Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

[C J Campbell]

I got a demo flight in a Diamond DA-40 equipped with the Garmin G-1000 glass
cockpit this morning. We departed IFR from Tacoma Narrows and flew west for
some maneuvers. This plane was the second one out of the factory with the
G-1000. I had a difficult time maintaining my altitude; the altitude and
airspeed tapes just didn't seem to be in the right place for my scan. A
little practice would be necessary to get proficient. I also had a hard time
with the 'ball.' It is a little trapezoid on the display and I don't think
it is prominent enough. Again, just something to get used to, but my trouble
with controlling the plane gave me a nice case of the leans the whole time I
climbed up through the layer. I was deliberately avoiding using the backup
gauges, even though they are nicely placed at the top center of the panel.

The panel was fairly easy to learn. The menus and knobs are classic Garmin.
Anyone familiar with the 430 or 530 would feel right at home with it. I did
have trouble finding volume control knobs at first. The audio outputs are
wired to provide power for Sennheiser ANR headsets, but I understand you can
get an adapter for other brands. Although it was very bright and sunny above
the cloud layer the panel was bright and easy to read. The panel is a little
dimmer when the engine is not running.

With the avionics master off you still have the full panel and your COM 1
radio, so these are on even during engine start. There was no apparent lag
between a change in attitude of the airplane and the display. Engine
instruments are displayed on the right panel along with a high quality
moving map. Other aircraft were displayed as diamonds on the right panel. If
you lose the left panel then the right panel automatically displays your
attitude instruments. If you lose the right panel the then the left panel
automatically displays your engine instruments. If you lose your alternator
the panels can be put into 'essential bus' mode, which gives them 45 minutes
of life. If you lose that, then you have a lithium battery that gives you an
hour and a half for your backup electric attitude indicator and a single
cockpit light. The instructor in me says BWAHAHAHA! I can have fun with
this! Partial panel half a dozen different ways! You can even give the
instructor a panel and turn off the panel for the student. All the circuit
breakers can be pulled and they are all over on the instructor's side. Take
away his moving map if you think he is too dependent on it. Lots of fun
stuff. Unfortunately the magnetic compass is over on the instructor's side,
too.

Visibility out of the cockpit was very good. The pilots sit forward of the
wing and the cowling is very low. You can see both above and below you.
Getting in and out of the cockpit is like climbing in and out of a Grumman,
but easier because of abundant handholds that were actually built for the
purpose (what a concept). The DA-40 is not a rare airplane, but for those
who have not flown it I would compare handling to a Cessna 172, but
performance close to a 182. Steep turns were easy, though I tended to pull
up on the nose a little too much because the sight picture over the cowling
was so different. Stalls were also easy. The buffet is very distinct and
impossible to ignore, which is a good thing because the pilot might not know
otherwise that the airplane is stalled. You still have complete aileron
control, but you have a rate of descent of about 650 fpm. There is no
distinct break or bobbing. It just stops flying and descends straight down
out of the sky in whatever attitude you stalled. I think it would be very
difficult to get one of these things to enter a spin; perhaps a skid with
bottom rudder with a high angle of attack. I am told that it takes a lot of
rudder to kick it into a spin, but the only way you can spin one legally is
to get one of the factory reps to demonstrate it before they put the
certification sticker in it (while it is still legally an experimental).

All right, back to IFR. Setting up the ILS was simple. The Garmin loaded the
localizer frequency into Nav1 and set the HSI to the inbound course. Hmph.
You would have thought that it would have put the SEA frequency and radial
for the missed approach in, too, and maybe warmed the latte in your cup
holder. :-) I had better luck maintaining the localizer and glideslope than
I had maintaining control when departing, but I would still need a lot of
practice. The glideslope consisted of a single blue arrow on the altitude
tape. I had expected a line across the screen or something, but in the end
it was not that difficult to use. The G-1000 knows your wind and everything
so the holding racetrack depicted on your moving map adjusts itself
accordingly.

Landing is a little flatter than a Cessna 172 and about five knots faster.
The small flaps were surprisingly effective. The transponder, which
automatically sets itself to ALT when your airspeed reaches 30 knots, shut
itself off as we taxied off the runway. You can set your transponder code,
radios, flight plans, and just about everything else from either the right
or left panel. Again, shutting off the avionics master does not shut down
the panel; the GPS, Com 1, and attitude and engine display continue to
function until the master switch is turned off. Shutting down the system and
restarting it in flight requires 30 seconds for the GPS to locate itself;
everything else starts working instantaneously -- take that, Avidyne!

My first impression is that this airplane is almost too easy to fly to be a
good pilot trainer. Although the seats are not adjustable, I found them
comfortable and I think it would be good for long cross country flights.
Objects in the back seat are hard to reach from the front seats. I think
this plane would be a superb IFR trainer because it can do nearly anything
that would ever be required in an IFR environment. It has plenty of backup
for any instrument failures and lots of opportunity for training scenarios.
:-)

The airplane I flew was loaded and costs $259,000 as equipped, including the
KLN-140 autopilot with altitude hold. DA-40s with the G-1000 package start
at about $229,000. The only options this plane did not have were the three
bladed prop, the Stormscope, and the Garmin WX system which is not available
until next month (a $6,900 upgrade). Also, the G-1000 is not yet WAAS
certified, but it is supposed to be software upgradeable, unlike the 430/530
which require new clock chips. The factory will also do custom paint jobs.

--
Christopher J. Campbell
World Famous Flight Instructor
Port Orchard, WA


If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.

[Michael 182]

Great post, thank you.

Michael

"C J Campbell" >

wrote in message ...
> I got a demo flight in a Diamond DA-40 equipped with the Garmin G-1000
glass
> cockpit this morning. < snip>

[Dude]

Lucky Dog.

How was the fit and finish of the plane?

What kind of load was left with all that Garmin Stuff?

Did you get the standard Diamond crashworthiness pitch? Do you believe it?

Thanks.

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
> I got a demo flight in a Diamond DA-40 equipped with the Garmin G-1000
glass
> cockpit this morning. We departed IFR from Tacoma Narrows and flew west
for
> some maneuvers. This plane was the second one out of the factory with the
> G-1000. I had a difficult time maintaining my altitude; the altitude and
> airspeed tapes just didn't seem to be in the right place for my scan. A
> little practice would be necessary to get proficient. I also had a hard
time
> with the 'ball.' It is a little trapezoid on the display and I don't think
> it is prominent enough. Again, just something to get used to, but my
trouble
> with controlling the plane gave me a nice case of the leans the whole time
I
> climbed up through the layer. I was deliberately avoiding using the backup
> gauges, even though they are nicely placed at the top center of the panel.
>
> The panel was fairly easy to learn. The menus and knobs are classic
Garmin.
> Anyone familiar with the 430 or 530 would feel right at home with it. I
did
> have trouble finding volume control knobs at first. The audio outputs are
> wired to provide power for Sennheiser ANR headsets, but I understand you
can
> get an adapter for other brands. Although it was very bright and sunny
above
> the cloud layer the panel was bright and easy to read. The panel is a
little
> dimmer when the engine is not running.
>
> With the avionics master off you still have the full panel and your COM 1
> radio, so these are on even during engine start. There was no apparent lag
> between a change in attitude of the airplane and the display. Engine
> instruments are displayed on the right panel along with a high quality
> moving map. Other aircraft were displayed as diamonds on the right panel.
If
> you lose the left panel then the right panel automatically displays your
> attitude instruments. If you lose the right panel the then the left panel
> automatically displays your engine instruments. If you lose your
alternator
> the panels can be put into 'essential bus' mode, which gives them 45
minutes
> of life. If you lose that, then you have a lithium battery that gives you
an
> hour and a half for your backup electric attitude indicator and a single
> cockpit light. The instructor in me says BWAHAHAHA! I can have fun with
> this! Partial panel half a dozen different ways! You can even give the
> instructor a panel and turn off the panel for the student. All the circuit
> breakers can be pulled and they are all over on the instructor's side.
Take
> away his moving map if you think he is too dependent on it. Lots of fun
> stuff. Unfortunately the magnetic compass is over on the instructor's
side,
> too.
>
> Visibility out of the cockpit was very good. The pilots sit forward of the
> wing and the cowling is very low. You can see both above and below you.
> Getting in and out of the cockpit is like climbing in and out of a
Grumman,
> but easier because of abundant handholds that were actually built for the
> purpose (what a concept). The DA-40 is not a rare airplane, but for those
> who have not flown it I would compare handling to a Cessna 172, but
> performance close to a 182. Steep turns were easy, though I tended to pull
> up on the nose a little too much because the sight picture over the
cowling
> was so different. Stalls were also easy. The buffet is very distinct and
> impossible to ignore, which is a good thing because the pilot might not
know
> otherwise that the airplane is stalled. You still have complete aileron
> control, but you have a rate of descent of about 650 fpm. There is no
> distinct break or bobbing. It just stops flying and descends straight down
> out of the sky in whatever attitude you stalled. I think it would be very
> difficult to get one of these things to enter a spin; perhaps a skid with
> bottom rudder with a high angle of attack. I am told that it takes a lot
of
> rudder to kick it into a spin, but the only way you can spin one legally
is
> to get one of the factory reps to demonstrate it before they put the
> certification sticker in it (while it is still legally an experimental).
>
> All right, back to IFR. Setting up the ILS was simple. The Garmin loaded
the
> localizer frequency into Nav1 and set the HSI to the inbound course. Hmph.
> You would have thought that it would have put the SEA frequency and radial
> for the missed approach in, too, and maybe warmed the latte in your cup
> holder. :-) I had better luck maintaining the localizer and glideslope
than
> I had maintaining control when departing, but I would still need a lot of
> practice. The glideslope consisted of a single blue arrow on the altitude
> tape. I had expected a line across the screen or something, but in the end
> it was not that difficult to use. The G-1000 knows your wind and
everything
> so the holding racetrack depicted on your moving map adjusts itself
> accordingly.
>
> Landing is a little flatter than a Cessna 172 and about five knots faster.
> The small flaps were surprisingly effective. The transponder, which
> automatically sets itself to ALT when your airspeed reaches 30 knots, shut
> itself off as we taxied off the runway. You can set your transponder code,
> radios, flight plans, and just about everything else from either the right
> or left panel. Again, shutting off the avionics master does not shut down
> the panel; the GPS, Com 1, and attitude and engine display continue to
> function until the master switch is turned off. Shutting down the system
and
> restarting it in flight requires 30 seconds for the GPS to locate itself;
> everything else starts working instantaneously -- take that, Avidyne!
>
> My first impression is that this airplane is almost too easy to fly to be
a
> good pilot trainer. Although the seats are not adjustable, I found them
> comfortable and I think it would be good for long cross country flights.
> Objects in the back seat are hard to reach from the front seats. I think
> this plane would be a superb IFR trainer because it can do nearly anything
> that would ever be required in an IFR environment. It has plenty of backup
> for any instrument failures and lots of opportunity for training
scenarios.
> :-)
>
> The airplane I flew was loaded and costs $259,000 as equipped, including
the
> KLN-140 autopilot with altitude hold. DA-40s with the G-1000 package start
> at about $229,000. The only options this plane did not have were the three
> bladed prop, the Stormscope, and the Garmin WX system which is not
available
> until next month (a $6,900 upgrade). Also, the G-1000 is not yet WAAS
> certified, but it is supposed to be software upgradeable, unlike the
430/530
> which require new clock chips. The factory will also do custom paint jobs.
>
> --
> Christopher J. Campbell
> World Famous Flight Instructor
> Port Orchard, WA
>
>
> If you go around beating the Bush, don't complain if you rile the animals.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

