Talk:Diamond DA42 Twin Star/Archive 1

Archive 1

Airworthiness

After an crash in Speyer, Germany, a flaw has been found in the twin stars electric system. A defect batterie can cause the alternators to be totally overloaded which results in the failure of both engines. While DA sees the problems in the inability of the centurion engines to run without electricity (as if they hadn't known that before) the airworthiness of the Twin Star is being discussed. The main problem seems to be, that the electric circuit has no redundancy although it is critical for both engines' operations. Braeutigam 09:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference to this information. I have reverted your changes. Paul Beardsell 09:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You can find this information here, if you speak german: [1] It will also be published in that magazine on April 19. As this is a dynamic site, I did not add this as a reference. Please Re-revert that, otherwise this is vandalism.

When you have a good reference please cite it. Until then... Paul Beardsell 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleted most charackterisitcs

The charackteristics of this aircraft have changed. Due to an overheating of the engines the production aircrafts aerodynamics have been changed in a way that greatly decreased the aircrafts performance. It is slower, has a lower MTOW and it is for example not possible to carry 3 passengers + full fuel load without being overloaded. Together with this newly found single point of failure I described above, it is now performing like a single engine 4-seater at best. Braeutigam 09:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This material is unreferenced. Wikipedia requires that material, especially controversial material, be properly referenced. Paul Beardsell 09:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense you can read the performance charackterisitcs in the official DA performance specifications. You find them at the Thielert Homepage. Braeutigam 14:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Then source them. Also consider using spell check. ericg ✈ 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please fix the data, do not remove it. You seem to know where the correct information is: Please provide it. Paul Beardsell 20:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Added much needed references to the "Development" section. Sigurbjartur Helgason (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job! - Ahunt (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not notable

Why isn't a Diamond DA-42 crasching 50 metres from a residencial building, 2 metres from a warehouse and 50 metres from a busy roadm due to enginge problems, notable, when this Wikipedia Article writes alot about the enginge and the manufacturers problem. If I can find one more article about a Diamond DA42 with enginge problems, would it be notable then? And who is to decide? --Bobjork (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The notability criteria are located in the aircraft project guidelines and they currently state:

Accidents or incidents should only be included if

• The event was fatal to either aircraft occupants or persons on the ground;
• The event involved hull loss or serious damage to the aircraft or airport;
• The event resulted in changes to procedures, regulations or processes affecting airports, airlines or the aircraft industry.

This accident did not make any of those three criteria and is therefore not notable. The main problem is that for some aircraft types, like The Cessna 172 there would be literally many thousands of accidents where the aircraft crashed, no one was seriously injured or killed and no changes were made to procedures or airworthiness directives were issued. These sort of accidents may be of interest in safety digests but they are not encyclopedic content. - Ahunt (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It made one: There was nothing left of the aircraft after the crash but OK. It should meet all those to be notable. Anyway, it crashed due to an engine failure after liftoff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobjork (talk • contribs) 11:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Operators

Perhaps the listing for operators should be changed, as at current time Embry Riddle doesn't operate the TwinStar. They were replaced by the aircraft they replaced, Piper Seminoles Joeldcox (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, their website confirms that they do not currently operate the DA42, so I will fix the article. - Ahunt (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to once again make Embry-Riddle an operator, as they have since obtained new DA42's. Not sure how many they currently have Joeldcox (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Diesel Atlantic Crossing

It may be the first heavier than air crossing, the Hindenburg class airships were diesel powered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tombo1bo (talk • contribs) 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right and therefore the ref (a company press release) was wrong - fixed, by qualifying the statement. - Ahunt (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Operators II

I have noticed that a number of none notable operators have been added to the article. With over 300 aircraft in used mainly by flying schools can I suggest that these are not listed and a blanket statement like The DA42 is mainly operated by flying clubs and training centres and the following commercial operators which just leaves the air-taxi europe and military aircraft to be listed. As we cant really list the hundreds of operators then not listing any would be a NPOV, any thoughts. MilborneOne (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree - this is the same discussion we had at Talk:Piper_PA-44_Seminole#Operators with no objections there to removing a long list of flight schools, which I did. - Ahunt (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed as discussed. MilborneOne (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

User:155.31.208.243 has now three times re-added Embry-Riddle flight school to this list despite my edit summaries in removing it indicating we have a consensus here to not list all the schools for this type. I suspect this may be an attempt to promote the school. - Ahunt (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I have invited this IP editor to explain his case for adding this school here on this page. - Ahunt (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, lacking any input from this editor as to why a school should be added to the list that excludes schools I have removed it. - Ahunt (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Support removal apart from not being notable clearly a case of conflict of interest as the IP resolves to the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. MilborneOne (talk) 11:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That is interesting news - I didn't get as far as interrogating the IP address, thanks for checking it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange langauge

While I appreciate User:Kyteto updates to articles there does seem to be a strange change in style here with the introduction of some clearly flowery and marketing language and some spec speak which largely looks like it could be written by the Diamond marketing agency. After you have finished your updates it will really need a good seeing to to return it to some more encyclopedic language. MilborneOne (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

My apologises, I didn't mean to dramatically change the styling. In light of such an accusation, I think I should not bother editing for a while. Kyteto (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Thats up to you but you have done some good work in the past these changes just seemed out of character from your other article improvements.MilborneOne (talk) 14:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

marketing language

Much of this article reads like a promotional brochure. And more importantly, it uses at least ten instances of using a source about the DA62 as a source for the DA42 making it difficult to glean what information is specific to each aircraft. Jackhammer111 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)