Diamond DA-42

[G.Vassalli]

What's do you think about the new twin DA-42 from Diamond ?

Joe

[Peter Gottlieb]

I'll let you know when I get to see one.

You really gotta wonder when they don't bring it to Oshkosh...


"G.Vassalli" > wrote in message
...
> What's do you think about the new twin DA-42 from Diamond ?
>
> Joe
>
>

[Montblack]

("Peter Gottlieb" wrote)
> I'll let you know when I get to see one.
>
> You really gotta wonder when they don't bring it to Oshkosh...


The did bring one to Oshkosh - a model.

--
Montblack
"Styled by the laws of nature.............Concorde"

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> You really gotta wonder when they don't bring it to Oshkosh...
>

No, you don't, IMHO. They test-fly it, real hard. They don't do
vaporware, but rather work on delivering.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

G.Vassalli,

the concept is very interesting. Available data is very interesting.
Announced pricing is very interesting. Now, all of this interesting
stuff has to show up "in a store", so to speak, to really judge what
it's like.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Wolfgang K.]

http://www.diamond-air.at/de/products/DA42/index.htm
go for BILDER and FILM
regards
wolfgang, loww, vie
www.fluglehrer.at

[Big John]

Peter

Big thread a while back about a Company bring their new light jet
(Eclipse 500???) to OSH with only 20 hours on it. Compnay was really
ripped here by some for doing that.

Now we find the same 'group' questining why another company didn't
bring their new low time aircaft to OSH?

Guess sometimes people can't win for losing.

Big John


On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:49:19 GMT, "Peter Gottlieb"
> wrote:

>I'll let you know when I get to see one.
>
>You really gotta wonder when they don't bring it to Oshkosh...
>
>
>"G.Vassalli" > wrote in message
...
>> What's do you think about the new twin DA-42 from Diamond ?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>

[Montblack]

Was that the Adam 700? The A-700 is their twin jet, on the A-500 (centerline
thrust designed) platform.

Eclipse has a flying jet, but not mated to productions engines - yet.

I missed that thread. Link anyone?

--
Montblack
"Just the usual inanity"

"Big John"
> Big thread a while back about a Company bring their new light jet
> (Eclipse 500???) to OSH with only 20 hours on it. Compnay was really
> ripped here by some for doing that.
>
> Now we find the same 'group' questining why another company didn't
> bring their new low time aircaft to OSH?
>
> Guess sometimes people can't win for losing.

[Big John]

Montblack

You are correct, it was the Adam 700???

They got FAA permission to fly to OSH with only 20 hours of flight
test and flew it gear down because they hadn't opened that part of the
envelope yet in their testing.

They were ripped up by some on this thread for being 'dangerous' and
flying to OSH to display to the 'troops'.

Go to Google and search for " Adam 700 Oshkosh"

Big John


On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 12:11:00 -0600, "Montblack"
> wrote:

>Was that the Adam 700? The A-700 is their twin jet, on the A-500 (centerline
>thrust designed) platform.
>
>Eclipse has a flying jet, but not mated to productions engines - yet.
>
>I missed that thread. Link anyone?

[Morgans]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Was that the Adam 700? The A-700 is their twin jet, on the A-500
(centerline
> thrust designed) platform.
>
> Eclipse has a flying jet, but not mated to productions engines - yet.
>
> I missed that thread. Link anyone?
>
> --
> Montblack
> "Just the usual inanity"
>
That took place on RAH. The criticism was made by zoom, aka james cambell,
I believe.
--
Jim in NC

[Big John]

Jim

Could have. I lost my archives a couple of days ago when computer
bombed. Just remember there were some harsh words directed between
several Posters.

Big John

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:02:16 -0500, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
>> Was that the Adam 700? The A-700 is their twin jet, on the A-500
>(centerline
>> thrust designed) platform.
>>
>> Eclipse has a flying jet, but not mated to productions engines - yet.
>>
>> I missed that thread. Link anyone?
>>
>> --
>> Montblack
>> "Just the usual inanity"
>>
> That took place on RAH. The criticism was made by zoom, aka james cambell,
>I believe.

