DA42 TwinStar crashes at Lands End, (Merged)
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now such an engine, a baby low cost prop turbine for light GA would really be exciting.
True. However not realistic, unless the cost of a pair of turbines significantly falls - not likely any time soon even with Rolls now in the fray.
I do agree with your comments if Diamond mislead customers to the extent you suggest. I dont know for sure which aircraft their figures were based on and I dont know what assurances were given to their earlier customers. For that reason only (not having the facts) I am loathe to pass judgement.
And of course when the Diesels came out fuel was not taxed. Now the cost differential in the fuel versus the cost of the engine does not make sense at all.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is very sad that the avtur is now taxed. Very bad for Diamonds business!!
Are you an airline pilot bose-x? What do you pilot?
Are you an airline pilot bose-x? What do you pilot?
SMG92 Finist & DO28G-92 and start a new job in a couple of weeks on a BE200.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fuji
This is engine that Rolls Royce are developing. You quote the cost but remember the diamond diesel appears to be going for 700 hrs and a turbine should go well beyond 3000 hrs. I am not talking about turbines as fitted to the TBM or Meridian but much smaller throw away units. Yes they may initially be slightly more expensive but taking into consideration engine life and reliability the units should work out far cheaper.
Fuji are you connected to Diamond in some way ?
Pace
This is engine that Rolls Royce are developing. You quote the cost but remember the diamond diesel appears to be going for 700 hrs and a turbine should go well beyond 3000 hrs. I am not talking about turbines as fitted to the TBM or Meridian but much smaller throw away units. Yes they may initially be slightly more expensive but taking into consideration engine life and reliability the units should work out far cheaper.
Fuji are you connected to Diamond in some way ?
Pace
Making predictions is hard work, and stating opinions is always risky. There is a French proverb that says “Il n’y a que les imbéciles qui ne changent pas d’avis” - only idiots don’t change their minds…
Not sooner than three days ago, I wrote here that the pressurized version of the DA50 would be my aircraft of choice, if I were in position to buy an aircraft now. Shortly said the advantages of pressurization are higher altitudes without oxygen, and less ear problems. On the same day, Mooney anounced a common engineering work with Rolls-Royce to fit a RR550 turbine engine on their airframe.
Yes, a turbine engine, not a turbo engine. If the project is sucessful, it will result in a new four seater turboprop aircraft. Turboprops have many advantages over piston aircraft:
Simpler engine handling
HUGE power reserve
Runing on Jet-A1 (”cheap” airline kerosene)
Possible use of reverse to shorten landing distance
The power reserve can be used for systems like bleed (hot) air de-icing and anti-icing, and… cabin pressurization ! There is already a market for single engine turboprop aircraft, but it addresses larger aircrafts, like the Piper Meridian (6 seater), the TBM 700 / 850 (6 seater), or the Pilatus PC-12 (up 9 passengers). Using such an aircraft as a “personal transporter” is hardly viable.
Turboprob is a synomym of reliability and nearly all weather operations, thanks to de-icing and pressurization. If I had to choose between a DA50 and a Mooney Ovation2 GX with G1000 and a turbine engine… I’m no longer sure that the Diamond would get my voice (seen that ? I’m learning how to be more nuanced…
Not sooner than three days ago, I wrote here that the pressurized version of the DA50 would be my aircraft of choice, if I were in position to buy an aircraft now. Shortly said the advantages of pressurization are higher altitudes without oxygen, and less ear problems. On the same day, Mooney anounced a common engineering work with Rolls-Royce to fit a RR550 turbine engine on their airframe.
Yes, a turbine engine, not a turbo engine. If the project is sucessful, it will result in a new four seater turboprop aircraft. Turboprops have many advantages over piston aircraft:
Simpler engine handling
HUGE power reserve
Runing on Jet-A1 (”cheap” airline kerosene)
Possible use of reverse to shorten landing distance
The power reserve can be used for systems like bleed (hot) air de-icing and anti-icing, and… cabin pressurization ! There is already a market for single engine turboprop aircraft, but it addresses larger aircrafts, like the Piper Meridian (6 seater), the TBM 700 / 850 (6 seater), or the Pilatus PC-12 (up 9 passengers). Using such an aircraft as a “personal transporter” is hardly viable.
Turboprob is a synomym of reliability and nearly all weather operations, thanks to de-icing and pressurization. If I had to choose between a DA50 and a Mooney Ovation2 GX with G1000 and a turbine engine… I’m no longer sure that the Diamond would get my voice (seen that ? I’m learning how to be more nuanced…
Mooney and Rolls-Royce Sign Agreement for Joint Engineering Project
New Rolls-Royce Turbine Offers Fuel Alternative for GA
KERRVILLE, TX -- Mooney Airplane Company announced today at AirVenture that the company has entered into a joint engineering project with Rolls-Royce. The scope of the project will include exploration of using the RR500 as an alternative fuel (Jet A) power plant to complement the current Mooney product line. Mooney’s participation in the General Aviation Manufacturers Association’s Future Avgas Strategy and Transition (FAST) Plan and Mooney’s experience in building high-performance airframes make the two companies logical partners for the new project.
