Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Open for questions of visitors of DAN. Posts of our guests are on moderation queue.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
carym
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: cary
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: N336TS
Airport: KTYQ

Posts: 1006
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby carym » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:58 pm

TimS wrote:For part 91, TBR is mostly a recommendation with the exception of the TDI 1.7 engines. In that case, you cannot go past the TBR. I forget exactly why, but it is a hard number and the FAA supposedly has come down hard on owners who "intentionally" went over. Further, Continental will not sell you parts passed the TBR on the 1.7L engines.

For the two liter engines; I have not seen it but have read of multiple going past TBR. Continental requires you sign a hold harmless letter and then they are willing to sell you parts.

Tim


Tim, while you may be correct about the 1.7 engines, I have to say that I know of several owners with 1.7 engines that have gone past the TBR without any negative consequences. Further, I never received any communication from either the FAA or from Continental that said I cannot go past the TBR in my 1.7 engines while operating under part 91. Further, I never received any word from Continental that they would not sell the necessary parts to service the 1.7 engines if they were past TBR. Indeed, I am not sure how they would even know if the engine was past TBR. If your statement is true then that must be a relatively recent development.
Cary
DA42.AC036
Alaska adventure: http://mariashflying.tumblr.com
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: Rent
Airport: KBED

Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby TimS » Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:53 pm

Cary,

My info was based on talking to Continental, Premier Aircraft in Florida and the Diamond Toronto sales team. No idea how long this has existed; however my inquiries were within the past month or two.

For Premier, the statement was in 2015 and 2016 they had customers that tried to go past 1.7 TBR and were not able too.
Continental just said they do not offer parts for engines past TBR for the 1.7L. For the 2 liter, they want you to execute e hold harmless. The factory gave me the same answer, and also mentioned the FAA does not allow it.

My guess is that as part of the acquisition of Thierlert; Continental either discovered something or there was missing information which did not allow Continental to model the risk factors. So the business decision was made to force the older engines out.

Tim
User avatar
carym
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: cary
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: N336TS
Airport: KTYQ

Posts: 1006
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:00 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 74 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby carym » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:24 pm

Thanks Tim. Up until 4/2016 (when my plane went back to the factory) I was able to get parts for my 1.7's without any difficulty. I know they wanted people to upgrade to the 2.0's, but they were still supplying parts to me (and never asked me how many hours on my engines). Indeed, when I had to replace my ECU's, I got used ECU's from Continental that had more than 1000 hours on them so Continental was sending out parts that were "beyond" TBR. Just another point of reference.
Cary
DA42.AC036
Alaska adventure: http://mariashflying.tumblr.com
User avatar
gordsh
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Shawn
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: CGTLG
Airport: CZBA

Posts: 142
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 4:40 pm
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby gordsh » Thu Feb 22, 2018 9:48 pm

Seems like Cirrus outsold every one again in 2017 as per this report https://www.flyingmag.com/cirrus-daher-and-honda-record-robust-2017-sales?enews022218. Realy looking forward to seeing Diamond compete with the new DA50's on the way.
GTLG | DA40 XLS Premier Ed.| 40.1083
CZBA | Burlington | Ontario | CANADA
User avatar
reinhardj
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Reinhard
Aircraft: DA40D
Registration: DEWDI
Airport: EDWQ

Posts: 42
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby reinhardj » Sat Feb 24, 2018 10:50 am

TimS wrote:
jb642DA wrote:Do you have to "replace" the engines at TBR??

I think if you are renting the plane out ie: flight school use, etc the answer is - YES.
If you are "just flying it yourself", I think TBR is a recommendation...They do not have to be replaced at TBR.

Do I have this right?


I did not look into flight/school/commercial aspects. And what I recall from leasing back my Cirrus a long time ago I do not have enough confidence in to repeat :D

For part 91, TBR is mostly a recommendation with the exception of the TDI 1.7 engines. In that case, you cannot go past the TBR. I forget exactly why, but it is a hard number and the FAA supposedly has come down hard on owners who "intentionally" went over. Further, Continental will not sell you parts passed the TBR on the 1.7L engines.

For the two liter engines; I have not seen it but have read of multiple going past TBR. Continental requires you sign a hold harmless letter and then they are willing to sell you parts.

