Diamond DA50
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
B2N2 - that was my point exactly, and Diamond's as well. Thielert cheated them out of delivering on their tested performance, because the engines couldn't take it...
We now have a 2.0 version of the Thielert in our new DA40 and I'm just hoping someone will provide updated ECUs so we can make use of the full potential!
Actually, the TAE125-02-114 or Centurion 2.0S is rated at 114kW, which equates to 156.18 hp. It's all in the Type Certificate issued by EASA...
We now have a 2.0 version of the Thielert in our new DA40 and I'm just hoping someone will provide updated ECUs so we can make use of the full potential!
Actually, the TAE125-02-114 or Centurion 2.0S is rated at 114kW, which equates to 156.18 hp. It's all in the Type Certificate issued by EASA...
Last edited by deice; 3rd August 2007 at 10:44. Reason: Added data
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
From: England
Originally Posted by deice
We now have a 2.0 version of the Thielert in our new DA40 and I'm just hoping someone will provide updated ECUs so we can make use of the full potential!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Well, the prop could require replacement as you say and possibly even the gearbox. I don't know the details of the design to that depth but reading form the TC there are two versions of the 2.0 engine, one delivering 99kW and the other at 114kW.
Generally speaking, it doesn't sound like good economics to have two different set-ups using the same gear ratio (1:1.689) for two variants with a relatively low difference in power. But they could claim that.
On the other hand, from a marketing point of view I think they would benefit from upgrading DA40s to the 2.0S version. I'm convinced that would increase acceptance among the sceptics, even if the aircraft are ugly, slow and badly finished at the moment
150+ knots burning 6-7 gal/hr jet fuel isn't too shabby...
Generally speaking, it doesn't sound like good economics to have two different set-ups using the same gear ratio (1:1.689) for two variants with a relatively low difference in power. But they could claim that.
On the other hand, from a marketing point of view I think they would benefit from upgrading DA40s to the 2.0S version. I'm convinced that would increase acceptance among the sceptics, even if the aircraft are ugly, slow and badly finished at the moment
150+ knots burning 6-7 gal/hr jet fuel isn't too shabby...
Last edited by deice; 3rd August 2007 at 13:27.
Thread Starter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: Euroland
170hp engine
B2N2,
The 170hp engine is a joke. They claim they will offer it late next year. That's quite impressive for a one man company (Austro Engine) with no production facilities, no type certification, no service outlets...it's also too heavy for the DA42 and the DA40 requires a counter weight to keep the CofG acceptable.
Also, it's not fuel efficient like the Thielert, it operates at a fuel saving of only 20% compared to AvGas.
Now I may be wrong, and hope I am as I'm a big fan of new engine technology. Please let me know if the above is correct.
VT
The 170hp engine is a joke. They claim they will offer it late next year. That's quite impressive for a one man company (Austro Engine) with no production facilities, no type certification, no service outlets...it's also too heavy for the DA42 and the DA40 requires a counter weight to keep the CofG acceptable.
Also, it's not fuel efficient like the Thielert, it operates at a fuel saving of only 20% compared to AvGas.
Now I may be wrong, and hope I am as I'm a big fan of new engine technology. Please let me know if the above is correct.
VT
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Anyone remember the Zoche aerodiesel? It was a radial that was certified any moment, 10 years ago... I think it is safe to say that any new engine development takes a long time, and requires massive amounts of resources. Just look at the SMA diesel, it may be in production but in limited numbers and as yet no company has offered it. I guess Maule is the first to offer it on the market, not counting retrofits.
My point is, it'll probably be a while before we have Diamond diesels in out Diamonds, and the fact is the Thielerts are already out there. I'd be more surprised if Diamond offered to upgrade completely as compared to replacing 99kW with 114kW in an already existing solution.
But, alas, the thread was talking about the DA50. I hope they stick a diesel in that and apologies for drifting off topic. Looks pretty sweet to me.
My point is, it'll probably be a while before we have Diamond diesels in out Diamonds, and the fact is the Thielerts are already out there. I'd be more surprised if Diamond offered to upgrade completely as compared to replacing 99kW with 114kW in an already existing solution.
