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
:cool:

[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. 21st 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

[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.

[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

[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.

[Aaron Novak]

Everything has its place. Pilots come in all forms, of all types of interest. Some people really get into the AP stuff, FADEC and the like, others want to do everything themselves. Some people have manual transmissions in their cars, others automatics. Some people are into GPS, others prefer a map. I am from the school of thought that says the simplest way to do something, with the simplest machinery, will be the most reliable....and reliability is my primary concern.

[Joe LaMantia]

OK, now this thread is getting going! Aaron has really hit my thoughts on the subject and David makes some good points. I am a old school guy having started my aviation experience as a loadmaster where we were taught to do CG shift problems with a pencil and the back side of AF form 365F, yes we had slide rules and later an on-board computer in the C-130A's, but check rides and test we're always done without any aids. I am not technology challenged and I recently bought a mini IPad which makes flying the old PA22-160 real easy. The whole idea of a FEDAC engine either 100LL or Jet A for a cross-country kit or homebuilt seems like it would be right down most EAA'ers alley.

Another thought is what happens when/if the high tech stuff fails, can a pilot switch to old school training and airmanship and save the day? Or, will the complexity of the systems just overwhelm a guy? Here's where the old KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) comes into play. Here's where David's idea of being proficient in an old Champ may save your bacon!

Bill, you forgot the old F-86 Saber which is the Jet version of the P-51, but your right, 2-seat fighters with 2 engines, don't quite stir the blood. Don't get me started on the F-117...looks like something made by folding along the dotted lines!

Joe
:cool:

[Bob Dingley]

Everything has its place. Pilots come in all forms, of all types of interest. Some people really get into the AP stuff, FADEC and the like, others want to do everything themselves. Some people have manual transmissions in their cars, others automatics. Some people are into GPS, others prefer a map. I am from the school of thought that says the simplest way to do something, with the simplest machinery, will be the most reliable....and reliability is my primary concern.


I've heard a lot about the ROTAX 912is lately. It has an Engine Management sytem to keep things simple and a redundant fuel injection system for reliability. Maintenance shoud be simpler too w/o the dual carbs. Fuel consumption is about one GPH less and that tranlates to about 15 to 20% more range in the same airframe. Kit makers are offering it for about $3,000 more.

Bob

[Bill Greenwood]

Joe, you are right about the F-86, one jet airplane that actually looks good. I am told by folks that know like Steve Hinton and Bob Hoover that they fly really well also. I have never flown one, not sure I have even sat in one. I did see a fatal accident in an 86 once that colors my thinking somewhat. I have had only one small jet flight once in a Soko, another nice looking plane.

[Bill Greenwood]

Isn't it magnificent the advances all these smart young guys come up with these days. like Fadec automatic mixture control.

Wow, that is a heck of a major step forward. I wonder if they thought it up on their own, or just copied the system that Supermarine had on the Rolls Royce Merlin in Spitfires and I assume other Merlin engines planes in 1936.

I have flown behind a Rotax, several of them. None of the ones then had Fadec.
I have flown behind a Merlin, several of them.

The Rotax was satisfactory, the Merlin was impressive, inspiring, and memorable.
The Merlin did have another type of engine managment system also; it's called a pilot.

[David Pavlich]

With all of the portable electronic equipment, even if a high tech plane like a Cirrus or the above DA42 loses its avionics, having something like the I-Fly 720, a portable radio and Dynon's diminutive D1 Pocket panel (it shows attitude, altitude and ground speed), a pilot should be able to fly to the nearest airport with little problem assuming that the pilot can live without an autopilot. The Dynon is about $1400, the I-Fly is about $700 and a portable radio is around $300. Seems to me that would be cheap insurance to have in one's flight bag.

David

[Aaron Novak]

I've heard a lot about the ROTAX 912is lately. It has an Engine Management sytem to keep things simple and a redundant fuel injection system for reliability. Maintenance shoud be simpler too w/o the dual carbs. Fuel consumption is about one GPH less and that tranlates to about 15 to 20% more range in the same airframe. Kit makers are offering it for about $3,000 more.

