Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

"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?

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.

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)

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)

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?

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)