But, alas, the thread was talking about the DA50. I hope they stick a diesel in that and apologies for drifting off topic. Looks pretty sweet to me.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
From: Sweden
Yeah, a bit like Pipers new Matrix. Or the Cessna/Columbia 350 & 400, and Cirrus SR20/22s. Wonder why they went that route?? Could be because Cirrus have delivered 3000 SRs in 10 years. Seems to be a market there.
If the information is correct there are plans to pressurize the DA50, but not from the get go.
If the information is correct there are plans to pressurize the DA50, but not from the get go.
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The Matrix is a different sort of plane to a DA50, SR22, etc. It has long thin wings which are more efficient at the intended altitude of the pressurised version: FL250.
Unfortunately I don't really get the case for the Matrix; to get the efficiency you will need to be on oxygen, at FL250 lots of it (masks not cannulas, supposedly), and getting an oxygen bottle refilled is virtually impossible when travelling around Europe (as I well know).
The downside of the Matrix airframe is that it has very limited versatility for Europe. Barely suitable for grass, it is a long range tourer.
There is some precedent in partial pressurisation of a fibreglass hull; I believe Lancair have done something on their Experimental models. It would be fun to work out how to keep those gull wing doors shut (never mind sealed) with any pressure differential though
Unfortunately I don't really get the case for the Matrix; to get the efficiency you will need to be on oxygen, at FL250 lots of it (masks not cannulas, supposedly), and getting an oxygen bottle refilled is virtually impossible when travelling around Europe (as I well know).
The downside of the Matrix airframe is that it has very limited versatility for Europe. Barely suitable for grass, it is a long range tourer.
There is some precedent in partial pressurisation of a fibreglass hull; I believe Lancair have done something on their Experimental models. It would be fun to work out how to keep those gull wing doors shut (never mind sealed) with any pressure differential though
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
No, retractable itself does not preclude grass.
Plenty of TB20s for example live on grass.
The "getting dirty" issue is a bit of a mixture.
If you get a RG plane filthy, you have a number of components to clean and perhaps re-lubricate afterwards, but it's no big deal because everything is out there, visible and accessible.
If you get a fixed gear plane filthy, there is likely to be a lot of mud/grass inside the cowlings where you can't see it, and it will build up.
The only solution is a plane with fixed gear and no cowlings, but they cost a lot in extra fuel. Even on a 100kt PA28, cowlings are worth about 7kt which is an awfully high % of engine power. This is what many flying schools have; cowlings get broken, the fuel doesn't matter so much.
However, regular operation on grass does translate into higher maintenance over time, probably more so if RG. But the whole plane gets more dirty anyway, and ages quicker. Also one has to taxi with a lot more power on grass - not so good with a cold engine.
Always go for a hard runway if you have a choice, especially for your home base.
There are planes with extra small wheels which I can't really see on grass unless it's very good. I am sure people do operate the PA46 on grass but I wouldn't like to.
Plenty of TB20s for example live on grass.
The "getting dirty" issue is a bit of a mixture.
If you get a RG plane filthy, you have a number of components to clean and perhaps re-lubricate afterwards, but it's no big deal because everything is out there, visible and accessible.
If you get a fixed gear plane filthy, there is likely to be a lot of mud/grass inside the cowlings where you can't see it, and it will build up.
The only solution is a plane with fixed gear and no cowlings, but they cost a lot in extra fuel. Even on a 100kt PA28, cowlings are worth about 7kt which is an awfully high % of engine power. This is what many flying schools have; cowlings get broken, the fuel doesn't matter so much.
However, regular operation on grass does translate into higher maintenance over time, probably more so if RG. But the whole plane gets more dirty anyway, and ages quicker. Also one has to taxi with a lot more power on grass - not so good with a cold engine.
Always go for a hard runway if you have a choice, especially for your home base.
