Each to their own. Personally I wouldn't do legs in excess of 3 hours by choice, as it is nice to stop for a pee and a stretch of the legs. But i fly for fun and not for business meetings etc.. If I did, I'd probably take BA. The longest leg I've done was about 5 hrs and that was in a King Air, the total day was 8am until 23:30 and after that I was hacked off with being in an aeroplane and just wanted a glass of wine and a sleep ;)

Cirrus have done a lot of things right - they make an attractive spacious aeroplane, it is reasonably fast, but also would appeal to non-aviation-women because there is no clambering over seats or joysticks ;). It has advanced avionics, and the parachute, it is roomy and spacious.

The Mooney appeals more due it's speed and from a pilot perspective this is very attractive to us.

Still, my favorite aeroplane that I have flown is still the DA42. No propellor in the field of vision, and despite being slower that the others, looks best ;)

"All the time Cirrus are still rolling aircraft off the production line and selling them and Mooney have stopped rolling anything off the production line I have to say in the real world Cirrus have it about right and Mooney have it horribly wrong - because as good as the aircraft might be if you are not building them, no one is going to know."

Amen to that - this is testament to the immense power of marketing.

In addition to Cirrus's marketing, I think that the "smart conservative pilot" population, which has been the Mooney mainstay for decades, is shrinking due to attrition due to old age...

I read some article in a US mag saying the Oshkosh visitor age profile is getting 1 year older every year, which bodes poorly for all the traditional 1950s riveted-metal merchandise. When you look at a Saratoga, covered in zillions of protruding rivets, makes you wonder whether anybody remotely style-conscious would ever buy such a thing. Evidently, not many do...

Very true, but it is a real shame that "US Marketing" has decided to con everybody with a fixed gear plane (when a retractable version would have gone 10-20kt faster; equivalent to a LOT of horsepower at the relevant speed) on the promise of cheaper insurance (false) and "much" lower maintenance costs (false, especially against the extra fuel burnt).

If Cirrus made a retractable, it would have been pretty amazing.

IO540

Are you sure this is just one of those myths?

I dont know a deal about the US insurance market and I agree here it would make any difference.

However Flying (a reputable mag. in my view) reported that it was difficult if not impossible for low hour pilots to get insurance on retractables in the US or at any rate only with a hefty policy loading. The wisdom of attracting high wealth low hour pilots into a Cirrus is perhaps questionable; that is one of the more dubious sides of marketing perhaps Scooter was referring to, but as they might say on the otherside of the Pond, hey if it sells aircraft.

After all as I indicated earlier it only takes one pilot to land gear up for whatever reason and that is probably a 50K payout at the bottom end and maybe a lot more - that takes some recovery in the premiums charged.

$50k, sure.

I recall reading a premium survey at the Socata user group site, and IIRC the TB owners were paying much lower premiums than Cirrus owners.

This could be due to the different pilot experience profile (only slightly odd characters buy TBs :) ) but the difference was pretty substantial.

OTOH I know someone with a DA42 whose premium is massive. Can't recall the figure but it was about $10k plus. I pay £2500 (CPL/IR 1000+hrs, sole pilot).

However it's not that hard to make sure a gear up landing is really unlikely. On the TB, the landing flap is interlocked to the gear status and the only way to fool it is to land without the landing flap (which some pilots do, thinking they are smart and the runway is long...). But you also need to defeat the throttle lever position v. gear status interlock, which is possible but only if landing into a fairly strong headwind. If one fitted a radar altimeter, the system would be "totally" foolproof but one wonders about the wisdom of providing the stereotype Cirrus customer with a radalt :) OTOH the Garmin 496-style GPS "500ft" audio warning would be 99% as good.

I am not saying I will never land gear up but if I do I need my head examined because I will have made 4 mistakes one after the other:

- forgot to drop the gear
- forgot the landing flap
- probably doing a very flat approach i.e. high power (which I never do)
- ignored the 500ft warning from the G496

and without the 'chute, the equivalent level of safety "get out", for the lack of spin certification, would not be valid. The fixed undercarriage is integral to the design for more reasons than just cheaper insurance and running costs.

Picasa Web Albums - pace

Just for Englishall I flight tested the New Diamond twin which was a lovely aircraft. Hope the engine holds up this time.

My film :D

Pace

Nice one Pace.
3 questions:

Was the engine shutdown intentional? :E

The engine looked a tad reluctant to restart, no?

How fast does it go in cruise with the bigger engine?

SB

Would I do that? pure accident :eek:

Was a worry for a second or two but could have landed back on one :E

I was impressed with the aircraft. The earlier one was much to slow and underpowered while this version has been transformed. Its still not mega quick but was indicating 140kts plus so should TAS out at 180 KTS high up.
Takeoff was much sharper too.

The main concern is how good is the new engine compared to all the problems with the old. If its stands a test of time and is reliable then it will be a really good twin.

Pace

The old DA42 did 140kt IAS at 11GPH total flow rate - same as the TB20 but on cheaper fuel. I know; I was in it.

