Diamond DA-42

"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
news:aydob.62964$HS4.558161@attbi_s01...
In article ,
Paul Sengupta wrote:
The flight tests in the UK magazines say it's a fabulous aircraft
for personal transport, but it may not make such a good twin
trainer

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

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

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

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

Mike
MU-2

Mike,

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


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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

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

Peter,

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


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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

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


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Peter,

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


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

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

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

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

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

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

Cary


In article ,
"G.Vassalli" wrote:

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

Joe



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

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

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

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

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

Pete

In article ,
"Peter Duniho" wrote:

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

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

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

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