C J Campbell wrote:

>
> G-1000. I had a difficult time maintaining my altitude; the altitude and
> airspeed tapes just didn't seem to be in the right place for my scan. A
> little practice would be necessary to get proficient.

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Lucky Dog.
>
> How was the fit and finish of the plane?
>

It looked good to me. I didn't see any flaws in it at all. I thought the
exhaust pipe was a little ugly.

> What kind of load was left with all that Garmin Stuff?

The Garmin stuff is supposed to be lighter than standard instruments, but
there were a lot of other options on this plane besides the Garmin stuff.
Diamond claims about 650 lbs payload with full fuel. The tanks are 41
gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel, which would give you a total
load of about 890 lbs. IOW, it is about like a 172. This airplane had the
extended baggage area and the new baggage area weight allowance. Older
DA-40s are limited to 60 lbs in the baggage area. This one allows 140 lbs in
the main baggage area and 50 lbs in the extended area.

>
> Did you get the standard Diamond crashworthiness pitch? Do you believe
it?
>

Yes, but I don't know whether to believe it. The cockpit cage certainly
looks strong enough. I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
> >
> > G-1000. I had a difficult time maintaining my altitude; the altitude and
> > airspeed tapes just didn't seem to be in the right place for my scan. A
> > little practice would be necessary to get proficient.
>
> Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters
and
> V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and
restricted
> to type.
>
> That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
> standardization and no type requirements.
>

All the manufacturers that are offering the G-1000 that I know of include
enough training that it could be considered equivalent to a type rating. I
suspect insurance companies will require it for subsequent owners and
renters. Cessna is sending us the syllabi for training pilots in the G-1000
next week. On Tuesday I will try to wangle a demo flight in the G-1000
equipped 182 for comparison. Cessna's installation appears to have some
differences from the Diamond installation, such as the way it uses backup
batteries.

The funny thing about this is that so many planes are coming out with this
panel. Once you become familiar with it, the instrumentation on all these
different types will be virtually identical. A person familiar with G-1000
on one type would probably require far less time to transition to another
type than it used to take.

[Dan Luke]

"C J Campbell" wrote:
> The tanks are 41 gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel,
> which would give you a total load of about 890 lbs.

Those are some pretty poor numbers for a new, 4-place design. This
airplane would not meet my regular travel needs, i.e. IFR trips between
Mobile and Houston. On most trips, at least west bound, I'd need to
make a fuel stop.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C J Campbell]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > The tanks are 41 gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel,
> > which would give you a total load of about 890 lbs.
>
> Those are some pretty poor numbers for a new, 4-place design. This
> airplane would not meet my regular travel needs, i.e. IFR trips between
> Mobile and Houston. On most trips, at least west bound, I'd need to
> make a fuel stop.

It is pretty short range; about 600 nm with reserves. I think of the
airplane as having the payload of a 172 with the speed and roominess of a
182. They do offer extended range tanks that hold 53 gallons.

[Dude]

Poor?

It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra 20
knots.

I suppose you could slow it down to Archer speeds and get more range.

They do have a diesel version in Europe, it gets about the same cruise on
5.5 gph. Its easier for a new design to do better with a new engine design.




"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "C J Campbell" wrote:
> > The tanks are 41 gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel,
> > which would give you a total load of about 890 lbs.
>
> Those are some pretty poor numbers for a new, 4-place design. This
> airplane would not meet my regular travel needs, i.e. IFR trips between
> Mobile and Houston. On most trips, at least west bound, I'd need to
> make a fuel stop.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Ray Andraka]

Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being tested at
Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier airports
around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on the
ground. Providence announces on ATIS that transponder use is mandatory on all
taxiways and runways. If the trasnponder automatically goes to standby when the
airspeed is below stall, this could be a big problem.

C J Campbell wrote:

> ... The transponder, which
> automatically sets itself to ALT when your airspeed reaches 30 knots, shut
> itself off as we taxied off the runway.

--
--Ray Andraka, P.E.
President, the Andraka Consulting Group, Inc.
401/884-7930 Fax 401/884-7950
email
http://www.andraka.com

"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" wrote:
> Poor?

For a new, 4-place design, yes. Another 100# of useful load plus the
53-gal. tanks would make it a more interesting airplane.

> It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra
20
> knots.

Those are some ancient designs; I certainly wouldn't be interested in
buying a new model of either one as a cross country cruiser. The D-40
has some nice features, but it falls short in the range/payload
department. If all Diamond was trying to do was make a better Archer,
well, I guess maybe they succeeded -- but so what?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dude]

So what interests you?

The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is too high
for a new pilot (less than 300 hours). Also, the cost to own the SR is much
higher than the DA40 due to insurance costs, and other issues. Sure, 100
pounds would be more interesting, and I bet they could go to 200 hp and get
it, but would that really make it more marketable?

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more weight
requirements due to the new FARS. Also, the DA40 is a pussycat in pitch.
The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more money.



"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
> > Poor?
>
> For a new, 4-place design, yes. Another 100# of useful load plus the
> 53-gal. tanks would make it a more interesting airplane.
>
> > It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra
> 20
> > knots.
>
> Those are some ancient designs; I certainly wouldn't be interested in
> buying a new model of either one as a cross country cruiser. The D-40
> has some nice features, but it falls short in the range/payload
> department. If all Diamond was trying to do was make a better Archer,
> well, I guess maybe they succeeded -- but so what?
>
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Poor?
>
> It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra 20
> knots.
>
> I suppose you could slow it down to Archer speeds and get more range.
>

The same engine burns the same gallons per hour no matter what you put it
in. The Lycoming IO-360 burns about 10 gph whether it is in a DA-40 or a
172S. Since the DA-40 goes farther in that hour it should go farther than
the same amount of gas in a 172S. The reason the 172S has a longer range is
that it has bigger fuel tanks. The DA-40 does offer an option of bigger
tanks; it will then fly farther than the 172S. Useful load for the two
planes is about the same, so essentially you could carry a little more
payload in the DA-40 than in the 172S for the same trip.

[C J Campbell]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being
tested at
> Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier
airports
> around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on
the
> ground. Providence announces on ATIS that transponder use is mandatory on
all
> taxiways and runways. If the trasnponder automatically goes to standby
when the
> airspeed is below stall, this could be a big problem.
>

There should be; I'll check it out.

[Peter Hovorka]

Hi,

> The funny thing about this is that so many planes are coming out with this
> panel. Once you become familiar with it, the instrumentation on all these
> different types will be virtually identical. A person familiar with G-1000
> on one type would probably require far less time to transition to another
> type than it used to take.

It will even be more easy to handle this stuff while the number of airplanes
G1000 equipped raises. There's a correlation between the number of users of
a machine in the past and the (less) difficulty in learning to handle it.

British biologist Rupert Sheldrake wrote a couple of books about these
'morphgenetic fields' as he calls them. It's the same phenomenon why a
QWERTY keyboard is a lot easier to use for a total newbie than alle the
ergonomicaly designed stuff that was introduced the last years...

Kind regards,
Peter

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
>

IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
DA20. Pretty impressive.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
> V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
> to type.
>
> That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
> standardization and no type requirements.
>

While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> For a new, 4-place design, yes.
>

Absolutely no! Totally depends on the mission. It doesn't fit yours,
even with the long range tanks, because you need to move four people
all the time over long distances? Ok, the Star is not for you. But I
truly wonder how many people really need that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Ray,

> Is there a means to leave the transponder on?
>

Yes. It's in the set-up of the transponder. The options are:

- turn off when below 30 kts.
- turn off xx seconds after below 30 kts
- don't turn on/off autmagically

The manual for the Garmin GTX330 can be found on their website.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> > Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
> > V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
> > to type.
> >
> > That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
> > standardization and no type requirements.
> >
>
> While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
> bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
> progress at all.

