 distressed owners of airplanes equipped with Thielert diesel engines.

Diamond is engaging in a degree of brinksmanship, but given what appears to be Thielert's disastrous economics, who can blame them? The usual strategy in situations like this is for the companies involved to play footsy behind the scenes to work out a deal acceptable to all of the distressed parties. Unfortunately, Kubler's numbers appear to be so far off the mark that I don't see how this is possible.

This week, I took some time to put a sharp pencil on how Kubler's prices will reshape the economics of the Thielert Centurion line. I developed this data on my own from the Kubler-derived prices and my totals don't precisely agree with Diamond's, which it released in Wednesday. But my research does confirm that Kubler's prices raise the engine operating cost about six fold.

Further, the new prices raise the direct costs of operating the diesels to four or five times that of a gasoline engine. In fact, minus the fuel, Thielert diesel costs outstrip those of operating a turbine engine, such as Pratt & Whitney's PT6 or even a small jet engine. Why? Thielert still requires 300-hour removal and inspection of gearboxes, plus numerous other expensive parts. Furthermore, all these components have to be shipped back and forth to Germany for service and inspection. Shipping alone comes about $600 per inspection event.

This onerous maintenance load was one complaint owners had about the Thielert 1.7 Centurion. Thielert responded to this with the new-and-improved Centurion 2.0, which would double the gearbox inspection interval to 600 hours and increase the engine's time between replacement (TBR) to 2400 hours. But Diamond and owners complain that the documentation doesn't support this and they're still required to do the 300-hour gearbox removals. This is roughly the equivalent of yanking the transmission out of your car every 3000 miles and sending it back to the factory. Moreover, if the 2.0 really is a 2400-hour engine—and no one seems to know if it is or it isn't—the entire thing has to be shipped back to the factory for inspection at 1200 hours, costing $4000 in shipping alone. One flight school with three Twin Stars told me that it's probably more sensible to just replace the engine at 1200 hours rather than shipping it back to Germany.

As the late Everitt Dirksen famously said, you're talking about real money here. When you add everything up, Kubler's numbers just don't make sense. The rational way to examine this—if there's anything rational about any of this—is to compare the lifecycle costs of a Thielert 2.0 against a Lycoming at time of replacement. The numbers follow here. One point: On many Thielert parts, owners have the choice of new or inspected, which is basically a used component within service limits. The parts listed below aren't elective replacement—you have to replace them to keep the engine serviceable.

Cost of replacement engine: $51,150 Inspected gearboxes (3): $23,500 ($47,118 new) Shipping: $1800 High pressure pump: $1412 ($5550 new) Rail valve: $651 Feed pumps (3) $1255 Clutch (3) $1443 Clutch shaft (3) $1200 Alternator: $1426 ($2985 new) Scheduled labor $1800 Unscheduled labor $5000 Total: $90,637 Hourly engine (1200 basis): $75.53 Total hourly with fuel: $101.03

For unscheduled labor, I used 10 percent of the cost of the engine, based on owner surveys we've conducted. These numbers, by the way, represent the absolute best case and assume that no additional parts other than those scheduled will be required. Further, owners complain that the labor for gearbox changes is higher than Thielert said it would be, but I've used the lower number anyway to give Thielert the benefit of the doubt. But these numbers are almost certainly too low.

If new parts rather than inspected parts are used, the total comes to $119,952 or $99.96 for the hourly engine reserve or, when you add in fuel, $125.46. Oh, and double that for a DA42 Twin Star. This total may be sustainable in Europe and the U.K.—although I doubt it—but it's a non-starter in the U.S. But remember, the Centurion diesel is a world engine, not a U.S. engine.

Here's how a Lycoming IO-360 compares. It's apples to apples, because this is the engine Diamond uses in its DA40 Star, which also has a diesel option.

Lycoming IO-360 REM

Cost of replacement engine: $25,160 Top overhaul at mid-time: $8000 Unscheduled maintenance: $5000 Total: $38,160 Hourly engine (2000 hours basis) $19.08 Total hourly with fuel: $59.58

For the Lycoming comparison, I added a top overhaul that this engine is unlikely to need and I used unscheduled maintenance of 20 percent of engine cost, twice what I used for Thielert. Even with this lopsided comparison in favor of the Thielert, the Lycoming's costs are a little more than half of the Thielert's. They begin to break even at an avgas cost of around $9 a gallon. But, of course, if avgas costs that much, so does Jet A, so they never break even.

