Diamond D-Jet operating costs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diamond D-Jet operating costs
Just saw an advert in some rag for what appears to be an attempt to assemble a group around the above.
They quote £45k for the shares (doesn't say what % that is - probably 1/20 or so), plus £1200/month, plus £450/hr.
This seems an awful lot of money to me, for a bottom-end SE jet. One could run an RVSM TBM700 for that kind of money, which will go 1.5 as far, a bit faster, fly higher (not much but significantly relative to frontal cloud tops), 2x the payload, and doesn't require a HP Rating if G-reg (which needs the ATPL ground exams), and even better on the N-reg.
The £450/hr seems especially high, for in a group this figure ought to be ~ the DOC and no more.
They quote £45k for the shares (doesn't say what % that is - probably 1/20 or so), plus £1200/month, plus £450/hr.
This seems an awful lot of money to me, for a bottom-end SE jet. One could run an RVSM TBM700 for that kind of money, which will go 1.5 as far, a bit faster, fly higher (not much but significantly relative to frontal cloud tops), 2x the payload, and doesn't require a HP Rating if G-reg (which needs the ATPL ground exams), and even better on the N-reg.
The £450/hr seems especially high, for in a group this figure ought to be ~ the DOC and no more.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not really on topic, but an observation. Operating costs are inversely proportional to the size of the fan/prop. I kid you not.
A small fanjet like this will never be efficient - hence why RR and GE makes bigger and bigger fans to their fanjets. Look at the 787 - they're almost scraping the ground.
Same goes for props. The smaller the diameter is, the less fuel economy. Moving big air slowly, that's the key to fuel economy. So until manufacturers stop hanging props up front (where the diameter is limited by the the gear) or build small fanjets to fit into thin structures, then it's gong to get expensive to run.
Speed however, is another thing. That's when small can be better. But pound for pound, mile for mile, a big prop or fanjet will always be cheaper to run than a smaller one.
Worth thinking about.
A small fanjet like this will never be efficient - hence why RR and GE makes bigger and bigger fans to their fanjets. Look at the 787 - they're almost scraping the ground.
Same goes for props. The smaller the diameter is, the less fuel economy. Moving big air slowly, that's the key to fuel economy. So until manufacturers stop hanging props up front (where the diameter is limited by the the gear) or build small fanjets to fit into thin structures, then it's gong to get expensive to run.
Speed however, is another thing. That's when small can be better. But pound for pound, mile for mile, a big prop or fanjet will always be cheaper to run than a smaller one.
Worth thinking about.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In Diamond's recent history, they've abandoned development of the DA50 and production of the diesel engined DA40, both because they couldn't solve the power to weight ratio problems with the engines at their disposal. With a track record like that, it would take a brave (or foolish) man to put a deposit down for the D-Jet.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I couldn't agree more, but we've done the Diamond corporate ethics bit to death already 
I was just really suprised at the apparent £450/hr DOC. That is definitely in the TBM department, and IMHO 2x higher than one should have with a simple plastic hull with a little jet engine inside.
If this really is the DOC, only a mug will buy a D-jet because a good used TBM700 will win in every department; in some cases very substantially.
The advert was in Go Flying, Issue 18, Jan/Feb 2010.
I was just really suprised at the apparent £450/hr DOC. That is definitely in the TBM department, and IMHO 2x higher than one should have with a simple plastic hull with a little jet engine inside.
If this really is the DOC, only a mug will buy a D-jet because a good used TBM700 will win in every department; in some cases very substantially.
The advert was in Go Flying, Issue 18, Jan/Feb 2010.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Belgium
Age: 46
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they've abandoned development of the DA50
It's been awfully quiet from Diamond's side. Do you have further information on this topic ?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TWR
I know they've abandoned the Superstar, but I thought the Magnum was still in the pipeline. There was also a plan to develop a high-power diesel for the DA50. And this was only last year ! (Friedrichshafen)
It's been awfully quiet from Diamond's side. Do you have further information on this topic ?
It's been awfully quiet from Diamond's side. Do you have further information on this topic ?
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: UK,Twighlight Zone
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
doesn't require a HP Rating if G-reg (which needs the ATPL ground exams)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If these operating costs are even anywhere near the real mark, one has to fall over backwards when hearing the claims of "European skies will be cluttered by VLJs" repeatedly uttered by Eurocontrol officials.
"The market" is going to be no bigger than the market for turboprops, and I am not talking about Jetprop conversions...
"The market" is going to be no bigger than the market for turboprops, and I am not talking about Jetprop conversions...