[lance smith]

I'm starting to believe that they can do it. It looks amazing. There
was a huge thread on this earlier this year. Do a search in deja.com
(in rec.aviation) on "diamond diesel".

-lance smith


"G.Vassalli" > wrote in message >...
> What's do you think about the new twin DA-42 from Diamond ?
>
> Joe

[Peter Gottlieb]

Then bring a mock-up. I want to see, right in front of me, whether or not
it will be usable by me, and what it looks like up close.


"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Peter,
>
> > You really gotta wonder when they don't bring it to Oshkosh...
> >
>
> No, you don't, IMHO. They test-fly it, real hard. They don't do
> vaporware, but rather work on delivering.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Big John wrote:
>
> Guess sometimes people can't win for losing.

You're making a big mistake assigning a unique mentality to "this group". Some
people are going to criticize a company for moving too soon and others will
flame a company for being too cautious. They are not the same people making
these criticisms, and this group is large enough to hold both.

George Patterson
You can dress a hog in a tuxedo, but he still wants to roll in the mud.

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Jim
>
> Could have. I lost my archives a couple of days ago when computer
> bombed. Just remember there were some harsh words directed between
> several Posters.
>
> Big John

Right. It actually started the big blowout, when Juan Jimeuez (or something
close to that spelling) spouted off, as zoom's not so socky puppet. I got
tired of it and killfilled Juan.
--
Jim in NC

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Then bring a mock-up.
>

I thought they did?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Paul Sengupta]

The flight tests in the UK magazines say it's a fabulous aircraft
for personal transport, but it may not make such a good twin
trainer as it's just too easy, especially engine handling...they say
it doesn't prepare you for the world of Lycontosaurus and the
pilot workload needed when one fails.

Paul

"lance smith" > wrote in message
om...
> I'm starting to believe that they can do it. It looks amazing. There
> was a huge thread on this earlier this year. Do a search in deja.com
> (in rec.aviation) on "diamond diesel".

[Thomas Borchert]

Paul,

So we can't have innovation because of innovation? Hmm... Sounds like a
Catch-22. We should have stayed on the trees...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Paul Sengupta > wrote:
>The flight tests in the UK magazines say it's a fabulous aircraft
>for personal transport, but it may not make such a good twin
>trainer

That's probably a good thing. The Twin Comanche got a bad rep because
of the accident statistics it accumulated as a twin trainer (back in
the day of low-altitude Vmc demonstrations).

Besides, even though it's clearly an entry-level twin, and very
reasonably priced in today's new plane market, it's still far more
expensive than typical trainer fodder like 1960s-era Apaches.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Thomas Borchert]

Ben,

> and very
> reasonably priced in today's new plane market, it's still far more
> expensive than typical trainer fodder like 1960s-era Apaches.
>


Not necessarily if you factor in operating cost.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Rapoport]

"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
news:aydob.62964$HS4.558161@attbi_s01...
> In article >,
> Paul Sengupta > wrote:
> >The flight tests in the UK magazines say it's a fabulous aircraft
> >for personal transport, but it may not make such a good twin
> >trainer
>
> That's probably a good thing. The Twin Comanche got a bad rep because
> of the accident statistics it accumulated as a twin trainer (back in
> the day of low-altitude Vmc demonstrations).
>
> Besides, even though it's clearly an entry-level twin, and very
> reasonably priced in today's new plane market, it's still far more
> expensive than typical trainer fodder like 1960s-era Apaches.
>
> --
> Ben Jackson
> >
> http://www.ben.com/

How can you compare a new airplane with new engines and new glass cockpit to
a clapped out Apache?

Mike
MU-2

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> How can you compare a new airplane with new engines and new glass cockpit to
> a clapped out Apache?
>

Simple: Put both on the flight line at a locel FBO for a price that will not
make you lose money - and see if pilots go for new or cheap.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Simple: Put both on the flight line at a locel FBO for a price that will
not
> make you lose money - and see if pilots go for new or cheap.

That doesn't compare the airplanes. It compares the pilots.

