Canard Community Forum  

Go Back   Canard Community Forum > FLYING INFO AND STORIES > Pre Canard Flying Flying Stories and Questions
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-23-2007, 07:48 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default Some pictures of Diamond DA-40 -flying

Hi,

I have collected some pictures of two flying days during the winter here:

http://www.katix.org/gallery2/main.p...g2_itemId=4918

We were again flying yesterday, but I haven't uploaded the images yet.

Best Wishes,
Karoliina
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-24-2007, 07:31 AM
WileEZ's Avatar
WileEZ WileEZ is offline
No Freaking Clue!
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 56
Default

Cool looking plane! Looks like it glides very well with those long wings!

How did the diesel engine perform and what is the power rating?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-24-2007, 09:08 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

99 KW / 135 HP, rated 100% cruise power, and because it's a turbo you get 100% to around 10.000 ft.

Gliding is, so so, about 10:1

I've spent the last 2 months riding the DA40D (35 hrs pic, 35 hrs co) with std. instruments (no G1000, gladly, don't like it very much, have to put up with it in the DA42 now)

engines won't make the thielert advertised 750 hrs or so, we had to replace the engines in out fleet at around 500-600 hrs max, as oil consumption went up to around a liter an hour (!!!), whereas is should be around 0.1 liter / hr.
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-24-2007, 06:36 PM
--D-- --D-- is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: TX
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by karoliina View Post
I have collected some pictures of two flying days during the winter here:
Great pics, Karoliina. Must by my thin Texas blood... because I was shivvverrring by the time I looked through all of them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
engines won't make the thielert advertised 750 hrs or so, we had to replace the engines in out fleet at around 500-600 hrs max, as oil consumption went up to around a liter an hour (!!!), whereas is should be around 0.1 liter / hr.
Ouch!!! That's TBR and not TBO, right? Last I heard they weren't overhauling the Thielerts (Centurion, at least). I guess it's a good thing you're saving so much on fuel, huh? That way you'll at least be able to afford the down payment for the maintenance.

Any idea what part of the engine is packing it in first?

D
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-25-2007, 02:01 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

TBGNFE (Time between getting a new f***in engine) is around 600 hrs. i have to admit, these engines are not build or designed as school engines. run it 10 hrs straight at 75% they don't care. run em 10 hrs in IFR training shooting approaches and engine failures and stuff all the time, giving them 100%, 0%, 10%, 100%, 70% and so on all day long, they won't even make the 600hrs.


afaik thielert does an engine overhaul now, that's wahy we had to wait 2 weeks fpr a new engine, ad theiy didn't have any "old" ones to revise at that time.
as we figure it's the turbo that starts sucking oil as a first. then you get pistoni rings loosing it. somewhere along the road you might then have a head fail. but as the turbo sucks oils as a beginning, its a really good warning indicator
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-25-2007, 04:27 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

It depends on the generation of the engine.
The older generations had some problems that were corrected by Thielert replacing the engine block - all new engine designs have bugs and that is why I would be really concerned about the many 1st generation engines from little companies that don't get longer than that in generations. On the newest generation Centurion 1.7 engine our flying club has had not. The diesel Cessna 172 in our flying club is used for training, the Diamond however, is not used for training - what challenges the new pilots then would have if they would fly the very easy plane from the beginning
The yearly collected number of hours for the C172 is pretty high and the support from Thielert has been so far excellent.
Despite if you would face some problems, Thielert is a rare company that will come and replace the engine for you. And the auto conversion Centurion 1.7 is no longer available
and Thielert is selling only the 2.0 that has their own engine block which hopefully is free of these problems.
Isn't it nice if you can all the time fly with a new engine at Thielert's expense? In that light, I wouldn't hesitate installing it on experimental aircraft,
provided the support would be equal. However, it is not equal and the engines aren't sold for experimental aircraft however.
I think Thielert is one of the rare engine companies that can solve the challenging issues there are always in new engine development.
I would bet that eventually is will become a new Lycoming - a new de-facto standard everybody uses. Gasoline engines are really at the end of their
life, the market is small and there is no room for too many different big companies, and I am pretty confident that Thielert will be there, so
IMHO Thielert has the most ingredients for that of all the companies making new engine development currently.
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-25-2007, 07:04 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

the auto conversion is no longer available ... so they just stuck the 2.0 in our DA40D ? can't believe that, honestly ...