There are planes with extra small wheels which I can't really see on grass unless it's very good. I am sure people do operate the PA46 on grass but I wouldn't like to.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
I still see banners here and there advertising the DA50 with 200+kts, i'm very curious to see some real world testing...not the first flights tests in the way like: we flew the BLABLABLA and it flew better than we expected BLABLABALA it's just all the same crap all over again...until you get one, put it in the air and you see it's not meeting up the numbers!!! It's not because most of them in the industry cheat on their numbers, that everybody must cheat ?!
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
What a difference with.... mooney.. mostly faster in real than on paper...
You should fly a Diamond before coming out with rubbish about them...actually you should learn to fly first.....
I look forward to the new generation of aeroplanes, rather than being stuck in the past in some crappy old thing that was built when the Wright Brothers were still alive.......
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 647
Likes: 0
From: Brussels - Twin Comanche PA39 - KA C90B
Oh you mean that when i test flew the DA-42 and lately the DA-40 is no flying i did then hu ? Please tell me what i need to do before i know i don't like those planes, because test flights of 2 hours doesn't count for you. I'm always happy to learn from real pilots like you !!
I would rather you answering my question, do you think that the DA50 will meet the 200+ kts sales prediction ?
I would rather you answering my question, do you think that the DA50 will meet the 200+ kts sales prediction ?
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Well I don't know how someone who hasn't even got a PPL can possibly determine the difference between different types of aeroplanes, let alone twin engine ones? ...unless you are superman/woman of course.
Probably won't make 200 kts IMHO, but close........
Probably won't make 200 kts IMHO, but close........
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
Ah ok, first off all, who said i don't have a PPL
I don't know what you are on about re: ratings? I never mentioned anything about ratings......But it would be very hard for a SE Pilot to comment on the characteristics of a ME aeroplane...IMHO......
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
From: Some sunny place with good wine and good sailing
I've been doing some DA40 and DA42 delivery flights recently from the Diamond factory, so have been keeping an eye on progress on the DA50 for a few months. At the moment, DA50 is Diamond's third priority after certification of the D-Jet and the new engine. Test flying of the DA50 protoype has also been very limited by the weather at LOAN as VFR is not possible there for long periods due to fog. I don't think DIamond have even established a schedule for DA50 certification and delivery, but I don't expect it to be soon. The DA50 really is remarkably large - I would guess bigger than a Cirrus so I am not sure that a 170bhp engine will really be enough. It looks more like it is built to take a small turbine up front!
For those slagging off Diamond build quality I can assure you that it has improved very considerably of late (and I don't think it was that bad to start with). They have built two new hangars which are dedicated to finishing and quality-controlling the planes before delivery, and each plane is checked very meticulously. I have never found a single build fault in any of the planes that I have picked up from the factory. The only exception to that is that they never seem to tighten the elevator control commands sufficiently at the factory leading to mild oscillation when climbing on the autopilot - but that is a five minute problem for a technician to rectify.
They are super aeroplanes, and very comfortable even on long flights. With long-range tanks options both DA40 and DA42 have 7.5 hours range and they are adequately comfortable for the pilot even on flights of that length (and I know other delivery pilots who have done far longer flights with a supplementary tank on the back seats).
For those slagging off Diamond build quality I can assure you that it has improved very considerably of late (and I don't think it was that bad to start with). They have built two new hangars which are dedicated to finishing and quality-controlling the planes before delivery, and each plane is checked very meticulously. I have never found a single build fault in any of the planes that I have picked up from the factory. The only exception to that is that they never seem to tighten the elevator control commands sufficiently at the factory leading to mild oscillation when climbing on the autopilot - but that is a five minute problem for a technician to rectify.
They are super aeroplanes, and very comfortable even on long flights. With long-range tanks options both DA40 and DA42 have 7.5 hours range and they are adequately comfortable for the pilot even on flights of that length (and I know other delivery pilots who have done far longer flights with a supplementary tank on the back seats).
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
From: Maders UK
"They are super aeroplanes, and very comfortable even on long flights. With long-range tanks options both DA40 and DA42 have 7.5 hours range and they are adequately comfortable for the pilot even on flights of that length"
I was just thinking that very thought as I overtook a couple of Diamonds on Sunday!
