Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MachFly on April 23, 2011, 07:59:06 PM
-
Starting August I'll be flying it for the next three years :x
(Just finished all the paperwork yesterday)
(http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/7318/1601799.jpg)
(not this particular one)
Austro Engine AE 300 Turbo-Diesel engines with counter rotating props
G1000
GFC700
FMS (Flight Managment System)
SVT (Synthetic Vision Technology)
ADSB (Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast)
-
nice :aok
-
Congrats! :rock
-
Strange designed. Hope you have fun.
-
Strange designed. Hope you have fun.
The Diamonds do have a rather unique shape, but I flown a lot of their aircraft and I can not complain. They handle great.
-
have fun with that.... makes Michael Jackson's nose look normal...
instructing in it?
-
:aok :cheers:
-
Damn thats a perty plane. What do you do?
-BigBOBCH
-
instructing in it?
What do you do?
I apologize my OP was a bit misleading, I am not buying it. I'll be using it to get my ME, IFR, commerical, CFI & CFII ratings.
ERAU is buying four of them. They established a rule that you can use it to only get your ME (which is a four month course) everything else your supposed to do in a 172. Before that rule officially took effect I managed to get permission (on paper) to use the DA42 for all courses.
-
I apologize my OP was a bit misleading, I am not buying it. I'll be using it to get my ME, IFR, commerical, CFI & CFII ratings.
ERAU is buying four of them. They established a rule that you can use it to only get your ME (which is a four month course) everything else your supposed to do in a 172. Before that rule officially took effect I managed to get permission (on paper) to use the DA42 for all courses.
Four months for a multiengine rating? When I was a full time CFI I'd block out a week and 15 hours for my students to add it on and still come in under budget.
What in the hell are they having you do for four months? I run out of BS on the second days ground briefing.
-
Four months for a multiengine rating? When I was a full time CFI I'd block out a week and 15 hours for my students to add it on and still come in under budget.
What in the hell are they having you do for four months? I run out of BS on the second days ground briefing.
Don't ask. I came to ERAU with my PPL it took me over a half a year to prove them that I can fly (and to take their transition course :bhead), and I had to pay for everything.
-
Lots of people have poo-pooed the Austro diesel engines.
But with 100LL going away, and at $5-6 a gallon, and high octane mogas with ethanol in it, I think that diesel might just be the future in GA, I like them anyway. Not to mention the ability to run Jet-A and save 40% on fuel costs.
Have fun. :aok
-
Lots of people have poo-pooed the Austro diesel engines.
But with 100LL going away, and at $5-6 a gallon, and high octane mogas with ethanol in it, I think that diesel might just be the future in GA, I like them anyway. Not to mention the ability to run Jet-A and save 40% on fuel costs.
Have fun. :aok
It's not exactly 40% cheaper, more like 40 sense. But the diesel engine has less parts which makes it more reliable, sure it's turbocharged but if you loose the turbocharger the engine would still work.
-
It's not exactly 40% cheaper, more like 40 sense. But the diesel engine has less parts which makes it more reliable, sure it's turbocharged but if you loose the turbocharger the engine would still work.
Guess it varies by area, last time I looked around here (KSLC), 100ll was like $6.49 and Jet A was $4.99.
-
Guess it varies by area, last time I looked around here (KSLC), 100ll was like $6.49 and Jet A was $4.99.
It must have been a while ;)
KSLC:
AVfuel- 100LL: 7.30 JetA: 6.48
Chevron- 100LL: 6.99 JetA: 6.48
-
Reading from Aviation Consumer and my maintenance base with DA42s, if they still have the gearbox inspection at $15,000 per gear box every 300 hours - then it'll be a very expensive freaky little twin.
Diamond’s Austro Diesel: Performance In Search of Durability
The new Austro diesels deliver impressive climb and single-engine numbers. But Diamond hopes so.
