I saw the DA-42 and D-Jet

Does Diamond get it?

Look at the simple human factors work they do in their planes - from the things you point out, like the center, high, and large backups, simplified processes and controls (however, what about redundancies and emergency backup on the "ECU" test?). I've never flown their birds, but they just really seem, on the surface, to get it...

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
astanley said:
Does Diamond get it?

Look at the simple human factors work they do in their planes - from the things you point out, like the center, high, and large backups, simplified processes and controls (however, what about redundancies and emergency backup on the "ECU" test?). I've never flown their birds, but they just really seem, on the surface, to get it...

Cheers,

-Andrew


I agree, they do seem to have "got it" right in a lot of areas.

I am curious--does anybody here know if the DA-40 and DA-42 share the same base fuselage? I'm hoping to hear that the DA-42 is a few inches wider than the DA-40.

The DA-40 seems just a BIT cramped to me (wide shoulders). At least in the C172/C182/PA28/PA32/Mooney, I can have the passenger slide their seat back a couple of notches on the rail and we get shoulder separation, which goes a long way towards increasing the perceived cabin width.

The DA-series has fixed seats (the rudder pedals move), so I can't get the shoulder separation in the DA-40 (not sure if the DA-42 has fixed seats too).
 
Troy Whistman said:
I agree, they do seem to have "got it" right in a lot of areas.

I am curious--does anybody here know if the DA-40 and DA-42 share the same base fuselage? I'm hoping to hear that the DA-42 is a few inches wider than the DA-40.

The DA-40 seems just a BIT cramped to me (wide shoulders). At least in the C172/C182/PA28/PA32/Mooney, I can have the passenger slide their seat back a couple of notches on the rail and we get shoulder separation, which goes a long way towards increasing the perceived cabin width.

The DA-series has fixed seats (the rudder pedals move), so I can't get the shoulder separation in the DA-40 (not sure if the DA-42 has fixed seats too).

Cabin width for the DA-42 is 46 inches according to the latest AOPA pilot article, the DA-40 is 45 inches.

greg
 
river_rat said:
Cabin width for the DA-42 is 46 inches according to the latest AOPA pilot article, the DA-40 is 45 inches.

And, I'm pretty sure they made the seats movable in the DA42.

I have flown the DA40 several times, and you're right: They really do get it. It's a wonderful airplane. Flying it makes me happy, more so than other planes. It's a very pilot-friendly bird all the way around. Kinda reminds me of my Volvo.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Kinda reminds me of my Volvo.

I've only flown the DA-20, but I loved it.

I'm not sure Volvo was really the look they were going for. "Diamond... The Volvo of the sky!" How's that for a marketing slogan.
 
The DA-42 is really nice... if only it had good engines in it. ;)

Missa
 
I have never sat in one nor of course flown one but I have looked at them and they look really nice. Better than the Cirrus' if you ask me.
 
Missa said:
The DA-42 is really nice... if only it had good engines in it. ;)

You many not be able to talk about it, but is Lycoming working on engines to use Jet A that would replace our gas engines in the GA fleet?
 
Missa said:
Ya Think?????? :rolleyes: DUH!


Jeez, sorry for the question. I thought maybe there would be some public info that you could disclose, like "Lycoming is considering alternative fuel engines, etc". I thought you were nice. :confused:

DUH yourself. :)
 
The DA40 is a nice airplane to fly, much better than the Cirrus, but for me there is no headroom,

My only concern about the DA40 and the rest of the plastic toys, how well are they going to hold up.

When they have the same years and hours as the 172 that they replaced on our airport, will they even be still flying?????

The airplane in my avatar was built in 1943, still going strong, no way the plastic toys will do that.
 
The oringinal fiberglass gliders that were built back in the 60's, notably the Open and Standard Cirruses, are still going strong.
 
Anthony said:
Jeez, sorry for the question. I thought maybe there would be some public info that you could disclose, like "Lycoming is considering alternative fuel engines, etc". I thought you were nice. :confused:

DUH yourself. :)

I am nice... I guess the sarcasim didn't come through. Sorry if it's not on the web site, I can't disclose anything.

http://www.lycoming.textron.com/main.jsp

Missa
 
tonycondon said:
The oringinal fiberglass gliders that were built back in the 60's, notably the Open and Standard Cirruses, are still going strong.

True, but they dont experiance nearly the stress that a powered aircraft does, they stay in the trailer during strong winds and turbulance, they also are not on the line everyday being used and abused by the neophytes.

Not a good comparison.
 
wesleyj said:
True, but they dont experiance nearly the stress that a powered aircraft does, they stay in the trailer during strong winds and turbulance, they also are not on the line everyday being used and abused by the neophytes.

Not a good comparison.

really? have you ever flown a glider? especially in a contest? How often does your typical plastic airplane exceed 2 G's in a flight? maybe when the student mucks up a stall recovery or goes too steep in a steep turn.

In order to stay in the strong part of the thermal (the core) the glider pilot must bank steeply and fly slowly. G forces of 2+ sustained are the norm, not the exception. Once the pilot tops the thermal he dives for the next one. This is not done at a leisurely pace either. The stronger the lift was, the faster he dives. As soon as he hits the next thermal that he wants to climb in, he hauls back on the stick, transitioning from a dive of perhaps 80-90 knots to thermalling speed of 45-50 in only a second or two. Then rolls back into that 2+ G turn. This is continued over the entire course. Most contest tasks are out and returns or triangles. To maximize speed, as soon as the pilot thinks they can dive for the airport and make it, they do so. Ideally this dive will be at the maximum speed possible. Vno is common, some push it up even higher. This allows them to convert all their altitude into speed. They make a low pass (under 100 feet) to finish the race and then they pull up sharply, trade speed for altitude, and fly a pattern to land.

If the glider isnt flying in thermal lift, but exploiting wave, the forces are even harder. The glider is typically towed through the rotor to get to the wave. yes thats right, the rotor. The place that all power flying handbooks tell you not to go. Once contacted to the mountain wave, the lift is tremendous. This really is powerful stuff, which is why most powered flying manuals instruct you (wisely) to steer clear. Many gliders have broken apart in flight while flying mountain wave. this is why the pilots wear parachutes.

Many of the original fiberglass ships (Cirruses and Libelles, etc.) have been flying these profiles regularly for the last 40 years.

This does not sound anything to me like the typical cirrus or diamond mission of takeoff, autopilot on, cruise, and land.
 
wesley said:
True, but they dont experience nearly the stress that a powered aircraft does, they stay in the trailer during strong winds and turbulence, they also are not on the line everyday being used and abused by the neophytes.

Not a good comparison.

I'm not a composites expert. I wish I knew more. I can only repeat below some of the things that I've heard from people who know more than I do.

I think Tony did a pretty good job of outlining some of the stresses a glider can see. I'd also point out that they don't stay in the trailer during turbulence. They're only brought out during turbulence. Turbulence = lift. And I'd add being slammed down into a short, bumpy, farmer's field with no suspension whatsoever to the list of hardships that gliders endure on a regular basis.


However, I'm not sure I understand why the stresses are relevant. Since you're talking about the repeated stresses that an aircraft sees throughout its life, I assume you're talking about fatigue failures? Composites aren't prone to fatigue, whereas metal is.

There are certainly disadvantages to composites (though of course, it'll depend which fiber/matrix combination you're using). Depending on the specific material, some of them are resistance to UV, impact toughness (hangar rash), and more skill and time required to repair properly.

For the disadvantages, you get a lot of advances, though. There must be some reason that the Boeing 787 is almost entirely composite. Of course, the mission of a GA aircraft is quite different so that may not be a valid point.

Chris
 
cwyckham said:
And I'd add being slammed down into a short, bumpy, farmer's field with no suspension whatsoever to the list of hardships that gliders endure on a regular basis.

Jeepers, how could I forget about that one!
 
Missa said:
Sorry if it's not on the web site, I can't disclose anything.

I wouldn't expect you to disclose anything that wasn't already public information.
 
Back
Top