In some ways, the better comparison is between the Thielert Centurion and the Pratt & Whitney PT6, say the dash 114A used in the Caravan. It's a 675-HP free turbine engine with a 3500-hour TBO and overhaul costs in the $85,000 to $130,000 range. The Aircraft Bluebook Digest recommends a $37.14 per hour set aside for the PT6, or half what it takes to the fund the Thielert Centurion and without the onerous 300-hour inspections.

How could the industry have missed such breathtakingly screwed up economics? The companies involved missed it—Diamond and lately Cessna—missed it and we in the press (including me) absolutely glossed it over. In 2005, I visited Thielert's factory in Lichtenstein, in the former East Germany, and we went over the economics of this engine. I never got a clear explanation of how the power-per-hour pro-ration based on a 2400-hour engine was going to work. It seemed too expensive. How was Thielert going to make a go of it long term with all those built-in service costs? Persistent dumb ass questions led me to understand that the initial engine was a loss leader funded by investors who thought the model would turn the corner with sufficient volume and, once the engine had proved itself, the inspections would go away and TBO would increase.

They haven't. And that's what's killing this engine, more than anything else. Shipping perfectly good gearboxes back and forth to Germany is lunacy, as is removing them from the engines every 300 hours. Owners I've interviewed have told me there are problems with clutches, but the gearboxes themselves have proved durable. There's good evidence that this is true, because Thielert offers an "inspected" gearbox for half the price of a new one. But half price is still $7800, plus shipping, and you need to do that three times to get to the Centurion's tender 1200-hour TBO. Seventy-eight hundred bucks to inspect a gearbox? It's an aluminum case, some bearings and a couple of gears. How can that require $7800?

In my view, the inspections were probably built into the model not just as a prudent and admirable step toward proving durability, but also as a profit center to fund the rest of this engine's expensive recurrent maintenance needs. Logically, there's nothing wrong with that concept, as long as going forward, the customer benefits from the proven reliability and cost decrease.

Oddly, both Thielert and Kubler seem to be aware of this, but maintain that Germany's bankruptcy laws force them to run the company on a basis that shows no loss. This morning, Thielert spokesperson Christoph Moller e-mailed me this note:

"At the moment, due to German insolvency law, Mr. Kubler cannot produce any losses and must ask Thielert's clients for prices which meet the company's current expenses. We know, of course, that the new prices for replacement and inspection of parts are a burden for many of our and Diamond's clients. As you know, Mr. Kubler's aim is to find a long-term investor who will provide significant investments in order to push forward the Thielert engine technology which in fact is the future of the aircraft engine industry. To ensure long-lasting relations to his clients this investor will presumably establish a sustainable warranty and guarantee scheme which will improve the current situation significantly. There is a great possibility that this will include considerable efforts to advance Thielert engines especially in terms of prolonging the engines lifetime which in fact is not where it should be at the moment. This will reduce the inspection times and, by this, the costs for owners considerably then."

I take Moller's point, but it's difficult to see how this will make the business viable. In essence, the message to customers is this: pay us five to seven times what you expected to pay and, if we show no losses, we can turn this thing around and you'll maybe pay less later...if you don't mind buying expensive engines without warranties. To me, this looks like a negative feedback loop. The more you input rising prices, the less revenue you generate and the more you have to raise prices until a single customer pays $4 million for a gearbox and clutch. (Warranty extra.)

And if Thielert hopes to find investors to fund a business running on these rules, they'll need nerves of steel and be willing to pour in a pile of money for several years just to gain of glimpse whether it can be profitable. It seems unlikely that customers will stand by and fund what I view as a fiasco, nor should they be expected to. Thielert and Kubler can blame German bankruptcy laws if they wish, but the current strategy seems to serve no one—not creditors, not customers and not the industry.

On the other hand, maybe those of us who think that a Twin Star owner will balk at paying $180,000 to take a pair of diesel engines to 1200 hours are the delusional ones. Kubler tells us owners are "relieved" to know that parts are once again flowing. For some twisted reason, this reminds me of the old Woody Allen joke about the brother thinking he's a chicken. "Why don't you call him on that?" asks the shrink. "I would," says the straight man, "but I need the eggs."

Maybe those 1200 or so Centurion owners need the eggs, too.

[S-Works]

The Avgas DA40 is a dream to fly, very fast and as I recall delivers mid 30lph for over 130kts economy cruise.

I flew one from North Perry in Florida to Halifax NS and back a few years ago over a 2 week tour. Fantastic aircraft N219DS. I will post some pics later.

I never could understand why they ruined the DA40 with an underpowered smelly diesel!

[BartV]

http://www.diamond-air.at/1846+M52087573ab0.html

Home
TAE - Customer Update
[Translate to Englisch:] Diamond Aircraft – TAE – Customer Update 16.06.2008
The TAE insolvency continues to present significant challenges to our customers, our business partners and Diamond Aircraft.

TAE

Per information received from TAE, it is expected that the preliminary insolvency will end late June and that insolvency will be declared July 1st. It is expected that Dr. Kuebler will continue as the insolvency administrator and as such we do not expect any change in the current business approach of TAE. In the short term, we expect that TAE will continue to operate in insolvency while they continue dialogues with and continue to search for investors.

Although Diamond, TAE’s largest customer, has formally registered as a potential investor, Diamond has not yet been invited for potential investment discussions with Dr. Kuebler. With the end of the preliminary insolvency, the government wage subsidy will end. TAE will need significant revenue or bridge financing to continue operation in insolvency pending securing of additional investment. Not knowing the current financial position of TAE, we do not have any reliable information as to how long TAE can continue to operate in insolvency.

The recent AD relating to the clutch inspections / replacement has exacerbated an already bad support situation.

It is rumored that an additional airworthiness action relating to the propeller regulating valve is coming, but we do not have any further detailed information.

Frank Thielert continues as General Manager of TAE under the financial stewardship of Dr. Kuebler, the insolvency administrator.

On a positive note, we have learned that Dr. Kuebler recognizes the need to apply resources to solve outstanding technical issues and to extend current maintenance intervals in order to have a viable product and company. Any such extension of inspection and maintenance intervals is of course in the interest of all concerned and most welcome.

Should customers be sending money to TAE for parts?

Many customers are asking Diamond for advice regarding sending advance payment to TAE for service parts. Diamond has no reason to believe that the insolvency administer will not meet his legal obligations in filling prepaid or credit card orders. We would however caution that customers receive confirmation that all necessary parts of an order are actually available for immediate shipment, or if they are not available, that TAE commit to firm delivery dates acceptable to the customer, prior to funding the purchase. We have suggested to TAE that in cases where parts are not available for immediate shipment, that TAE should adopt a policy of requiring a nominal deposit (10%) with order, with the balance due when the parts are actually confirmed to be ready for shipment. If TAE is unable to offer such reasonable terms due to cashflow limitations, then we would have most serious concerns regarding adequate financial liquidity to ensure filling of backorders.

What Diamond is doing

Diamond is primarily concerned with the support of the existing TAE powered fleet, followed by the need to resume production of the DA42. The actions of TAE to date, i.e. the extraordinary pricing for routine and mandatory support items for the TAE engine, do not give us an adequate level of comfort that a return to “normal” is likely under the current administration / management. Consequently we have decided that the best course of action is to develop independent support capability for the TAE engine, until such a time that long term support of the TAE engine is viable or an alternate engine solution is available.

1. Independent Support for TAE Engines

On March 30. 2008, Diamond senior executives met with EASA’s (European Aviation Safety Agency) specialists and top officials to discuss the TAE situation.

We expressed our concern, based on the questionable financial viability of the TAE powerplant with current maintenance costs, that TAE may not survive longterm and that ongoing technical support, regardless of cost, is not ensured. We impressed the need to develop independent technical support capability now, vs waiting for the situation to potentially deteriorate even further.

As disrupted and as expensive the current TAE support situation is, it would be even worse if there were no technical support at all.

Our approach was welcomed by EASA and their support of our approach was pledged. This is of course a familiar approach – OEM independent technical and parts support is available for many other general aviation powerplants, including Lycoming, TCM, Pratt & Whitney, and others.

Consequently, our approach is to establish independent technical and parts support, such that TAE engines could continue to be supported, regardless of the future of TAE.

STC for TAE PARTS

Diamond and Austro Engines are working to systematically pursue certification of alternate means of providing parts and support for the TAE engine, starting with simple maintenance items (e.g. filters, etc) and expanding this to component inspections and overhauls, potentially including complete component replacements. We have already made application for STC for the 100 hour inspection components and will expand this to progressively address 300 and 600 hr inspection and replacement items. We will be updating our customers as approvals are expected and achieved.

First, this will ensure continued support regardless of the future of TAE and second it will offer a lower cost alternative to the current high pricing for parts and services available only from TAE.

2. Austro Engines (AEG)

The Austro Engine program is progressing well and on schedule with engines flying in DA40, DA42 and DA50 airframes, as well as in the testcells. The factory, with full development, production and test facilities is completed. Initial airworthiness authority approvals of the facility are in place. AEG has 4 state of the art dyno test cells as well as a modern propeller teststand, such that development and testing of the AEG engines, as well as TAE support items, can proceed at a rapid pace.

