|
Warbird posted:I’m reading that as “it can’t haul much”. Would it be accurate to compare it to a Miata? Fun to drive/fly, but drat near useless besides that? It's not totally useless, but... I did the math once and you'd only be able to use all four seats if each occupant weighed 150 lbs. So I guess if you're smaller and you have three small friends, that's cool. One thing I should mention, the useful load isn't too bad, but there's a zero fuel weight restriction, i.e. only so much of the useful load can be non-fuel (i.e. passengers and bags). Plus some of said zero fuel weight gets eaten up if you have de-icing fluid on board, which is dense as poo poo. The ideal mission for it seems to be one passenger and going about 300-400 miles distant. Add more passengers and you have to start planning weight carefully, any shorter of a distance and you may as well fly something slower and cheaper. edit: one other thing I should mention about it, the uh, powertrain is cool as hell. Turbo diesels with intercoolers and common-rail injection, gear reduction, automatic propeller pitch control... it's a demonstration of what IS possible with state-of-the-art in general aviation, as opposed to using a simple stupid lycoming design from the 1940s. Really nice to start the engine by simply moving a switch to the "ON" position, and not have to worry about leaning the engine at all - you have a single power lever for each engine that handles everything. kathmandu fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Sep 16, 2019 |
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 04:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
The DA42 does suffer from the one limitation common to diamond aircraft- it breaks all the loving time and it’s hard to get parts In the last four flights I’ve had in DA40s, one had a phantom magnetometer failure and another came back with fuel pressure off the charts high with the engine off love to fly them though, they’re so smooth and perfect on the controls
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:31
|
|
|
Warbird posted:I saw a Diamond DA42 flying around and thought it looked pretty neat. Do any of you have experience with/hot takes for this plans? Yeah, one of our senior instructors is chief pilot for a company that operates one. He says the single-engine handling is hot garbage, and he has had an engine failure on one outside of a training scenario he said. kathmandu posted:I got my multi rating on one. Fun as hell to fly, needs a ton of rudder input though. A bitch to taxi. Disappointingly low useful load. Incredibly low fuel burn. As much as I like it, I wouldn’t buy a multi with less useful load that a C182. Also he says the procedure for securing the engine is so simple that multi-engine ratings earned in one should be restricted, because if you get your ME on one of those, you may not be properly proficient to manage an engine-out scenario in another less-automated multi. Probably a good thing if you're looking to buy and fly one, less so if you're looking to use it as a training aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:32
|
|
|
the engine securing procedure, from memory, is- fuel selector- cutoff Engine master- off I think you also turn off the alternators but doing just those cuts off gas and feathers the prop E: diesel cycle engine so no mags to turn off a patagonian cavy fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Yeah, one of our senior instructors is chief pilot for a company that operates one. He says the single-engine handling is hot garbage, and he has had an engine failure on one outside of a training scenario he said. 200 fpm climb at sea level. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 06:01
|
|
|
PT6A posted:He says the single-engine handling is hot garbage Can confirm quote:Also he says the procedure for securing the engine is so simple that multi-engine ratings earned in one should be restricted, because if you get your ME on one of those, you may not be properly proficient to manage an engine-out scenario in another less-automated multi. Can also confirm. I was like "that's it?" The hardest part is definitely putting in a shitload of rudder and re-asserting control; the rest after that is easy as pie. Fully intending to start over from scratch mentally when I transition to a different multi-engine aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 06:11
|
|
|
What's that little twin-engine plane that has two comically tiny engines and appears to be only designed to technically get multi-engine time as cheaply as possible? I think it's Italian or something. e: Tecnam P2006T, couldn't place it before but found it right after I posted. 