Bob

Bob,
I have spent more than a few hours on the development side of "modern" automotive type EFI and DFI engine management systems at an engine OEM. That being said....I do not trust them for aviation use. The more you become involved with the components on a detailed level, the less appealing they get for an application where failure is not a nice option. A system properly developed, manufactured, and controlled would be beyond the cost scope for most of the GA world, especially homebuilts.

[N222AB]

I can't help but add a couple of comments to this thread. Let me say up front that I'm hardly a technology challenged pilot. I'm an electrical engineer, now retired, and love new technology and what it will do for me. My wife and I have owned a '73 Baron for 24 years and it's still steam gauges and King digital avionics that we installed when we bought the airplane. Would I like to have the latest Garmin stuff in the panel? Of course. Would I like to have FADEC controls for the engines? Yep, if it were available. My problem with all this is that it would buy me very little, if any, utility for the airplane or fun in flying it. Yeah, I could do the LPV approach to RWY 15 at home base (FNL), but, when the weather is bad, the wind is almost never out of the south, so the ILS will do just fine, thank you, which I still fly to ATP standards. Would FADEC make my 40 year old airplane go any faster? Probably not.

I love flying the airplane. Yes, read that hand flying the airplane, even with a nice autopilot with flight director. So, if Cirrus and the others want to try to extract something just short of a million bucks from me, well, don't bother. Even if I could afford it, I wouldn't. None of this admittedly neat stuff significantly improves the utility of the airplane or how much fun it is to fly. And isn't the fun of flying why most of us are here?

[rwanttaja]

Well...there are two kinds of people who fly airplanes: Those who like the challenge of flying, and those who look on them as transportation.

I like to think of myself in the former category...which I think, most of us in EAA do. Mind you, most folks are hybrids of some sort or another...else we'd all be flying ultralights.

However, I think looking at airplanes are purely transportation is a perfectly valid attitude. If someone does, then they're actually looking at ways to *reduce* the challenges of flight; ways that technology can make their aircraft more likely to complete a trip safely. And in this day-and-age, that means *technology*.

Face it, small aircraft controls have hardly changed since the Wright brothers. We're still coordinating turns with rudder, we're still hauling back on the stick while turning to maintain altitude, we're still pushing our luck on fuel. The average smart phone has probably ten times the smarts needed to fly an airplane.

Ideally, an aircraft operator (I won't use the term "pilot") should just have three controls: A control that lets they select the direction to fly, another that selects the altitude, and a "mode switch" that lets the operator designate what he or she wants the airplane to do (take off, cruise, land, loiter, etc.). The onboard computer would take these inputs and convert them into the proper motions for the aerodynamic controls and the engine settings. No stalls, system doesn't let the operator fly further than available fuel permits, GPS ensures it stays above terrain, etc. Problem? System automatically deploys the CAPs.

Call it the "AirBus-tification" of GA.

With that, though, there'd still be room for manually-flown GA. Sailboats didn't disappear with the invention of the steam engine.

Ron Wanttaja

[Frank Giger]

Ron's right on the button, as usual, if one looks past the fact that the Wright flyer had no rudder controls (they were linked to the ailerons) and it was weight shifted for roll (do I get the Pedantic Device for my Spring Butt medal?).

The more interesting question is whether the technology is appropriate for the needs of GA aircraft.

In the personal computing world I've got a pretty beefy system at the house because I'm a combat flight sim geek, and moving virtual SPADs and Nieuports around takes a lot of ones and zeros at one time to make happen. My sister looked to me for computer advice when her incredibly ancient Pentium III system gave up the ghost.

"Anything in a big box with all the stuff included that's five hundred bucks or less," I advised, "or a new laptop on clearance."

Why? Because she looks at email once in awhile and does some casual web surfing. She doesn't need a lot of high end gear for that.

The key, I think, is to have only as much technology as is required for the mission parameters of the aircraft. My aircraft, for the troglodyte example, has no position or landing light on it. It's daytime VFR only, just like its pilot. Putting them on would have no real advantage, especially considering the additional need for generating power for them.

