The Austro engine has been run in the test bench at much higher power outputs than the engine is certified for, there was also some talk of the FADEC being able to boost the power of the operating engine in the case of one engine failing, I’m told that this idea fell fowl of some EASA rule.
The Austro engine has been run in the test bench at much higher power outputs than the engine is certified for, there was also some talk of the FADEC being able to boost the power of the operating engine in the case of one engine failing, I’m told that this idea fell fowl of some EASA rule
I seem to think I read somewhere that the ATR72 has precisely that system, I think in the event of an engine failure it boosts the remaining good engine to 110% of normal takeoff power.
The Austro engine has been run in the test bench at much higher power outputs than the engine is certified for
I would never believe a word of these stories. The engine is not certified for higher hp and the stronger version they’ve announced is not there yet and it has taken them years already. The engine is a Mercedes car engine and they operate it at a higher power output than ever in the car. Whatever they’re doing to it, it’s substantial engineering and if they could output more power, they would do it immediately. Hiding behind the certification regime is cheap and not credible.
I seem to think I read somewhere that the ATR72 has precisely that system, I think in the event of an engine failure it boosts the remaining good engine to 110% of normal takeoff power.
The result of that could be observed in Taiwan… The ATR is known to be very difficult to handle in single engine conditions since the engines are quite far apart.
The ATR should not be beyond the capabilitys of the average airline pilot to fly in the event of an engine failure, the recent videos of the ATR crash seem to show both props spinning, so if it was an engine failure for some reason the prop failed to feather.
The whole thing looked like the speed got back to Vmca.
… so if it was an engine failure for some reason the prop failed to feather.
It’s OT but what I read in recent report was that wrong engine was throttled back to idle.
Emir
I fear that you are correct, most GA pilots would be identifying the failed engine by counteracting the yaw with rudder and thinking " dead foot dead engine" …….. Then slowly shutting the throttle to check the yaw stays the same and then shutting down the engine.
The procedure is simple and effective, Airlines all have training departments that have their own ideas and try to bring both pilots into the airline shutdown loop, over the last fifteen years I have flown the same type for four airlines and who shuts the throttle has changed at least seven times depending on who is head of training !
My opinion is that shutting the throttle should always be done by the pilot who is flying the aircraft as he will be the first to know if he has the wrong engine as he detects the yaw change. This avoids the young panicked FO snapping the wrong throttle shut on you !
I fear that the root of this accident will be the lack of basic flying skills in the airline world as the lawyers try to stop pilots from flying the aircraft without automatics or to take another view the business cuts training to the bone by making sure the pilots are over reliant on the automatics.
It is becoming a sad truth that most GA pilots are more able to use basic flying skills than those flying highly automated passenger aircraft.
It is becoming a sad truth that most GA pilots are more able to use basic flying skills than those flying highly automated passenger aircraft.
I’m not in airliner’s world (except few friends that fly for airliners) but some recent accidents confirm your statement. OTOH I’m aware of many avoided accidents because of the existance of basic flying skills in airliner’s pilots (engine failures, colapsing or not extended gear, flaps failures etc.). It’s very hard to make general conclusion.
Just received the official AFM for the DA42 with the 155 HP Conti Diesels. Diamond is known to provide accurate performance data.
Some highlights to compare it to the (pre-VI) Austro DA42:
So, the Conti Diesel DA42 performs similar to the Austro one, in spite of its lower power.
Actually even a little advantage for the Conti at settings that most pilots would normally fly at (75% power).
This is owing to the better aerodynamics (less bulky cowlings) of the the Conti-version and better CoG distribution.
The Austro upgrade is a lot more money partly because of the need to change the panel (fuel pumps to operate) and beef up the landing gear, and higher price of the engine. Both needs cowling changes and some Vortex Generators (Austro on inner wing, Conti on vertical tail)
Austro should be cheaper to operate though, TBO at 2.000 hrs instead of TBR at 1.200 hrs and less parts to change out during its lifetime.
No doubt there are other performance differences which I haven’t looked at yet. May do that later when I have some more time.
[ table straightened out – Peter ]
Thanks for posting that number, exactly what I was expecting! The CD155 is the far better aero engine than the rather crude Austro conversion. Now that the name Thielert is gone for good, Mr Dries can finally focus on what makes sense again.
Of course it’s great that the Centurion went through bankruptcy proceedings because that means the financials of producing the engine look so much better — development and infancy issue costs mostly written off. Continental behind it is a credible name. I believe the engine and its upcoming V6 have a great future in GA.
aart wrote:
Austro should be cheaper to operate though, TBO at 2.000 hrs instead of TBR at 1.200 hrs and less parts to change out during its lifetim
I would expect the TBR to go up to 1500h fairly soon like they’ve announced. That will further increase the attractiveness.
That’s pretty consistent with
