jordancollins 28 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Snave, You seem rather educated in this area. I'm going to be finishing my PPL here at home soon on the Rotex 912 Katana, can you please give me an idea of the differences bewteenthe Katana and the Eclipse? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhite601 0 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Snave, You seem rather educated in this area. I'm going to be finishing my PPL here at home soon on the Rotex 912 Katana, can you please give me an idea of the differences bewteenthe Katana and the Eclipse? Cheers Hi Jordan, While waiting for Snave, I might be able to answer some of your questions. I have a Katana (DA20-A1), but I haven't flown the Eclipse (DA20-C1) yet. The Eclipse has the more powerful Continental engine (125hp) and is rated for a higher useful load. It's engine is not compatible with constant speed props so either a climb or a cruise optimized fixed pitch prop is used instead. The C model also requires mixture adjustments, but has no carburetor heat control since it's (mechanically) fuel injected. The seats are much improved over the A model, but I've found that Oregon Seat cushions help minimize the differences. The Eclipse also has rear windows which help with right traffic patterns. Most recent Eclipse's have Garmin 430's as standard equipment and are now available with the Garmin G500 glass cockpit. Alas, like the Katana, the Eclipse is not IFR certified. Good luck with your pilot license. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I've flown both, but never back-to-back, so it's not so easy to make precise comparisons, but the Conti engined Eclipse has a noticeably different `feel` to the Katana considering the two are very, very similar. I put it down to `proper` aviating engine versus motorcycle motor, but there are a number of actual changes between the two - the Eclipse starts with a lighter airframe (60lbs) and a slightly increased useful load. But then this is offset by the usual `heavier` avionics in the Eclipse (autopilots are quite often fitted to Eclipse's, very rarely to Katanas) and the fuel burn in the aircraft engine is considerably higher than the Rotax (8gph versus 4-5) so you have to carry more fuel for the same range. Conversely although it's a fixed pitch prop, the Eclipse bats along quite a bit faster than the Kat - 125 knots versus 100-110 and climbs considerably better. The flaps on the C1 are different to the A1 - slotted flaps on the Eclipse, simple hinged flaps on the Kat, and I thought there was less pitch change with the Eclipse, particularly when low'n'slow but that might simply have been individual aircraft, or the change in the elevator trim from anti-servo to servo in the Eclipse. Mostly the differences come down to the different cockpit procedures brought about by the choice of engine. To those brought up on `old skool` aircraft engines the IO240 offers more commonality with other aircraft. To those who came up like me through the lighter end of the scale then the Rotax is an old friend. I know a lot of older flyers who really hated the buzzy Rotax sound as they can't equate it with the larger volume, slower-revving big-bore aircraft ContiLyco's they know and love, but equally I've met Rotax fans who wonder what the point was in sticking a dinosaur engine in a sports car chassis. All I can say is that every motorcyclist I've ever flown in a Rotax-powered plane felt instantly at home. Well, unless they were Hardly-Ableson owners. IMHO there are significant enough differences between them that if you got bought the Katana, you will want to buy the Eclipse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordancollins 28 Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 Right on thanks. Is Marcel doing the Eclipse after the PC-6 or before? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwhite601 0 Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 - the Eclipse starts with a lighter airframe (60lbs) and a slightly increased useful load. Diamond learned how to lighten the airframe during the tail end of the Katana production run. I occasionally got to fly a lighter Katana during flight training. It made a noticeable difference in the way it flew. Jordan, if you are looking to buy a DA20, I can put you in touch with my mechanic. He has worked on both models and can give you a good idea on what to expect from an owners perspective. For example, the Rotax engine has two carburetors that need to be in sync. On the other hand, fine tuning the Continental's fuel injection can be somewhat tricky. Both models have a good reputation for being easy to maintain. There are two type clubs that are a great source of information http://www.diamondaviators.net http://www.diamondaviator.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 A lot of the time with Rotax's you'll find the smart money (and us cheapskates!) using recognised motorycle products wherever possible (mindful of the fact the 912S is a certified engine, unlike the ULS model: http://www.carbtune.com/ Balances the carbs in seconds, cheap as chips, and you can use it on EFI throttle bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Bump for AirWaves benefit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AirWave 0 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 Bump for AirWaves benefit I can't tell about the differences because I have only flown the C1, 4 different C1s actually. But comparing the aerosoft katana to the C1, I can notice, for example, that the C1 has a much better climb performance. The katana is not able to mantain 500ft/min at 65kias, at full rpm, flaps T/O, so it takes a lot of time to reach 500ft agl comparing to the C1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snave 466 Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 I can't tell about the differences because I have only flown the C1, 4 different C1s actually. But comparing the aerosoft katana to the C1, I can notice, for example, that the C1 has a much better climb performance. The katana is not able to mantain 500ft/min at 65kias, at full rpm, flaps T/O, so it takes a lot of time to reach 500ft agl comparing to the C1. Yeah, the extra 25% power is noticeable in climb, plus the nominal 100hp of the Rotax is actually only sustainable for 5 minutes max (realistic continuous max power is around 93-95hp making the difference bigger still) whereas the Conti IO240B can run max continuous at 100% rated and the digital fuel injection is more accurate in metering than the somewhat outdated carb-equipped Rotax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts