New technology
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New technology
I have recently been flying a G1000 equipped 182T in the USA and it is the best thing since sliced bread. In fact, now whenever I rent in the USA I will always be renting a G1000 equipped aircraft if possible.
The thing was phenominal, very easy to fly accurately IFR, in fact far easier than traditional instruments. The overlaid traffic display was absolutely brilliant (and vital around LA), and if this was available in the UK/Europe then I'd say we could completely do away with LARS. The terrain awareness was excellent for flying in the mountains, where there's always that nagging feeling that you may have misread the charts (especially at night). With lighning strikes and XM weather overlaid on the map, pilots really could be self sufficient in the air.
The next generation will have integrated autopilot and on some aircraft the G1000 will be linked to the FADEC to give autothrottle capability. I suppose it will be a long wait before we see this in Europe though....
The thing was phenominal, very easy to fly accurately IFR, in fact far easier than traditional instruments. The overlaid traffic display was absolutely brilliant (and vital around LA), and if this was available in the UK/Europe then I'd say we could completely do away with LARS. The terrain awareness was excellent for flying in the mountains, where there's always that nagging feeling that you may have misread the charts (especially at night). With lighning strikes and XM weather overlaid on the map, pilots really could be self sufficient in the air.
The next generation will have integrated autopilot and on some aircraft the G1000 will be linked to the FADEC to give autothrottle capability. I suppose it will be a long wait before we see this in Europe though....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You may see it flying here soon enough but
- there won't be any traffic data via Mode S
- until transponders are mandatory, any TCAD-type functionality will be largely worthless
- no weather links
- you will need to fit a remotely mounted ADF+DME
Are you talking about FADEC on a petrol engine? It appears closer on the diesels but they are far from reliable at present.
- there won't be any traffic data via Mode S
- until transponders are mandatory, any TCAD-type functionality will be largely worthless
- no weather links
- you will need to fit a remotely mounted ADF+DME
Are you talking about FADEC on a petrol engine? It appears closer on the diesels but they are far from reliable at present.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Bordeaux, France
Posts: 581
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are you talking about FADEC on a petrol engine? It appears closer on the diesels but they are far from reliable at present.
I also thought (maybe wrongly!) that if the FADEC electronics on them failed, the engine just kept on running (as per normal with a diesel engine), I remember seeing a demo where the electrics were all turned off on a DA40TDi and the engine just kept on running......I admit to being a fan of the diesel/JetA1 engine, and hope that any problems there are can be quickly ironed out, because I sincerely believe that unless we do something to reduce the costs of light aircraft flying, it will die out completely.
Regards, SD..
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I admit to being a fan of the diesel/JetA1 engine, and hope that any problems there are can be quickly ironed out...
It would be nice as well for Lycoming/Continental to have some competition, there must be a massive profit margin on their engines with the design costs having been written off before many of us were born!
There seems to be a strange gloating involved when people comment on any problems with the Thierlert engines and the DA40/42, not sure why as it will benefit us all if they are a success.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FADEC along with the likes of the G1000 is the way its going to be. It does seem mad that you buy a new aircraft with throttle, mixture and propeller controls, which you have to adjust manually (twice) for different phases of flight.
Its got to be better for the engine to set take off power, pull the leaver back to cruise climb, then enroute press the "best economy" or "best speed" button and let it get on with it.....
Its got to be better for the engine to set take off power, pull the leaver back to cruise climb, then enroute press the "best economy" or "best speed" button and let it get on with it.....
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJP59
No "gloating" is intended. The background to my comments is this:
As the owner of what was a brand new aircraft at the time, a few years ago, and having seen the defects one has to put up with from the start, knowing that some of them were known to them at the outset, having seen the appalling conduct of the manufacturer and their UK dealer over fixing the stuff, having to pay for it myself whether in or (now) out of warranty, and having seen this happen to aircraft owners all over the place in GA, I am not happy to see somebody selling diesel engines that clearly haven't been properly tested before being sold to punters.
GA aircraft owners get s*at on in a manner which would never be tolerated in any other business.
I personally know owners whose brand new planes were delivered with engines full of rust, grinding themselves to bits over the next year or two. The vendor's response is derisory. The documentation contains "just the right dates" to comply with the manufacturer's storage requirements .....
No wonder so many people resort to litigation, or getting very close to it.
Other than that, I am all for new technology. I'd love to have a jet burning engine, if only because the stuff is so much easier to get in far away places. Composite planes are the future - much more slippery. I have argued for BRS chutes, against all the traditionalist old farts. I always support GPS, to the extent that it should be fully in the PPL syllabus.
BUT the stuff has to be tested before it goes out of the door!!!
No "gloating" is intended. The background to my comments is this:
As the owner of what was a brand new aircraft at the time, a few years ago, and having seen the defects one has to put up with from the start, knowing that some of them were known to them at the outset, having seen the appalling conduct of the manufacturer and their UK dealer over fixing the stuff, having to pay for it myself whether in or (now) out of warranty, and having seen this happen to aircraft owners all over the place in GA, I am not happy to see somebody selling diesel engines that clearly haven't been properly tested before being sold to punters.
GA aircraft owners get s*at on in a manner which would never be tolerated in any other business.
I personally know owners whose brand new planes were delivered with engines full of rust, grinding themselves to bits over the next year or two. The vendor's response is derisory. The documentation contains "just the right dates" to comply with the manufacturer's storage requirements .....
No wonder so many people resort to litigation, or getting very close to it.
Other than that, I am all for new technology. I'd love to have a jet burning engine, if only because the stuff is so much easier to get in far away places. Composite planes are the future - much more slippery. I have argued for BRS chutes, against all the traditionalist old farts. I always support GPS, to the extent that it should be fully in the PPL syllabus.