No, "it's" not bad at all. How "it's" used will be either good or bad, or somewhere
between. For the airline pilot, the fancy stuff is good because he or she is isolated
to that equipment with adequate training and exposure for proficiency to occur.

And, keep in mind the airline crews have two sets of eyes, two pairs of hands, and FMS
alphanumeric keyboards with which to enter data, as opposed to twisting knobs.

>
>
> At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
> you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
> most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

I don't believe I called for regulation, although you apparently inferred that from my
comparison to type ratings.

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good. Making the equipment more
complex, albeit more capable, could make things worse without really good training
(i.e., not the blind leading the blind) and a commitment to currency and proficiency.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> >
>
> IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> DA20. Pretty impressive.

Actually, there is one fatal for the DA 20.


NTSB Identification: NYC02FA131.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact
Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 06, 2002 in Leesburg, VA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/1/2003
Aircraft: Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 20C-1, registration: N960CT
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.
The passenger reported that the pilot departed the airport, completed a
touch-and go, and flew to a practice area. The passenger then flew two
clearing turns at 2,500 feet msl, and the pilot subsequently retook control
of the airplane and climbed to 3,000 feet msl. After the pilot leveled the
airplane about 2,900 feet msl, the engine lost all power. The pilot
completed emergency checklist items, but was unable to restart the engine.
The pilot then attempted a forced landing to a field. The airplane impacted
in residential area; left wing low, nose down, and slid about 100 feet.
Aside from a sooty number two cylinder, examination of the wreckage did not
reveal any discrepancies. After the initial examination, the engine was then
disassembled, and no discrepancies were observed. The fuel control unit,
injector lines, nozzles, manifold, magnetos, number two cylinder and piston,
and connecting rod, were all tested at the engine manufacturer's facility.
The fuel components and magnetos flowed and tested within specifications
respectively. The cause of the black sooty deposit within the number two
cylinder could not be determined; however, the deposit appeared to be over
normal combustion deposit.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons.

[Dan Luke]

"Dude" wrote:
> So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

> The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.

> Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> make it more marketable?

It would to me.

>You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?

> The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > For a new, 4-place design, yes.
> >
>
> Absolutely no! Totally depends on the mission. It doesn't
> fit yours, even with the long range tanks, because you need
> to move four people all the time over long distances? Ok,
> the Star is not for you. But I truly wonder how many people
> really need that.

In Europe it is different, no doubt. But the D-40 seems too well
equipped to be just another C-172/Archer level puddle jumper. I really
like a lot of things about the airplane, it's just too bad it can't
carry a little more a little farther.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> >
>
> IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> DA20. Pretty impressive.

There are only two accidents involving the DA 40. One is a botched landing
that ran off the runway, the other a mid-air where the Diamond was hit from
behind and above while on very short final.

The Diamond's behavior during the mid-air was impressive, all right:

"During a telephone interview conducted by the IIC, the pilot of the DA-40
reported that he entered a left downwind for landing on runway 18, and
announced his intentions for landing on the CTAF. The pilot also stated that
he announced position reports on CTAF upon entering a base leg for the
runway, one-mile final, and 1/2-mile final. At an altitude of approximately
50 feet, another airplane impacted the left wing. The pilot recalled cart
wheeling three times before the airplane came to rest in an upright
position.

Examination of the DA-40 by an Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
inspector, who responded to the accident site, revealed the outboard section
of the left wing was torn open. The engine remained attached to the
fuselage, and was compressed aft against the firewall. Examination of the
Giles 202 revealed the engine was partially separated from the fuselage.
Both main landing gear were separated from the fuselage. The rudder was
separated from the vertical stabilizer, and was located approximately 150
feet from the wreckage."

The cockpit shell is designed to withstand 26g's. It is tougher than a rock.
You might end up splattered all over the inside, but that shell is going to
be intact. Reading the accident reports is amazing. Pilots have literally
flown Diamonds into the ground and walked away without injuries. Consider
this one:

"Realizing he couldn't make it to the airport, he set up to make a forced
landing on an Interstate Highway. He made a right turn to set up for the
landing. The airplane struck a set of power lines at a 30-degree angle, and
in a 20-degree right turn, knocked down two power poles, impacted a ditch,
and came to a stop next to the highway. The pilot noticed the power lines
lying across the airplane, he saw sparks, and a fire near the left wing. He
unbuckled himself and his passenger and they both climbed out and walked up
to the road. The wire strike, ground impact, post impact fire, and
subsequent electrical power surge, destroyed the airplane."

Here a pilot stalled and hit the ground: "Injuries: 2 Minor.
According to the pilot, he was maneuvering over the sand dunes between
Eureka and Delta. The temperature was rising and it started getting "bumpy"
so he elected to return to Provo. While flying over the mountains west of
Eureka, approximately 1000 feet above ground level, his "controls became
mush." The airplane began descending rapidly, at which time the pilot "put
in full prop[eller] and power, pitch[ing] for 75 kts." It was apparent that
the airplane would not clear the rising terrain, so the pilot reversed
course towards the "canyon." The pilot stated the airspeed was "right above
stall speed." Subsequently, the aircraft collided with the trees. The
airplane's empennage was separated from the fuselage."

This accident could easily have been fatal. Here the pilot flew into a
mountain when he went VFR into IMC, but he and his passenger walked away
with minor injuries:

NTSB Identification: DEN99LA060 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact
Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Friday, March 26, 1999 in COYOTE, NM
Probable Cause Approval Date: 4/25/2001
Aircraft: Diamond Aircraft Industries DA 20-A1, registration: N528SS
Injuries: 2 Minor.
The pilot and his pilot-rated passenger were flying cross-country for the
purpose of building flight time. The pilot assumed the role of PIC for the
leg from Durango to their intended destination of Santa Fe. During a stop
earlier in the day in Las Vegas, the passenger checked the weather using a
computer located in the terminal, which called for low clouds and a narrow
temperature/dew point spread at the airport in Santa Fe. He did not obtain
SIGMETS. While in cruise flight, he and his passenger began to encounter
snow, fog and rain. While attempting to climb, he entered instrument
meteorological conditions. The aircraft then impacted the trees in a 90
right bank and at a 45 degree downward pitch. The aircraft came to rest in
an inverted position along a 45 degree inclining mountainous slope covered
by several feet of snow. The aircraft was not IFR equipped.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of
this accident as follows:

The pilot-in-command's inadvertent flight into adverse weather, and his
continued flight into instrument meteorological conditions. Factors were his
failure to obtain an updated recorded weather briefing, the existing weather
conditions which included snow, fog and rain, and the aircraft not being IFR
equipped.



There has been only one accident in Diamond's entire history in which there
was a post crash fire, and that was one of the fuel exhaustion ones. The
fire was apparently caused by downed power lines. I have to say that I am
impressed.

One of the accidents does show that the bozos are still very much with us;
here a landing Diamond was hit by a Piper pilot that just did not give a
dead rat. Even though Mr. Jones had his license taken away, you have to
wonder if he is still flying somewhere:

DEN99LA048A
On March 6, 1999, approximately 1330 mountain standard time, a Piper
PA-28-235, N4312A, and a Diamond DA 20-A1, N189DA, were destroyed when they
collided on the ground at the Provo Municipal Airport, Provo, Utah. N4312A
was on takeoff roll on runway 18, and N189DA was on landing rollout on
runway 31. The private pilot and two passengers aboard N4312A escaped
injury. The flight instructor aboard N189DA was seriously injured, and his
student pilot received minor injuries. Visual meteorological conditions
prevailed at the time, and flight plans had not been filed by either pilot.
Both flights were being conducted under Title 14 CFR Part 91. The flight of
N4312A was for business and was originating at the time of the accident. The
flight of N189DA was for instruction and had originated at Provo
approximately 30 minutes before the accident.

The following is based on the accident report submitted by the pilot of
N4312A, Larry M. Jones, and a telephone conversation he had with this
investigator a few days after the accident. Mr. Jones wrote that he
conducted his pre-takeoff check with the radio on (but told this
investigator that it was after he had completed his pre-takeoff check that
he put his earphones on). There were two airplanes in the traffic pattern.
He heard the first pilot advise he was turning onto base leg for runway 31.
The second pilot said he was going to follow the first airplane in for
landing. With both airplanes in sight, Mr. Jones radioed that he would be
taxiing onto runway 18 for departure because he had "plenty of time to
depart before either of the two aircraft were in position to land." As he
approached the intersection, his brother called his attention to a third
airplane, N189DA. Mr. Jones said he closed the throttle, pulled the hand
brake (locking the brakes), applied left rudder (in an attempt to go behind
N189DA), then applied back elevator pressure and full left aileron (in an
attempt to raise the right wing over the top of N189DA). N4312A collided
with N189DA and caught fire. All three occupants of N4312A evacuated the
airplane. The two occupants of N189DA were extricated by CFR personnel and
taken to a local hospital.

Stan Jones, the right front seat passenger and brother of the pilot,
submitted a statement which corroborated Larry Jones' report. He made no
reference, however, to the near midair collision that had occurred earlier
that morning as they were landing at Provo.

In his accident report, the flight instructor aboard N189DA, Steven Hill,
said he and his student were landing on runway 31. "There was another
airplane close in behind [us] on base, and there was another airplane also
behind him," he said. He said they intentionally landed long to give the
trailing traffic additional landing clearance. He could not remember
anything else.