By Paul Bertorelli
The NG in Diamond’s new diesel-powered DA42 NG presumably means "next generation," but it could just as well stand for never-ending guts, for that’s what it took to bring this airplane to life. When, four years ago, Diamond certified the original DA42 with Thielert diesel engines, we considered it a bold move indeed. Following up that ill-starred project with a new model equipped with an engine Diamond certified itself strikes us as off-scale nervy, but that’s what the DA42 NG represents.
Diamond’s Austro Diesel
To be accurate, the diesels in the NG weren’t developed by Diamond, but by Austro, an independent company brought to life by Diamond principle Christian Dries. The new state-of-the-art engine factory is right next door to Diamond’s Wiener-Neu-stadt factory located south of Vienna.
The Austro engines exist because Dries and Diamond were unhappy with the service history of the original Thielert diesels and even more unhappy with Thielert’s slow response in fixing the significant technical shortcomings those engines developed in the field.
In record time, Austro certified the new AE300 and is now shipping it. The engine appears to be more efficient, it develops more power, but is also heavier than the original Thielert engines were. The large and unanswerable question is this: Will these engines deliver reasonable reliability and acceptable service history? We’ll know in a year or two; in the meantime, here are our impressions of the Austro-powered DA42 NG.
From Auto to Air
Both the Thielert—now Centurion—and Austro AE300 share a common antecedent. They are both based on the 1.6 to 2.0 litre engines Mercedes developed for its popular A-class sedan. Mercedes has sold more than a million of these cars worldwide, although not all are diesel powered. Austro worked in conjunction with a Mercedes daughter company, MBtech, to adapt a powerplant meant for the highway to one suitable for airplanes.
Converting auto engines for aircraft use has rarely been a painless process and there are no commercial examples in GA. Car engines are typically heavier than aircraft engines of equivalent power and if they’re water cooled, radiators and plumbing aggravate the weight differential.
Next to weight, a perennial sticky point in converting auto engines is the need to reduce engine RPM—typically about 3500 to 4000—to a more prop-friendly 2400 RPM. This requires a gearbox, meaning yet more weight. RPM aside, diesels have another problem: Their sharp power pulses send torsional spikes down the driveline from the crankshaft, causing all sorts of wear and fatigue issues if not tamped down.
This is where Thielert ran into trouble. To isolate the crankshaft torsionals from the gearbox and prop, it used a conventional automotive clutch design, to provide pulse-absorbing slippage between the crank and the gearbox. Although light, the clutch proved to be a maintenance headache, requiring frequent inspection and
Diamond’s Austro Diesel
The DA42 NG has a version of the Garmin G1000 customized to suit the Austro engines, left. Outwardly, the airplane looks the same except for the cowling. The Austro NG, lower left, has a bulge on the right side of the cowling to accommodate the turbocharger. Thielert/Centurion cowl, right, is bulge free.
replacement, especially of the springs in the clutch plate.
The gearbox itself also proved a weak point. When Thielert introduced the engine in 2004, it proposed a 300-hour inspection interval on the gearboxes until the engine proved itself. For inspection, the gearbox has to be removed and disassembled, often involving a trip to Germany. Five years later, the reorganized Thielert—now called Centurion—is still promising a longer inspection interval and it’s not at all clear what the hold-up is.
Evidently, Diamond foresaw the shortcomings of the Thielert diesels a year or so into the DA42 program. Although no one at Diamond has said as much, the company seems to have anticipated Thielert’s footdragging on improvements, for it launched the Austro certification effort about three years ago, yielding a fully certified engine last spring. In July, the FAA rubber stamped the EASA certification and the AE300 is now an FAA-certified engine. Approval for the DA42 NG is expected later this year.
The Austro differs from the Thielert by both degree and philosophy. When it converted the MB engine, Thielert made significant modifications in the name of weight reduction and performance. Among them was recasting the original cast iron block in aluminum and modifying the head, injector system and valve train. Other features of the engine—the FADEC and subsidiary systems such as prop and turbocharger controls and the clutch and gearbox—were developed in-house by Thielert.