Diamond intends to offer Austro Engine upgrades to existing DA40-tdi and DA42 customers under very favorable conditions. With increased aircraft performance coming from the higher horsepower and improved altitude performance of the AEG engine, upgraded aircraft will surely increase in value, considering that factory new DA42 NG’s (Next Generation) will be sold at a premium vs the current DA42.

We are currently working on the details of a customer program that will address TAE support as well as upgrades to Austro Engines when these are available. We expect to release the details of this program in the next few weeks.

3. DA42 Lycoming

Considering the time expected to achieve international AEG engine as well as DA42 NG certification and in response to specific fleet customer inquiries, Diamond has also made the decision to pursue Transport Canada and FAA certification of the DA42 with Lycoming IO-360 engines, primarily for the North American Flight Training market. We will be advising customers of the project plan shortly. The installation will be designed to permit retrofit of existing TAE powered aircraft with the Lycoming engines, future retrofit to AEG engines, as well as being offered in new production aircraft.

In Summary:

1. TAE is currently providing technical and parts support, albeit at a slow pace and at very high cost.

2. Diamond is taking aggressive action to ensure continued independent technical support of TAE engines, regardless of the future of TAE. Until this capacity is developed and approved, TAE remains the only source for technical support and parts.

3. Diamond is aggressively pursuing certification of the AEG engine for the DA40-tdi and the DA42 airframes, both for new production and for retrofit.

4. Diamond is aggressively pursuing certification of the Lycoming engine for the DA42 airframe, both for new production and for retrofit.

5. Diamond will be releasing details of a TAE support and AEG retrofit program within the next few weeks.

Again we sincerely appreciate the support and understanding we have received from our customers and assure all customers with TAE powered Diamond’s that we are doing our utmost, on all levels, to achieve the best possible and sensible long term solution to protect your investment in your Diamond airplane.

[Fuji Abound]

I would be interested to know where the levers for a Lycoming powered DA42 will go in a retrofit installation?

I can only imagine in might work with the two lever arrangement that Cirrus have but using a Continental engine.

I understand one 42 with Lycoming engines was produced as part of the test series and have always wondered how that was configured.

I would imagine a retrofit would be a vastly costly excercise (unless I am missing something) given that you are bining two engines, two sets of cowls, two or four tanks (unless these can be re-used for Avgas which I doubt) renewing the fuel pipes and pumps, significantly reworking the centre console, and reprogramming the G1000).

Anyone know?

[IO540]

There has got to be zero chance of an avgas DA42 retrofit, but an avgas DA40 retrofit would make sense as this is a good all around "plastic plane" which has been on sale for years and flies reportedly well on the 180HP.

Diamond need the cashflow right now.

[BartV]

I understand one 42 with Lycoming engines was produced as part of the test series and have always wondered how that was configured.


They actually made 6 of them

[Big Pistons Forever]

What about installing the SMA diesel ?

[moggiee]

Given the layout of the SMA engine (horizontally opposed, air cooled) then I would imagine that fitting it to a DA42 would be almost as difficult as fitting a Lycoming or Continental AVGAS motor.

It's also an expensive engine - very expensive (we enquired about it for use in PA28s). SMA were happy to sell us the engine, but all design work for the installation would have to have been done/paid for by us. Thielert did at least help with conversion design work and certification.

[BartV]

Diamond Out of Running to Acquire Thielert


If Diamond Aircraft had hopes of solving its customers' Thielert engine woes by buying the German engine manufacturer, those hopes are now in the past. Diamond announced this week it would not participate in the bidding process through Germany's insolvency process. Diamond maintains it did not have access to information about Thielert that is vital to the due diligence process. Among the Diamond aircraft powered by Thielert diesel engines is the Twin Star light twin. Thielert was forced into insolvency following allegations against founder Frank Thielert of criminal fiscal misconduct earlier this year. The insolvency administrator is currently soliciting bids from investors to acquire the company.

[IO540]

Valuing Thielert without Diamond's business must be an interesting task...

[Fuji Abound]

It has all gone a bit quiet on the Diamond / Thielert front. I woudl have guessed there would be more comment.

I assume Diamond's production line is still at a standstill.

I gather Thielert are producing most spares at a price.

Not surprisingly a few more Diamond aircraft are appearing on the market but one wonders how depressed that market is at the moment.

[moggiee]

Thielert are producing and supplying engines - with warranties (although reduced warranties).

