Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

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 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

"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,

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)

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 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.

"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

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

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.

"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?