|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Mar 4, 2007 19:57:22 GMT 12
Visited the Pilot Expo at Ardmore today. A number of interesting aircraft on display, both factory built and kitset. For the first time I have had a closeup look at one of CTC's Diamond DA 42 twins. There have been quite a number of odd looking aircraft in NZ over the years, from the Cri-Cri to the Snarks, but this has got to be the ugliest akwardist aircraft I have ever seen in this country. It may fly very well and be economical to operate, but it would seem to be the complete antithesis of the old DH motto 'if it looks right, iit'll fly right'    |
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 4, 2007 20:53:13 GMT 12
They fly over my house all the time as my part of town seems to be right under the flightpath for Rukuhia, which is a few minutes down the road. They're certainly odd looking, but worse is the noise they make. Really strange, those diesel engines.
I don't think they're as ugly as the Miles Aerovan, or the Airtruk. In fact they're so sleak and lightweght looking they're almost like a powered glider I reckon.
|
|
|
|
Post by chrisnpl on Mar 4, 2007 20:54:44 GMT 12
I don't think its ugly - I think it's adorably wacky! A bit like a dart crossed with a canard.
It seems rather small for a turboprop aircraft though - if I were to buy one (probably rather too expensive!) I'd want a stretch of a few feet so I could cram a few more seats in and take a few mates up. It looks like it seats only four, including the pilot.
Who operates it? It almost looks like its a University of Otago plane - isn't that their crest on its tail?
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 4, 2007 20:57:14 GMT 12
I reckon they look cool, modern and fast, but yes, upon reading the right up in a magazine lately, their top speed etc is nothing to get too excited about.
Imagine some small gas turbines on it..................
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 5, 2007 7:37:06 GMT 12
Its not a turboprop, they are diesel piston engines with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronics Control ) which does away with some levers in the cockpit and manages the engine more efficiently. Interestingly some of these aircraft have had uncommanded engine shut downs lately, which leaves one thinking if you really want a computer managing your power or not. The aircraft is operated by CTC MacAlpine, the Hamilton based training organisation for UK airline cadets. Oh, and yes, I talso think it is a very ugly machine!
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Mar 5, 2007 7:39:07 GMT 12
The twinstars are operated by CTC aviation out of Hamilton. The aircraft is designed to replace the Piper Seminole in twin engine training, and it does that quite well. The aerodynamics are actually extremely clean - the Tadpole shape follows the natural airflow lines. This allows and extremely fuel efficient and cost effective trainer - a twinstar has been recorded as flying the Atlantic and using less $200.00 US worth of fuel! I would vote a PL12 Airtruck as being the ugliest NZ aircraft - I think this one looks quite "Thunderbird - like" to me!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 5, 2007 11:46:47 GMT 12
The cabin area reminds me a little of the Beagle Bassett. I've never seen a real one but the Bassett used to always appear in the Airfix catalogue and I think the RAF used them.
|
|
|
|
Post by beagle on Mar 5, 2007 15:12:16 GMT 12
The cabin area reminds me a little of the Beagle
Are you saying the cabin area looks great, lean, muscular and trim, smooth, out of this world,
ladies best friend, top class, stunning, oh you are too modest Dave, stop it..... you are embarrassing me...
|
|
|
|
Post by phil82 on Mar 5, 2007 15:15:22 GMT 12
The RAF Bassett was a beefed-up version of the civil Beagle 206; and it had to beefed up considerably to the point they were two different aircraft.
The Bassetts main purpose in life was to transport five-man V-bomber crews around various airfields, but someone goofed because the aircraft was really too small to accommodate five hefty aircrew with all their kit, [hence the beefing up]!
It was yet another one of those "buy british even if it's crap" exercises, and they didn't last long in service.
It wasn't as ugly as that Diamond thingy> Is it the right way up by any chance?
|
|
|
|
Post by mumbles on Mar 5, 2007 17:08:23 GMT 12
I'll chnage the direction here and put in a vote for the Beech/Raytheon 1900.
Looks like I made it out of lego when I was 9. Angles and fins everywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on Mar 5, 2007 22:40:54 GMT 12
Mumbles, I suppose thats what happens when you use excess King Air parts to save production costs, stretch the height of the cabin, and need the thing to have some form of stability. From certain angles the B1900 does look okay though. The Twin Star is just not what you would call aesthetic to the eye. From any angle!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 5, 2007 22:48:51 GMT 12
I have to admit the Beech 1900 is much more comfortable to fly in than the Bandeirantes they used to have on the runs. And the ATR, also not a looker, is a lovely aircraft to fly in.
