I got an e-mail from a Diamond DA42 owner who is upset that Flying gave Diamond its 2009 Editors' Choice Award for the re-engined DA42 light twins. This person owned an original DA42 with the Thielert diesel engines that simply didn't work. His airplane has been grounded for more than a year and the cost of getting it back into the air was unknown to him. He damned us here at the magazine for praising the original DA42 when it was introduced, and now for awarding the hard work of Diamond to recover from the disaster of the Thielert engines.
In case you don't recall, the Thielert engines are really automotive diesels that had been modified and mated to a gearbox for aviation use. They were approved by the certification authorities in their home country of Germany, in the U.S., and essentially by all other governing bodies that matter. They met the standards any aircraft engine would be measured against.
However, the certification procedures didn't accurately predict the maintenance requirements and costs which turned out to be dramatically higher than expected. And the rules have no way of knowing the financial health of a company so when Thielert went bust, everyone who bought the engine was left holding the bag. Diamond quickly went to work certifying standard Lycoming gasoline fueled engines on the DA42, and also developed its own diesel power plant based on an automotive engine. Thielert-powered DA42s can be converted to the new engines but it will cost the owner a lot.
What drives me crazy is that after 34 years here at the magazine every time I suggest that a pilot go slowly on new technology, particularly fundamental technology such as engines, I am accused of being against progress. And when I insist that the companies that have been around for years are most likely to be around next year, I am accused of defending the status quo and trying to hold back innovation and eager new talent.
Well, this sounds like "I told you so" and it is. But, most importantly, I simply want to remind myself, and everyone who will listen, that building airplanes and all that goes into them is very difficult and almost nobody gets it right the first time or two, or maybe three or four. There is a name for people who fly new technology airplanes and it is test pilot. The problem is that test pilots can analyze performance, but they can't predict the durability of the company who builds the machine. Only the twisting and bending of economic cycles, and the failure of some designs to meet their goals, can truly test an aviation company. If a manufacturer hasn't been through that trial by fire, you simply need to know that your risk is greater of being left with an airplane or engine or whatever that doesn't work than if you buy from the establishment. When you read an enthusiastic report about a new airplane from a new company, remember that there is hope mixed in along with the measurable performance.
Comments (16)
Post a comment
All Comments
Submitted by Robert Mosier on March 04, 2010.
Good for Diamond, we are so lucky, and thanks to the great article, now the value of our half million dollar paperweight can drop even further. Diamond should honor their promise of new gear boxes at no cost every 300 hours, and the 2 new engines for $20,000 at 1000 hours that was part of the sales pitch for us taking a risk on new technology since they are such a great company. Bob Mosier
Submitted by hunterpilotmedia on March 04, 2010.
As an aircraft owner, I feel your pain. One of the biggest benefits to buying a brand new airplane is that all of the risks are assumed to be removed by warranties and support from the factory. Unfortunately, our market is not deep enough to spread the risk and those of us who are brave enough to shell out dollars for "new" end up taking the hit when things go wrong.
I wish there was a better way....
Submitted by coffeecolvin on March 04, 2010.
From a non-pilot; Amen. I bought one of the early Chevy Luminas. It had problems with the ECM, which took a year for service techs to understand. I was a part of the unintended "test pilot"group. Mac is right! I recall reading the letters re the first ot the light jets. How on target he was.
Coffee Colvin
Submitted by james l. hibbert on March 04, 2010.
i attended an open house when the diamond twin was introduced.
sales folks and company representatives failed to answer and chose to
ignore my questions about the injection system and the gear reduction
for the prop.
with my automotive background, i felt this airplane would be a mechanics
nightmare. the old engines were great in cars, but there were two many
costly modifications made in order to place these engines in a car.
then, when i was told that the faa had not approved repairs on the engine,
but called for replacement, i knew for sure someone was going to get
burned.
would i deal with company, no way, just wait until a truck backs into a
wing.
j. l. hibbert
Submitted by Anonymous on March 04, 2010.
I do recall reading about all the cheers that sounded with the lack of avgas in someparts of the world. This jet A using twin was wonderful, noone has to worry about avgas anymore. Few spoke of the slight risk involved with this new technology, but J McClellan did nemtion it. How real those word are now for DA42 owners. I do think that as a measure of good will Diamond should at least offer to share the cost of reengine. Showing the owners that they're willing thank them for taking a chance on a product they produced.
Submitted by Anonymous on March 04, 2010.
"There is a name for people who fly new technology airplanes and it is test pilot."
Silly me ---- here I've been flying a 39 year "old technology" Cherokee which continues to "test" my pocketbook thanks to a variety of Ad's on various components --- and I was thinking all along that I was operating as a "test pilot"......
old chicory driver.
Submitted by Hiflier on March 04, 2010.
Mac is right, there is a risk associated with buying anything new. Same can be said for Diamond buying new technology from a vendor named Thielert. They are as much a victim (and even maybe more so than any individual owner) in terms of total "losses" from the Thielert failure. If one needs to play the blame game let's lay it at the feet of the outfit responsible (Thielert) instead of vilifying Diamond who has done nothing post Thielert but invest heavily to develop practical solutions for re-engining Thielert powered DA42's which will keep these owner's airplanes flying. But no, maybe that wasn't a good idea! Perhaps they should have taken all their money and purchased more questionably reliable engines for DA42 owners until they went broke thereby stranding Thielert powered airplane owners permanently. No doubt in my mind what the right choice was and they made it as distasteful as it might be to some.
Submitted by C Fred Crawmer on March 04, 2010.
My Pappy told me @ a very early age, "Don't buy a Mark I of anything son." That advice has served me well thru the years. And keep smilin Mac
Submitted by Ed Cook on March 04, 2010.
I admire folks that have the courage (and money) to buy new idea products, especially aircraft. If it weren't for them, we would never get anything new. When new ideas first come out, nobody knows all the answers because we haven't had the chance to learn and experiance the questions yet. Most AD notes are the result of that. Most of us, however, have to wait until the "new" has worn off and all the 'bugs" have been worked out before we invest in the new stuff.
Submitted by gsmorgansen on March 04, 2010.
I have always been in favor of what my dad said about cars...avoid buying the first year of a model. Guess that applies to aviation too. A little common sense goes a long way. Caveat emptor, eh?
Submitted by owenstanley on March 10, 2010.
While I was unaware of this situation it reminds me of the Mooney PFM in many ways. A respected airframer, a respected engine builder/racing/performance company join forces for...? It turned our badly. Unless you have beaucoup $$ and an A&P there is almost no way to own a Mooney PFM today. Many have been converted to a far more conventional aviation piston engine. Peter Schutz got kicked out at Porsche and the PFM was only one reason why. Mooney has not been without its troubles in the intervening years, either. One thing many of us in GA have trouble admitting is that the C-182 type of plane is ideal because it does not require fighter pilot levels of skill to operate safely and well. And the very, very conservative designs (the ones that are sustainable and economically valuable) reflect most of this.
Needle, ball and airspeed!
-CL
Submitted by Hogey74 on March 11, 2010.
I have been sorry to hear about people getting burnt by this. As mentioned above, I can think of a few cars that got great reviews but came to be seen as dogs over time. I guess Diamond is not currently big enough to properly look after victims of the Thielert schmozzle but I reckon they should quietly offer some very generous help in future. I also think that for owners this was a matter of some risk sharing so I don't think Diamond is totally responsible for fixing things.
I saw a lonely Eclipse 500 quietly turn onto final here in Brisbane a few days ago. I bet the owners of that machine wish all they had was engine troubles!
Submitted by vositis on March 17, 2010.
Mac, the point you are missing here is not that Thielert went bankrupt, but how Diamond is handling it. It has nothing to do with progress, but rather with customer care and manufacturer integrity.
Owners have received zero support from Diamond and Diamond is even using the debacle to deny airframe warranty claims for airframe parts that happen to be subcontracted to Thielert. Even on parts that have a Diamond part number. Diamond won't even stock hoses and gaskets required to keep Thielert engines running, not to mention the more expensive gearboxes and clutches. Not only have they failed to support the customer, they have abandoned the customer. They have gone out of their way to make their own Thielert powered aircraft more difficult and more expensive to operate. This is not behavior that deserves an award from anybody.
Additionally, in your award article and this one, you describe that the Austro program was 'launched' after Thielert's failure. The truth, according to Christian Dries himself, is that it was launched years before Thielert's failure when he determined that 'Thielert could not be trusted' and became aware of the investigation that culminated in Thielert's failure. During that time, they continued to market and sell aircraft with these engines, knowing full well that Thielert's failure was imminent. This is equivalent to selling Bernie Madoff's fund, knowing that it's a Ponzi scheme.
Further, your magazine claims in the announcement that the Austro diesel engine is "a significant improvement over the original in performance, efficiency and maintainability." Really? The Austro requires a new gearbox, torsion damper, alternator and fuel pump every 300 hours and has a total life limit of 1,000 hours. That's more parts replaced at more frequent intervals with a shorter engine life. All of these parts replacements and the engine life are 'airworthiness limitations' and are therefore mandatory. Indeed, Diamond is offering a two year maintenance program for 16,500 Euro (~$23,000 US) per engine. That makes the annual maintenance, excluding overhaul, approximately 25% of the acquisition cost.
Mac, go ask Cessna's Jack Pelton what he would have done for his customers if he were shipping Thielert powered aircraft when they went bankrupt. Cessna would have replaced those engines. Diamond treats their customers like crap and you give them an award. As a publication with Flying Magazine's prominence, it is incumbent on you to leverage these awards to reward good behavior for the benefit of the industry, and this award achieves the contrary and ultimately hurts the industry.
Vilis Ositis
Thielert Engine Owner's Group
http://www.THENOG.org/
p.s. The 'Austro diesel engine' is not approved for diesel fuel at all. It is only certified for use with Jet-A fuel.
Submitted by Kai Kern on March 17, 2010.
Diamond has brought into aviation which has only been known before by ink-jet printer producing companies: sell a product at a reasonable base price and have the customer pay unknown and unforeseeable maintenance costs by selling the inkjet cartridges .
What's the ink-jet cartridge to Canon, is the clutch to Diamond. The only difference: no third-party aftermarket products are available as by legal requirements you have to purchase from Diamond the parts they sell at the prices they say.
I wish the Flying-magazine would use its competence to bring light into this business practice. Also, I think it is strange to think that every year will bring up a plane which deserves an award.
Submitted by MARTIN POLLMUELLER on March 21, 2010.
I took delivery of my new DA42 in 2007 when the aircraft had been in production for three years and 350 units were already in operation. Where would you draw the line between early adopter and cautious consumer ?
Submitted by GatorRob on April 05, 2010.
I am launching a new idea into getting funding for flight training. I am fronting the idea of 39,000 people donating a dollar to make the flight academy dream reality. If you can participate by forwarding the site, or donating a dollar..please do. I am hanging it out there and asking for help to achieve a dream. http://WWW.fundapilot.com
Top Rated
Your Comment
All submitted comments are subject to the license terms set forth in our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