From testing and field service, Austro evidently concluded that in making such significant modifications to the engine, Theilert gave up the economy of scale and large-volume quality control that MB so expensively engineered into the engine in the first place. Further, early service history suggested that Thielert’s gearbox and clutch arrangement simply wasn’t robust enough to survive the rigors of the flight environment.
So Austro stuck with MB’s original cast iron block and valve train and engaged Bosch to build a purpose-designed fuel injection system for the AE300. Bosch, which set up a dedicated general aviation products unit, also designed and built the AE300’s FADECs. The injection system runs at a high common rail pressure of about 23,000 PSI (1600 bar), which is how Austro ekes out a little more fuel efficiency.
The engine does differ from the MB original in some ways. For example, the turbocharger is mounted high on the engine rather than below the cylinder head and numerous accessory modifications were made. It has a 28-volt alternator, a top-mounted oil filter and a modified sump.
Diamond’s Austro Diesel
What may be the most critical modification is the gearbox and torsion vibration damper. The gearbox is physically larger and beefier looking than the unit Thielert developed and Austro says the gear engagement surfaces are almost twice as large. The torsional damper is installed on the flywheel between the crankshaft and the gearbox input shaft. It consists of a disc-within-a-disc design which absorbs torsional pulses through a pair of long-stroke springs.
For both the gearbox and torsional damper, Austro proposes a replacement/inspection cycle of 1000 hours, which is the initial proposed TBO of the engine. And that brings up another important difference between the Thielert/Centurion line and the Austro line: The AE300 is intended to be an overhaulable engine, not an engine replaced at the end of its service life. Cost of the overhaul is set initially at about $17,000 (€12,000) or $17 per hour for a 1000-hour engine. By contrast, the current Centurion engine costs $43,000 (€30,065) to replace for a 1200-hour engine. That’s $35 per flight hour. (See the companion articleat right for a detailed economic analysis.)
Austro’s use of the cast iron block, of course, exacts a weight penalty—112 pounds per side over the Thielert. Rather than put the airplane and engine on a diet, Diamond simply certified the NG to a higher weight of 4180 pounds, versus 3935 pounds for the original DA42. The NG thus has about a 20-pound higher useful load.
"It was easier to certify the higher weight than it was to build the engine down to a lower weight," Diamond’s North American CEO, Peter Maurer, told us.
Same, But Different
Outwardly, there’s not much noticeable difference between the NG and its progenitor. When it’s pointed out, however, the engine cowls on the NG are larger and there’s a noticeable bulge for the turbocharger on the right side of each engine. The engines aren’t handed and both are clockwise turning, so the left engine is critical. A close look at the main landing gear reveals that it’s beefed up slightly to accommodate the higher gross weight, but the nosegear was unchanged.
-
Inside the aircraft, the throttle quadrant is a bit different than that used for the Thielert engines, but operation is still single lever—push them up to go faster, pull them back to go slower. Prop RPM and fuel flow are all handled automatically by the FADECs, with the results displayed on the Garmin G1000. Speaking of which, the G1000 obviously has new software to accommodate the Bosch FADECs and the display is, frankly, somewhat busy. There’s no CHT or EGT to monitor, but in place of that, there’s coolant temp, oil temps, fuel flow and, plus gearbox temp. It takes a concentrated look at the engine sidebar to sort everything out.
The NG’s fuel system is the same as the DA42, with 50 gallons in two 25-gallon wing cells, plus two 13-gallon aux tanks in each nacelle behind the engine. Most airplanes are ordered with the aux tanks, since 50 gallons is shy for long-range flying, even with a diesel. Internal pumps move the fuel from the aux tanks into the mains and the system is equipped with auto sensing to keep from accidentally pumping fuel overboard. The G1000 annunciates the aux pumping function.
Feeding the engines are a pair of low-pressure pumps that deliver fuel to the high-pressure common rail pumps. In normal flight, only one of these pumps is running, but both are switched on manually for takeoff. (The Thielert engines didn’t have these pumps.)