Another example is the Space Shuttle. Right up to its last flight the whole thing was run on some dreadful computer specs - Pentium III and IV's, RAM measured in megabytes, etc. They didn't upgrade them for a very simple reason - it worked just fine the way it was. Sure, they could have justified replacing whole systems in a few paragraphs (it's a multi-billion dollar space craft), but the truth is that it wouldn't have improved the safety or operations of it one iota.

So for me the question is what is the true benefit of expanded technology for the GA pilot (who usually is alone under daytime VFR conditions), especially when one does the cost analysis against it?

[mustangbuilder]

I am suprised that the diesel engines have not gained in popularity despite their large price tag. A more efficient fuel burn and the ability to use jet A instead of avgas are pretty compelling reasons in my book. If they gained in popularity then the concerns of parts availability and maintenance knowlege would diminish. As it is the few I've come across have had very positive reviews and company/customer support has been reportedly great. If there was a FADEC system that had a backup system that would allow you to continue a flight with no interuption after a system or component failure then I could see no reason other than cost as to why it wouldn't become mainstream. I too have a lot of experience with automotive computer systems (ignition, fuel management, and variable valve timing) and if we could begin developing these systems for our aircraft there would be a possibility that we could solve many of our issues with the phase out of the leaded avgas. There is only so much tuning one can do with an engine that was designed in the 1930's and is running a fixed magneto and a rudimentary fuel injection system or worse yet a carburetor.

I just spent my weekend at a threshing show(think old tractors and farm equipment) and I realized while working on a 1917 tractor that it wasnt much different than my Lycoming o-320. Simple carburetor, big pistons, magneto and by todays standards low power to weight weight ratio. Let's face it, modern standards in engineering and technology have not been adapted to our GA fleet and we are paying the price. Think of what it would be like to travel to a destination 300 nm away in two hours or less burning less than 8 gallons in a type certified airplane. It may sound outragous but if you look at the advances in the auto industry from the 1940's-50's to today, you would also think similar advances would have happened in the aviation world but they haven't.

[David Pavlich]

I see that Continental just bought Thielert Aircraft Engines. Diesels just might gain a bit more popularity.

David

[Frank Giger]

I will agree that certified engines are dinosaurs of technology. Hell, the Germans had fuel injection on the Me-109, and the FW-190 had automatic mixture in WWII!

I get the fixation on magnetos - if all else fails, they keep generating spark as long as the engine is turning; however, electronic ignition has been around for quite awhile and is pretty darned reliable.

The problem with diesels in GA is weight. Horse for horse they're a lot heavier than gasoline ones.

[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
:cool:

[CarlOrton]

First off, I'm using IE 10, which won't allow carriage returns on these forums, so I'm not really stupid about not breaking up the paragraph. I retired two years ago as a software manager for a very large aerospace company that makes the fighter aircraft our forces are using, have been using, and are about to start using. (nuff hints?). So let's just say I'm comfortable with technology. I still prefer to fly analog-equipped planes. Why? Because when I'm on short final, I can glance down at the airspeed, and I don't have to interpret a number - the relative position of the needle tells me if I'm too slow or not. That said, when I built my Sonex, I went with an EFIS. Why? Because when I calculated the cost of all engine instrumentation, flight instrumentation, nav, GPS, etc., the $$$ cost was more than a new MGL one-box solution. Not to mention the weight savings. And, now that I've been flying it for a year, I have to say that it's now just as intuitive as the old analog systems. And this system does FAR, FAR, more stuff than my '67 C-172H could ever do.....

[Aaron Novak]

I am suprised that the diesel engines have not gained in popularity despite their large price tag. A more efficient fuel burn and the ability to use jet A instead of avgas are pretty compelling reasons in my book. If they gained in popularity then the concerns of parts availability and maintenance knowlege would diminish. As it is the few I've come across have had very positive reviews and company/customer support has been reportedly great. If there was a FADEC system that had a backup system that would allow you to continue a flight with no interuption after a system or component failure then I could see no reason other than cost as to why it wouldn't become mainstream. I too have a lot of experience with automotive computer systems (ignition, fuel management, and variable valve timing) and if we could begin developing these systems for our aircraft there would be a possibility that we could solve many of our issues with the phase out of the leaded avgas. There is only so much tuning one can do with an engine that was designed in the 1930's and is running a fixed magneto and a rudimentary fuel injection system or worse yet a carburetor.