The student aboard N189DA, Derek Hansen, said that after practicing flight
maneuvers, he made several touch and go landings. "The airport was busy,"
Mr. Hansen wrote. "I don't recall a time from the time we entered the
traffic pattern until the time of the accident when there was not at least
one other airplane in the pattern. Transmissions were brief, pertinent, and
frequent. . ." Mr. Hansen landed the airplane under the supervision of Mr.
Hill. As he started to turn the airplane off the runway, Mr. Hill yelled and
kicked hard left rudder. Mr. Hansen said he caught a glimpse of an airplane
just before the collision.

The Provo Police Department also investigated the accident and collected 12
witness statements (attached). The witnesses corroborated reports that
runway 31 was the active runway, that N189DA had landed long on runway 31,
that N4312A was taking off on runway 18, and that the collision occurred at
the intersection of the two runways (two witnesses mistakenly thought N189DA
was taking off and N4312A was landing).

During the course of this investigation, it was learned that the pilot of
N4312A had another near collision earlier in the day as he approached Provo
Airport for landing after a flight from Richfield, Utah. In a written
statement, Christopher Harger said he had been giving flight instruction to
a student, and they were returning to Provo for landing. At an altitude of
5,500 feet, they made a 45 degree entry into the traffic pattern, then
turned onto a left downwind leg for runway 13 and announced their position
on the radio. He heard the pilot of N4312A announce over the radio that he
was "over the lake" and downwind for runway 18. When he heard the pilot say
he was "over the numbers for three one," Mr. Harger made an immediate 360
degree turn to the right because he was in the general area. Nearing
completion of the turn, he found himself on a collision course with the
Cherokee (N4312A). He pulled up and the Cherokee passed 200 to 300 feet
below him.

According to a written statement submitted by Heather Heslington, the
airport Unicom operator, N4312A had also nearly collided with an airplane
piloted by Mr. Stan Shaw, a flight instructor at Advantage Aviation
(attempts to contact Mr. Shaw to obtain a statement were unsuccessful).

Flight Instructor Gerald Maass submitted a written statement about a near
midair collision he had with N4312A three months earlier, on December 21,
1998. He was administering a private pilot practical examination to an
applicant, and they were doing touch and go landings on runway 18. He heard
the pilot of N4312A announce that he was downwind for runway 18. After
takeoff and while climbing out, Mr. Maass observed N4312A pass him off to
the right. The airplane was about 10 feet above him, and its left wing was
over his right wing 3 to 4 feet. N4312A then turned abruptly to the left and
passed in front and over the top "by not more than 20 feet." Mr. Jones later
explained that he had been going through the "Before Landing" checklist in
preparation for landing, and he inadvertently moved the fuel selector to the
OFF position. The engine lost power and he immediately turned towards runway
18 (he made no announcement over the radio). When he observed Mr. Maass'
airplane on the runway, he moved the fuel selector switch to a tank and
regained engine power. The remedial action brought the two airplanes in
close proximity to each other.

Brian Wortham, a flight instructor with Great Western Aviation in West
Bountiful, Utah, said he gave Mr. Jones Class B (airspace) flight
instruction shortly after the near collision. "I found his ability to
maneuver the aircraft within the standards of the private pilot
certificate," Mr. Wortham wrote. "I did express to him some concerns that I
had about his decisions and judgments even with me in the aircraft. . .I was
concerned about the ambivalence or lack of understanding of the seriousness
of his situation. . ."

Mr. Jones' attitude was variously described as "flippant" by Ms. Heslington,
"very nonchalant" by Mr. Maass, and "cavalier" by Mr. Wortham.

The wind, recorded 25 minutes after the accident, was from 280 degrees at 6
knots.

On April 22, 1999, Mr. Jones appeared at FAA's Flight Standards District
Office in Salt Lake City to have his competency as a private pilot
reexamined in accordance with Section 44709 of the U.S. Code, Title 49. He
failed the oral portion of the reexamination. Because of the failure, no
flight test was administered.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, wrote:

> The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good.

huh? While it's not perfect, and some other categories of operations
are better, the record for light aircraft IFR operations is
in fact pretty good.

--
Bob Noel

[[email protected]]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, wrote:
>
> > The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good.
>
> huh? While it's not perfect, and some other categories of operations
> are better, the record for light aircraft IFR operations is
> in fact pretty good.
>

I guess we have different ideas of what's good. ;-)

[C J Campbell]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Bob Noel wrote:
>
> > In article >, wrote:
> >
> > > The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good.
> >
> > huh? While it's not perfect, and some other categories of operations
> > are better, the record for light aircraft IFR operations is
> > in fact pretty good.
> >
>
> I guess we have different ideas of what's good. ;-)

Well, then I guess you would have to say that the record for light aircraft
in general (not just IFR) is not good.

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> If it didn't
> have a side stick,
>

Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
do.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

As for the other things, IMHO it really depends on the mission. I see
the DA40 showing up at more and more FBOs in the US. I can't see any
negatives comparing them to a new 172 - and a lot of positives. IMHO, a
creating a new 172/Archer makes a lot of sense, since both leave a lot
to be desired - speed among them. Even if you only think of the Star as
a 172 that's 20 knots faster, you stilll have a winner. And that
doesn't take into account how well it flies and the great visibility.

The amazing thing to me is that the SR20, similarly equipped, is just
10 or 15k more expensive. IMHO, you get a whole lot more airplane for
that money. But then, for Europe, they don't have the right engine for
the SR20 - and according to Cirrus, none is in sight, either.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

I sit corrected. Thanks for looking it up!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

> Making the equipment more
> complex,
>

Yes, but is it? A GPS moving map approach is more complex than an NDB
approach? Or a DME arc? or anything else very complex? You sure? I'm
not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Vaughn]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> C,
>
> > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> >
>
> IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> DA20. Pretty impressive.

Yes, but you will find at least three -20 accidents in the database that
would never have happened without that rear-hinged canopy. Nice as it is,
the -20 is an airplane with an accident built into it, just waiting for an
inattentive pilot (which is all of us occasionally) to screw up. Don't get me
wrong, all three of them are likely caused by pilot error, but it is a trap
engineered into airframe that is familiar to any glider pilot.

As a CFI(gliders), no new student gets into my trainer without first
hearing "the canopy lecture".

They fixed the problem in the 4-seater.

Vaughn

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> Dan,
>
> > If it didn't
> > have a side stick,
> >
>
> Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
> do.

But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
the left seat.

--
Bob Noel

[Dude]

I have consistently noted that statistics of actual history are more
importatant than subjective analysis. It appears that the C1 is much safer
than about anything else in the single engine arena by the statistics.

While the rear hinged canopy may not be ideal, perhaps the trade off was
even less ideal. At any rate, while your point is valid, I believe that in
total the design must be a good one.



"Vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> > DA20. Pretty impressive.
>
> Yes, but you will find at least three -20 accidents in the database
that
> would never have happened without that rear-hinged canopy. Nice as it is,
> the -20 is an airplane with an accident built into it, just waiting for an
> inattentive pilot (which is all of us occasionally) to screw up. Don't
get me
> wrong, all three of them are likely caused by pilot error, but it is a
trap
> engineered into airframe that is familiar to any glider pilot.
>
> As a CFI(gliders), no new student gets into my trainer without first
> hearing "the canopy lecture".
>
> They fixed the problem in the 4-seater.
>
> Vaughn
>
>

[Dude]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" wrote:
> > So what interests you?
>
> Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
> to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
> reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


> > The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> > too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).
>
> Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.
>

This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity? Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



> > Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> > they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> > make it more marketable?
>
> It would to me.
>
> >You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> > weight requirements due to the new FARS.
>
> Like what, for instance?
>

Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

> > The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
> money.
>
> It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
> have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
> range & load.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
>
>

[Jeremy Lew]

I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dude" wrote:
> > > So what interests you?
> >
> > Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
> > to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
> > reserves.
>
> There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for
you.
> That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
> purpose.
>
>
> > > The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> > > too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).
> >
> > Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.
> >
>
> This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to
find
> why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
> number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
> instructors with no people skills, etc.
>
> The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of
old
> ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.
>
> How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
> doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
> is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
> business.
>
>
>
> > > Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> > > they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> > > make it more marketable?
> >
> > It would to me.
> >
> > >You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> > > weight requirements due to the new FARS.
> >
> > Like what, for instance?
> >
>
> Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
> wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if
it
> only had a single 430 and long range tanks.
>
> > > The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
> > money.
> >
> > It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
> > have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
> > range & load.
> > --
> > Dan
> > C172RG at BFM
> >
> >
>
>

[Martin Kosina]

> > > The tanks are 41 gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel,
> > > which would give you a total load of about 890 lbs.
> >
> > Those are some pretty poor numbers for a new, 4-place design. This
> > airplane would not meet my regular travel needs, i.e. IFR trips between
> > Mobile and Houston. On most trips, at least west bound, I'd need to
> > make a fuel stop.
>
> It is pretty short range; about 600 nm with reserves. I think of the
> airplane as having the payload of a 172 with the speed and roominess of a
> 182. They do offer extended range tanks that hold 53 gallons.

I happened to get a ride in a DA-40 yesterday as well, no G1000, and
nothing as thorough as CJ, but it did give me an idea about
performance, which I was curious about We had two 200lb adults and 36
gallons on board. At sea level, ~75F, the Star climbed out at
800-900fpm and cruised about 125 indicated at 2000' at 23/2400, so
about 130TAS there, making the qouted 140K at altitude believeable.
The fuel flow was just a little over 9gph at that setting.
Acceleration on takeoff was very good thanks to the CS prop.

Great numbers, although to be completely honest, primed by marketing
enthusiasm, I expected just a bit more. Alas, composites or not, given
a certain HP loading, I suppose there is no free lunch, only little
better deals. But, I think they have found a nice market niche, these
will make popular IFR trainers and FBO rental planes. For private
owners, its a great option, but not completely clear cut, other
factors come into play. (This is not a plane I'd want to land on a
narrow dirt runway with tall brush on either side, for example.) I
don't think its an automatic Cessna killer (not even a 172SP, and
certainly not a 182), but it will give the lower-end 180hp fleet run
for their money, especially the low-wing Archer and Tiger, neither of
which has a CS prop (a bigger detriment than dated spam-can
construction, IMHO).

Overall, a very nice cruiser, loading-wise short of a 182 (d'oh), but
well above a 172. The performance is very similar to my 177B, although
the Star will walk away from it at altitude by up to 10 knots. (I do
agree that 41 gallons is not enough for the O-360 mill, I suspect the
larger tanks will be a popular option).

[Stefan]

Dan Luke wrote:

> like a lot of things about the airplane, it's just too bad it can't
> carry a little more a little farther.

Then the DA42 might be your new plane.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
>
>>Dan,
>>
>>
>>>If it didn't
>>>have a side stick,
>>>
>>
>>Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
>>do.
>
>
> But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
> I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
> the left seat.
>

Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
left-handed since I started flying.

Matt

[Peter Duniho]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
> left-handed since I started flying.

I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
flying the airplane. With a yoke or stick centered at the pilot, it's easy
enough to switch hands. But with a side-stick/yoke (the Cirrus design, for
example, is actually more of a yoke than a stick in the way it works), you'd
have to cross your right hand over to handle the control while your left
hand writes.

Same issue in the right seat for right-handed pilots.

That said, I try to make it a habit to not do any writing unless the
airplane is configured for straight-and-level flight. With the trim
properly set, the plane ought to do fine long enough to write something
down, even hands-off. For minor roll control, the rudder pedals should
suffice to keep the wings level. It's not clear to me that a side-stick is
a disqualifying feature for a left-handed pilot in the left seat.

Pete

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Noel wrote:
> > In article >,
> > wrote:
> >
> > But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
> > I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
> > the left seat.
> >
>
> Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
> left-handed since I started flying.
>

Left hand on the yoke, right hand on the throttle/prop/mix.- most prop jobs

Right on the cyclic; left hand on the collective - helicopter.

Right hand on the stick, left hand on the throttle/prop.mix - WACO/

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
>
> > If it didn't
> > have a side stick,
> >
>
> Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority
> of those who do.

Yes (in a Lancair). Hated it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> wrote:

> > Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
> > left-handed since I started flying.
>
> I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
> flying the airplane.

bingo.

--
Bob Noel

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> wrote:
>
> > Dan,
> >
> > > If it didn't
> > > have a side stick,
> > >
> >
> > Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
> > do.
>
> But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
> I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
> the left seat.

I am left handed and flew the Cirrus from the left seat with no problems at
all. It seemed very natural.

[C J Campbell]

"Peter Duniho" > wrote in message
...
> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
> > left-handed since I started flying.
>
> I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
> flying the airplane.

I am not a big fan of writing down a lot of things, especially when IFR. It
gets your head down in the cockpit, increasing the chance of things like
spatial disorientation and mid-airs. I use both hands when writing, holding
a clipboard up at eye level. If the airplane is properly trimmed you should
be able to fly it for several minutes hands off, just using some rudder.
Besides, all these new airplanes have autopilots. If you have to write
something down, it is a single button push to engage a heading hold. The
Garmin G-1000 even has a built-in voice recorder so you can listen to the
last several clearances if you wish.

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
are
> doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
Cessna
> is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
> business.

No. Cessna is doing it deliberately. Cessna did not really want to re-start
manufacturing piston singles in the first place. They promised to do it when
some kind of tort reform was passed. Bob Dole got the tort reform passed and
leaned hard on Cessna to start building airplanes.

Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> > Making the equipment more
> > complex,
> >
>
> Yes, but is it? A GPS moving map approach is more complex than an NDB
> approach? Or a DME arc? or anything else very complex? You sure? I'm
> not.
>

You fly GPS approaches using the moving map? I use the CDI and the along
track distance cross-checking with the approach chart.

Once the approach is loaded from the database, and the pilot is headed
for the correct fix as per the procedure for the circumstances, flying an
LNAV approach is easier than flying an NDB approach, and far more
accurate. But, it is more difficult than flying an ILS approach and not
as safe. Flying a Baro VNAV approach (once all the database issues are
resolved) is very similar to flying an ILS and is about as safe.

But, so far as I know, no light aircraft has IFR-certified Baro VNAV.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> Besides, all these new airplanes have autopilots.

autopilots can break. I'd rather not have the autopilot be
a go/no-go item.

--
Bob Noel

[Bob Noel]

In article >, "C J Campbell"
> wrote:

> > But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
> > I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
> > the left seat.
>
> I am left handed and flew the Cirrus from the left seat with no problems
> at
> all. It seemed very natural.

it's not the flying, it's the writing. I've flown the Lancair
from the right seat - no big deal flying.

--
Bob Noel

[Dan Luke]

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.

It should be here, too.

> IMHO, a creating a new 172/Archer makes a lot of sense,
> since both leave a lot to be desired - speed among them.

I suppose so. It just disappointed me when such a good-looking airplane
appeared but didn't quite manage to be a replacement for the one I
already have.

> Even if you only think of the Star as a 172 that's 20 knots
> faster, you stilll have a winner.

We'll see.

> And that doesn't take into account how well it flies and the great
visibility.

As I said, it's an attractive airplane.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Thomas Borchert]

Dan,

> > In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.
>
> It should be here, too.
>

A totally new concept for an engine? In the US pilot community? Come
on, you gotta be kidding. <half g>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Stefan,

> Then the DA42 might be your new plane.
>

Same cabin, basically. So you might gain load, but not space.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>> Then the DA42 might be your new plane.

> Same cabin, basically. So you might gain load, but not space.

Dan asked for more load and more range, the DA42 provides both. Plus
more speed.

Stefan

[Matt Whiting]

Bob Noel wrote:

> In article >, "Peter Duniho"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>>Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
>>>left-handed since I started flying.
>>
>>I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
>>flying the airplane.
>
>
> bingo.
>

I guess that rules our flying a stick equipped airplane or a chopper
also, right?


Matt

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
wrote:

> >>>Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
> >>>left-handed since I started flying.
> >>
> >>I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down
> >>while
> >>flying the airplane.
> >
> > bingo.
>
> I guess that rules our flying a stick equipped airplane or a chopper
> also, right?

no. But I'm not going to fly a side stick from the left seat.
At least not until I relearn how to write with my right hand.

I know there are left-handed pilots that are comfortable reaching
across to hold the stick, or will doing the flying with rudder or
autopilot while writing. But I want that added capability of being
able to hold the yoke and write at the same time.

And if that means I won't fly a chopper, no loss for me. I never
had any interest in them anyway.

--
Bob Noel

[Dude]

As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
more threatened than by it increasing.

Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.

If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.

Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.

Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.

I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the long
run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of you.
Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
albeit slowly.





"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
of
> GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dude" wrote:
> > > > So what interests you?
> > >
> > > Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
> > > to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
> > > reserves.
> >
> > There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for
> you.
> > That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
> > purpose.
> >
> >
> > > > The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> > > > too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).
> > >
> > > Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.
> > >
> >
> > This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to
> find
> > why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found
a
> > number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
> > instructors with no people skills, etc.
> >
> > The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of
> old
> > ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.
> >
> > How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
> are
> > doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
> Cessna
> > is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> > technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
> > business.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> > > > they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> > > > make it more marketable?
> > >
> > > It would to me.
> > >
> > > >You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> > > > weight requirements due to the new FARS.
> > >
> > > Like what, for instance?
> > >
> >
> > Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
Everyone
> > wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if
> it
> > only had a single 430 and long range tanks.
> >
> > > > The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
> > > money.
> > >
> > > It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
> > > have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
> > > range & load.
> > > --
> > > Dan
> > > C172RG at BFM
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we
> are
> > doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
> Cessna
> > is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> > technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
> > business.
>
> No. Cessna is doing it deliberately. Cessna did not really want to
re-start
> manufacturing piston singles in the first place. They promised to do it
when
> some kind of tort reform was passed. Bob Dole got the tort reform passed
and
> leaned hard on Cessna to start building airplanes.
>
> Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
> lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.

So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dan Luke wrote:
>
> "Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.
>
> It should be here, too.

There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much more
expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the lower 48. When
that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel and gas
Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and carries less
weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that Hawker
Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Jeremy Lew]

Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?
IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability litigation,
high fuel prices, and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
engines.

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
> more threatened than by it increasing.
>
> Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.
>
> If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.
>
> Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
> voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.
>
> Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
> from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
> keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.
>
> I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
long
> run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
you.
> Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
> albeit slowly.
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
> of
> > GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.
> >
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Dude" wrote:
> > > > > So what interests you?
> > > >
> > > > Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
luggage
> > > > to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
> > > > reserves.
> > >
> > > There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
for
> > you.
> > > That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
your
> > > purpose.
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> > > > > too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).
> > > >
> > > > Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.
> > > >
> > >
> > > This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
to
> > find
> > > why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
found
> a
> > > number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
> > > instructors with no people skills, etc.
> > >
> > > The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
of
> > old
> > > ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.
> > >
> > > How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what
we
> > are
> > > doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
> > Cessna
> > > is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> > > technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
predictable
> > > business.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > > Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> > > > > they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> > > > > make it more marketable?
> > > >
> > > > It would to me.
> > > >
> > > > >You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> > > > > weight requirements due to the new FARS.
> > > >
> > > > Like what, for instance?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
> Everyone
> > > wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip
if
> > it
> > > only had a single 430 and long range tanks.
> > >
> > > > > The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
more
> > > > money.
> > > >
> > > > It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
didn't
> > > > have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
better
> > > > range & load.
> > > > --
> > > > Dan
> > > > C172RG at BFM
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Dude wrote:

> Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from bizjets)
> from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability to
> keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.
>

I don't agree with that at all.

1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
you would likely want to use.

2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to share the
airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get you an
ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few "Cubs"
parked at the airport.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> > Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
> > lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.
>
> So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?

They would be more likely to be scrapped.

[C J Campbell]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > > In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.
> >
> > It should be here, too.
>
> There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much
more
> expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the
lower 48. When
> that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel
and gas
> Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and
carries less
> weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that
Hawker
> Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.


The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

But nearly all of our engines can run just fine on high-grade unleaded. That's what
will be in the pumps a few years from now. Diesels are popular in Europe because
gasoline costs four times what diesel costs. They will also be a good idea for pilots
who fly to places where gas is hard to get, like some parts of Canada and Alaska. As
long as there's something at the airport or the corner gas station that makes an
O-whatever work well, and that fuel isn't significantly more expensive than diesel,
diesels will not be common in U.S. GA aircraft.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Newps]

C J Campbell wrote:


>
> The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.

I keep hearing that. And hearing that. And hearing that....

[Luke Scharf]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:07:57 -0400, Jeremy Lew wrote:
> I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity
> of GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

I think that we're hoping that if there were more pilots, there would be
more sanity. I learned my risk-management skills and attitude from my CFI
-- although I did shop around until I found a good one. Plus,
the regulatory-problems might be better if there were more pilots to
complain about them.

At least that's how I feel about it. The feeling might not reflect
reality, though... :-)

-Luke

[Dude]

"Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
...
> Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

As a percentage, we are dropping as a percent of population

> IMO, the high cost of flying is more due to excessive liability
litigation,

True, and the best way to beat it is to make it more likely that someone on
the jury has some knowledge of aviation.

> high fuel prices,

This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or
support a new engine design in the certified world. Volume would help, but
not a lot. We need to begin switching to autofuel (problem here IS lack of
volume, as it would rot in the tank before being sold at small airports) or
Jet A (turbo diesels are more complex than our current engines, and your
mechanic won't get trained because there are not enough tdi engines out
there. No one will buy one because the mechanics are not their to support
them).

and exhorbitant certification costs for airframes and
> engines.

Which can most easily be overcome with - VOLUME. You see where I am coming
from?

>
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> ...
> > As the numbers dwindle the ability for you to continue your enjoyment is
> > more threatened than by it increasing.
> >
> > Much of the cost of GA is due to lack of economy of scale.
> >
> > If you want to ever sell your plane, you will need a pilot to buy it.
> >
> > Your ability to keep your airport open is a direct function of how many
> > voters your local pilot population can speak to or know.
> >
> > Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
> bizjets)
> > from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
> to
> > keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.
> >
> > I think perhaps you are letting this issue get ahead of you, and in the
> long
> > run it will end flying just the same as letting the plane get ahead of
> you.
> > Perhaps I am a bit of a chicken little on this, but the sky IS falling,
> > albeit slowly.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Jeremy Lew" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the
popularity
> > of
> > > GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.
> > >
> > > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Dude" wrote:
> > > > > > So what interests you?
> > > > >
> > > > > Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some
> luggage
> > > > > to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
> > > > > reserves.
> > > >
> > > > There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane
> for
> > > you.
> > > > That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for
> your
> > > > purpose.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
> > > > > > too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).
> > > > >
> > > > > Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys
> to
> > > find
> > > > why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They
> found
> > a
> > > > number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
> > > > instructors with no people skills, etc.
> > > >
> > > > The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch
> of
> > > old
> > > > ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.
> > > >
> > > > How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change
what
> we
> > > are
> > > > doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity?
> > > Cessna
> > > > is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
> > > > technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of
> predictable
> > > > business.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
> > > > > > they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
> > > > > > make it more marketable?
> > > > >
> > > > > It would to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > >You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
> > > > > > weight requirements due to the new FARS.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like what, for instance?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight.
> > Everyone
> > > > wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your
trip
> if
> > > it
> > > > only had a single 430 and long range tanks.
> > > >
> > > > > > The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot
> more
> > > > > money.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it
> didn't
> > > > > have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the
> better
> > > > > range & load.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dan
> > > > > C172RG at BFM
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Dude]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
bizjets)
> > from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our ability
to
> > keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.
> >
>
> I don't agree with that at all.
>
> 1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
airports that
> you would likely want to use.
>

Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

> 2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
share the
> airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
you an
> ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
"Cubs"
> parked at the airport.

Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
if you are long, and doomed if you are short.

The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the two
big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
them will care.

[Dude]

There is a good argument, potentially, cost of operation.

The Centurion could, if well supported, and up to its marketing, replace
about every engine in the 140 to 180 HP range. That is a lot of engines.
Only problem is the chicken and the egg.

Who will pay to get all the mechanics trained? Will they put together good
english manuals, pdf's, videos? Will there be someone to call during normal
US hours who speaks english and knows the engine and the FAA regs?

100LL is not necessarily going away, but its possible that when it does, it
will go quickly. Also, the less we use, the more expensive it will get ( at
least that is my guess, perhaps someone else knows better.)




"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dan Luke wrote:
> >
> > "Thomas Borchert" wrote:
> > > In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.
> >
> > It should be here, too.
>
> There's no good argument for using them in the States. Gas isn't that much
more
> expensive (if at all) than Jet-A, and gas is readily available in the
lower 48. When
> that changes, you'll see more diesels here. Do a comparison of the diesel
and gas
> Maules. The diesel costs more, is slower (due to cooling drag), and
carries less
> weight (the engine weighs more). I also think it's pretty ugly, with that
Hawker
> Typhoon style cowling, but that's a personal opinion.
>
> George Patterson
> In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony
assault.
> In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[C J Campbell]

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.
>
> I keep hearing that. And hearing that. And hearing that....
>

Well, when it finally happens, you can't say that you weren't warned, can
you?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > >
> > > Cessna sees the construction of new airplanes as a threat to a very
> > > lucrative business: building parts for old airplanes.
> >
> > So, those old planes would no longer need to be fixed?
>
> They would be more likely to be scrapped.

How much of Beech/Raytheon revenue is new A36's and how much is parts for
V35's going back 50 or more years?

[Dan Luke]

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote:
> There's no good argument for using them in the States.

"One fuel fits all" is a great argument, IMO.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> C J Campbell wrote:
> >
> > The trouble is that the days of 100LL are numbered.
>
> But nearly all of our engines can run just fine on high-grade unleaded.
That's what
> will be in the pumps a few years from now. Diesels are popular in Europe
because
> gasoline costs four times what diesel costs. They will also be a good idea
for pilots
> who fly to places where gas is hard to get, like some parts of Canada and
Alaska. As
> long as there's something at the airport or the corner gas station that
makes an
> O-whatever work well, and that fuel isn't significantly more expensive
than diesel,
> diesels will not be common in U.S. GA aircraft.

Lead in the Hogwash: http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

[Dude]

Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.

I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
to.

One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.

Another comment was from a municipal airport who said he never got
complaints about noise from the jets, just the piston planes? They will not
take any more GA tenants, and though they are building new T hangers, the
old ones are being knocked down even though they are still in demand.



"Dude" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message ...
> >
> >
> > Dude wrote:
> >
> > > Our ability to keep the majors (and the ever increasing threat from
> bizjets)
> > > from punting us from the skies and airports) is dependent on our
ability
> to
> > > keep the piston friendly FBO's and flight schools in business.
> > >
> >
> > I don't agree with that at all.
> >
> > 1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most
> airports that
> > you would likely want to use.
> >
>
> Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
> tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
> bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
> irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support
"limited"
> piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of
jet
> owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
> been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.
>
> > 2. If the runway is 5,000 feet, or longer, the biz jets might want to
> share the
> > airport with you, but they wouldn't push you out and, instead, might get
> you an
> > ILS or some similar goodie that wouldn't have come around with a few
> "Cubs"
> > parked at the airport.
>
> Or, you may no longer have your hangar. Until recently, the closest GA
> friendly field was 25 minutes from my home. Now its 45. All of those
> fields sell more Jet A than Avgas. The fields that are short and get less
> jet traffic are dying at a rate of 1 every two years to developers. Doomed
> if you are long, and doomed if you are short.
>
> The vast number of the people who can afford and get convenience from a
> small piston plane now have to drive farther than they do to get to the
two
> big airports. When the next vote comes up to close a small field, none of
> them will care.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Ben Jackson]

In article >,
Jeremy Lew > wrote:
>Why is it, then, that AOPA is crowing about the record number of members?

Since they send out annual renewals starting about 4 months into the
year they might have counted a few people twice. From what I can tell
they spent about my entire membership fee sending me renewal notices.
I'm going to save them the trouble by letting my membership lapse.

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

[Thomas Borchert]

> 1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
> you would likely want to use.
>

Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

G.R.,

> Diesels are popular in Europe because
> gasoline costs four times what diesel costs.
>

Two to three times. But still...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Dude,

> The Centurion could, if well supported, and up to its marketing, replace
> about every engine in the 140 to 180 HP range.
>

IMHO, the Centurion 1.7 simply is lacking the necessary power. 135 HP is
not enough. The sma design has its problems, namely weight, size and
price. But Thielert has seen the light: A V8, 300-HP version is in the
works for 2006, and a 6-cylinder around-200-HP version is at least
rumoured about.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

>
>
> Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the GA
> tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
> bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
> irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support "limited"
> piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of jet
> owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press has
> been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking GA.