BUT the stuff has to be tested before it goes out of the door!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Retford, UK
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fair point, IO540.
Admittedly most aviation companies cannot afford the extensive test programmes common in the car industry but if owners are expected to act as "beta testers" they should also get a hefty discount on the price paid by later customers.
Admittedly most aviation companies cannot afford the extensive test programmes common in the car industry but if owners are expected to act as "beta testers" they should also get a hefty discount on the price paid by later customers.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, would you be prepared to risk your hard-earned pennies on the Thielert engine now? I ask, because I'm seriously considering buying a new DA40 TDI. Its G1000 and FADEC really appeal, but I can't seem to find Diamond's equivalent of the Cirrus Owners forum, for finding out what the owners really think of their aeroplanes.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't they doing a really good deal with the diesels at the moment by guaranteeing them - so no charges in the event of a problem - for at least 2000 hours?
I also like the idea of a brand new engine, no more rebuilds or overhauls, just replace the whole unit at 2000 hours (at a discount?) and bung the old one away.
I also like the idea of a brand new engine, no more rebuilds or overhauls, just replace the whole unit at 2000 hours (at a discount?) and bung the old one away.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm seriously considering buying a new DA40 TDI
Then, make sure you get an unconditional engine warranty, prorated to the 2000hr TBO (or TBR). Not a 2-year warranty like is normal with new planes, after which you have to sue under the SOGA.
IMHO, relative to the finances of Diamond, there is less hanging on the DA40 because the Euro £150k-200k GA market is miniscule, except for flying schools where the chief USP is the tax free fuel, and the main market is the USA where they sell it with a Lyco engine.
It isn't enough to say the engine failures vary with the operating profile. It would be astonishing if they didn't. What is special that Cabair do? Circuits, probably, but a watercooled unit should be extra good with rapid power changes.
I guess that there isn't a forum because few private owners in Europe spend £150k-200k on a new plane, and the schools aren't going to advertise what they know. In this business, if you speak out you alienate your dealer and the manufacturer; they stop answering your emails and cut you out of any leeway they might otherwise give you. Don't I know it. And DA40 owners DO need plenty of leeway right now.
One really needs to wait until the warranty is finished and dead and buried before speaking out.
The other question is whether you plan to fly over a lot of water and mountains. Circuits around Cranfield is one thing, but using this plane as it is meant to be used (700nm+ legs) needs a proven engine.
Two more years, IMV
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hampshire, UK
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the option to fly in a G1000 equipped 182 when in the US two weeks ago. The trouble was that I was there to do an IR checkride so would have had a lot to learn to operate it and besides it struck me that I ought to be doing the checkride the traditional way. I would have been surprised to learn that you can do a checkride with a glass panel aircraft had it not been for a recent article in the US AOPA Pilot magazine. The author was describing how, as somebody (with an IR) who has only ever flown IFR with a glass panel, they tried out some limited panel work in a standard IFR fit aircraft and struggled. Seems that partial panel in a glass panel aircraft means you have to get by with an ASI, AI and Altimeter! They ought to just go the whole way and stick a TC, DI and VSI in there as well for good measure!
Of course the other reason for not trying the glass panel aircraft was that I suspected that it was likely to cost me considerably more than the cost of the rentals!!!
Of course the other reason for not trying the glass panel aircraft was that I suspected that it was likely to cost me considerably more than the cost of the rentals!!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree, at the moment it is probably better to learn the traditional method unless you don't plan on flying anything else.
While I was there I was lucky enough to use Angel City Flyers brand new FAA approved G1000 sim based on the DA40 (well cool, 120° visuals etc), the only one in the world at the moment. It is excellent for getting to grips with the glass cockpit. They are now Diamond approved and are even training a few "private" pilots directly in the G1000 DA40's. That would be an interesting check ride, it would be difficult to get lost
One interesting exercise we tried was to fail the engine in IMC at about 3000'. With the glass cockpit you pitch up to the "best glide" marker on the speed tape, press the "nearest" button, turn onto heading, which in itself is a great aid to safety. Because the map detail is so good, if you're not going to make an airfield, you can actually aim for a road, and when you pop out of the cloud base you're pretty much exactly lined up. Maybe this is not such an issue in the UK, but if you're over LA or in the mountains it could save your life.
The instrumentation is far more accurate, no more dodgey fuel gauges. The G1000 will tell you exactly your duration and distance remaining, and even draw circles on the map based on a 30 and 45 min reserve. Any warnings, such as oil temp or pressure, will pop up on the screen as soon as they are outside of limits.
Anyway I'm hooked, now its a shame I can't afford a new aircraft
While I was there I was lucky enough to use Angel City Flyers brand new FAA approved G1000 sim based on the DA40 (well cool, 120° visuals etc), the only one in the world at the moment. It is excellent for getting to grips with the glass cockpit. They are now Diamond approved and are even training a few "private" pilots directly in the G1000 DA40's. That would be an interesting check ride, it would be difficult to get lost
One interesting exercise we tried was to fail the engine in IMC at about 3000'. With the glass cockpit you pitch up to the "best glide" marker on the speed tape, press the "nearest" button, turn onto heading, which in itself is a great aid to safety. Because the map detail is so good, if you're not going to make an airfield, you can actually aim for a road, and when you pop out of the cloud base you're pretty much exactly lined up. Maybe this is not such an issue in the UK, but if you're over LA or in the mountains it could save your life.
The instrumentation is far more accurate, no more dodgey fuel gauges. The G1000 will tell you exactly your duration and distance remaining, and even draw circles on the map based on a 30 and 45 min reserve. Any warnings, such as oil temp or pressure, will pop up on the screen as soon as they are outside of limits.
Anyway I'm hooked, now its a shame I can't afford a new aircraft