I just spent my weekend at a threshing show(think old tractors and farm equipment) and I realized while working on a 1917 tractor that it wasnt much different than my Lycoming o-320. Simple carburetor, big pistons, magneto and by todays standards low power to weight weight ratio. Let's face it, modern standards in engineering and technology have not been adapted to our GA fleet and we are paying the price. Think of what it would be like to travel to a destination 300 nm away in two hours or less burning less than 8 gallons in a type certified airplane. It may sound outragous but if you look at the advances in the auto industry from the 1940's-50's to today, you would also think similar advances would have happened in the aviation world but they haven't.

Quite honestly variable valve timing is not that much of an asset to a NA aviation engine as we know them. Fuel injection is a performance advantage, but not reliability from my perspective. Ignition timing....there is something there, but again an aviation engine runs such a narrow speed/load range that there is probably little to gain. Unfortunately little to nothing from the auto world translates over to how an aviation engine operates, and so is of little use other than impressing people who dont understand it.

[Bob Dingley]

I see that Continental just bought Thielert Aircraft Engines. Diesels just might gain a bit more popularity.

David
Lets peel that back David. China already owns Continental, Continental had been developing some other aerodiesels before China bought it. China plans to build up GA in China, China does NOT want to screw around with 100LL, Now add Thielart to the stable. Thielart owns some US STCs as we speak.

A decade ago,some guy landed in the Paris area and needed to top off with 100LL. None in the area. Zero. Nada. Paris airports are awash in aviation kerosene. He had to find some jerry cans and drive out to the countryside to get his 100LL. Living in the USA is great.

As for that Rotax. If you represented the FADEC technology spectum on a wall chart a yard long, the Rotax 912is would take about an inch on the left side. Its not quite up to a '98 Corolla. Still, an 18% improvement in fuel economy is nothing to sneer at. The dual carbs are gone and they remind me too much of tunning an old MG. Everyone should own an old MG at least once .Find out why Lucas is called the prince of darkness

My measly experience in FADEC turbines was a non event. If I ever got an error msg on run up, I just re-booted the a/c and it cleared. If I wanted to see their dark side, it had to be in a sim. When the blue lights come on, carefuly set your coffee cup down and flip the switch from auto to manual. Expect a little throttle lag. Big whoop, deal with it.
Carl, I'm with you. I always catch myself doing t.o and landings on the standby steam gauge. I shift to the AS tape on the EFIS after gear up. I guess that I'm just untrainable.

Bob

[Joe LaMantia]

This is interesting. If we look at the big 2 in aircraft engine manufacturers, they offer a range of engines from 65 to 400 hp that have been used in all kinds of GA aircraft as well as homebuilts. Looking at their "Installed base" and the whole certification thing it seems to me that applying new technology is restrained by cost and return on capital. They have "scaled" their business to engine replacement and overhaul which is where the money is in relation to sales of new production aircraft for a least the last 20 years. Both C & L have worked on diesels and C is investing in a 2nd gen diesel for the export market. The only real innovation in small aircraft engines is Rotax, but I would say the Cont. 240 did try with a FEDAC version...it didn't catch on in our world since it's competing with cheaper to buy old engines. Homebuilders still can opt for auto conversions, but given the shift from "scratch built" to kits, this has become a small market as well. I'm hoping something "good" will come out of the recent D.C. noise about re-visiting certification requirements. If they'd cut the hassle, cost, and time to comply maybe we'd see some movement in STC's for upgrade kits for some of these old engines, and provide a more economical path for the big 2.

Joe
:cool:

[Aaron Novak]

Part of the reason that diesels never "caught on" in this country was political. TEL was a big business both here and in europe through the anglo-american oil company. Actually it is a familiar story that is re-playing with the corn growers and ethanol. Anyway.....thats part of the history. There were american production aero diesels, from 90 horse (prototype) through 400 I believe. Unfortunately by the time you get a decent power/weight ratio from the diesel cycle, the complexity has seriously reduced the engines durability and reliability. Part of the reason that we still see big simple engines, is because that is what works, works well, and keeps working. Road vehicles spend most of their time at high speed / light load conditions, with constant transients and little little to no time at full power. This is where VVT, VVL and direct injection really can shine. In applications where the duty cycle is higher, and most time is spent at 75% power and above, there is little to no benefit in this technology. There are even cases where fuel metering upstream has benefits ( i.e. TB injector or carb ).