I separated "airlines" from "biz jets." Apparently, you don't see the
difference.

[[email protected]]

Dude wrote:

> Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.
>
> I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be noted,
> and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever they
> want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I talk
> to.
>
> One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's" around
> as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep other
> business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of their
> tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The school
> was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.
>

I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Sure, the biz jet crowd wants a
nice, upscale FBO. So, isn't that the American Way? Also, if the airport has
any federal grant money in it, the fair use conditions are beyond the control of
the airport manager.

My home field, KCRQ, was extensive light aircraft and biz jet operations. In
fact, it also has several commuter flights a day. It all seems to work quite
well and has for many years.

I will concede that the primary noise complaints come from light aircraft pilots
who fail to maintain altitude on downwind leg, something the biz jet pilots
avoid doing.

[[email protected]]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> > 1. The majors, as obnoxious as they are, aren't interested in most airports that
> > you would likely want to use.
> >
>
> Ah, but they are interested in the same infrastructure we use - VORs, Approaches
> et cetera. Haven't you heard the comments by that Northwest Airlines boss?

So, what's your point? If it weren't for the airlines the common-use en route
structure and facilities would likely not exist at all, at least not in their present
robust form.

I don't know about your part of the world, but in the U.S. far more RNAV approaches
have been placed into service for non-air carrier airports than for air carrier
airports.

The guy at Northworst is a big mouth. But, he doesn't set national policy and his
influence wanes rapidly except for the airports where his airline has a major
presence.

[Thomas Borchert]

> The guy at Northworst is a big mouth.
>

We're on the same page there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> This could be overcome by new engines, but no one seems to want to buy or
> support a new engine design in the certified world.

There are at least three new designs that have either obtained certification in the
last few years or are in various stages of being certified. Lycoming was involved in
one (a diesel), but I'm not sure they are still involved. I like the looks of the
Honda best myself, but it's a few years from certification. Porsche even made a stab
at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support
your argument in that few people bought them, though.

On the other hand, Maule was working on adapting the SMA diesel to their aircraft
before the company actually got certification for the engine. Although Cessna and
Piper probably won't move fast, I'm sure that companies like Lancair will start using
other engines if they display particular advantages over existing ones.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dude wrote:
>
> 100LL is not necessarily going away, but its possible that when it does, it
> will go quickly.

Oh, it will. According to the speaker at a seminar on gasoline at Oshkosh a few years
ago, there is currently only one plant making tetraethyl lead. It's in Britain. They
have announced that they will be closing down within eight years due to a decreasing
market and the age of their equipment. I would expect that, if it is uneconomical for
that company to upgrade their equipment, it will not be economical for any other firm
to build a new plant and enter the market. Maybe the Chinese could, however.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Stefan]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> Porsche even made a stab
> at it about ten years ago. They're still supporting them. The sales records support
> your argument in that few people bought them, though.

This article tries to explain the disaster.
http://www.seqair.com/Other/PFM/PorschePFM.html
I don't know whether it's wisdom or hogwash.

Stefan

[Russell Kent]

George Patterson > wrote:
> Do a comparison of the diesel and gas Maules. The diesel costs more,
True.

> is slower (due to cooling drag),
It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is higher
cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines
because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and less
chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their
cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's.

> and carries less weight (the engine weighs more).
True.

Russell Kent

[G.R. Patterson III]

Russell Kent wrote:
>
> It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is higher
> cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines
> because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and less
> chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their
> cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's.

Well, they don't. They have a higher compression ratio, and that produces heat. The
SMA diesel is air-cooled, it produces more waste heat than an IO-540, and there's
more cooling drag than with an IO-540.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Russell Kent wrote:
> >
> > It may be slower, but it doesn't "ring true" to me that the cause is
higher
> > cooling drag. Diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines
> > because they extract more of the chemical energy as useful work, and
less
> > chemical energy is converted to waste heat. With less waste heat, their
> > cooling drag should be *less* than a gasoline engine's.
>
> Well, they don't. They have a higher compression ratio, and that produces
heat. The
> SMA diesel is air-cooled, it produces more waste heat than an IO-540, and
there's
> more cooling drag than with an IO-540.
>
Aren't they also heavier, i.e., pound of engine weight per HP generated?

[Mike Schumann]

I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?

Mike Schumann

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dan,
>
> In Europe, the Diesel is a total winner.
>
> As for the other things, IMHO it really depends on the mission. I see
> the DA40 showing up at more and more FBOs in the US. I can't see any
> negatives comparing them to a new 172 - and a lot of positives. IMHO, a
> creating a new 172/Archer makes a lot of sense, since both leave a lot
> to be desired - speed among them. Even if you only think of the Star as
> a 172 that's 20 knots faster, you stilll have a winner. And that
> doesn't take into account how well it flies and the great visibility.
>
> The amazing thing to me is that the SR20, similarly equipped, is just
> 10 or 15k more expensive. IMHO, you get a whole lot more airplane for
> that money. But then, for Europe, they don't have the right engine for
> the SR20 - and according to Cirrus, none is in sight, either.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[C J Campbell]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
> What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?

I believe it is 100%.

[C J Campbell]

"Ray Andraka" > wrote in message
...
> Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being
tested at
> Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier
airports
> around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on
the
> ground.

The G-1000 has a "squitter," (Is that the right term? Someone help me out
here...) a device that replies to Mode S queries from radar while on the
ground. It can also be manually switched to Mode A or C on the ground by
pushing a single button.

[Mike Schumann]

Somehow, looking at the Thiert web site, it doesn't look like they are
selling very many engines yet.

Mike Schumann

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
> > What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?
>
> I believe it is 100%.
>
>

[Dude]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>
> > Let me add that the bizjet guys get WHATEVER they want at these FBO's.
> >
> > I am NOT kidding. If they complain about piston traffic, it will be
noted,
> > and something may change. Some FBO's simply give these guys whatever
they
> > want, Period. I have heard it from the FBO and airport managers that I
talk
> > to.
> >
> > One comment was that the biz jet crowd did not want any "looky lou's"
around
> > as they came and went. This FBO leased the surrounding land to keep
other
> > business from being too close, as well as started to harrass one of
their
> > tenants, a flight school, about the foot traffic on the ramp. The
school
> > was locked out in an attempt to get them to leave their lease.
> >
>
> I didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Sure, the biz jet crowd
wants a
> nice, upscale FBO. So, isn't that the American Way? Also, if the airport
has
> any federal grant money in it, the fair use conditions are beyond the
control of
> the airport manager.

Ya, right. Lets's see. You can't get a hangar, you can't get a tie down,
your parking area at the FBO is over Yonder, yes sir, we have avgas at $4.50
a gallon, shall we top it off for you? Yes, well since the flight school
was closed due to noise complaints, we don't sell much avgas, so we charge a
lot for the few folks left becuase the truck still costs the same. Yes sir,
the field on the other side of town does have it for half that price, I
tell everyone they should buy it there.

Fair use my ...

Don't depend on that to support you.

> My home field, KCRQ, was extensive light aircraft and biz jet operations.
In
> fact, it also has several commuter flights a day. It all seems to work
quite
> well and has for many years.
>

I am happy for you, I will try to talk my wife into moving so we can join
you. Seriously, I know lots of airports just like that, but I also know
many others where the fights are just beginning to boil. I think the stakes
are higher near metro areas where land is more valuable.

> I will concede that the primary noise complaints come from light aircraft
pilots
> who fail to maintain altitude on downwind leg, something the biz jet
pilots
> avoid doing.
>

You may be correct, I always thought it was the amount of time they spent
overhead. You can't hear a piston plane inside your house, but even when you
can here a jet inside, its quick. Sometimes a small plane can buzz around
for a while getting a picture or something, and even bother me.

[Dude]

> wrote in message ...
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Not so, my closest airport just announced plans to kick almost half the
GA
> > tenants off the field to make the airlines happy. The cities want the
> > bizjets and the airlines because they see the revenue. We are just an
> > irritation. One local municipal has made a commitment to support
"limited"
> > piston GA activity because someone persuasive pointed out that a lot of
jet
> > owners and wealthy home owners also had prop planes. Also, the press
has
> > been full of majors, and the politicians they have lobbied, attacking
GA.
>
> I separated "airlines" from "biz jets." Apparently, you don't see the
> difference.
>


After your snipping, and your short response, I don't understand what you
are getting at here.

[Dude]

Ahh, but they, Thielert, have no plans to support the engine in the US (
nor does Superior). They think the plane manufacturers should do this.
Textron is delighted, as this will mean that they can continue to control
the business that has the best chance of defeating them. Diamond has
decided to offer Lycoming engines as an alternate for the Twin Star (which
must really please Textron)

btw- It's enough horsepower for the skyhawk and cherokee planes.

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> > The Centurion could, if well supported, and up to its marketing, replace
> > about every engine in the 140 to 180 HP range.
> >
>
> IMHO, the Centurion 1.7 simply is lacking the necessary power. 135 HP is
> not enough. The sma design has its problems, namely weight, size and
> price. But Thielert has seen the light: A V8, 300-HP version is in the
> works for 2006, and a 6-cylinder around-200-HP version is at least
> rumoured about.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Thomas Borchert]

Dude,

> Diamond has
> decided to offer Lycoming engines as an alternate for the Twin Star (which
> must really please Textron)
>

Diamond has been bitten before when introducing a new engine to the US
market, the Rotax. So they're careful. The US market is strongly in the grip
of what I like to call "pilot inertia", as evident here in the group. "We've
always done it that way, so we'll keep doing it that way" is strong in the
pilot community. Also, a large part of the Twin Star market in the US is the
training market - and that market simply won't accept one-lever operation,
since it doesn't train for the real world of twin ops.