SB
I was just thinking that very thought as I overtook a couple of Diamonds on Sunday!
SB
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
The build quality in the cockpit is much better today (on the DA42 - not looked inside a DA40 recently) than it was in 2002.
I am still not a great fan of what looks like zinc plated fixing brackets and zinc plated DIY-shop nuts. This stuff will rust fast and, according to an owner I spoke to recently, it does rust fast and some of gets replaced at every service. Still, not a lot to moan about and they can address detail like that easily. But then I am spoilt, with the super build quality, finish and general engineering of a TB20GT...
A 170HP engine on a DA50 will make it an absolute pig. I can't believe they will really do that. That plane is built for four fat Americans (or, these days, four fat Brits or Germans).
"200kt" could mean a lot of things. To pull 200kt IAS, the DA50 would need about 400-450HP. Even the Grob 140 (a dead project AFAIK) with a 450HP Allison turbine didn't go faster than that and that was a smaller cockpit than the DA50.
However, 200kt TAS at 25,000ft is 136kt IAS (ISA). You could build a 750kg plane powered by a lawn mower (Rotax) engine which would do that. A turbo-normalised TB20 (250HP) that could pull a sea level MP at 25,000ft would easily beat that at 65% power; most turbo planes can't because the MP is maintained only to about 15,000ft. The TB20 needs about 65% power (160HP) to pull 140kt IAS and I guess the DA50 (bigger frontal area, fixed gear) could pull 140kt IAS with maybe 200HP, so a 300HP turbo-normalised Lyco, or a 200-250HP turbocharged diesel could easily get you 200kt TAS.
With a decent turbo, 200kt TAS at 25,000ft is easy to achieve and that is exactly how Columbia and Mooney get their impressive sales brochure/advert figures. They are betting on most of their customers not knowing TAS from IAS. Of course the fuel flow is "appropriate" too
The oxygen flow rate for four people, in these unpressurised planes, at 25,000ft, would be eye watering even with the Mountain High electronic demand regulators. You have to use masks, not cannulas, and in the end this does not represent any kind of practical mission capability.
I am still not a great fan of what looks like zinc plated fixing brackets and zinc plated DIY-shop nuts. This stuff will rust fast and, according to an owner I spoke to recently, it does rust fast and some of gets replaced at every service. Still, not a lot to moan about and they can address detail like that easily. But then I am spoilt, with the super build quality, finish and general engineering of a TB20GT...
A 170HP engine on a DA50 will make it an absolute pig. I can't believe they will really do that. That plane is built for four fat Americans (or, these days, four fat Brits or Germans).
"200kt" could mean a lot of things. To pull 200kt IAS, the DA50 would need about 400-450HP. Even the Grob 140 (a dead project AFAIK) with a 450HP Allison turbine didn't go faster than that and that was a smaller cockpit than the DA50.
However, 200kt TAS at 25,000ft is 136kt IAS (ISA). You could build a 750kg plane powered by a lawn mower (Rotax) engine which would do that. A turbo-normalised TB20 (250HP) that could pull a sea level MP at 25,000ft would easily beat that at 65% power; most turbo planes can't because the MP is maintained only to about 15,000ft. The TB20 needs about 65% power (160HP) to pull 140kt IAS and I guess the DA50 (bigger frontal area, fixed gear) could pull 140kt IAS with maybe 200HP, so a 300HP turbo-normalised Lyco, or a 200-250HP turbocharged diesel could easily get you 200kt TAS.
With a decent turbo, 200kt TAS at 25,000ft is easy to achieve and that is exactly how Columbia and Mooney get their impressive sales brochure/advert figures. They are betting on most of their customers not knowing TAS from IAS. Of course the fuel flow is "appropriate" too
The oxygen flow rate for four people, in these unpressurised planes, at 25,000ft, would be eye watering even with the Mountain High electronic demand regulators. You have to use masks, not cannulas, and in the end this does not represent any kind of practical mission capability.