[David Pavlich]

Maybe my thought pattern belongs elsewhere. I'm looking at this thread, keeping in mind that the subject, in part, is the diesel powered Diamond DA42, not as a craft that is being purchased to chase that $100 hamburger or to fly around the patch or maybe to the FBO a couple of parishes west. I would think that this particular Diamond buyer is going to be doing a LOT of cross country flying. And with that, the ability to fly IFR on occasion so that the pilot/passenger(s) aren't stuck somewhere. And doing this in a twin that is sipping about 11gph of Jet-A which is less expensive than 100LL.

As far as the Rotax FI engine goes, it may not be far on the overall engine evolution scale, but the planes that have it don't have a mixture lever. So that says that Rotax is at least doing SOMETHING to upgrade their engine's capability. And the engine is very robust with a 2000 hour TBO. But I'm a non-pilot, so what do I know?

David

[Aaron Novak]

Maybe my thought pattern belongs elsewhere. I'm looking at this thread, keeping in mind that the subject, in part, is the diesel powered Diamond DA42, not as a craft that is being purchased to chase that $100 hamburger or to fly around the patch or maybe to the FBO a couple of parishes west. I would think that this particular Diamond buyer is going to be doing a LOT of cross country flying. And with that, the ability to fly IFR on occasion so that the pilot/passenger(s) aren't stuck somewhere. And doing this in a twin that is sipping about 11gph of Jet-A which is less expensive than 100LL.

As far as the Rotax FI engine goes, it may not be far on the overall engine evolution scale, but the planes that have it don't have a mixture lever. So that says that Rotax is at least doing SOMETHING to upgrade their engine's capability. And the engine is very robust with a 2000 hour TBO. But I'm a non-pilot, so what do I know?

David

David,
Good Points....however there are times I prefer to have the ability to control mixture. At one point in our history, we were smarter than the machines we ran, now for the vast majority of people the exact inverse is true. Ask the fellows that tried landing over in San Fransisco a couple weeks back.

[David Pavlich]

David,
Good Points....however there are times I prefer to have the ability to control mixture. At one point in our history, we were smarter than the machines we ran, now for the vast majority of people the exact inverse is true. Ask the fellows that tried landing over in San Fransisco a couple weeks back.

I don't really know how to respond to the San Fran analogy other than to say that even with Korea's not so stellar safety record, it is far and away better than GA's safety record. I would submit that excellent training combined with the tremendous technological and reliability advances have allowed commercial flying to become very safe when compared to other modes of transport.

In the same breath, I understand your desire to have some control. I've owned several sports cars and each was equipped with a stick. There's something about resting your hand on the shifter and feeling gears in motion. My guess is that you've had good training and have made up your mind that you aren't going to make bad decisions that could jeopordize you and your passengers. Unfortunately, it is also true that many GA pilots, for whatever reason, don't make good choices. Does automation make it safer? Depends on what context we are speaking. For commercial, I say yes. It requires the PIC and his/her crew to be very regimented, a good thing when defying gravity. For GA...not so much. If used properly combined with sound decisions, GA safety numbers should improve. But until pilots take gravity more seriously, GA will have a very difficult time getting its safety record on the upswing.

David

[Aaron Novak]

I don't really know how to respond to the San Fran analogy other than to say that even with Korea's not so stellar safety record, it is far and away better than GA's safety record. I would submit that excellent training combined with the tremendous technological and reliability advances have allowed commercial flying to become very safe when compared to other modes of transport.

In the same breath, I understand your desire to have some control. I've owned several sports cars and each was equipped with a stick. There's something about resting your hand on the shifter and feeling gears in motion. My guess is that you've had good training and have made up your mind that you aren't going to make bad decisions that could jeopordize you and your passengers. Unfortunately, it is also true that many GA pilots, for whatever reason, don't make good choices. Does automation make it safer? Depends on what context we are speaking. For commercial, I say yes. It requires the PIC and his/her crew to be very regimented, a good thing when defying gravity. For GA...not so much. If used properly combined with sound decisions, GA safety numbers should improve. But until pilots take gravity more seriously, GA will have a very difficult time getting its safety record on the upswing.