Sagebrush fucked around with this message at 06:36 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 06:34
|
|
|
I want one
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:04
|
|
|
Also, something that entered my head randomly today. If you were flying a paramotor (one of those things where you fly a parachute with a fan on your back) and carried a radio, and you called up a local class D airport like any other inbound plane and asked for permission to land, what would be most likely to happen? What identifier would you use for an airplane that doesn't have a tail number, like an ultralight? I know that they don't have to carry radios but surely it's come up before.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 07:15
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's that little twin-engine plane that has two comically tiny engines and appears to be only designed to technically get multi-engine time as cheaply as possible? I think it's Italian or something. If you hadn't edited, I was going to assume Cricri.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 08:21
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's that little twin-engine plane that has two comically tiny engines and appears to be only designed to technically get multi-engine time as cheaply as possible? I think it's Italian or something. oh my god that is so freakin adorable
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 12:37
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:What's that little twin-engine plane that has two comically tiny engines and appears to be only designed to technically get multi-engine time as cheaply as possible? I think it's Italian or something. It looks like a drop ship for an Ewok parachute team.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 13:00
|
|
|
Inacio posted:oh my god that is so freakin adorable Says someone who's never, ever flown them. Local flight test examiners were refusing to do examinations in them, then one crashed, and the school here that operated them grounded the rest of the fleet. Now they use Senecas like sane people. It's basically the aircraft that answers the question: what if you could have single-engine performance with all the added expense and complexity of a twin? They are only useful to do multi training as dirt cheap as possible, and even at that I would say they fail because, unlike flying a Seneca or similar light twin, you learn absolutely gently caress all about handling a considerably faster aircraft. PT6A fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 14:11
|
|
|
^^^^ sounds like HOVA Tecnams are gross. They tried to stick me in an Eaglet or whatever it’s called and with me and my instructor we’d only be able to carry 45 mins of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 14:13
|
|
|
Is the altitude performance of the DA42 worth a drat? It occurs to me that it might be the only new turbocharged twin on the market, which might appeal to people that are routinely flying at high DA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 14:21
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Is the altitude performance of the DA42 worth a drat? It occurs to me that it might be the only new turbocharged twin on the market, which might appeal to people that are routinely flying at high DA. I'm told the Seneca is far, far better. Mind you, it probably burns about twice as much fuel doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 14:25
|
|
|
PT6A posted:It's basically the aircraft that answers the question: what if you could have single-engine performance with all the added expense and complexity of a twin? I mean, Cessna was able to sell nearly 3,000 337/O-2 Skymasters.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:06
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:200 fpm climb at sea level. The FAA only requires that twins under 6000lbs have their single engine climb performance "determined", and doesn't actually care if it happens to be a negative number. The Seminole is marginal under a lot of conditions, and older airplanes like the Apache are often unable to climb at all on one engine outside of ideal conditions.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
madeintaipei posted:I mean, Cessna was able to sell nearly 3,000 337/O-2 Skymasters. Isn’t single engine climb in the 337 actually pretty decent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:43
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Isn’t single engine climb in the 337 actually pretty decent? Yeah it’s not bad, especially if it’s a turbo model. The non-turbo ones are kinda pigs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Isn’t single engine climb in the 337 actually pretty decent? This claims its 200-300fpm: http://www.aviationconsumer.com/issues/51_1/usedaircraftguide/Cessna-Skymaster_7278-1.html (stock though)
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 15:51
|
|
|
Ardeem posted:If you hadn't edited, I was going to assume Cricri. I just assume the cri-cri has two engines because at least one is gonna fail every flight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 16:36
|
|
|
azflyboy posted:The FAA only requires that twins under 6000lbs have their single engine climb performance "determined", and doesn't actually care if it happens to be a negative number. The flight school here operates a couple of Tecnams. Their instructor said "on a hot day with a student, the single-engine performance is barely enough to get you to the scene of the crash." e.pilot posted:I’d be shocked if the IFE moving map flight data page got the flight information from anything other than its own separate GPS and temperature sensors. Be shocked then. Every additional antenna and sensor you put requires another hole in the pressure vessel. The more stuff you can get from one antenna/system, the better. In non-FPV GA aircraft, we'll put one combined XM/GPS antenna on top and use a powered splitter to run two navs, EGPWS, and XM. The navs then send their data to their respective transponder. Yeah, it's a single point of failure, but historically the antennas let you know way in advance when they're getting crappy. Aircraft in genera, and navigation in specific, are designed VERY conservatively. A piece of equipment starts by rejecting all spurious input and throwing an error, and eventually is coerced into working and clearing its error state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 16:37
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:The flight school here operates a couple of Tecnams. Their instructor said "on a hot day with a student, the single-engine performance is barely enough to get you to the scene of the crash. "No I don't see a problem with having the absolute SE service ceiling below the elevation of the airport, this is a fine and sensible aircraft to purchase!" It's the natural result of telling a team of engineers "make literally the cheapest twin to operate possible" with no other requirements. I cannot imagine any situation in which a Tecnam would be purchased for any reason other than training.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 18:31
|
|
|
babyeatingpsychopath posted:
I've heard of one seatback IFE that receives ADS-B for the position info.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 19:52
|
|
|
meltie posted:I've heard of one seatback IFE that receives ADS-B for the position info. Thats clever, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 19:57
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfctWAoDXvs&hd=1 Welp  to one of the best amateur builds ever
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:04
|
|
|
Hot take: A true testament to hazardous attitudes eventually catching up to you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:05
|
|
|
Doesn't seem like a hot take at all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:09
|
|
|
simble posted:Doesn't seem like a hot take at all. Not to the legions of followers of the flying cowboys.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:10
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:Hot take: A true testament to hazardous attitudes eventually catching up to you. Yeah. Kudos to him for his attitude after the fact and sharing etc. But there's something about the gung-ho (and perhaps the money?) that gets you a plane like that being pretty much the opposite of what you need to keep a plane like that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
Ola posted:Yeah. Kudos to him for his attitude after the fact and sharing etc. But there's something about the gung-ho (and perhaps the money?) that gets you a plane like that being pretty much the opposite of what you need to keep a plane like that. The flying cowboys and all their bs are nothing but a bunch of macho/invulnerable/anti-authority non-sense. They're pretty universally mocked among the non-GA professional pilot community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:17
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"No I don't see a problem with having the absolute SE service ceiling below the elevation of the airport, this is a fine and sensible aircraft to purchase!" It looks so good. I was very, very upset when I read about it's performance .. in-capabilities.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:21
|
|
|
e.pilot posted:The flying cowboys and all their bs are nothing but a bunch of macho/invulnerable/anti-authority non-sense. They're pretty universally mocked among the non-GA professional pilot community. Funny he mentions not getting yelled at by the tower (both for the macho bs and...) -- the book I'm reading (The Thinking Pilots Flight Manual) talks about how people can't conceptualize dying in a plane crash, but can envision getting in trouble, so in a pinch pick "do the thing that will kill or injure you" over "do the thing where you don't die, but might get yelled at" Nerobro posted:It looks so good. I was very, very upset when I read about it's performance .. in-capabilities. So same
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 21:46
|
|
|
Mike posted a video about the Draco crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfctWAoDXvs "I screwed up. I screwed up at least four times in a row. Don't do what I did. Learn from what I did. Don't risk what I did. I got very lucky." Edit: Oh, look, I was beaten to that link. Nerobro fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Sep 16, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Mike posted a video about the Draco crash. "I screwed up. I screwed up at least four times in a row. Don't do what I did. Learn from what I did. Don't risk what I did. I got very lucky." - Guy who routinely ignored the same lessons from hundreds of pilots before him, many of which who weren't so lucky
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 23:06
|
|
|
PT6A posted:"No I don't see a problem with having the absolute SE service ceiling below the elevation of the airport, this is a fine and sensible aircraft to purchase!" Cape Air disagrees, but the P2012 looks like it might be slightly less lovely maybe? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tecnam_P2012_Traveller
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 23:31
|
|
|
Speaking of dumb pilots, is Jerry dead yet?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
Plastic_Gargoyle posted:Cape Air disagrees, but the P2012 looks like it might be slightly less lovely maybe? Yeah, I meant specifically the lovely little twin (and apparently the singles are also quite bad so far, but probably not quite as bad). The 2006 or whatever it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:43 |
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Speaking of dumb pilots, is Jerry dead yet? Nope
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2019 23:41
|
|