arj1 wrote:
With a critical constraint – in Europe.
Sure. But why would you design something for a rather small market ? I cannot see this thing fly (pun intended) in the US. I simply don’t understand which market they are aiming for here. It doesn’t have the utility to be useful in parts of the world (Africa, etc) where Avgas is scarce, in the US the difference between 100LL and Jet-A is non-existent. Add an unproven engine and no chute. Diamond must have some market in mind, otherwise they wouldn’t do it. They are, after all, not one of the gazillion identikit Light Sport (or whatever these things are called in Europe) dreamers, but a serious manufacturer. What am I missing?
China, the homeland of the airframe company owners and the engine company owners, perhaps? It doesn’t make tremendous sense, but as a target market it’s the only thing that comes close to making sense, to me.
Either that or they don’t plan on making a lot, intentionally, and view the model as a development platform to productionize the new engine, and gain market confidence with risk limited by limited numbers.
Silvaire wrote:
China, the homeland of the airframe company owners and the engine company owners, perhaps?
There’s no GA market in China and won’t be one for many years to come at least for SEP, as long as private flying is not simple and airspace is practically reserved for CAT and military. AFAIK GA in China is ATO and some business jets. DA50 is definitely not training aircraft so I can’t see how China can be market for it.
Why FL200 only, if turbocharged? FL250 should be easy, surely?
They could then sell “extended tanks” and there you go… major improvement 
I guess the problem is that these would take the MTOW over 1999kg which would pretty well kill the whole proposition.
The unproven engine will be a major issue for many, especially knowing the company’s conduct at the time of the “troubles”. It would be for me.
172driver wrote:
Sure. But why would you design something for a rather small market ?
DA-40TDI/NG was aimed at the same market, quite successful.
At least it is almost impossible to buy one at any reasonable price…
I consider DA50 as an upgrade to original DA40, but with RG and TKS.
Although, few things still buffle me:
1. No chute? Yes, I know that complete engine failures for diesel engines we reportedly 10+ times less likely, but still?
2. How did they manage to achieve empty weight to MTOW ratio of more than 70%?! I mean, wow! Yes, engine is heavy, but not three times more heavy.
3. As @Peter has mentioned below, why FL200 max and not FL250? Even with previous engine models Diamond has achieved FL350 during testing…
Aero diesels have come along way since the first Thielert took to the air and lots of data has been gathered making the current engines very reliable.
The lessons from the diesel develop will undoubtedly Have found their way into the new engine so it is very likely to be quite reliable from day one.
I am constantly amazed at the habit of the aviation community to drag up problems from long ago that have been solved and are no longer a factor as evidence of likely faults in a new product.
Unproven, yes. But technical problems in the past are most of the time exactly that: technical problems of the past. If you sell a green banana to the customer it will eventually get ripe. The same happens often enough with more technical products. Anyone remember Windows Vista? Or rotary engines which surprisingly are a semi-big thing in the matte grey painted segment of aviation? The only remaining problem is often in the customer’s head. So maybe they are aiming for someone who doesn’t care or doesn’t remember. Or maybe they have their processes set up and the development of a new plane doesn’t cost them so much anymore. Like car companies which present a new model every three months and.
But technical problems in the past are most of the time exactly that: technical problems of the past
I recommend a career in technology, design and manufacturing
Problems solved in the past are those particular problems. The universe is infinite (well, for practical purposes, anyway) and subatomic particles can configure themselves in many different ways. So you could design Product Z in which you carefully avoided problems which arose on Product X and Product Y, but on Z you get some new, unexpected, ones.
Otherwise, Diamond would offer an amazingly comprehesive warranty. Why not? All past problems have been solved!
Disclaimer: my girlfriend has a PhD
Silvaire wrote:
however good quality military composite structures and similar sailplane structures are very weight efficient.
Yes, but the reason is mainly that for light aircraft, the strength isn’t the issue, rigidity, flexibility and practical handling is. Thickness of skins and similar need to be above a certain minimal, or it is practically impossible to handle it without breaking it, or it simply flexes too much. At the same time all the aerodynamic loads are no problem. A carbon fiber wing for an UL can withstand 10-12 g or more, while a similar wood or aluminium can only handle the half, for the same weight. The point is that the half of 12g is more than good enough.
Some really fancy design, like the WT9 use sandwich principle. Light and strong and durable, but also very expensive. The larger the actual loads are, the better off you are with carbon composite.
Peter wrote:
I recommend a career in technology, design and manufacturing
BTDT
Peter wrote:
roblems solved in the past are those particular problems. The universe is infinite (well, for practical purposes, anyway) and subatomic particles can configure themselves in many different ways. So you could design Product Z in which you carefully avoided problems which arose on Product X and Product Y, but on Z you get some new, unexpected, ones.
Yes, you get problems everywhere. But by now they have gained a lot of experience on redesigning automotive engines into aviation engines and know where to look at when testing. A totally new product from a totally new company is something totally different. But still, there are risks involved and hence the not so comprehensive warranty. Like always: No pain no gain. People are always complaining about 70 year old engine technology and as soon as someone offers something new. So what do you expect? A new product with a 100% warranty? Someone has to pay for that. Either with a larger price for the product or with a larger risk.