> btw- It's enough horsepower for the skyhawk and cherokee planes.
>

Well, yes, kind of, at least in the case of the Cherokee. We have a
commercial Thielert-172 operator at my home field doing sightseeing flights
and such - he absolutely LOVES it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
> What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?
>

It is not offered in the US. Simple as that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> it doesn't look like they are
> selling very many engines yet.
>

Define "very many" in the GA market.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Stefan]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

>>Diamond has
>>decided to offer Lycoming engines as an alternate for the Twin Star (which
>>must really please Textron)

> Diamond has been bitten before when introducing a new engine to the US
> market, the Rotax. So they're careful.

It's not only this.

First, as you've mentioned, the Thielert engine has not very much power.
So there is still a demand for the stronger Lycoming engine.

Second, Diamond is well aware that the first buyers of the Thielert
engine are beta testers. They have never made a secret out of this. So
they decided to sell the Diesel version only near their factory until
they have collected enough experience. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Stefan

[G.R. Patterson III]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> Aren't they also heavier, i.e., pound of engine weight per HP generated?

Every one of which I've read is heavier than an equivalent gas engine, especially
with all the accessories installed. Since some of the new diesel designs are
2-stroke, and most gas engines are 4-stroke, though, some of the newer ones may
actually come in lighter than the equivalent gasoline engine (if they ever make it to
production).

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[Dave Butler]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
>>Aren't they also heavier, i.e., pound of engine weight per HP generated?
>
> Every one of which I've read is heavier than an equivalent gas engine, especially
> with all the accessories installed. Since some of the new diesel designs are
> 2-stroke, and most gas engines are 4-stroke, though, some of the newer ones may
> actually come in lighter than the equivalent gasoline engine (if they ever make it to
> production).

Help me out here.

Why "especially with all the accessories installed"?

Why is a 2-stroke cycle engine lighter than a 4-stroke?

Thanks.

Dave

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave Butler wrote:
>
> Why "especially with all the accessories installed"?

The injection system tends to be more complex and heavier than gasoline models or
carburettors. This is because the injectors spray fuel directly into the cylinder
rather than into a section of the intake manifold. Many diesels handle the higher
CHTs by using water cooling systems, and those add weight (Lycoming was working on
one of these a few years ago). On the other hand, the glow plug systems used for
starting tend to be lighter than the magnetos used in gas engines.

The main cause of the weight difference is still the fact that everything must be
beefed up to handle the higher compression, though.

> Why is a 2-stroke cycle engine lighter than a 4-stroke?

There are twice as many power pulses per minute with a 2-stroke. They usually are not
as efficient as a 4-stroke, so you don't get twice as much power, but they will
easily produce 1.6 times the power of a 4-stroke the same size, and most do better
than that. So a 200hp 2-stroke engine is smaller than a 200hp 4-stroke engine. In
addition, 2-strokes don't have a valve train, which saves some weight.

George Patterson
In Idaho, tossing a rattlesnake into a crowded room is felony assault.
In Tennessee, it's evangelism.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Dude,
>
> > Diamond has
> > decided to offer Lycoming engines as an alternate for the Twin Star
(which
> > must really please Textron)
> >
>
> Diamond has been bitten before when introducing a new engine to the US
> market, the Rotax. So they're careful. The US market is strongly in the
grip
> of what I like to call "pilot inertia", as evident here in the group.
"We've
> always done it that way, so we'll keep doing it that way" is strong in the
> pilot community.

The US pilot community is that way for a reason. The performance of the
Rotax was miserable. Embry-Riddle ended up getting rid of all their Katanas
because of it.

[C J Campbell]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
> > What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?
> >
>
> It is not offered in the US. Simple as that.

It is not certified here, either.

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> The US pilot community is that way for a reason.

Well, sometimes yes, sometimes no.

> The performance of the
> Rotax was miserable. Embry-Riddle ended up getting rid of all their Katanas
> because of it.
>

Then it may have been miserable for their mission (Prescott, AZ, anyone?).
But that doesn't mean it was unsuitable for others.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

G.R.,

> . Since some of the new diesel designs are
> 2-stroke, and most gas engines are 4-stroke,
>

None of those certified or close to certification are 2-stroke. And all
the Thielert engines are very close to the Avgas engines they replace,
weightwise.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

C,

> > It is not offered in the US. Simple as that.
>
> It is not certified here, either.
>

Don't be a smarta.. Why certify something that isn't sold?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Pete]

> Why "especially with all the accessories installed"?

-heavier high-pressure fuel pumps, lines etc which are not needed on gas
engines.
-on two strokes you need a supercharger to get them started.

> Why is a 2-stroke cycle engine lighter than a 4-stroke?
-less stuff: with twice the power strokes per piston, one needs fewer
pistons and all associated stuff. For example the three cylinder Wilksch is
as smooth as a six cyl gas engine http://www.wilksch.com/

If only they could be lighter :-)

Cheers & blue skies,

Pete

Europa Builder A239 dual-wing

http://europa.zutrasoft.com



"Dave Butler" > wrote in message
...
> G.R. Patterson III wrote:
> >
> >>Aren't they also heavier, i.e., pound of engine weight per HP generated?
> >
> > Every one of which I've read is heavier than an equivalent gas engine,
especially
> > with all the accessories installed. Since some of the new diesel designs
are
> > 2-stroke, and most gas engines are 4-stroke, though, some of the newer
ones may
> > actually come in lighter than the equivalent gasoline engine (if they
ever make it to
> > production).
>
> Help me out here.
>
> Why "especially with all the accessories installed"?
>
> Why is a 2-stroke cycle engine lighter than a 4-stroke?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dave
>

[Mike Schumann]

It is really frustrating, as a consumer, to see cars and planes sold abroad
with the latest technology, getting 30% better fuel economy, and the same
products are not available here, because the manufacturers have the attitude
that US consumers don't care about fuel efficiency.

When you look at the increased range and payload possible with the DA40 with
a diesel engine, due to its significantly lower fuel consumption, you'd be
crazy to buy anything but a diesel, unless there are issues with the newness
of the engine.

Mike Schumann

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
> > I'm surprised there isn't more interest in the diesel version in the US.
> > What percentage of DA40s sold in Europe are diesel vs. gas?
> >
>
> It is not offered in the US. Simple as that.
>
> --
> Thomas Borchert (EDDH)
>

[Dude]

Was it the performance, or the lack of any idea how to fix the things, or
the amount of scheduled and non scheduled downtime?



"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Dude,
> >
> > > Diamond has
> > > decided to offer Lycoming engines as an alternate for the Twin Star
> (which
> > > must really please Textron)
> > >
> >
> > Diamond has been bitten before when introducing a new engine to the US
> > market, the Rotax. So they're careful. The US market is strongly in the
> grip
> > of what I like to call "pilot inertia", as evident here in the group.
> "We've
> > always done it that way, so we'll keep doing it that way" is strong in
the
> > pilot community.
>
> The US pilot community is that way for a reason. The performance of the
> Rotax was miserable. Embry-Riddle ended up getting rid of all their
Katanas
> because of it.
>
>

[Dude]

> When you look at the increased range and payload possible with the DA40
with
> a diesel engine, due to its significantly lower fuel consumption, you'd be
> crazy to buy anything but a diesel, unless there are issues with the
newness
> of the engine.
>

Exactly, the problem. In addition , the American market has been less
forgiving and experimental than the european market. I don't know why. But
that seems to be the belief of the manufacturers.

The margins are low, and the risks are high, and so less chances will be
taken here than over there.

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> because the manufacturers have the attitude
> that US consumers don't care about fuel efficiency.

Is it the attitude of the manufacturers or that of the majority of the
consumers?

> unless there are issues with the newness
> of the engine.
>

There are issues - as with anything new. Nothing deal-breaking, though, AFAIK.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[C J Campbell]

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Was it the performance, or the lack of any idea how to fix the things, or
> the amount of scheduled and non scheduled downtime?
>

I understood it was both.

[Malcolm Teas]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> > DA20. Pretty impressive.
>
> Actually, there is one fatal for the DA 20.

That was a DA20 Katana with the Rotax engine. I fly out of Leesburg,
and based on informal discussions there and when I was taking
ultralight lessons, it seems that the Rotax has a tendency to carb ice
easily. That might be the unexplained reason.

I fly a DA20 Eclipse (rent), it has a Continental and is very nice,
albeit a little snug for 6' 3" pilot.

-Malcolm Teas

[Malcolm Teas]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> > DA20. Pretty impressive.
>
> Actually, there is one fatal for the DA 20.

That was a DA20 Katana with the Rotax engine. I fly out of Leesburg,
and based on informal discussions there and when I was taking
ultralight lessons, it seems that the Rotax has a tendency to carb ice
easily. That might be the unexplained reason.

I fly a DA20 Eclipse (rent), it has a Continental and is very nice,
albeit a little snug for 6' 3" pilot.

-Malcolm Teas

[Malcolm Teas]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message >...
> "Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
> ...
> > C,
> >
> > > I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
> > DA20. Pretty impressive.
>
> Actually, there is one fatal for the DA 20.

That was a DA20 Katana with the Rotax engine. I fly out of Leesburg,
and based on informal discussions there and when I was taking
ultralight lessons, it seems that the Rotax has a tendency to carb ice
easily. That might be the unexplained reason.

I fly a DA20 Eclipse (rent), it has a Continental and is very nice,
albeit a little snug for 6' 3" pilot.

-Malcolm Teas