[madlandrover]

I think i read somewhere i think it was in loop that when a PA28 is converted to a diesel aircraft it cannot be converted back to Avgas (some rules and regs)so i dont know 100% but wouldnt the same be true for wanting to convert a DA40

The issue with PA28s is that the bulkhead has to be altered to fit the Thielert unit, and can't be just patched back to refit an avgas engine.

Despite the naysayers, they're good engines to teach with in general: no hot start issues, consistent running, simple for students to use... On the downside they do make life a bit easy compared to avgas units, hence the required differences training when moving from one to the other.

[moggiee]

On the downside they do make life a bit easy compared to avgas units,
For many PPL holders that's no bad thing.

[Aviaservice]

Hi to all! I'm going to buy the plane and I have 2 offers Cirrus 20 and Diamond 40 TDI. There is a big problem with 100LL Avgas in Russia. What difficulties I'll meet if I buy DA-40TDI?
Tnx.

[BackPacker]

Avia, is it a used aeroplane or a new one? What engine does it have?

For the DA-40 there are now three engines possible.

a. Thielert/Centurion 1.7 (135 HP)
b. Thielert/Centurion 2.0 (155 HP but sometimes de-rated to 135 HP)
c. Austro 2.0 (developed by Diamond itself)

Some random issues we've had with (a), but some would be applicable to (b) and possibly (c) as well:

1. ECU test & swap switches are very exposed on the LH side of the panel, when getting in&out of the aircraft. We almost had an emergency landing because of a intermittent shorting ECU test switch. Make sure these switches are protected with guards agains knees/feet bumping/damaging them.

2. Gearboxes: Check the TBR/TBO time on this plus the price of an overhaul/check/replacement, and budget accordingly.

3. W&B: An IFR equipped DA-40 (dual GNS430 and all the other bits and pieces) runs out of the forward limit with just two adults up front & full fuel. A counterweight of about 17 kg in the far aft compartment is needed to bring the aircraft within limits. Also with full tanks (standard tanks, not even long-range) you can't expect to carry 3 adults.

4. On the ground the free-castoring nosewheel takes a bit getting used to, but the Cirrus has the same, so that's equal for both. The trick I use is to rev the engine to 1400 rpm (which is the warm-up limit anyway), then leave the power alone. For steering I first put the rudder pedal to the relevant stops, and if the aircraft won't turn quickly enough on aerodynamics alone, I dab the relevant brake a bit. This works for me but others may have different techniques. And watch those long wings when taxiing!

5. Due to the position of the stick, and of the center console, it's practically impossible to use a standard A5 kneeboard. You need to think of something else.

6. Dealers/maintenance facilities: Make sure you carry a printout of the local dealers/maintenance facilities with you at all times. Diagnosing errors with the Thielert/FADEC require a laptop with a special adapter and some specific software, which only dealers/authorized maintenance facilities have. They might be quite rare in Russia. Or see if you can get hold of the diag kit so you can diagnose the faults yourself (with the help of a licensed engineer over the phone, for instance). It took me (only) 24 hours once in the UK to get hold of the right engineer and laptop. Very annoying.

7. Take-off & climb performance on the 135 HP Thielert, particularly at MTOW, is poor, compared to a PA-28 or C172. Also, on final, the plane sinks fast once the speed drops below about 70 knots (at MTOW). If you're used to flying, say, a PA-28 or C172 by the seat of your pants, you'll find that the DA-40 requires much more precise flying, particularly speed control, for best performance.

8. In the cruise it's a lovely aircraft. 115 knots at 70%, consuming about 5 USG Jet-A per hour. Excellent visibility, relatively quiet, comfy seats, logical panel layout. It's still my favourite aircraft for long-distance touring.

9. The fuel system on the DA-40 is a bit odd, with the main tank being in the left wing, and the aux tank in the right wing. You can only transfer from aux to main, not the other way around, and there is a limit to the difference allowed between aux and main. Pay insufficient attention to fuel management and it's very easy to end up with an out-of-limits imbalance which cannot be corrected easily. (Leaving the fuel pump on for too long for instance.)

10. If you're used to avgas engines without FADEC, you'll find that the normal operating procedures of the Thielert are very simple. Just start with the "start" key, press "test" to test the engine, and shove the big lever forward to go, back to stop. No mixture, carb heat, magnetos and other things to worry about. But at the same time, the emergency drills are completely different from an avgas engine. Not necessarily harder, just completely different.

[Aviaservice]

Hello BackPacker! Tnx. Offered DA40 has Thielert Centurion 1.7 and it's used plane 2003 yom