For electricals, the NG has a 28-volt alternator on each engine, plus a single ship’s starting battery. The FADECs live in the lower nacelle behind the engine, accessible via a large removable cover. As with the engine in general, they’re equipped with heavy duty mil-spec connectors, not the automotive grade hardware used in the Thielert airplane. A Diamond factory tech in London—who only recently laid eyes on the NG—said the FADECs were more easily accessible than in the previous model. Each FADEC is dual channel—the engine will run on either—and is equipped with a small keep-alive battery that’s independent of the ship’s electrical system. This is the result of a lesson Diamond learned the hard way when a DA42 suffered a dual engine failure after takeoff because the FADECs packed up the engines after the voltage caved due to a low battery.
Flying It
We demo’d the DA42 at Diamond’s London, Ontario plant with production test pilot Bill Scott. He did the flying, while we did the performance checking and note taking. When we flew the DA42 in Austria five years ago, we were impressed with
Diamond’s Austro Diesel
its ease of starting and the smoothness of the engines. The Austros deliver similar impressions. Rather than a flurry of mixture rich, throttle cracked and boost pumps humming, you simply flip on the engine master switch and bump the starter. We tried to count blades, but the engines seemed to start before a full rotation. After a whiff of diesel exhaust, they settle into a vibrationless idle.
Preflight engine checks are push-button automated. On an angled panel to the right of the pilot’s PFD are two momentary buttons labeled ECU Test. Holding them down runs the engine through checks of both channels of each FADEC, including a brief increase in power to check prop and power monitoring functions. When the FADECs swap channels, there’s a noticeable roughness that immediately smooths out. There’s also a toggle switch labeled Voter that allows the pilot to manual select or test each FADEC channel. After that, everything else is conventional. Check the trim and controls and the fuel valves and go.
Performance
Scott said the Austro-powered NG lacks the kick in the pants acceleration of the Lycoming-powered L360 DA42, but we can’t honestly say the difference is that great. On a standard day, the NG needs 2405 feet of runway, while the Lycoming requires 2229. The Austros seem to have plenty of punch.
Climbing out, we saw numbers the POH said we should expect. With power set at 100 percent, the NG climbed on both engines at about 1200 FPM at a Vy of 86 knots. There’s a five-minute limit on 100 percent power, after which 92 percent is available for continuous use. This knocks about 150 FPM off the climb rate. FADEC scheduling allows 100 percent power to about 10,000 feet, after which it decreases linearly to 18,000 feet. To set power, you simply set the levers where you want them; the G1000 shows percent power directly.
In cruise performance, the NG bests the POH a little. At 4000 feet and 75 percent power, we noted 154 knots TAS on 6.6 GPH per side. Full power—92 percent continuous—yielded 167 knots TAS on 8.3 per side. Climbing to 12,000 feet, gave us 165 knots TAS on 6.6 GPH per side. Allowing for a 45-minute reserve, this allows a still-air range of 850 miles. Dialed back to a 55 percent max economy cruise, the NG tools along at 138 knots TAS on 4.7 GPH per side and the range increases to around 1000 miles, with 45 minutes reserve.
Throughout our trials, all of the engine parameters remained comfortably in the green, with the exception of the oil temperature, which rose into the yellow arc. Diamond’s Scott says the London factory hasn’t done enough testing to know if this was a sensor or baffling issue. Coolant temperature were on the high side of green.
Single-engine performance was as the book predicted. At 6000 feet, caging the left engine produced an initial sink rate, followed by a not-too-difficult to achieve 200 FPM climb on the right engine. Shutting one down and bringing it back is simple. Just idle it and flip the engine master off. It auto feathers and stops in about two seconds. To bring an engine back, flip the master on and bump the starter, then advance the throttle when the engine is warmed up. For unfeathering, the Austro has an oil-pressure accumulator.
