Is German Engineering taking over?

[Mike]

Here is something that's been on my mind for a while. In the helicopter market, the Europeans are taking over with the Eurocopter AStar (in Europe "Ecureul"). Originally a french concept, I believe the Germans are now involved as well since "Aerospatiale" became Eurocopter. Fact is that the AStar flies circles around any American product in the same class and category. While Bell keeps building everything new still based on the Jet Ranger, a concept from the 60's, the Europeans have built a true "next generation helicopter".
But that's not the topic.

What do you guys see in the fixed wing market?

I recently looked at the Diamond website since Roland works there and found the DA-42 "Twinstar". It looks to me like it's the new cool kid on the block when it comes to light twin engine planes and/or trainers with glass cockpit AND DIESEL ENGINES!!
Are there any new twin engine airplanes out there that are built by the Americans?
Diesel engines are going to be the wave of the future, especially since I keep hearing rumors that Avgas eventually may go away at some point, not to mention the efficiency the run at.
The new single engine Cessnas I have seen come out have better cockpits and bigger engines, but they are still Lycoming engines designed in the 40's and 50's.
Are the Americans getting behind?
Any thoughts?

(this is not meant to be a bashing session, and I understand that there are a lot of good and proven concepts out there, but I don't think that even the manufacturers back then envisioned their planes which they built in the 60's and 70's still being out there flying around...)

[Sleek-Jet]

The reason you don't see any new light twins is there is no market.  They are expensive to run, require a higher level of proficiancy to operate safely, and don't have the safety record to back up all that comes with a twin.

The Diamond Twinstar is a cool little design and all, but it's pretty unpractical.  There are several new single designs (and older ones) that are faster and cheaper to run than that new little light twin, even if it is burning Jet-A. 

Personally, I like my 1940's technology engine.  Those little Lycomings are cheap (relatively, we are talking about airplanes  ) to buy and operate, and will basically last forever.  I  know of one that went 3500 hours between overhaul, and was still ticking away when it was finally pulled for a rebuild. 

Now, before everyone throws the automotive engines make more power/use less fuel/easier to operate/last longer argument, I say that those people don't know alot about the enviroment that an aircraft engine lives.  Car engines spend most of the life running at about 10% of their rated output, contrast that to an aircraft engine that spends most of it's life at 75%.  A powerplant has to be built to it's intended use. 

 

[Frank N. O.]

I don't know much about new planes but market might be a good reason indeed. I would like to comment on the engines though, Porsche tried to make an airplane engine and basically, it was one major bust! Weight, chassis-mounts, reliability, etc. There was an article online somewhere but I don't have the link atm, I could find it again if someone wants it though, it was called the Porsche PFM I think (Porsche Flugzeug Motor = Porsche Aircraft Engine).

But aren't there some good new US-planes out there? Lancair for instance isn't that a US brand? They have both small ones like the Legacy and the new certified factory-built Columbia that was flown by Lindberg too and it also has a advanced new cockpit design, although personally I'm not fond of that control-stick but that's just me.

Any word on new models from Cessna and Piper btw?

Frank

[Gulfstream Driver]

I always thought Diamond was based in Texas.  Guess I learned something. 

If you look in Trad-A-Plane or Controller, there are all kinds of twins being sold, and not a lot being bought.  Also, in my experience, Diamond doesn't make the greatest trainer.  Granted, when I flew the Katana it was a few years ago, but they couldn't take the abuse of training.  That problem may have been fixed by now.  You can also fit a lot more into, say, a Cherokee 6 or a Lance than you can into a Twin-Star, which is only a 4 seater.

Cirrus and Lancair are both building brand new designs, but neither are twins.  And both are having trouble with accidents.  Not because of safety issues necessarily, but because they're the new thing and people with money buy them and fly them into conditions they're not ready for.  Each has a different side stick system.  I forget which has what, but one moves like a yoke and the other moves like a regular center-stick.

I think Cessna and Piper are just updating old designs with new avionics.

[Mike]

Ok, so what about training in a twin?
Isn't there a market for twin engine trainers?

And I know the Lycoming is an old proven concept, but it really could become outdated one day when the oil industry says "no more Avgas". It's becoming such a small market that I am pretty sure it will either go away or become very very expensive...

You guys are right about Piper and Cessna, they are waaaay to comfortable doing what they have always been doing. And the thing about the Lancair is that it is way to fast isn't it?

My favorite plane is the C-182 (or 180 or 185,.whatever). It's pretty efficient and can actually haul stuff up to altitude and everybody can work on it and has parts for it.
Now, ...is there an equivalent to the good old 182 in form of a modern plane?

[Gulfstream Driver]

There is a market for twin trainers.  You have to build twin time somehow...

[Roland]

The idea to produce twin-engined airplanes here at Diamond (www.diamond-air.at) is not to use it as a trainer in general but to use it as a GA-aircraft. It is true, for the moment the US market is not that prosperous for Diamond and its DA 42, but for the DA 40 (single engine) it is. Especially the one equipped with the Lycoming engine. This was particularly targeted for the US and Canada market.

Fact is that we produce a lot more DA 42 at the very moment than DA 40 (we recently sold aircraft S/N 100). They mainly go to the far-east and European counties. The secret behind all this is the diesel engine. In Europe the use of a diesel engine is a big economical factor. We found, that in the US the diesel engine is not so accepted due to several reasons as there are the use of a metric system and hardware and the engines complexity. Besides, but only between you guys and me here, the diesel engine in the DA 40/42 has its teething problems.

About flight characteristics of all this mentioned planes and the Katana I can’t tell, I don’t fly this. I only found that especially the Katana sees a tremendous revival at the moment and it is going to be built again in Slovakia. And then again, as long as wings don’t turn it is very suspect to me…

[Sleek-Jet]

Ok, so what about training in a twin?
Isn't there a market for twin engine trainers?

And I know the Lycoming is an old proven concept, but it really could become outdated one day when the oil industry says "no more Avgas". It's becoming such a small market that I am pretty sure it will either go away or become very very expensive...

You guys are right about Piper and Cessna, they are waaaay to comfortable doing what they have always been doing. And the thing about the Lancair is that it is way to fast isn't it?

My favorite plane is the C-182 (or 180 or 185,.whatever). It's pretty efficient and can actually haul stuff up to altitude and everybody can work on it and has parts for it.
Now, ...is there an equivalent to the good old 182 in form of a modern plane?

As far as the small Lycomings, I'm not to worried about avgas going away sincemost of them are low compression engines and can run automotive gasoline with no problems (or can be modified to do so). 

Twin time???  Well, if you are purchasing the time to build it, you're going to go broke pretty fast.  Piper still builds the seminole, and the Seneca, both of which can be found on flight lines at schools across the country. Most, if not all, of the professional multi-pilots are comming out of the schools now and moving into the right seat of commuters, ect... Now if a private individual wants to buy a twin, the insurance companies are going to require someone to ride around with them in whatever equipment they have, regardless of time.  You'd be money ahead purchasing your airplane, and then flying around with an instructor, rather than build some time in a smaller twin first.

To my knowlege, there isn't a replacemant airplane to the venerable 180/182/185 airframe on any drawing board, probably because there doesn't need to be.  Aviation is about what get's the job done, not about what it looks like on the ramp.  It's to bad Cessna doesn't still build the 185, but it's my understanding that the tooling for those airplanes was either sold off as scrap, or left to rot and is unusable at this point.  Sure, cantavliever wings and a slick composite fuselage would look good in a brochure, but you can patch aluminum in the back woods with a pair of snips and a pop rivet gun (well, maybe a few more tools... ) and the struted parasol airframe is pretty stout.     

But, what it really comes down to, the reason why we don't see more new designs is $$$$$$$$$$$$ .  It takes substantial capital investment to bring a new airframe or powerplant to market.  As an example, look at the SMA diesel that is now available.  Last time I checked it was an 80,000.00 STC on a Cessna 182, and I believe that is without the installation costs.... but it has to cost that much for the manufacturer to recover the development costs in a reasonable amount of time, at least in the US market.  And for the record, I wouldn't own a new Cessna... or Piper... or Beech... or, well you get the idea.       

[Gulfstream Driver]

I guess my point about building twin time was from the instructor's point of view.    There are more efficient ways to do it.  A good company will even send you to school.   

[Sleek-Jet]

My most humble appologies to the Wilga, Muale, and Brush Hawk drivers out there... they are still being produced and fit the same niche as the 180/182/185 market...

[FlyingBlind]

For many many years, Germany has produced very very good parts and airplanes and also helicopters.Germany is the king-chief producer of mechanical vehicles/aviation devices or Europe.Also in the WW2 germans had the best Tanks.But i wouldn't worry abou tit taking over..

[Ted_Stryker]

For many many years, Germany has produced very very good parts and airplanes and also helicopters.Germany is the king-chief producer of mechanical vehicles/aviation devices or Europe.Also in the WW2 germans had the best Tanks.But i wouldn't worry abou tit taking over..

Reminds me of the line "Werner Von Braun" said in "The Right Stuff"....

Senator: "What?!  So, was it their Germans that got them up there ahead of us?"

WVB: "No.  No it vas not, Senator.  Our Germans are better zan zer Germans!"


I think the engineering race is constant, and in different fields you see different countries temporarily gain an edge.  But such leads are fleeting among modern countries as innovation is not unique to any one country.  It's also why countries that want to remain economically viable work hard to keep "pushing the outside of the envelope".

[Roland]

I like that last statement of Ted. Different countries, different approaches to the same problem. And interesting solutions for different problems, too. I was allowed to work on American made aircraft as well as on European. To tell which one is better is impossible and not necessary. Aircraft models are direct reactions for the demands of the market.

To me it is interesting to see this “race” out of the view of Diamond Aircraft. Actually our DA 20, 40 and 42 are good sellers, but not so in the USA. But here in Europe the cost of fuel maters much. Very much. So, new economical planes with Diesel engines sell. Contraire to this maintenance cost of good old Cessna’s 150/150/172/182 explode. If one takes this in account it start to make sense to take a lot of money into hands and start to develop a “new” plane. But I truly think there is no “who is better than …”.

[Sleek-Jet]

Whatever happened to the Speedwing???  I remember reading a few articles in the aviation rags about them when they came to market, but never really heard anything more. 

That was an interesting little airplane. 

[Gulfstream Driver]

I like that last statement of Ted. Different countries, different approaches to the same problem. And interesting solutions for different problems, too. I was allowed to work on American made aircraft as well as on European. To tell which one is better is impossible and not necessary. Aircraft models are direct reactions for the demands of the market.

There's a reason the US Space Shuttle and the Russian version looked very similar.  Physics is physics no matter where you live.