David

David,
Actually what I was getting at was how when one gets dependent on machinery to take the place of their own ability, it creates a weakness. Be it the use of a calculator, autopilot, auto throttle, GPS etc. Basicly in trying to remove the flaw of human error, we have instead replaced it with human inability. GA will always have more safety issues, thats the nature of the beast. I see this as a downward sloping path our society is taking as a whole.

[Flyfalcons]

David,
Good Points....however there are times I prefer to have the ability to control mixture. At one point in our history, we were smarter than the machines we ran, now for the vast majority of people the exact inverse is true. Ask the fellows that tried landing over in San Fransisco a couple weeks back.

I consider myself a pretty good stick, and stay very current, but the autopilot on my plane will still do a better job than me at just about everything. My guess is the same holds true for a properly designed automatic mixture control. Maybe we used to be smarter than our machines, but thanks to modern technology, some of our machines are pretty damn smart.

[WLIU]

Speaking as an engineer, I can tell you that all machines fail. We can make them triply redundant, but they will still fail. The challenge is to keep the skills of the humans that they "help" up to the level where the impending failures are identified, and the human pilot can take over and safely complete the flight. Plus, there will be situations that require a human pilot to complete some operations, like landing when the glideslope is shut down. In that case we need the human pilot(s) to be proficient enough to properly configure the automatic systems so that they can make the landing.

The Apollo 13 astronauts did not expect their fuel cell to fail. Capt Haynes did not expect his engine to catastrophically fail and render his primary controls inop.

And some cultures have issues that can create CRM issues that help the move along the chain of events that lead to accidents.

All tough problems to solve.

I will suggest that an autopilot may fly better than you or I for a while, but speaking as a guy who has had an autopilot try to kill me, I will suggest that an autopilot can also fly you smoothly to the location of the crash. It takes a pilot to take over and make a safe landing when that happens.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS

[Joe LaMantia]

Wes, makes some good points and this is kinda where the "VS" thing comes from in this thread. Clearly we have moved to a high level of technology in "heavy" aircraft and we've seen a lot of applications filtering down into GA. The challenge is to remain proficient in basic skills while becoming proficient in the more complex environment the new technology presents. We will always have some pilots who prefer the "old school" simple aircraft for low and slow fun flying. What kind of aircraft and training will provide the basic airmanship and awareness that can keep a pilot ready to handle whatever comes his way? The answer has been, up to now, constant reviews and training exercises, will we see a need for more simulator time in GA aircraft?

Joe
:cool:

[WLIU]

I think that it is important to apply an appropriate level of technology to each operation.

The other other day I was at an aerobatic practice and on the next section of the ramp some CAP pilots were giving orientation rides. They were flying C-172's with G-1000 panels. I jumped in my Pitts, fired up, taxi-ed out and launched into the box. Later I found myself shaking my head at the high-tech Cessna pilots as they are required to go through all of the checklists that the G-1000 puts up for them and it takes them something like 10 minutes of pushing buttons after start up before they release their brakes just to start taxiing. One of the pilots commented that he could get a 727 moving faster than the Cessna.

There is an old saying - "Just because you can does not mean that you should."

Not that long ago we had an incident at one of my home airports where a pilot came down final looking at the displays in the panel. I was told that he did not look up before contacting the runway. This may be a new category of accident/incident. I wonder what the NTSB thinks about this.

I am of the school that technology supplements airmanship, not replaces it. But pilots lean towards being gadget and technology junkies. And all of the publications and magazines that practice the "gee whiz" brand of journalism sell a lot more advertising around articles that hype the latest gadget than articles that talk about activities like soaring clubs and aerobatic contests. We have not made the corners of aviation that promote airmanship sexy and appealing. We make the latest, oh-wow-expensive, electronic gadget sexy and appealing. This might come with the personality, but I think we can find part of the problem by looking in the mirror.

Fly safe,

Wes
N78PS