Thielert in serious trouble ?
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the air please
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
I guess we will not be hearing from Mr. Thielert soon...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: No. California
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Age: 43
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?C...-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?
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...-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?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...... 
I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.
I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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......
I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.
I am rather glad I did not move from the old dinosaur.
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!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the air please
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What do you guys think?
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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
I have yet to see a DA42 come in for an hourly cost sub £200.
All that glitters is not gold!
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by IO540; 20th May 2008 at 10:55.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
According to a report I read a while ago, more than 10% have suffered an in flight engine failure.
I have done 18hrs in the last month like this. Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Guernsey, France.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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 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.
They haven't heard of google.com then
Nothing on 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.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.........
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.........
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]
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]
Last edited by S-Works; 20th May 2008 at 15:53.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Hunched over a keyboard
Posts: 1,193
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: the air please
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
would YOU buy a Diamond right now???
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...
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone interested in the gory details of what went wrong at Thielert should read this article. 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. A free trial membership is available.
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. A free trial membership is available.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.