Snoopy wrote:
For mil orders they could have saved the hassle of gaining an EASA TCDS though.
One would think so, but nowadays, it is easier for the military to adapt a commonly EASA-certified design than to spec from scratch a military version.
The A400 was done that way, in order to minimize the effor in speccing the aircraft b ythe different mil users, and I agree. Even some of the “non-EASA-certifiable” (due lack of EASA spec) mil-hardware was certified on a no-hazard basis!
LeSving wrote:
Is anyone really surprised that the communist Chinese would make missteps in product development and marketing?
I would say there are more than enough examples of western aviation companies doing much more severe missteps in that direction. Concorde and A380 just to name two.
IN the case of Concorde, you have to look at the bigger picture: it is unquestionably the baby that Airbus grew from, and what kept British and French aviation in the world front page for years, bringing them lots of non-Concorde business.From that point of view it was a marketing and development success. It “just” was not a sales success and world politics played as big a role as marketing in that, if not more.
In the case of the A380…we possibly have to wait a few years to see it in proper hindsight, but it may well be such a misstep.
Silvaire wrote:
Concorde and A380 were to put it lightly highly influenced by government money,
No doubt it was the case for Concorde, but was it for the A380?
Antonio wrote:
One would think so, but nowadays, it is easier for the military to adapt a commonly EASA-certified design than to spec from scratch a military version
I think the ONLY way most western air forces would possibly buy a Chinese controlled design is to buy it as a COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) product.
Snoopy wrote:
a new cirrus and then you can’t get the engine to start after a quick fuel turn around sucks
I never had such an issue with an injected lyco 360 or conti 360, 520 or 550 …I just follow the POH procedure. It cant be so difficult to train….
Is it the same as pushing a button or turning a key on an electronically controlled engine? Obviously not. Call me old fashioned, but at least I know what is going on with the spark, the mixture, the engine…while in the other one you dont have a clue…or perhaps even care…
Silvaire wrote:
I think the ONLY way most western air forces would possibly buy a Chinese controlled design is to buy it as a COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) product.
Absolutely! And pob90 not even then. In my line of work (not defense related) we use drones and increasingly clients specify non-Chinese products. Which is difficult, because the Chinese ripped off the original US designs and are now mass-producing commercial UAS. Luckily, there are non-Chinese machines coming to market in increasing numbers.
Antonio wrote:
I never had such an issue with an injected lyco 360 or conti 360, 520 or 550 …I just follow the POH procedure. It cant be so difficult to train….
As do many others. Still, it seems to be an issue.
https://www.google.at/search?q=cirrus+hot+start+issue&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=de-at&client=safari
Yesterday I spoke to the owner of the Diamond dealership who will deliver the first DA50RG. Due to the pandemic the delivery is expected mid june this year.
Have any DA50s been sold in Europe yet? How is the plane performing?
Disagree that a parachute is needed. It means extra upfront cost and weight, future costs for annual reviews and eventual replacement, and even in engine out situation, even in mountain flying, you can find a safe place to land with far less damage to plane (destroyed) than a parachute landing. DA40s safety record beats Cirrus, even discounting for the fact that the parachute attracts stupid/poor pilots to the plane.
Drew
DA aircrafts have high safety record including few twins crashes (in hands of stupid pilots ofc), I think DA50 will follow the same line but not having a parachute is still tough to sell to partners (unless he/she is a current glider pilot 
)
