Talk:Diamond DA20 Katana/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed Merge

I'm going to start the merge. If anyone objects, please say so. -- Captaindan 23:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

IFR Certification

Is the lack of IFR certification ability relevant to both the A1 and C1 models or just A1? - AbstractClass 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It applies to both models. —Captaindan 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

slight bias?

words like "superb" or "excellent" ought to be left out; adjectives of comparative degree strongly imply opinion in instances like this. ratios, like the 14:1, speak for themselves when stacked against those of other aircraft. as for the program taking over IFS completely.. watch and wait; the da-20's are going down in flames at pueblo right now -- they're just not meant to have such a short turnover in maintenance cycles.

No bias implied. Agreee that 14:1 speaks for itself but "superb and excellent" and the first words that come to mind when pulling back the power and gliding like an eagle when in the C1. Try that in a C152....and words like "adequate and mediocre" come to mind. We run our DA-20 C1 at least 6-7 hours per day 7 days a week. It requires very little maintence other than oil and tires. The only time it's down for a few days is for the 50 hour. This is a well thought out aircraft and is the most forgiving. We also have the DA-40, excellent aircraft, little more maintence required, we've had a number of prop stikes on the ground while taxiing, recommend the three blade especially for soft-field ldg/TO and newer pilots. Seats in both models are very uncomfortable. Pedals in the 20 are difficult to adjust if your overweight/less limber/fat-upper-pubic-area (FUPA)...etc

Citation needed ???

I am disappointed by the numerous 'citation-needed' entries on this page, especially on things that are obvious when looking at the airplane (or when using it). For instance, the reference to the all-transparent canopy being warmer than a standard airplane on a sunny day - is a citation needed to verify that fact?? Let's don't be so quick to demand cites for obvious items, OK? Raymondwinn (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Early C1 models called the Katana

I have removed two sentences: "Early 1998 Production DA20 C1 models were called the Katana." and "During 1998 Diamond sold the new DA20 C1 under the name of Katana which would later be changed to the Evolution and finally the Eclipse." These were fact tagged in July 2008 and the tags were removed by User:Kellysontheroad in December 2008. I have searched many on line and off line references looking for proof that early C1s were called Katanas instead of Eclipse and Evolution and have been unable to find any at all. The tags were there because this claim was challenged. So rather than replace the tags, in accordance with policy the claims have been removed. Please feel free to put them back in if a suitable reference can be found. - Ahunt (talk) 14:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is what I know about different DA20 variants:
DA20 A-1 "Katana"
The original Katana. 80hp Rotax 912.

DA20-100 "Katana 100"
Factory refurbished and reengined Katana, fitted with a 100 hp Rotax 912S. Introduced in 1999.

DA20 C-1 "Katana" or "Katana Eclipse"
Name used in marketing and some 1998 year model planes. The name "Katana" was actually painted on some planes. 125hp Continental IO 240. In order to accommodate the extra 70 pounds of the IO-240, the Katana's battery was moved behind the baggage bay, to help move the empty cg aft, and the wing sweep has been changed from 1 degree aft to just 0.5 degrees back to shift the center of lift forward. Previous Katanas had simple hinged flaps — but at the higher maximum weight, more sophisticated slotted flaps were necessary to bring the stall speed to the JAR-VLA-specified 45 knots

DA20 C-1 "Evolution"
Stripped down C-1. Marketed for use as a trainer.

DA20 C-1 "Eclipse"
Better equipped C-1. At some point in time Diamond added rear windows for better visibility. Entered production in 1999.

DA20 C-1 "Falcon"
Military trainer. Instruments moved in front of the right seat, where the student sits. This puts the stick in the students right hand and throttle in the left, similar to fighter aircraft. Also equiped with a smaller fuel tank. Some Embry-Riddle Falcons have been sold to private owners and flight schools after being fitted with standard instrument panels and fuel tanks.

http://flighttraining.aopa.org/learntofly/articles/diamond0308.cfm
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1998/katana9806.html
http://www.aopa.org/members/files/pilot/1999/katana9911.html
http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/index.php?id=1

4.90.58.18 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That is good info. The second and third refs are not publically available, so can't be used, but the other two are useful. I have incorporated your text here and added refs. See what you think.- Ahunt (talk) 20:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows

"Small windows on either side of the canopy can be opened on the ground and in flight to provide cockpit ventilation."