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> That doesn't compare the airplanes. It compares the pilots.
>

I know. But it's a rather practical approach, IMHO ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Peter Duniho]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> I know. But it's a rather practical approach, IMHO ;-)

Yes, if you want to compare pilots, it is.

>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Peter,

> Yes, if you want to compare pilots, it is.
>

I disagree. If you want to know why you will find one or the other type
on ramps, if you want to compare the airplanes from the viewpoint of an
FBO/a rental outfit, the comparison I made is the comparison that's
being done. And the decision to buy/operate either aircraft depends on
the factor I mentioned - not the equipment, the "modernity" or the age
of the aircraft. For many applications, like operating an aircraft for
rental, age or "coolness" doesn't matter one bit - it simply doesn't
enter the purchase decision. The ultimate reason for that are pilots,
of course, but IMHO it'S one of the main reason we're seeing so little
innovation. Andthat's why I think it is important.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dylan Smith]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 12:53:03 -0000, Paul Sengupta .
ericsson.se> wrote:
>The flight tests in the UK magazines say it's a fabulous aircraft
>for personal transport, but it may not make such a good twin
>trainer as it's just too easy, especially engine handling...they say
>it doesn't prepare you for the world of Lycontosaurus and the
>pilot workload needed when one fails.

The economics will soon demolish that argument. When you're burning
half as much fuel at a third of the cost per litre, and the engines
last 1000 hours longer - flight schools know they can offer much better
prices with the Diamond twin. They are also new and sexy - the students
(most of whom are destined for the airlines) will prefer a flight
school that's less expensive and has shiny new planes with nice
smooth rivetless wings.

Although I like old planes (I owned a 1946 C140), if Diamond can
start the move away from the Lycontisaurus to something better,
more power to them.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Cary Mariash]

This posting (and replies) is very interesting to me. I own an old C310
and the expense and difficulty of maintenance is beginning to get to me
(especially with the threat of a new spar AD on all 310s). The DA-42
looks like a great substitute, and I have talked to someone else who is
interested in partnering on this plane. However, he sat in the DA40
whose cabin is ?identical to the DA42. He told me that after he closed
the canopy it felt like he was in a plane as small (or smaller) than a
C150. If true it won't be very useful for trips of any signficant
length, especially with several passengers.

Cary


In article >,
"G.Vassalli" > wrote:

> What's do you think about the new twin DA-42 from Diamond ?
>
> Joe
>
>

--
Cary N. Mariash
CP-ASMEL/IA
N500QB (1958 C310)

[Peter Duniho]

"Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
...
> This posting (and replies) is very interesting to me. I own an old C310
> and the expense and difficulty of maintenance is beginning to get to me
> (especially with the threat of a new spar AD on all 310s). The DA-42
> looks like a great substitute

Just looking at the pictures, it certainly looks like the DA-42 isn't going
to be a replacement for a 310, not in cabin size. Probably not speed-wise
either.

It looks to me like a great airplane, but for a specific role. Especially
C172-like missions, where a second engine is desired. But not as a
replacement for airplanes like the 310 (though I doubt the cabin is
genuinely as small as a 150's cabin).

Of course, until one is available for sale, it's hard to tell anything. I
guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Pete

[Cary Mariash]

In article >,
"Peter Duniho" > wrote:

> "Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
> ...
> > This posting (and replies) is very interesting to me. I own an old C310
> > and the expense and difficulty of maintenance is beginning to get to me
> > (especially with the threat of a new spar AD on all 310s). The DA-42
> > looks like a great substitute
>
> Just looking at the pictures, it certainly looks like the DA-42 isn't going
> to be a replacement for a 310, not in cabin size. Probably not speed-wise
> either.

In speed it will beat my 310. I get 165 to 170 KTAS at 25 gal/hr.

--
Cary N. Mariash
CP-ASMEL/IA
N500QB (1958 C310)

[Peter Duniho]

"Cary Mariash" > wrote in message
...
> In speed it will beat my 310. I get 165 to 170 KTAS at 25 gal/hr.

Oh. I thought 310s were faster than that? Oh well. If the useful load and
cabin size are enough for you, maybe it WILL make a suitable replacement for
your airplane. You'll certainly save a lot of gas!

Pete