Ergos, Payload
The NG we flew was lavishly appointed with leather seats and TKS—what Diamond calls the Platinum options. Its empty weight was 3253 pounds for a useful load of 927 pounds. With full fuel, there’s room for 418 pounds of bags and people, meaning it’s a two-person airplane with generous baggage or three people, light
Diamond’s Austro Diesel
The DA42 NG’s FADECs live inside the lower engine cowl. A critical part of maintenance monitoring is downloading recorded data. X’d out displays in G1000 indicate the data writing is complete.
bags and down-fueled to four hours of endurance.
By direct comparison, the Lycoming-powered L360, at 2941 pounds empty, has 172 pounds more of useful load—about one person’s worth. With three people in the L360, there’s room for bags and full fuel and an endurance of about 3 hours at 155 knots, leaned rich of peak. That gives a still-air range of 500 miles, with reserves. It will do better at economy settings but it won’t outrange the NG.
The NG retains Diamond’s signature wide cabin, with excellent visibility and good ventilation. Although we didn’t need it, the NG’s heating system draws from the each engine’s coolant circuit and runs heated air into a central manifold under the cabin floor. The back seat is easily accessible through a top opening hatch over the left wing. And once you’re in it, it’s as comfortable and roomy as any airplane in this class.
Conclusion
In our view, the NG is more about economic performance than flight performance. Although it set no speed records, the Thielert-powered DA42 was adequate to the task as a multi-engine trainer and personal transportation machine with the safety of a second engine.
Where it failed was in promised reliability at a cost of operation its customers could afford. Thielert seems to have vastly underestimated both and when the engine tanked mechanically, the company couldn’t support warranty claims and bankruptcy—from which it has not yet emerged—soon followed. Diamond wasn’t in a position to back up Thielert’s failed warranties.
Against that backdrop, we can’t judge the NG yet. Our initial take is that Austro’s decision to more or less let the engine’s weight run wild will probably impact durability favorably. It’s just a beefier engine and diesels may just need that weight. (One complaint about the SMA diesel—a design that’s essentially gone nowhere—is that it’s too heavy.)
Diesels may also need to command an eye-opening purchase price. The NG certainly does. At $731,850, it’s getting up there with the Barons and the Mirages. We’re not sure if the glamour of a Jet-A burning diesel will overcome that price barrier or not. Diamond’s Peter Maurer told us that schools that purchase new airplanes are less concerned about capital costs than operating costs. If he’s right and if the Austro can deliver good dispatch reliability and eventually a 2400-hour TBO on low operating costs, the NG could succeed where the Thielert-powered airplanes did not.
We’ll re-examine the subject in a couple of years, when Diamond has fielded enough Austros to accumulate some service history.
-
I realize what your saying, it's a new aircraft (& engines) and it did not have the time to prove itself yet. As you may remember I flown the DA20 & DA40 before and I will say that Diamond makes some great planes. Knowing Diamond's reputation I'm willing to take that risk. My only other option is the C-172SP, I spend the last ~8 month flying it and I am not satisfied with it's performance (especially after flying the DA40).
If one engine should fail it is capable of gaining altitude on the other engine, not just at sea level. In the worst case scenario most of the flying in it will be in the desert so there will be a place to ditch. Diamond's seats are a part of the main frame so in the worst case scenario they will not separate form the plane.
I do not believe that the DA42 is significantly more dangerous that it's counterparts.
-
It must have been a while ;)
KSLC:
AVfuel- 100LL: 7.30 JetA: 6.48
Chevron- 100LL: 6.99 JetA: 6.48
Oh lawds! I paid $4.67 a gallon self serve last wednesday
-
Oh lawds! I paid $4.67 a gallon self serve last wednesday
KSLC has only full service, self service is topically cheaper. Also all airport are different, KSLC is a pretty large airport.
-
Four months for a multiengine rating? When I was a full time CFI I'd block out a week and 15 hours for my students to add it on and still come in under budget.
What in the hell are they having you do for four months? I run out of BS on the second days ground briefing.
which is why i refuse to go to Embry-Riddle when i can go to my community college and spend 30 grand for my PVT, IFR, Commercial, every CFI and Multi engine ratings in two years. Its funny though, CCBC has a contract with ER and FIT that allows CCBC students to continue on at the two school without having the hastle like mach said he did. If i decide to continue one, i want to go to FIT.
