Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

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.

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.

The guy at Northworst is a big mouth.


We're on the same page there.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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.

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:

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

In article , "C J Campbell"
writes:

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?

Yes, but the cry of Wolf Wolf Wolf etc. makes it easy to egnore the real
warning when and if it cones.

Chuck

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?