we still have the 1.7 engine. and is has just been exchanged 2 weeks ago. it's surely not a generation problem, as we fly 2x DA40D and 2x DA42, all with the 1.7 thielert, and they ALL have had the same oil com sumption problems. our school puts around 1000-1400 hrs on each aircraft per year. so they are heavily used, and we've so far had about every problem you can have with these babies, including an autopilot fire last monday in a DA 42.

thielert is an ok company, but they are not good samaritians, no matter what. they gave our mechanics here B/S for a week because they couldn't come up with a overhauled engine when ours hat the >1Liter/hour oil consumtion. After that week, miraculously, they concluded that the engine had to be exchanged and that they JUST finished a overhauled on, shippable immediately.

So yes, I really like the engines, I'm just telling it the way I have experienced it during the last year. the way karoliina talks about these engines one could think they pay her
sorry karoliina, but not every environmental innovation is neccessarily the best. as long as reliabilty doesn't get better and the TBR get longer, thielert still has a long way to go, in my perspective.
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-25-2007, 11:34 AM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

Well, about the reasons, while the environmental point is important, the reason for using diesel in Europe is more like economical.

Diesels have:
- lower specific fuel consumption
- the JET-A1 is cheap and 100LL AVGAS is extremely expensive

So the fuel cost per hour on Diesel DA-40D is about 25 USD.
The fuel cost on the other hand on O-360 is: 80 USD (DA-40-180, Cozy, whatever).

So with gasoline engine aircraft the price is just so high that flying on the long term becomes hard to afford for someone doing R&D job rather than being a top executive of some large company. So if you think 80 USD per hour fuel cost and think that average flying would be 200 hours per year per person in household. It makes 200*80*2 = 32000 for fuels alone per year on the 100LL and 10000 USD on a diesel aircraft running JET-A1 and burning less fuel. The difference gets narrower when other expenses are taken into account, but still, the difference is _HUGE_. Of course this difference would get narrower with a O-320 with lesser consumption but still the premium for using the 100LL is way too high, it is really overpriced stuff and its availability is gradually getting worse, refueling points are removed because of lack of customers buying that super-expensive stuff. This price difference comes from the fact that in here the taxation of general aviation that is only planned for USA is already in place.
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-25-2007, 01:05 PM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

ok, i didn't say i don't like diesel. if you read some of my posts you might find that i am an aboslute aero diesel enthusiast. im just saying it's not all gold just cuz it sparkles.

maybe you just got me wrong here. I'd love to have a diesel on my future A/C, but it better be a reliable machine. I've hat 2 power losses in the DA40, with different engines (replacement engines) each time close to 600 hrs. power went down to around 40%, which just doesn't give you a nice warm feeling when you're full IMC over some 9000ft high mountains.

get it ? diesel yes, thielert, yes please but they have to work in reliability and TBR times.
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-25-2007, 04:34 PM
karoliina's Avatar
karoliina karoliina is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Finland
Posts: 417
Default

Yeah, got it.

IMC over mountains with 40% power might not be fun.. I am happy that nothing more serious happened - that could have ended in tears.

In Finland, the air tube of turbo was improperly assembled back on service/maintenance on one Cessna (it wasn't fastened, an error in the (certified & Thielert authorized) maintenance company) and it broke in takeoff which resulted immediate quitting of the engine. Better to check the engine after the plane comes back from maintenance... The pilot survived but the plane (C172) was totalled, he did a forced landing after the end of the runway and subsequently flipped over.
__________________
http://www.karoliinasalminen.com/blog
DISCLAIMER: This message was written in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
--- Plans #000 at concepting stage ---
JAA-PPL(A) with NF & RT/E, UPL. WT9-Dynamic, TL-96 Star, Zephyr 2000, C152, C172 (& waiting the crashed diesel planes to get fixed )
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2007, 04:30 AM
--D-- --D-- is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: TX
Posts: 113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
TBGNFE
Good one, Leon. I'm going to put that in my airframe logbook when I finally replace my O-200.