-
which is why i refuse to go to Embry-Riddle when i can go to my community college and spend 30 grand for my PVT, IFR, Commercial, every CFI and Multi engine ratings in two years. Its funny though, CCBC has a contract with ER and FIT that allows CCBC students to continue on at the two school without having the hastle like mach said he did. If i decide to continue one, i want to go to FIT.
Don't get me wrong it has it's advantages, but like every other place it has it's BS.
-
Four months for a multiengine rating? When I was a full time CFI I'd block out a week and 15 hours for my students to add it on and still come in under budget.
What in the hell are they having you do for four months? I run out of BS on the second days ground briefing.
Maybe it's like flight safety, where you get your commercial-ifr-multi all in a twin so you get supposely spit out with 200 twin right into a right seat?
-
Maybe it's like flight safety, where you get your commercial-ifr-multi all in a twin so you get supposely spit out with 200 twin right into a right seat?
I suppose. That's Eliot Spitzer call girl money he's dropping so I hope there's a happy ending involved.
I guess if it's in conjunction with finishing up college and getting a degree it makes some sense because that only goes so fast regardless if you're in a distance learning program or going to a brick and mortar school.
Still 3 years to tack on your Commercials and CFIs? 4 months for a multiengine add on? I don't know if you must do your flying through Riddle these days but I know plenty of folks who didn't. I have no idea how it affects the course selections and credits you'll be taking but I imagined MF has considered his options.
Have fun!
-
Maybe it's like flight safety, where you get your commercial-ifr-multi all in a twin so you get supposely spit out with 200 twin right into a right seat?
I suppose. That's Eliot Spitzer call girl money he's dropping so I hope there's a happy ending involved.
I guess if it's in conjunction with finishing up college and getting a degree it makes some sense because that only goes so fast regardless if you're in a distance learning program or going to a brick and mortar school.
Still 3 years to tack on your Commercials and CFIs? 4 months for a multiengine add on? I don't know if you must do your flying through Riddle these days but I know plenty of folks who didn't. I have no idea how it affects the course selections and credits you'll be taking but I imagined MF has considered his options.
Have fun!
It's been a while so I can't give you the numbers, but when I was choosing a school I looked at the prices for a lot of aviation colleges and the prices were not much cheaper than ERAU. So I figured if I'm going to pay that much I might as well go for ERAU.
I don't get to schedule my own flights, but the instructors do it when the time is good for them. Since they are also freaked lazy (apparently they are busy with students :bhead) you end up flying on average twice a week.
I should get everything in two years (last year you get jet time in class D sims), but I'll still have the DA42 for my personal use.
-
Hummm :uhoh
-
I understand the principal of logging the flight time in an approved training device but they're telling you that you're logging simulator time as jet flight time?
Let them say whatever they want but for the sake of your own logbook and putting pen to paper don't do that. It isn't. You can log the landings for currency, the holds and approaches count toward currency but the time in the simulator isn't flight time nor is it jet time. I have seen it used to add to Total Time (per FARs allowing up to [x amount] to be logged toward a certificate or rating with an approved instructor) when someones total time was just shy of 1500 hours to add an ATP at the end of a jet initial type rating course. The 24 hours in the simulator put them over the edge and they walked away with their ATP on the up and up.
Looking at the logbook I get from a certificate holder just now I noticed none of the approaches I've done in the simulator have counted but I was under the impression they should. I may be mistaken or we might just not count them since we do enough in regular line flying for it to not be an issue. The night landings count toward currency which is standard.
I would be more concerned about your pace if you weren't a full time student but since it's in conjunction with your education it does make more sense. It's none of my business but don't be afraid to look into other avenues to get the training you need to standard that challenges you and helps you learn if you're not happy with the training you're receiving. A childhood friend went to riddle and the expenses were crippling so he actually went from a focus on flying to a career in ATC where is now at ZAU (Chicago ARTCC) and I actually have been worked by him before which is neat. Still good luck and have fun.