Tim


According to the latest CD-135/155 manual, both engines have a recommended TBO/TBR, not a strong airworthiness limit:
Extract from document TAE 125-0001 Rev. 19 Lifetime 170907 (latest version):

TAE 125-02-99 – Version 01 (see remarks for engine version
identification):

The entire aircraft engine TAE 125-02-99 has a proved TBR / TBO
of 1500 flight hours or 12 years, whichever occurs first. For
safety reasons it is strongly recommended to replace or overhaul
the entire aircraft engine after 1500 flight hours or after 12 years,
whichever occurs first.
Parts with a different life time are listed in the table under
“Remarks”.

TAE 125-02-99 – Version 02, or later approved Versions (see
remarks for engine version identification):

The entire aircraft engine TAE 125-02-99 has a proved TBR / TBO
of 2100 flight hours or 12 years, whichever occurs first. For
safety reasons it is strongly recommended to replace or overhaul
the entire aircraft engine after 2100 flight hours or after 12 years,
whichever occurs first.
Parts with a different life time are listed in the table under
“Remarks”.


Comparable statements cover the CD-155, Version 1: 1200h, Version 2: 2100h
Version 1 is with clutch, version 2 with flywheel, production after 1.December. 2015

Section 5 (Airworthiness Limitation) of the engine Operation & Maintenance Manual CD-135 / CD-155 OM-02-02
says:

5 Airworthiness Limitations
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS APPROVAL SHEET (EASA)
This Airworthiness Limitations Section is EASA approved and
mandatory. It specifies required maintenance unless an alternative
program has been EASA approved.
AIRWORTHINESS LIMITATIONS APPROVAL SHEET (FAA)
The Airworthiness Limitations section is FAA approved and specifies
maintenance required under Sec. 43.16 and 91.403 of Title 14 of the
Code of Federal Regulations unless an alternative program has been
FAA approved.
5.1 Mandatory Maintenance Actions
The following maintenance actions are mandatory due to
airworthiness reasons. Any changes have to be approved by the
local airworthiness authority.


Section 5 does not contain any limitations of the complete engine, only of parts.
By the way, meanwhile the gearbox inspection interval has been increased to 1200h in some combinations with flywheel....
User avatar
H60 pilot
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Mick
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N691YW
Airport: PHNL

Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:26 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby H60 pilot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:17 pm

The takeaway I'm reading from last year's sales:
1) Cessna is terminating production of the TTx after having sold 23 units last year. Keep in mind that is more composite constructed, low wing, high performance singles than Textron sold G56s and B58s. I have a sneaking suspicion Textron bought the Columbia speedster to kill the competition, and if I had to put my money on it, I'd say that's exactly what they plan on doing with the legacy Beechcraft fleet. Good news for Cirrus, but it means that GA is becoming a pure Cirrus fleet by the year.
2) Mooney only sold seven (7) aircraft last year of all models! This on the backside of a serious redesign is a huge disappointment for the brand. If 2018 isn't a breakout year for Mooney I'd bet the brand finds a home right beside the Columbia 400 in the pages of GA history.
3) The highest volume of piston twin sold last year . . . wasn't a Diamond! Tecnam's P2006T sold 39 aircraft to Diamond's 36 and 33 DA42/62s. The DA62 probably isn't a competitor in this category, but it's significant I think that more customers are choosing the Rotax 912 powered P2006T over the Austro powered DA42, despite the Diamond's jet fuel engines and longer service record.
4) So speaking about the DA62, what of the six seat heavy haulers? Piper's PA46 piston sales are flat to withering. Textron's G56 continues to slide in sales, but the B58 has actually been closing the market gap with Diamond's twins since 2015. Although I'm unsure as to why, more buyers are purchasing the Baron each year at a greater rate than are choosing to go Diamond. Cessna's 206 Skylane outsells everything in the six seat market by a healthy margin.
5) Trainers - Although Diamond sold 25% more DA40s for 2017 over 2016, Diamond lost an additional 3% market share to the PA28 and C172 over 2016. I'm still convinced Diamond is marketing the wrong aircraft for this segment. Neither Piper or Cessna offer an aircraft as affordable for the airline puppy mills than a DA20. Heck, I'd pay money to go through PPL training all over again to fly a Rotax 915 powered DA20. It seems to me the DA40 is best positioned in Diamond's inventory to be marketed as a 182 Skylane killer. Whereas Diamond currently offers nothing to compete with Cessna's 2nd most popular model, perhaps some purposeful enhancements like an IO-390 powered DA40 with the NG's MTOW would steal x46 sales from Cessna.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Dave
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: N62DV
Airport: KJYO

