I get 150-155kt TAS at FL100 at 10.5 USG/hr.
Or 138kt IAS at 2000ft at 11.7 USG/hr.
Peter wrote:
get 150-155kt TAS at FL100 at 10.5 USG/hr..
Maybe slight thread drift here, but Peter your TB20 seams to perform better than book values – at least if your under simmilar conditions like in the POH. Weight/ISA? And POH values is based on an aircraft even without antennas and lights which makes is unlikely for real world aircraft to achieve. Modifications? Nanocoating wax 
They are real values. My ASI is calibrated (and was checked 3 weeks ago professionally). The Socata POH is weird. Lots of previous discussions in TB threads; they don’t seem to be running at peak EGT, but nobody is quite sure. The POH is dated from the 1980s.
The DA50 is a diesel engine, which has a much higher CR, and the SFC of a piston engine is proportional to sqrt(CR) so if you e.g. increase the CR by 20% you get 10% more HP for the same flow (of the same fuel – that’s another story). Diesels are a lot more efficient; the DA42 does the same IAS as me for the same total fuel flow. And the SR22 and C400/TTX also do 138kt IAS at 11.7 USG/hr.
THY wrote:
And POH values is based on an aircraft even without antennas and lights which makes is unlikely for real world aircraft to achieve.
In my experience, POHs are more realistic than people give them credit for. In a recent flight with a 1979 Archer II loaded to max gross and with 10 antennas of various kinds, I observed a TAS 2-3 kt below book value. The POH says that without wheel fairings you lose 8 kt. The aircraft had main wheel fairings, but not nose wheel fairings, so losing 2-3 kt seems to be about what you could expect.
The only aircraft I’ve really tried to compare to the POH power and speed tables was the club Bonanza in Houston (an S-35). It was absolutely bang on the money, despite being old with slightly scruffy paint.
They are trying to sell the story to the people in the US that it is a more than sufficiently powered aircraft. I think they say it four times how „powerful“ the engine is. Which of course it is not, in the context of the very heavy airframe. Let‘s see how long it will take for that market to realize this.
boscomantico wrote:
They are trying to sell the story to the people in the US that it is a more than sufficiently powered aircraft. I think they say it four times how „powerful“ the engine is. Which of course it is not, in the context of the very heavy airframe
Diamon Aircraft have a huge market base of US fans, so I am sure lot won’t realize or just don’t want to…
Also with 3km runways in flat land, the heavy airframes & less powerful engines is “still acceptable” as long as one sits on high KTAS cruises & low GPH burns? SR20/DA40 had lot of sucess in US while in Europe some are found in 600 runway hedge during the summer…
So a DA62 is 50k more than a DA50.
Ingenious pricing strategy!
🙄
Ibra wrote:
the Rocket even has 31kft ceiling if anyone is brave to avoid hitting RVSM & UFO up there
Without pressurization will only be certified to 25kft, as my Comanche for example. Turbo critical altitude is as high as 20kft, but limit is 25kft.
I never entered the Jet A1 world, but as far as I understand it’s comparatively easy to obtain it for half the price of AVGAS. If calculated over lots of hours it may sum up to an advantage. However, investing, what, 1M€ only in order to be able to safe on fuel seems a bit weird. It’s sad but I don’t catch the selling point of that plane.