-
I just want to clarify the intended roadmap for my sanity.
200 hours of Da42, using the numbers from NY is around $350 per hour. So were at $70,000 just for the plane rental. Not including any of that is the CFI time or course fee's.
What is the plan after the 200 hours is up with the assumed CFIIMEI? I mean, you'll be useless in a flight school of any sort if yr biding time from that point to a FO job. They would want you to start instructing the guys who are lower then whale toejam in a single so you know how to teach before you are given the opportunity at killing them in a ME.
-
I understand the principal of logging the flight time in an approved training device but they're telling you that you're logging simulator time as jet flight time?
Let them say whatever they want but for the sake of your own logbook and putting pen to paper don't do that. It isn't. You can log the landings for currency, the holds and approaches count toward currency but the time in the simulator isn't flight time nor is it jet time. I have seen it used to add to Total Time (per FARs allowing up to [x amount] to be logged toward a certificate or rating with an approved instructor) when someones total time was just shy of 1500 hours to add an ATP at the end of a jet initial type rating course. The 24 hours in the simulator put them over the edge and they walked away with their ATP on the up and up.
Looking at the logbook I get from a certificate holder just now I noticed none of the approaches I've done in the simulator have counted but I was under the impression they should. I may be mistaken or we might just not count them since we do enough in regular line flying for it to not be an issue. The night landings count toward currency which is standard.
I would be more concerned about your pace if you weren't a full time student but since it's in conjunction with your education it does make more sense. It's none of my business but don't be afraid to look into other avenues to get the training you need to standard that challenges you and helps you learn if you're not happy with the training you're receiving. A childhood friend went to riddle and the expenses were crippling so he actually went from a focus on flying to a career in ATC where is now at ZAU (Chicago ARTCC) and I actually have been worked by him before which is neat. Still good luck and have fun.
As far as I know you can log hours in a class D sim as total time & jet time, right? You can even get all your ratings in a class D sim without ever seeing a real airplane.
I'd love to be able to train somewhere else while I'm at ERAU, but ERAU does not value training from other schools and will make you repeat almost everything with them. Also if you want to get a degree with them you have to take their courses for PPL, ME, IFR, & commercial (PPL course is a bit different if you already have your PPL, but overall it's just a waist of time). Right now I'll be taking a summer break and because of that I can not train somewhere else, well I can but it will be a waist of money. But I also can't go though 4 month without flying so I'm supposed to just fly around for my own money in order to keep proficiency & stay current. :bhead
-
I just want to clarify the intended roadmap for my sanity.
200 hours of Da42, using the numbers from NY is around $350 per hour. So were at $70,000 just for the plane rental. Not including any of that is the CFI time or course fee's.
What is the plan after the 200 hours is up with the assumed CFIIMEI? I mean, you'll be useless in a flight school of any sort if yr biding time from that point to a FO job. They would want you to start instructing the guys who are lower then whale toejam in a single so you know how to teach before you are given the opportunity at killing them in a ME.
The C172SP costs $103 per hour dry, instructor $54. I don't know the exact per hour price of a DA42 as they were not published yet. Here is the price list: http://prescott.erau.edu/degrees/flight/external-link-pr-flight-dept.html (http://prescott.erau.edu/degrees/flight/external-link-pr-flight-dept.html). If I fly the DA42 the whole four years will be $5000 more expensive (tuition is $50000 per year), given the advantages it has over the 172 I think extra 5K is worth it.
After ERAU I'm planning on USAF though OTS. The problem with that is they don't give a s*** where you graduated from (they look at your flight time, ratings, & GPA). So technically as far as the USAF officially cares I can go to the cheapest school get a 4 year degree and get all my ratings with a private instructor. But if USAF does not work out having an ERAU degree will be useful for finding a civilian job.
-
If it's a class D sim you can log it simulated jet time, right? As far as I know you can get all your ratings in a class D sim without ever seeing a real airplane.