The benefits of developing the RR500 to power a four place aircraft include improved global fuel availability in emerging markets where 100LL is scarce to non-existent.
“The RR500 turbine introduced this week by Rolls-Royce represents the next step in our exploration of alternative fuel power for personal aircraft,” explained Dennis Ferguson, CEO/president of Mooney Airplane Company. “The rugged Mooney airframe is uniquely suited to accept the power of the Rolls-Royce engine and we’re very excited about working with Rolls-Royce to examine to the possibility of bringing a Jet-A powered Mooney turboprop to the market in the future.”
Mooney believes that an affordable turbine-powered four-place aircraft is an important segment of the market that is being overlooked. Such an aircraft configuration fills two growing voids in the market. First, a four-place turboprop represents a logical step for the tens of thousands of pilots now flying high-performance piston aircraft because the transition to flying a small turboprop will require no special type rating or unusual insurance requirements. Second, a Jet-A powered turbine provides the basis of a product that has global appeal. More details will follow in the coming months as Mooney and Rolls-Royce work together to expand the scope of the engineering project and refine what the configuration of such an aircraft will be.
New Rolls-Royce Turbine Offers Fuel Alternative for GA
KERRVILLE, TX -- Mooney Airplane Company announced today at AirVenture that the company has entered into a joint engineering project with Rolls-Royce. The scope of the project will include exploration of using the RR500 as an alternative fuel (Jet A) power plant to complement the current Mooney product line. Mooney’s participation in the General Aviation Manufacturers Association’s Future Avgas Strategy and Transition (FAST) Plan and Mooney’s experience in building high-performance airframes make the two companies logical partners for the new project.
The benefits of developing the RR500 to power a four place aircraft include improved global fuel availability in emerging markets where 100LL is scarce to non-existent.
“The RR500 turbine introduced this week by Rolls-Royce represents the next step in our exploration of alternative fuel power for personal aircraft,” explained Dennis Ferguson, CEO/president of Mooney Airplane Company. “The rugged Mooney airframe is uniquely suited to accept the power of the Rolls-Royce engine and we’re very excited about working with Rolls-Royce to examine to the possibility of bringing a Jet-A powered Mooney turboprop to the market in the future.”
Mooney believes that an affordable turbine-powered four-place aircraft is an important segment of the market that is being overlooked. Such an aircraft configuration fills two growing voids in the market. First, a four-place turboprop represents a logical step for the tens of thousands of pilots now flying high-performance piston aircraft because the transition to flying a small turboprop will require no special type rating or unusual insurance requirements. Second, a Jet-A powered turbine provides the basis of a product that has global appeal. More details will follow in the coming months as Mooney and Rolls-Royce work together to expand the scope of the engineering project and refine what the configuration of such an aircraft will be.
Last edited by Pace; 24th Jan 2009 at 11:42.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All this discussion of the merits, or otherwise, of the 42 are very interesting, but I have a feeling they are irrelevant to this particular incident. I normally hate it when people automatically blame "pilot error" when an aircraft crashes, but in this case I don't think there's any doubt that there was some pretty apalling decision making going on!
There were several agravating factors, but even the basic takeoff, if the ground was good and firm, would have been optimistic. Given the wet grass and several other factors about the location, I think the pilot of this one will be hung out to dry, and rightly so!
There were several agravating factors, but even the basic takeoff, if the ground was good and firm, would have been optimistic. Given the wet grass and several other factors about the location, I think the pilot of this one will be hung out to dry, and rightly so!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt
Pilot Error most probable unless there was a loss of power or some other factor we dont know of.
Having said that how much does lack of performance play in these accidents.
Power is a big safety factor lack of it and that doesnt leave many options in any aircraft.
And in many ways thats what this thread is about a twin with minimal performance an accident waiting to happen
Pace
Pilot Error most probable unless there was a loss of power or some other factor we dont know of.
Having said that how much does lack of performance play in these accidents.
Power is a big safety factor lack of it and that doesnt leave many options in any aircraft.
And in many ways thats what this thread is about a twin with minimal performance an accident waiting to happen
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it is about someone landing on a runway which is too short to take off from again.
DA42 performance is fine for a 4 seat twin engine aeroplane. It climbs well, has a ceiling of over 20,000' - SE probably over 10,000' - and will cruise at 150kts tas at 80% power with a fuel flow of under 12 USG per hour total. I call that pretty good and if taking off from Bournemouth then you have plenty of runway spare. If you decide to fly to the Isles of Scilly, well you haven't done your homework or preflight very well.
(in otherwords, even if this DA42 had a power loss, it was pretty clear that the aeroplane was unlikely to get airborne from Lands End without some pretty strong headwinds and low fuel load).
DA42 performance is fine for a 4 seat twin engine aeroplane. It climbs well, has a ceiling of over 20,000' - SE probably over 10,000' - and will cruise at 150kts tas at 80% power with a fuel flow of under 12 USG per hour total. I call that pretty good and if taking off from Bournemouth then you have plenty of runway spare. If you decide to fly to the Isles of Scilly, well you haven't done your homework or preflight very well.