I am training in a C1 Eclipse and i am almost positive that, according to the manufacturer, you are never to open the windows while in the air. im sure people do it, but its not a feature of the airplane. Ill check it to be sure, but i dont edit wikipedia, so id appreciate if someone else took care of it. --198.53.251.82 (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. They are, in fact, designed to be used in flight. As proof: there's no POH limitation to the contrary. Airplane Flight Manual (Rev 25).pdf Berck (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem

I see that text has been added indicating that the DA20 is known as the T-52A in USAF service and a photo has been added. The problem is that the photo is clearly a four seat Diamond DA40 Diamond Star and not a two seat DA20. So is the T-52A a Diamond DA20 or a DA40? - Ahunt (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

The images of the T-52A clearly show DA40s (N301AF and N324AF are two examples in the photos. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I found the answer at 557th Flying Training Squadron aircraft - 180 hp and a gross weight of 2646 lbs, the T-52A is a DA40 and not a DA20. I'll move it over to that article. - Ahunt (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Hatnote

@Ahunt: I added a hatnote {{redirect-distinguish|DA20|Dassault Falcon 20}}, and you reveted it with comment "doesn't seem to be any reason to have this here". There is: I made the mistake, and so did [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]... Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually you have misquoted me. My edit summary said "doesn't seem to be any reason to have this here, since the Falcon is not designated as DA20". If you are going to add hatnotes due to mistaken non-designations, then many more could be added as well, as there are lots of aircraft not designated as DA20. - Ahunt (talk) 18:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ahunt: we both know (well, I do now) that the Dassault Falcon 20 is not designated "DA20", but I've provided you with my personal experience and a number of real-world links of people who think that it is. That's precisely what a {{distinguish}} (or {{distinguish-redirect}} hatnote is for: "This template renders a hatnote intended to inform the reader, of the article invoking it, of the existence of one or more articles whose title(s) bear(s) a strong resemblance to the reader's (then-)current article; it is used in the cases where the distinction between the titles is so obvious that the reader needs no further explanation". "Diamond DA20" bears a strong resemblance to "Dassault Falcon 20" (my bolding) and there is plenty of evidence that people including me actually do confuse them. Which part of that analysis do you you disagree with? Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I would suggest instead of a hatnote, turn DA20 into a disambiguation page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Ahunt: I don't think "DA20" could be the subject of a disambiguation page because, as you say, the Falcon is not designated as DA20. But anyway the primary topic would be Diamond DA20, so DA20 would redirect to Diamond DA20, and other uses would be at DA20 (disambiguation), with a hatnote {{redirect|DA20}} at this article. I could do that if you think the third mention of "DA20" at ALCO RSD-1 ("ДA20 (DA20) class") is noteworthy. By the way, you may wish to edit Ameristar Jet Charter#Fleet which says "1 DA20 Dassault Falcon Corporate Jet". Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:40, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Ameristar Jet Charter was an easy fix. The rest is all arguments for a disambiguation page. - Ahunt (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect naming of page

Diamond DA20 Katana refers to a specific variant of the plane, yet this page covers multiple variants. Diamond Aircraft on their website designates it the DA20 Series Aircraft without referring to a named variant. @BilCat: Please explain the page move. therablueray (talk) 14:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@Therablueray: It was already in the Lead sentence and in the infobox, and it's the primary name used for the majority of the variants. I don't see the problem. BilCat (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

You could probably argue the current title under WP:COMMONNAME. - Ahunt (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@BilCat: @Ahunt: Given that neither pilots, flight schools nor ATC distinguishes between the variants and everyone commonly calls it Diamond DA20, WP:COMMONNAME would imply that the page ought to be named accordingly to reflect common use. On the other hand for the Diamond Star and the Twin Star the page move is correct, because both are commonly used and well understood. - therablueray (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References