Them Germans still relying on fax ? There used to be such a machine here too, but it was sent off for scrap only a week after the telex, perhaps a year or so after our last steam engine
Peter wrote:
The engines are very reliable. The PA28 I did my IR in was doing 700hrs/year and if the engine was breaking all the time the firm would be out of business.
I’m not so sure about that. Perhaps they have maintenance on their field. But spark plug failure, mag failure, cracked cylinder heads, premature camshaft failure and engines not making TBO are a constant problem for flying schools.
I used to run a flying school fleet which had 12 x O-235 (Cessna 152), 7 x O-320 (PA28), 3 x IO-360 (C172) and 1 x O-540 (PA28-235).
Every single engine except one made TBO with many getting to the +20% point where approved. The only engine which didn’t make TBO was to O-540 which threw a cylinder at 1200hrs.
Jan_Olieslagers wrote:
Them Germans still relying on fax ? There used to be such a machine here too, but it was sent off for scrap only a week after the telex, and perhaps a year or so after our last steam engine
Yes, and we still use pencils and pens, pocket calculators, use out feet to walk and heads to think :-P
So we have
But spark plug failure, mag failure, cracked cylinder heads, premature camshaft failure and engines not making TBO are a constant problem for flying schools.
I used to run a flying school fleet which had 12 x O-235 (Cessna 152), 7 x O-320 (PA28), 3 x IO-360 (C172) and 1 x O-540 (PA28-235).
Every single engine except one made TBO with many getting to the +20% point where approved. The only engine which didn’t make TBO was to O-540 which threw a cylinder at 1200hrs.
No prize for guessing where I think most of the US GA scene finds itself at. If it was the former one (in which some kind of usage / low utilisation factors might be in play) then the whole scene would have sunk by now.
So a non-US engine has quite a hill to climb to make it in the USA.
The Q then becomes why the old US makers are so slow bringing out diesels? Probably it’s because they don’t think they will sell many 
Which leaves diesels with the rest of the world market, which is quite fragmented, and bits of it have already been addressed by Diamond.
Lucky,
the trainer with the CD135 you are looking for may well be the M10T.
It had it’s first flight shortly before Xmas and they are talking about 2017 for certification and deliveries, make that 2018 for EASA plus the usual incertainty.
I reckon it may well have some stuff going for it:
- It has a proven engine (CD135) and Prop (Mühlbauer)
- It has a proven avionic suite (G1000)
- It has 3 seats (should mean no w&b problems like most trainers in the normal Student/FI combination
- It is significantly faster and more flexible than most trainers on the market (140 kts cruise)
- It is a white sheet design to the specs for a mass market (China) where price will be a major concern.
All engine, prop, avionic have a good support chain in Europe.
There is also the M10J in the pipeline after the M10T which will feature retracable gear, G1000/GFC700 as well as the CD155 and is projected to run 160 kts which can be both a traveller for 2-3 as well as an advanced trainer for IFR.
Personally I did not really hold my breath when I first saw the project but seeing what I see now, I think they may well have a chance to produce it in sufficient numbers to make it attractive in price too.
I’ll be looking forward to see this project advance.
Is that M10T image CGI or real? It looks like the hangar is real but the two planes are CGI, complete with fake shadows which don’t correspond to the light sources because they are directly underneath the planes while the roofs are not strongly illuminated.
Here is a piece of the original full size image. It looks fake to me. IMHO this plane doesn’t exist, beyond the one which has flown.
It’s CGI. Only the fixed gear model has flown. This project will never be succesful as the engines are made by a company that has been in and out of business during the past ten years and have a very inflated image of their own importance.
Shorrick_Mk2 wrote:
This project will never be succesful as the engines are made by a company that has been in and out of business during the past ten years and have a very inflated image of their own importance.
I didn’t realise that Continental/AVIC were that way inclined. :)
Mooney_Driver wrote:
- It is significantly faster and more flexible than most trainers on the market (140 kts cruise)
I think this might be a disadvantage for a primary trainer, depending a bit on the flight characteristics and options to cruise slower. In a context that is broader than just primary training, it might very well be a good two plus one seater in an aeroclub.