(in otherwords, even if this DA42 had a power loss, it was pretty clear that the aeroplane was unlikely to get airborne from Lands End without some pretty strong headwinds and low fuel load).
Bose, that must be one heck of a genorous King Air employer you have found as you told us all here recently you wouldnt get out of bed to work for less than 250k per year or some such figure?! 
Good luck with it, I miss the King Air.
Good luck with it, I miss the King Air.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA42 performance is fine for a 4 seat twin engine aeroplane. It climbs well, has a ceiling of over 20,000' - SE probably over 10,000' - and will cruise at 150kts tas at 80% power with a fuel flow of under 12 USG per hour total. I call that pretty good
While I fully accept that the pilot should fly to the performance capability of the aircraft and only he is to blame it comes down to expectations and what you have the aircraft for.
Pilots have light GA because they like flying for pleasure and expect to fly into grass strips short tarmac runways etc.
That is where the miss match occurs. They expect to fly a light GA plane but dont expect it to NOT go where you would expect a light GA to go
if you get my gist.I have flown many twins in my time and have operated Barons and C303s and Senecas in 600 metre landing strips. The DA42 maybe great once its up in the air but not so great until it gets there.
Pilots fault but ???
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is where the miss match occurs. They expect to fly a light GA plane but dont expect it to NOT go where you would expect a light GA to go if you get my gist.
Oh dear, this is getting a bit far fetched now.
No, I dont work for Diamond, and yes, the 42 is not perfect. I have tried to give my balanced assessment. Some may agree, some may not.
However, it is what it is, and at least now does what it says on the can.
You dont expect most GA aircraft to go from the UK to the south of Spain with refueling. With the extended tanks I have done CIs, Rouen, Paris, Lille and home without refueling. There is a lot of places I would happily take a Cub but wouldnt take a PA28.
Yes, it hasnt got the shortest take off run, and yes, it would be good to have more peformance on the ground and in the air, but it is what it is.
If you take off on a grass runway and it is too short and too wet dont blame the aircraft (not saying this pilot did).
Bose
Congrats to, hope you enjoy it.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace. There was no loss of power, or at least none reported by the pilot. This was a classic case of the holes in the cheese all lining up, and there were several points in the buildup to the incident that should have given any half sensible pilot plenty of cause to abort.
Forunately, due to the build quality and the soft ground where the aircraft came to rest, no-one was seriously injured. However this accident was absolutely preventable!
Forunately, due to the build quality and the soft ground where the aircraft came to rest, no-one was seriously injured. However this accident was absolutely preventable!
For what it's worth, I think the DA42 accelerates fairly promptly on the take-off roll! I can only compare it with various Cessnas, a wheezy Seneca, and a few manic Arrows.
As for take-off performance, it'll take off with 3 decent size men and 40 USG on board, up Stapleford's 22L, which is a 2% upslope, within 600 metres. Admittedly, that's a tarmac runway.
The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!
As for take-off performance, it'll take off with 3 decent size men and 40 USG on board, up Stapleford's 22L, which is a 2% upslope, within 600 metres. Admittedly, that's a tarmac runway.
The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult
Join Date: May 2007
Location: On the western edge of The Moor
Age: 67
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mikehotel152
The reported 695 metres of wet grass available at Lands End would encourage me to check my performance figures pretty carefully!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: England
Posts: 1,904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
427m (Runway length required for takeoff at MTOW)
x 1.1 (for wet)
x 1.2 (for worst case grass)
x 1.1 (for upslope, if there is one)
= 620m (close, but legal)
x 1.33 (Safety margin as we were tought. Not a mandatory requirement)
= 825m
My belief is any investigation will reveal that the 695m runway used for takeoff would've been long enough for a takeoff in those conditions. Investigation will focus more on whether or not full length was used and how the takeoff was conducted. I remember my first few lessons in the plane, I thought I was steering with the rudders where as in fact I was applying differential braking, which would at least in theory increase the takeoff roll.
x 1.1 (for wet)
x 1.2 (for worst case grass)
x 1.1 (for upslope, if there is one)
= 620m (close, but legal)
x 1.33 (Safety margin as we were tought. Not a mandatory requirement)
= 825m
My belief is any investigation will reveal that the 695m runway used for takeoff would've been long enough for a takeoff in those conditions. Investigation will focus more on whether or not full length was used and how the takeoff was conducted. I remember my first few lessons in the plane, I thought I was steering with the rudders where as in fact I was applying differential braking, which would at least in theory increase the takeoff roll.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Brighton. UK. (Via Liverpool).
Posts: 5,068
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No more of the Bose bashing guys. Go elsewhere if you want to discuss all that.
Instant ban to whoever brings it all up again and I am not just talking Bose here, it can be about anyone of you, I just don't want it here.
If you think there is a problem about any pilot and his ratings/licence then the CAA have a pretty good reporting procedure for things like that.
Instant ban to whoever brings it all up again and I am not just talking Bose here, it can be about anyone of you, I just don't want it here.
If you think there is a problem about any pilot and his ratings/licence then the CAA have a pretty good reporting procedure for things like that.