Since Karoliina has graciously allowed us to hijack her picture thread and turn it into an A&P discussion on Diamond aircraft and Thielert engines , I'm curious about what you two Diamond/Thielert drivers think of the DA-42 crash in Germany last month.

They reportedly had a dual engine failure after liftoff when they went to retract the gear. ??? Sounds like battery the was bad (they started the engines w/ ground power... which is against standard op procedure per the report I read) and they lost all electrical power as soon as the retract motors engaged. Bad day.

Thielert blames it on Diamond ("an airframe issue" ... whatever that means) and Diamond blames it on Thielert ("and engine issue").

I suppose it isn't uncommon for an engine to quit if electrical goes south (our Rotax 914 won't run without the electric fuel pumps). Just wondering what the electrical dependency is on these engines and what, if anything, you've been instructed to do different in your normal/everyday use of the Diamond/Thielert in response to the accident.

Care to wager on who is going to get saddled with the blame?

D
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2007, 07:01 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

of course, as two of my colleagues just hat the same problem today. but they didn't take off, for the reasons given.

firstly, the POH clearly states that unter IFR operations TakeOff is prohibited if the battery is dead or empty and the A/C has been startet with external power. Under VFR you are allowed to do that, but I wouldn't.

The gear is hydraulically operated, but the pump is electric.
The engines MUST have electricity, as the ECU's have to run on Power, as well as the injectors, injection pumps, and actually the complete engine NEEDS electricity, just as it needs JET-A.

The "problem" with the DA42 is, it only hat ONE main battery, opposed to the TWO batteries in the DA40. This is due to the fact that it has two engines and two alternators.
Also die DA42 has one emergency battery which is there soley for the purpose of running the backup horizon and the glowstrip.
Besides that is has 2x2 excitation batteries for the alternators. (i never trust backup batteries that I can't read voltage form because I cant find the gauge or there isn't one.)

Ok so, here's the deal. They started the engine on EX-PO, taxied to the RWY and took off. as they retracted the gear, it seems like the hydr. pump took to much initial current or something, so the alternators quit (this is just speculation from my side) their job. They are both approved to 60 AMPS burst power, but apparently that wasn't enough. Running the Engines plus G100, charging the batteries, running all the lights AND retracting the gear. As the battery couldn't provide any "buffer" as capacitator does in High end car HiFi systems (just an analogy) the whole electrical system failed.

no electricity -> no engine -> no engine -> no thrust -> no thrust -> HTGH (hit the ground hard)

after takeoff you are normally somewhere around 78-82 knots (which is Vy, no Vx published). So imagine, you take off, retract the gear and both engines stop. all instruments dead in an instant. what do you do. right ... down. crap.

realisation usually takes around 1-3 seconds. (meaning that airspeed after that point will be somewhere around 72-70 kts) then there's the 1 second denial phase "naah, can't be" and then you start to take action (medical research they showed us at Airlineschool, differs from person to person, but thats the average)

so there you are around 65 knots. Vmca is 68. you go bye bye.

poor people on that plane.

this is my personal interpretation of the problem. please do not use this in any way.
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2007, 10:22 AM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

Update:

I just read the crash report, and it was as I suspected. empty battery, all electrics running off the two alternators, each 60 amps.
the hydr. pump has an initial power surge of around 160-200 amps, and voila, without the battery buffering the peak amps, instant dual engine failure. if you cut the ECU's from power, the automatically put the props into full feather. and that's what happened. nobody got killed, they "landed" at the end of the runway. don't know how many ALS the ran over though ...
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2007, 01:40 PM
JonC's Avatar
JonC JonC is offline
LEz - N555LE Q - N555QA
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Mountain View, CA
Posts: 997
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leon View Post
so there you are around 65 knots. Vmca is 68. you go bye bye.
Actually you wouldnt have an issue as both engines are dead. Vmca is your single engine minimum control airspeed (critical engine dead). If both are dead Vmca is no-longer in the equation as you are not having to counteract the center of thrust being way out on one wing. You are only worried about Vs.
__________________
~Nathan
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2007, 02:00 PM
Leon Leon is offline
slightly crazy
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Austria
Posts: 381
Default

hm, correct, but i somehow thought that vmca also gives me the minimum speed i need o keep directional control. forgot about the OEI criteria. ooops
__________________
-- future insane homebuilder --
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.