21st Century High Tech vs Old School Keep it Simple

[Joe LaMantia]

I just finished reading the feature article in the August issue of AOPA Pilot on the new Diamond twin DA42-VI. This is a very 21st Century aircraft based on DA 42 NG, composite airframe, t-tail, new diesel engines from Austria, called Austro AE300 derived from a Mercedes-Benz auto engine. It comes with the Garmin G1000 panel, leather, A/C and such. Now the Pros for this aircraft are it's simplicity of operation. The engines are FEDAC, you select your flight configuration either fuel efficiency, or speed and then start the engines just like your car. Type in your flight plan and cruising altitude, set-up the auto-pilot and get your clearances. The main job of the pilot after take-off is to monitor your progress and communicate with ATC. While this is a very efficient way to fly, more precise and probably safer it seems kinda boring to me. Since it's diesel powered it will run on Jet-A so no future 100LL type issue. Another plus in the fuel area is it's low fuel consumption, less then 10 gal/hr total (both engines) at 55% economy cruise, 144Kts. The engines are automated to the point that prop pitch is set for optimum performance without any pilot input other then the selection of performance efficiency desired.
OK, here's some down sides, the base price is $731K and the one you want is $938K! This is for a 4 place light twin with 168 hp engines, 1200ft/min climb rate at sea level, GTW 4189 lbs and 52 gals of fuel.

Since I fly a '58 TriPacer I'm not in the market for this kinda aircraft, but it really does have some kool pluses. Those of you building RV's and such ever look at FEDAC engines or these high tech diesels?
I thought this might make for an interesting topic, but keep in mind i'm not looking for a rant about Sport Aviation, this was in AOPA Pilot.

Joe

[Bill Greenwood]

$938,000 for a funny looking plane that smells like a diesel garbage truck, and likely won't outrun or outclimb my '88 Bonanza, and even has less seats. That doesn't sound like a compelling deal to me. And how much do you think the depreciation will be the first few year?
For $938K, you could buy a nice house here Boulder, and a good proven conventional airplane like a used Mooney or Bonanza or even something that is fun, like a T-6 and have a little left over to buy a Mercedes engine contained in a good car.
And I need a "Fadec" engine about like I need a machine to decide what tv channel I should watch. Moving a prop lever about 2 or 3 times per flight is not too much of a burden for me, and not doing it doesn't seem like a bonus. I have not flown a Diamond twin, but I have flown the Da 40, and as for a new and different and better, well it sure is different.

I have respect for Mercedes engineering, if money is no object, just as I have for Porsche, but some years back Mooney came out with a new model with a Porsche engine; only problem is few people wanted to buy one.

[Joe LaMantia]

Well said Bill, spoken like a true EAA'er!

Joe

[Bill Greenwood]

I will say that the Flight School at Boulder is satisfied with the DA 20 and the DA 40 that they use. Most, not all, of the new students like to fly them, and unlike old folks like me they can figure out how to work all the tecno gimmicks on the panel. The owner is satisfied with them from a maintenance standpoint also.

Actually the 20 with the regular gages is more popular and gets more use than the one with the glass panel.

There is another twin out on the ramp here, an old Beech D18, and when I drive up to the airport, that is the one that catches my eye.

I may be a bit old fashioned as my Son likes to tell me. But when I look at many of the new fighters nowadays, they don't look so great, even if they are good weapons.
They made the Spitfire in 1936 and P-51 a few years later and I don't see modern that has improved on those looks in all these years. And probably few that fly as well also.

[Skyguy]

Who can afford this thing in this day and age ?

[Flyfalcons]

Who can afford this thing in this day and age ?

A Cirrus is about the same price and they can't make them fast enough.

[Bob Dingley]

I hear you, Joe. As they say, if you haven’t tried it, don’t knock it. These new avionics are just great. And they are fast trickling down into our cockpits. My last 1K hrs as a working stiff were in one of those fancy birds with a price tag that has a few more zeros than that DA-42. ( and a lot of Honeywell in the cockpit.)