You're correct that you can get a type rating in an airplane without ever seeing the inside of the real airplane. You can show up at the hangar and fly it as PIC 30 minutes after you're done with training if you wanted to. That doesn't mean you have logged any flight time in the airplane.
The Practical Test Standards books contain this information under the acceptable equipment and aircraft as well as which tasks may/may not be done and areas of operation qualify. There's an advisory circular that talks about the certification of flight simulators and if you're bored waiting for something to do you can give a go at reading it.
Read FAR 61.64. How do you meet those requirements if you only sat in a simulator?
FAR 61 and the aeronautical experience requirements also clearly spell out just how much flight simulator time may be used as a credit to an additional certificate or rating. I believe it's 100 hours for airplanes and 50 for helicopters as an example. It's not total time, it just gives you credit in addition to your total time to bring your aeronautical experience to whatever is required for the rating being sought. (1500 for an ATP, for example)
You get credit for the landings for currency. It's not Jet, PIC, SIC, Airplane, Multiengine or any other wink-wink, nudge-nudge quicky shortcut bonus to your flight time.
Now it's your logbook you can log whatever you want or you can not keep one unless you're needing the records for currency. You just have to be able to explain what you've logged and why you've logged it.
I had a kid send me a resume a couple years ago with 1400 or so hours, half of it in the right seat of an E145 and it included 800 hours of actual instrument time. Now considering your average professional pilot might have 1/10th (give or take of course) of their total time be instrument time this was unusual so I called and asked. He had been logging all time above FL180 as actual instrument time since it's by reference to instruments. He didn't offer much of a defense. Cute, clever, wrong. I referred him to someone very well respected as a resume and interview prep coach to get him sorted out since he wasn't a complete dork and was also pleasant to speak with for a short while. If he had been sending that resume out to other operators they're likely to round-file it off the bat and you don't want your name remembered that way.
-
Didn't really wished to get involved, I can't bite my tongue anymore. It's my personal opinion, so it's not law written in stone. Don't fall for the unicorn & glitter crap. Whatever a class D simulator is, nobody, again nobody is going to give a hoot about your 10 - 20 hours of space shuttle simulatorin the job market. Nobody cares either about someone with 600 sic time on a part 91 king air to give you an idea. Few even care of your 800h as a CFI, as you were not even flying the thing, but they'll love that you know all the little stupid regs that don't apply to their operations anyway.
Its been beaten to death, you have two routes. The commuteurs that might hire you with no real world experience, where you can go parade your stripes before you pull out a colgan air, or painfully build your 1,200 to be thrown in the wild as a light twin captain, hoping you'll learn of the pilot skills before you pancake into a mountain in the middle of a storm.
The DA44 might look like the falcon millenium, but to a recruiter could be a seminole, even a freacking apache. They all are bug smashers, and twin time is twin time, but a recruiter will prefer PIC single with actual ifr over twin time as a MEI. Real world stuff that shows you have been around the block a little.
Off course, I'm making a point at being cynical, but the word of the street is that the industry will massively hire in 2-3 years to compensate for the baby boomers retirement. Thus if I were you, I ll get cracking 911 style. Get done like yesterday, and try to go rack up some real life experience.
Nobody ever asked me where I got my ratings yet, and what I was flying. There's nothing wrong in buying an old apache for $40, hire a flight instructor for 2 months straight, get all your ratings, sell the pane back.
Again, check the pilots hiring boards, see what matters, see how you can get it the cheapest/quickest. Big 141 schools throw glitters at you to justify riding their $$$ unicorns. Ain't going to make a difference with Bob's flight service graduate, except when you'll pay your loan back for the next 10 years.
Golfer, Wolfy might see different, again, just my 2cts ... Ain't God's writings.
-
^^^^
That pretty much covers it
-
What Frenchy said.
<edit>
I didn't really like the way I wrote that. I don't want to tell you what you should or shouldn't do. Make that decision for yourself but make it objectively. Whichever you choose have fun, learn and stay safe.