Peter, was there much else of interest at Ardmore for the event? And was there any flying?
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on Mar 6, 2007 11:08:33 GMT 12
Peter, was there much else of interest at Ardmore for the event? And was there any flying? The event was basically a trade display, as the name implied. There were about 25 second-hand aircraft parked there for sale by private owners and a couple of the dealers. Several other aircraft were on display by importers - Flightline, Tecnam and others. Inside a large marquee were a number of flight accessory dealers, maintenance organisations and training schools. During the afternoon, inside the old Massey University complex, some seminars were held. I attended one put on by 'Fly Wanaka' (Ruth Presland and co.) on mountain flying. There was no flying display as such, although Ardmore was fully opoerational throughout the event and the Warbirds were certainly active that afternoon. I flew JIE over, and the visiting aircraft park was on the old 07 runway, but the parked aircraft never exceeded six or seven while I was there. Some of the display aircraft were from points far away, (Wanaka, Tauranga, Wellington, Hawkes Bay) so it was worth the trip, but from what I heard the event was less than anticipated as several of the original participants had pulled out when the date was changed from December to March. |
|
|
|
Post by chrisnpl on Mar 6, 2007 13:03:10 GMT 12
Oops - it looked like a turboprop engine on the Diamond DA-42 to me. Fooled by the big air intakes I guess!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Mar 6, 2007 15:35:08 GMT 12
Thanks Peter. There's going to be a big aviation trade do at Mystery creek in october, isn't there? Anyone attending that one?
|
|
|
|
Post by Damon on Mar 7, 2007 19:15:40 GMT 12
It maybe practical ,and it maybe historic ,but the Auster Agricola surely must be a close runner as a ungainly aircraft.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on May 2, 2007 22:05:33 GMT 12
Its not a turboprop, they are diesel piston engines with FADEC (Full Authority Digital Electronics Control ) which does away with some levers in the cockpit and manages the engine more efficiently. Interestingly some of these aircraft have had uncommanded engine shut downs lately, which leaves one thinking if you really want a computer managing your power or not. From Avweb: "Diamond DA42 Engine Fix: Engine AD in the Works? Diamond Aircraft said on Friday that it’s continuing its investigation into the dual engine failure of a diesel-powered DA42 Twin Star last month in Germany, and the fix might be a backup battery for the engine’s electronic control units (ECUs). In meantime, AVweb has learned that an Airworthiness Directive for the airplane’s two Thielert 1.7 Centurion engines is pending. Diamond North American president Peter Maurer told AVweb on Friday that Thielert -- the engine supplier -- and Diamond aren’t working at cross purposes, since the problem obviously needs to be corrected. Maurer said that both of the Twin Star’s engines quit immediately after the pilot retracted the landing gear. Activation of the gear retraction system caved the electrical system voltage and knocked both ECUs offline. When the engines quit, the props immediately feathered and the airplane’s dual alternators, which are supposed to provide failsafe power to the ECUs, also died. The airplane landed with the gear partially retracted and was significantly damaged. Fortunately, the crew survived. According to Diamond, the pilot found the aircraft with a dead battery, then took off immediately after starting it with ground power, without completely charging the battery. Although the airplane has dual alternators and dual buses, it’s unclear how independent the two buses actually are, since they’re connected through a battery isolation relay. In any case, neither alternator was delivering power because the offline ECUs stopped both engines. The ECUs are designed to reset after a failure, but will do so only if provided with sufficient operating voltage. One fix -- although it hasn’t been decided yet -- is to provide each ECU with its own independent backup battery or to isolate the dual buses more effectively, as some all-electric aircraft do. Diamond’s single-engine diesel, the DA40tdi, has a backup battery and Diamond has also discrete batteries for improved starting and for instruments in its two-seat DA20 C1 model. Another approach, says Maurer, is to use capacitors to bridge momentary voltage transients. Diamond and Thielert have yet to decide whether the proposed fix will be an engine or an airframe mod. Either way, says Maurer, airplanes will be retrofitted in the field, once the fix is developed." |
|
|
|
Post by stu on May 3, 2007 17:21:50 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter Lewis on May 5, 2007 9:52:28 GMT 12
Anybody for a remake of the Mad Max movie?
Actually this Airtruk was put up for auction on Trademe a few months ago, and apparently attracted no bids.
|
|
|
|
Post by flyjoe180 on May 5, 2007 11:53:36 GMT 12
Wonder why  |
|
"