We’re both old fogeys with made up minds. I soloed a Cub in high school in 57. Owned a string of old clunkers like Champ, Luscombe, Cessna and Beach. Got my Comm SEL in a Tripacer with an Omnigator and loved every minute of it. Passed a little time in ancient P51D, T28B & A37s.

But I’ve got to say this. The Full Authority Digital Engine Controls are awesome. The black box on one motor talks to its counterpart about a ba-zillion times a second. Its always ready to jump in and help you if the other engine“goes rogue.” After shutdown, there’s the full history right there on screen. And the autopilots. They take such a load off when its busy. But you read the article. 21^st century is great. However, it takes about 100 hrs to get confident & proficient. That could be why a friend swings by to pick me up when he goes to Houston. He has a PA 28 with an AP with Tec in its name & a 430. I still speak a little Garmin.

Bob

[David Pavlich]

I don't see it as a VS thing more than a matter of choice. I'm sure Diamond is resting its laurels on the fact that this twin, while not a speedster like other twins, has fairly low operating costs. Yes you can put more passengers in a Bonanza, but would you run across Lake Michigan at night in a Bonanza single? Besides, my guess is that if someone can afford this twin, he or she could probably have an Aeronca parked next to it for those days that he or she wanted to put on a white scarf and go after that $100 burger. :-)

David

[miemsed]

Well when it comes to technology in our piper Cherokee-challenger, we put in a Garmin GTN 650 and STEC 30 autopilot last year. Just got IFR rating in November after 7 years VFR only. Just recently we were supposed to fly from Charleston SC to Columbia SC on July 3rd and of course the entire east coast, at least it looked that way but definitely SC was littered with thunderstorms all day. My wife really wanted to get to Columbia to see her brother so when another family member indicated they were driving to Columbia for business she rode with them and I waited until the next morning, July 4th to make the flight. The 4th of July morning at 7am finally no thunderstorms but a 400 foot solid overcast at Columbia. the lowest approach I have done in actual was the 800 feet at Easton MD during this summers flying trip from MI. Since Columbia has an LPV approach to runway 11, I departed. Was IFR for last 30 mins of flight and I ask for the full RNAV 11 approach. It was solid IFR for the entire approach and broke out on the approach at 480 msl just as I was about to go missed as mins are 436 msl and I decided I would go missed at 460. The RNAV approaches are great was lined up perfectly with the runway and right on glide slope. Just before breaking out I started to see the ALSF-2− Approach Light System with Sequenced Flashing Lights through the clouds. Having never seen the lights in actual conditions, it took me a few seconds to realize what they were. I am still amazed that it works so well. I think it is good that My wife went ahead the day before as I am not sure I would have tried my first real approach to minimums with her in the plane. It was a great learning experience and it was good to not have to deal with thunderstorms like we have for the first few weeks of our trip. The LPV approach minimums on the RNAV 11 approach are 436 feet MSL which is 200 feet above ground level. So I was about 240 feet above the ground when I broke out. Just enough time to put in remaining flaps and slow for landing.

I would not have been able the comfortably make that flight without the new technology. I love flying VFR but the new technology avl to GA has allowed us to also count on our plane for transportation as well as just for fun. I do not believe I need any more technology in the plane but am thankful for what I have.

[Joe LaMantia]

OK guys!,

In addition to the AOPA article on the DA42-VI, the next few pages cover the whole diesel engine and it's recent history. Frank is spot on regarding weight and when you get down below 150HP the weight burden cancels out the fuel savings. That article has some interesting insights on the future growth being most likely in the 3rd world and big opportunities in China and India. Here is the USA we have too many small aircraft powered by 100LL and a lot more airports. The 2nd generation diesels are aimed mostly to address overseas markets. In some parts of the world 100LL runs $22/gal vs jet-A at $8! Plus 100LL is really hard to find compared to Jet-A.

Joe