I would expect the new one to have a higher max speed but the same fuel flow at around 140kt.

Sadly the new engine will not have a known history for a few years. Anybody buying one now has to be feeling very lucky, but Diamond need a whole lot of people to be feeling very lucky otherwise they may go bust. No wonder they certified the DA42 with avgas engines, for the US market.

For a few years I have been hoping for a SE turboprop, unpressurised and not much bigger than a TB20. The nearest that ever appeared was the Grob 140 but that must now be dead, and it was way overpriced at (according to Grob) 1.4M euros. They were pitching it at the military training market. The huge cost of the engines and their poor SFC must mean that nobody will use them unless they can the FL250+ TAS gain, which in turn means pressurisation, and you end up with a big plane, and need a bigger engine to pull it along :)

10540

Maybe you had the thing flat out to get 140 :( but at a fast cruise the aircraft is about 10kts faster IAS than its predessor

I too wish a small low cost turbine had been built rather than going the Diesel route.
I believe one was being developed for Mooney?

Pace

There you are a photo from a trip a little while back. 132KT indicated GS but note the head wind at 75% power.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/z...r/IMG_0041.jpg

Fuji

You had about 150 kts TAS with the headwind. Need to know your altitude with that TAS?

Pace

It just so happens I have the PDF taken at the same time.

http://i814.photobucket.com/albums/z...r/IMG_0042.jpg

That works out about right with the new aircraft 150 TAS at 6000 feet with prob around 160 TAS in the new version.

The Seneca V would be faster than both at around 170 at those levels.
Diamond never seem to make quick planes

Pace

Yes, indeed.

The Cirrus is of course appreciably quicker but no where near as smooth.

I would be very interested to try the Lycoming version of the 42.

My ideal aircraft (for touring at any rate)

A DA42 with the cabin of a Cirrus, the speed of a Mooney and the engine out performance of an Aztruk. (and a bit of TB20 thrown in for good measure)

Diesel engines would be great because of the widespread availability of Avtur but Lycomings will do. For a modern twin I would want a honest cruise of 180 KT, and I think the 42 needs a little better single engine performance (its fine in the cruise but underpowered on the climb out).

I reckon the Lycoming powered version from what I have heard comes very close. Whilst I liked the laid back seating in the 42 initially I am now not so sure. The Cirrus cabin is better as is the TB20.

'SE Turbo-prop'
 

I have been flying a O&N Aircraft conversion of the Cessna P210 for a couple of years in UK. They call it a Silver Eagle(On FAA register to enable owners to use FAA IR)
Continental 315hp piston engine replaced with RR/Allison 250-B17 of 450hp. Complete refurbish includes Chelton Synthetic Vision EFIS with TCAS, EGPWS, S-Tec 55 A/P and radar pod on wing. Full de-ice.(Latest conversions now Garmin 900 avionics fit)
200kts TAS at FL190, 24 gph,cabin at 8000ft.
A great all round aircraft which can use 600 mt grass strip with ease at mauw.
As usual with these SE turbo prop aircraft , only 2/3 pax with full fuel but 3 1/2 hours with 4 people.
Only problem you need $750/850 thou to buy a new conversion!
O&N have a Cessna 340 turbo prop conversion with same engine in Certification at the moment.

Thanks pace, I can't watch it here though due to "websense" ! I'll watch it when I get home.

My experience of the DA42 is TAS of 150-155kts at 78-80% at 5000 feet.

As you are on the N reg, when your engine is up for overhaul, why not pop into Texas Turbines and get one bunged in the TB20 ;)

There is no known TB turbine conversion - or indeed any other engine option.

However, if one did just that, the range would shrink to about 2/3 which would mean I would suddenly be doing a whole load of fuel stops, which I hate. The other day I flew to Valencia and back, landing with 39USG and 31USG respectively (full tank = 86.2). With a turbine knocking a 1/3 off, such a trip would be marginal, to say the least.

And the oxygen usage is huge at the high levels - a cannula simply won't work.

We really need a turbine which is a lot more efficient that the present ex-helicopter-market 450HP turbines. There is nothing even remotely on the horizon, AFAIK.

Turbine conversions are not the perfect cure. FAA certification requirements normally force Vne to be artificially low; generally AIUI at the bottom of the yellow arc. The Jetprop has a Vne of (IIRC) 160kt which is even lower than my TB20 (189kt) and it makes sense only at FL270 when you get ~ 260kt TAS. I know a US dealer selling this stuff and he tells stories of "lots of working rivets" and "Vmo warning CBs pulled" on most of the planes he works on, suggesting perhaps that a lot of people do make rather more use of the power than the airframe was built for. If I was buying a Jetprop I would do some due diligence on the airframe year (specific reinforcements in the tail area).

I think the issue is that Vne is related primarily to control surface flutter, which is related directly to TAS (the actual airflow velocity) whereas Vne is actually marked on the ASI in terms of IAS. If one takes the airframe to a much higher altitude than it was originally tested for, the Vne figure (expressed as IAS) has to be reduced, but nobody will have done the complete re-certification to determine the safe upper limit.