Posts: 1417
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
Has thanked: 58 times
Been thanked: 261 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby CFIDave » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:30 pm

H60 pilot wrote:4) So speaking about the DA62, what of the six seat heavy haulers? Piper's PA46 piston sales are flat to withering. Textron's G56 continues to slide in sales, but the B58 has actually been closing the market gap with Diamond's twins since 2015. Although I'm unsure as to why, more buyers are purchasing the Baron each year at a greater rate than are choosing to go Diamond.

Diamond could sell more DA62s if they could increase their production rate; demand is currently outpacing supply.

DA62 sales were lost last year because customers couldn't get an aircraft before year-end (to qualify for 2017 business tax deductions), or because customers didn't want to wait nearly a year for one to be produced: I'm aware of at least one pilot that preferred the DA62, but bought a new BE58 Baron just because Textron/Beech had unsold units in stock that could be delivered right away. Diamond Canada has stated publicly that they are hiring an additional 100+ people in London, Ontario to increase their rate of DA40/DA62 production.
N62DV DA62 62.056
N42DA DA42-VI 42.N117 (sold)
N811ET DA40 XLS 40.874 (sold)
KJYO Leesburg, Virginia
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: Rent
Airport: KBED

Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby TimS » Tue Feb 27, 2018 7:37 pm

If Textron bought Columbia to kill it off, they would have done so years ago. Further, you cannot state they bought it to milk it dry and shut it down. Textron has continued to invest and provides upgrades to the planes. In addition, they moved production back to the USA after the fiasco in Mexico. This costs a pretty penny; that would have been the perfect excuse to kill of the model if they wanted too.

Your starting premise just seems incorrect. Textron and Cessna have made a very profitable and long term margin on low volume production. They do it well. I think Columbia was an opportunity to pick up a new design cheap, get some experience in new manufacturing techniques... It was a smart choice.

And from there, not sure where the rest of your comments come into play.

Tim
User avatar
H60 pilot
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Mick
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N691YW
Airport: PHNL

Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:26 pm
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby H60 pilot » Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:39 pm

I’m no industry insider, this is just what Textron’s announcment sounds like where I’m standing. But I’ll help you polish some of these counter arguments:
TimS wrote:. . . they moved production back to the USA after the fiasco in Mexico. This costs a pretty penny; that would have been the perfect excuse to kill of the model if they wanted too.

Composite manufacturing was moved from Oregon to Chihuahua Mexico, hardly an investment wouldn’t you say? Smells like a cost cutting move to strengthen the bottom line. The “investment” argument is harder to believe further still when it wasn’t until the disbonding incident in 2010 that Cessna retooled the Chihuahua plant to FAA standards. Au contraire Sir, composite production was not moved to US soil following this incident.
http://www.indexchihuahua.com/cessna.html
TimS wrote:Textron and Cessna have made a very profitable and long term margin on low volume production. They do it well.

Not well enough, or so Textron claims, to continue production of the TTx. I suspect this won’t be enough to continue G36/B58 production in the future either, as they already sold in lower volumes than the TTx.
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Colin
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: N972RD
Airport: KSMO

Posts: 1157
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
Has thanked: 89 times
Been thanked: 112 times

Re: Training market: Diamond or Cirrus?

Postby Colin » Wed Feb 28, 2018 6:15 pm

I loved the TTx (under it's other names, as well). I almost bought into a iFly partnership out of Santa Monica airport. It would have been a disaster (they folded and took all the owners to the cleaners), but I got a ride in the plane and a thorough pre-flight. Really a great machine. To me, it was what I wanted the SR-22 to be. I still think about those pressurized door seals when I am listening to wind noise in my DA42.
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~2,300hrs
colin@mightycheese.com
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests