Turbine Diamond

While I likesome of Diamond Aircraft, the Da 42, Da 52 and Da 50, can they please stop developing concepts and bring one to market. Their products are now dated.
 
Fuel flow in the mid-teens must be massive!
 
cheap weenie said:
Fuel flow in the mid-teens must be massive!
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, if the engine/prop/airframe are designed for that operating point. Remember turbines are often used in helicopters that operate below 10k ft. In fact, it sounds like the engine in this design is derived from a heli turboshaft.
 
jmp470 said:
While I likesome of Diamond Aircraft, the Da 42, Da 52 and Da 50, can they please stop developing concepts and bring one to market. Their products are now dated.
Click to expand...

This thing looks pretty cool, I have to say. I'd definitely buy one before I bought anything else if I had a million and some change burning a hole in my pocket.
 
pericynthion said:
Not necessarily, if the engine/prop/airframe are designed for that operating point. Remember turbines are often used in helicopters that operate below 10k ft. In fact, it sounds like the engine in this design is derived from a heli turboshaft.
Click to expand...

They still burn a lot of fuel to do that. The main reason they use turbines in helicopters is the power output and size/weight requirements meet. It's not because they're terribly efficient.

As an example, the Sikorsky S-92 burns about 1300 PPH combined for two CT-7 turboshaft engines in cruise.

I'd expect around 200-250 pph in cruise in the mid teens for that engine. That's still ~35 GPH.
 
DavidWhite said:
I read that wrong - NO pressurization? WTF do they think the market will be?
Click to expand...

What was Cessna thinking. I mean an an unpressurized single-engine 10-12 seater with capability to land on gravel. Who would ever need THAT ?
 
weilke said:
What was Cessna thinking. I mean an an unpressurized single-engine 10-12 seater with capability to land on gravel. Who would ever need THAT ?
Click to expand...

Much like helicopters, the turbine attributes of the Caravan has more to do with putting in an engine with sufficient power.

I'm less convinced on the DA50, but I suppose plenty of folks are flying SR22 turbos at the same altitudes, but not burning nearly as much fuel.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Much like helicopters, the turbine attributes of the Caravan has more to do with putting in an engine with sufficient power.
Click to expand...

It was just an example of how in some settings, a turbine may make sense even if you fly most trips below 20k.

I'm less convinced on the DA50, but I suppose plenty of folks are flying SR22 turbos at the same altitudes, but not burning nearly as much fuel.
Click to expand...

I am wholly unconvinced of the latest iteration of the DA50. It wont be much more than an awkward looking mockup (are they going to put a video-camera in the wing so the pilot has a shot at seing the runway ? With that huge rrrrussian pancake gearbox mounted high off the ground there is no forward visibility whatsoever).

There are lots of people in that SR22T contingent who would love to move one step up, right now the next step is a Meridian or a TBM. A pressurized 4-seater with a 400hp turbine and plenty of tankage would probably appeal to that market.
 
weilke said:
It was just an example of how in some settings, a turbine may make sense even if you fly most trips below 20k..
Click to expand...


Heck most of the Caravan guys dont do much over 10. It gets thirsty, but serves a purpose.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
They still burn a lot of fuel to do that. The main reason they use turbines in helicopters is the power output and size/weight requirements meet. It's not because they're terribly efficient.

As an example, the Sikorsky S-92 burns about 1300 PPH combined for two CT-7 turboshaft engines in cruise.

I'd expect around 200-250 pph in cruise in the mid teens for that engine. That's still ~35 GPH.
Click to expand...

We have a customer Eurocopter EC120 and I was shocked by how little fuel it burns....I want to say 38 GPH, but would need to confirm. I thought most turbines started at 60 GPH.
 
LDJones said:
We have a customer Eurocopter EC120 and I was shocked by how little fuel it burns....I want to say 38 GPH, but would need to confirm. I thought most turbines started at 60 GPH.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty small helicopter relatively speaking, so that fuel burn sounds right. But if you think 38 GPH is low, you've been flying the Duke too much! ;)
 
210 silver eagle can get about 200kt TAS at FL190 burning 21-23 GPH.


Climb fuel burn has got to be :hairraise:
 
Last edited:
Ted DuPuis said:
That's a pretty small helicopter relatively speaking, so that fuel burn sounds right. But if you think 38 GPH is low, you've been flying the Duke too much! ;)
Click to expand...

It's a brand spanking new five-seater with leather interior and lots of bells and whistles. It's a pretty nice machine....purchased new as a personal toy for the owner who only gets around to fly it every other month or so. He pays us to fly it weekly to keep it healthy. :)

As for fuel burn, I guess everything is relative!
 
DA-50 WAS my favorite lust GA airplane. Originally it was 3 screen G-2000 5 seats with pressurization. WTH!!!

I'm voting on this with my pockets!
 
It helps if you speak French.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FMMNyvQdoU

Babblefish Translation:

Diamond Aircraft here in Friedrichshafen the mock-up of a version "turbine" 450 HP of the DA50 seven-seater. The successful turboprop is AI - 450 Russian-Ukrainian S, manufactured by Motor Sich and Ivchenko. Christian Dries, Diamond president, chose it because it is cheaper and demands less maintenance than its competitors. The interval between two revisions would be 3000 h and the turbine can be operated in a temperature range of-55 to + 60 degrees.

The DA50 so motorized and equipped with large wheels of Bush plane could use very short plots and thus taking off in 200 m. With conventional wheels, it would be capable of flying at 220 or 230 kt. It would be faster than the diesel version but would cost more expensive fuel. The engine cover would be longer: on the one hand, must accommodate the exhaust and on the other hand, the turbine is lighter than the piston engine. To keep the balance, therefore placing it in the most forward position.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top