Diamond DA42 L360 vice AE300
- Thread starter MFT1Air
- Start date
JOEFRIDAY2
Well-Known Member
The DA42 is a wonderful aircraft that held a lot of promise until the gearbox issue. I would not want to get involved in the ownership of one at this time. I would take a wait and see on this one.
Joe
Joe
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Your thread title and your post are contradictory. The Thielert I would run fast and far from. The AE300, I would wait and see. If it addresses the issues of the Thielert (namely, reliability, parts cost, and that darn gearbox) then it is a much better fit for the airframe than the Lycoming.
OK, now I'm confused why you're confused, but I'll elaborate further. The new Diamond DA42 comes with two options. They are available with either the Austro Engines AE300 turbo-diesel, or the Lycoming IO-360 avgas engine. As you might expect, the Lycoming probably has more power while the turbo-diesel weighs more but has a lower fuel burn and Jet A availability (price concerns). Just wondering what other factors might be considered?
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
A valid argument. However, internet debates aside (over square, lean of peak, etc) the red and blue knobs on smaller engines (for example, Duchess and Seminole) are not exactly rocket science. Both forward for takeoff and landing, blue ones back a bit in climb, red ones back a bit in cruise. Now getting into something like a 414/421 will be a bit of a learning curve regarding the extra levers, however not much more so than someone stepping up from a Duchess.
. . .and that I heard as well. It's kinda like a "set & forget" system with the FADEC system, so manifold pressure concern issues are gone. Just wondering if there's more. I don't specifically perceive that as a "negative" but some might believe so should transitioning to the extra knob twins be in the future.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
I was misled by the inclusion of the word Thielert in your original post. From what I've heard (all second-hand, as I only flew the Thielert ones) the Lycoming is kind of a poor fit for the DA42 for several reasons. The biggest is the Lycs are thirsty, thirsty, thirsty compared to the Thielerts, and range/payload are very limited. A further problem with payload is that the rear edge of the CG envelope was moved forward due to the higher power on the Lycs resulting in Vmc issues. There is an STC for extra ballast up front that solves the CG issue, but that's extra dead weight that cuts into fuel/payload. Despite the higher horsepower ratings, I've heard anecdotally that the Lyc version performs slightly worse on one engine because the "feathered" prop turns over one stroke at a time because it's designed for a higher-compression diesel engine. On the other hand, for multiengine training the Lycs might be a better bet because all those peculiarities will make transitioning to a practical multiengine airplane (Twin Cessna, Baron, Navajo) easier.
This is an actual problem. I have had to give remedial training to several people that did their training on the Diesel DA42 and had no idea what to do with all the extra levers...
With that being said, once the place I worked for switched to the Lycoming DA42, most of the problems went away.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Yeah, well, some of the ones you gave remedial training to might also not have been the brightest bulbs to start out with...just sayin'.
But that is outside of the scope of this discussion!
Let's not talk about how many times I died in the sim!:banghead:
R Banger
Profl. Backseat Flyer
I agree. I think some training is necessary because given that engine failure happens close to the ground, it would be a bad time to try and catch up on the learning curve. Interesting to me that you can do your multi in a Skymaster and you are given a centerline thrust limitation; whereas, you can fly only a FADEC equipped aircraft and not have any limitation imposed.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
DA42 requires flipping a switch to feather-not really any different from yanking back on the blue lever. It is NOT auto-feather.
To the OP:
If you're seriously looking at a DA42, I still remember a lot about systems and flying characteristics. Also lurker cjreed172 has a gob of time in the Lycoming version and if you PM him he might answer. Personally I think the Austro engine would be a better buy especially if one were planning on using the aircraft as a personal aircraft-the Lycoming one seems like a good trainer but my impression is that the range and payload concerns could really handicap it as a personal aircraft. However, the Austro is at this point still a very very unproven engine so I'd wait it out.
Or, if you really have twin lust, you could get one heck of a used twin for what a new DA42 costs.
Thanks a bunch. Appreciate the insight.
Flightnerd
Well-Known Member
I've flown both the Theilert and Lyc powered Twinstars. The old ones for my CMEL and the new Lycoming for my MEI. The new ones do have a lot more power but as Roger said they are very, very thirsty. The issue of the rear CG is fixed with the STC for the ballast kit. It really helps alot. The ballast kit is in the nose baggage has 11lb weights that clip in. Their arm is only 2" and it makes a HUGE difference. You can actually carry people in the back seat with full fuel.
As for the difference in flying them, the FADEC did make it very, very easy. Going into the new ones, it wasn't that hard to learn the "mixture-prop-throttle." One kinda weird thing with the throttles in the new Twinstars is they are really sensitive in the first inch or so of travel. That one inch gives you almost full power and the 3 inches or so left only increases about 2" of Manifold pressure. Just had to get used to it.
As for the difference in flying them, the FADEC did make it very, very easy. Going into the new ones, it wasn't that hard to learn the "mixture-prop-throttle." One kinda weird thing with the throttles in the new Twinstars is they are really sensitive in the first inch or so of travel. That one inch gives you almost full power and the 3 inches or so left only increases about 2" of Manifold pressure. Just had to get used to it.
z987k
Well-Known Member
For the life of me I cannot figure out why Thielert and Austro think they need to spin a diesel fast and have reduction gears. Are these engineers on crack?
First they try to make a gas engine act like a diesel, then when they try to do a diesel - they try to make it act like a gas engine. wtf.
First they try to make a gas engine act like a diesel, then when they try to do a diesel - they try to make it act like a gas engine. wtf.
USMCmech
Well-Known Member
To get power out of a lower displacemet (more fuel efficent) engine you have to run it at a higher RPM.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
No more so than a Duchess or Screaminole.
R
Roger, Roger
Guest
Also, lighter engine.