Page 3 of 3

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:30 pm
by ememic99
Keith M wrote:
Wed Apr 10, 2019 4:50 pm
Given the low production volumes of Austro engines, this makes sense...
CD-300 is not competition to Austros, being 300 HP rated.

BTW Retractable gear will definitely be good move for next generation of DA50.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:05 am
by Boatguy
Isn't the DA50 just the DA62 without the twin engines? It's the reverse evolutionary path of the DA40 > DA42. Seems like the RG would be a pretty simple step for the DA50 since it's already incorporated into the DA62 wings.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:45 am
by TwinStarScott
And the RG version just looks so much better than the fixed gear variant.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 2:55 am
by Davestation
My understanding always was that the iron block was a step in a different direction and going back to aluminum would just be backpedaling. The iron blocks can be overhauled, and as such exchanges are about half the price. TMG never seemed to have any desire to try and overhaul theirs. I’m not saying that was the deciding factor for the decision to go iron but it seemed to make sense. Even with all the extra weight, the NG outperforms the TDI right? (I guess the new 2.0S has caught up to it, but I don’t know if it’s proven itself yet in terms of durability).

PS Neither the CD or the AE have life limits such as the TAE had (for good reason). The CD does have life limits on its accessories, whereas the AE does not (I don’t think I’m brave enough to get into a plane that is overflying their recommended times though). I’ve only heard tales of them going past TBO/TBR without issues and am a bit surprised they didn’t set those as hard limits. No compression tests, no oil analyses; how do you know it’s still airworthy?

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 2:44 pm
by ememic99
NG outperforms CD-135 which is not surprise having 35 HP more per side. However, CD-155 equipped DA42 outperforms DA42-NG both in climb (especially OEI) and cruise. DA42-VI outperforms CD-155 equipped DA42 due to aerodynamics improvements of -VI.

Regarding the cost, AE can’t beat CD regardless cheaper overhaul, because initial AE conversion for DA42 is more than 400k, so this cost can’t be recovered in 3-4 engine exchanges.

CD-155 has TBO/TBR limit of 2100 hours (although nobody performed overhaul) and I’m aware of several engines reaching this limit without any problems. AFAIK more CD-155 engines reached this limit than AE their limit of 1800 hours.

I can’t say anything about running on condition pass the limit because it’s not allowed in Europe.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Fri May 03, 2019 6:43 pm
by TimS
Daveatation wrote:
Fri May 03, 2019 2:55 am
My understanding always was that the iron block was a step in a different direction and going back to aluminum would just be backpedaling. The iron blocks can be overhauled, and as such exchanges are about half the price. TMG never seemed to have any desire to try and overhaul theirs. I’m not saying that was the deciding factor for the decision to go iron but it seemed to make sense. Even with all the extra weight, the NG outperforms the TDI right? (I guess the new 2.0S has caught up to it, but I don’t know if it’s proven itself yet in terms of durability).

PS Neither the CD or the AE have life limits such as the TAE had (for good reason). The CD does have life limits on its accessories, whereas the AE does not (I don’t think I’m brave enough to get into a plane that is overflying their recommended times though). I’ve only heard tales of them going past TBO/TBR without issues and am a bit surprised they didn’t set those as hard limits. No compression tests, no oil analyses; how do you know it’s still airworthy?
Nah, it was all about money. The aluminum block had IP and cost a lot of money to develop. It was cheaper for Diamond to keep the iron block and make aerodynamic changes to support the extra weight.

Tim

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Sun May 05, 2019 7:16 am
by Antoine
Boatguy wrote:
Thu Apr 11, 2019 4:05 am
Isn't the DA50 just the DA62 without the twin engines? It's the reverse evolutionary path of the DA40 > DA42. Seems like the RG would be a pretty simple step for the DA50 since it's already incorporated into the DA62 wings.
Hmmm I never viewed the DA42 as the evolutionary path from a DA40 - The DA50 would be much closer to this definition.
One reason (or two) I did not buy a DA42 is the twin engine architecture.
Look at the safety record of DA42 vs DA40 and you'll see what I mean. Evolution should be better in every way.

After so many years, I still believe that Diamond hit gold with the 40. No plane in its category comes even close in terms of balanced features and overall result. I still remember the puzzled look of my C182 pilot friend when I showed her 145 knots on 9 GPH and then took her for some funky dancing in the clouds.

There is only incremental work to be done to have the 40 take the lead of the 4-seater new plane segment.
If you'd like to know how much lighter a modern DA41 can be vs a DA40, look at the Pipistrel Panthera.
The Panthera showcases the weight benefits of a composite airframe in this category. They have taken all the fat out and this is exactly what the overweight DA40 airframe needs. I did the math on this some time ago, and 1000 lbs useful load was within reach.
A DA41-155 diesel and an DA41-Avgas with a powerful Lycosaur, improved useful load, TKS and parachute option would sell like hot cakes.
I wish the DA50 the best of success, but the DA41 is still a very relevant proposition at a much more affordable price point.
I may be wrong. Honestly I did not expect the DA62 to be such a resounding success at the price point. I was wrong.

Re: Austro Engines

Posted: Mon May 06, 2019 1:15 am
by Colin
I was wrong.
Mark of a true engineer.

You'll never make it as a politician, though.