Diamond DA40 Questions

[peppy]

Why do you need to carry a lot of fuel? Just fill up what your going to need and go. For example I've been flying a TwinStar for about three years now and in that time period I've topped off all tanks only 4 or 5 times.

Interesting. I guess I keep thinking of the old saying about fuel left on the ground. Besides, fueling isn't as much fun as flying.

What numbers are you getting on the TwinStar (speed vs. fuel burn)? How do you like the plane? Which engines do you have?

Is it possible to keep the 22 in a power on (well maybe 50% power) falling leaf without dropping a wing?

I don't know. I have held it in a partial power stall but not a falling leaf. Full power stalls are scary to me since you don't stall until you are almost flat on your back. At least it feels that way. It's a very steep pitch up. Again it is very different from a 172. I've done them but instructors now do power on stalls at less than full power.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, we've been through this before.

OPEN THE PDF FILE. It becoming so obvious that you are"selecting" data conveniently. The only way to not bias that is to review ALL the cases. THE ALL CASE REVIEW is contained therein.

The word "fire" will even flag a report that says "There was no evidence of a post crash fire." Also, just like before, the Cirrus numbers are meaningless unless compared to other makes. I'll remind you of those numbers. Taking 1/1/1999 as the start date (first Cirrus sold in 1999) and going through 12/31/2012, the number of NTSB entries with the word "fire" are:

Cessna all 976
Mooney all 86
Diamond all 7
Piper all 677
Cessna C206 41
Cessna C310 45
Cessna C210 123
Cirrus all 60
Beech BE36 80

So keep being selective. Your misrepresentation is apparent to all here.

So look at the PDF I attached. I reviewed EVERY ONE of the 233 cases. Your'e not willing to look when I'm willing to spoon feed you? Did you even open the PDF? All the cases are laid out therein. 233. DO SOME WORK. I DID IT FOR YOU. YOU NEED TO READ IT.

So we now know you are not interested in any truth. Or any inconvenient truths.

Here it is again. Why don't you open it this time?

 

[peppy]

Bruce - I did look. Being selective is looking at one make and not comparing to another. YOU are the one being selective and on some kind of vendetta. I have used the term "thermal injuries" to see fire as a cause of death and I have done it for different makes and models. Cirrus did it using the search term "post crash fire" and that result is interesting. You present data only on Cirrus. I'll give you a clue. Do Diamond. It will be quick to do and the results will be a lot better than Cirrus. Next do Beech. It will take a lot of time and it won't look better. Actually, be more specific. Compare the Beech 35 or 36 models to the SR22. Look at the C206. Why the hate?

 

[Skylane81E]

To say that a cirrus isn't much bigger than a Diamond may be true, but the cirrus has it where it counts, especially for me. Headroom! The cirrus also has the easiest ingress and egress of any low wing I've ever gotten into, especially for the back seat. Hell with the doors open you can stand up in the back.


However I like my pickup truck

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I saw that after I posted.

I talked with an XLS owner who claimed 150KTAS and I haven't been able to verify. IIRC it was a 2011 model.

150KTAS is reasonable on the XLS, according to those I've talked to who have flown it. If I push the non-XLS I can get 145 at 10.5 gph, and it easily gets 140 at 9 gph.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

FYI, on an SR22, the throttle is wide open from 2500 to 2700. That range is a pitch change only. Also, the single lever was not a Cirrus invention. They just adopted a control scheme offered by Continental.

Yep, I'm familiar with it, and I like what it does just fine for climb. The problem is that in cruise I generally want the prop to come back and not the MP. Let's say I'm cruising at 8500 feet in the Mooney, I'm going to leave the throttle wide open from the takeoff roll until I'm 15-20nm from the destination and have to start slowing down in the descent. There's no reason to leave the prop at 2500 for the whole flight, losing energy by making noise instead of thrust and causing extra wear on the cylinders...

Oh, unless you're Continental. They sell engines and cylinders! So it doesn't surprise me at all to find out it's more Conti's fault. That also doesn't make be believe that they'll do any better with their FADEC, sadly.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce - I did look. Being selective is looking at one make and not comparing to another. YOU are the one being selective and on some kind of vendetta. I have used the term "thermal injuries" to see fire as a cause of death and I have done it for different makes and models. Cirrus did it using the search term "post crash fire" and that result is interesting. You present data only on Cirrus. I'll give you a clue. Do Diamond. It will be quick to do and the results will be a lot better than Cirrus. Next do Beech. It will take a lot of time and it won't look better. Actually, be more specific. Compare the Beech 35 or 36 models to the SR22. Look at the C206. Why the hate?

Because I do the work, you throw it out.

So here's a clue for you: YOU do Diamond review. Like, do some work so you know something about which you spout.

 

[Jaybird180]

He was saying 150 @ 75% power.

150KTAS is reasonable on the XLS, according to those I've talked to who have flown it. If I push the non-XLS I can get 145 at 10.5 gph, and it easily gets 140 at 9 gph.

 

[MachFly]

Interesting. I guess I keep thinking of the old saying about fuel left on the ground. Besides, fueling isn't as much fun as flying

Look at the airliners for example, those guys never top off their tanks.

What numbers are you getting on the TwinStar (speed vs. fuel burn)? How do you like the plane? Which engines do you have?

I get 175kts at 85% power and that gives me a fuel burn of 15gph (7.5gph per side).
I got Austro AE300s, 170hp each with a turbo.

Overall I think it's a very good plane. Basically in my opinion it's a larger and safer DA40. Single engine service ceiling is about 13K, most light twin's are a lot lower. A completely redundant electrical system, with two completely redundant ECUs per each engine. The internal structure of the nose is out of an F1 car (not sure which one, but it's from the early 2000s).
There was a crash about 5 years ago when a DA42 hit a top of an alp and broke it's props, then fell about 70ft and hit another mountain almost head on, the crew was able to walk away.

Here is a pic:

BTW the comment on the picture is wrong, there were injuries.

So I think it's a safe airplane.

I'm not a fan on all the computers in it and I think the ailerons really need to be larger, otherwise I'm happy with it.

I don't know. I have held it in a partial power stall but not a falling leaf. Full power stalls are scary to me since you don't stall until you are almost flat on your back. At least it feels that way. It's a very steep pitch up. Again it is very different from a 172. I've done them but instructors now do power on stalls at less than full power.

TwinStar has the same problem. I do my power on stalls at 65% power and before stalling it will climb to about 11K with maximum aft back pressure.

 

[MachFly]

To say that a cirrus isn't much bigger than a Diamond may be true, but the cirrus has it where it counts, especially for me. Headroom! The cirrus also has the easiest ingress and egress of any low wing I've ever gotten into, especially for the back seat. Hell with the doors open you can stand up in the back.


However I like my pickup truck

You are saying that it is easier to get into the back of a Cirrus than in a Diamond? I can only assume that you forgot to use the rear door in the Diamond and climbed through the front.

 

[peppy]

Because I do the work, you throw it out.

So here's a clue for you: YOU do Diamond review. Like, do some work so you know something about which you spout.

Did the Diamond review. Stated it was better. read what I post.

 

[peppy]

I get 175kts at 85% power and that gives me a fuel burn of 15gph (7.5gph per side).
I got Austro AE300s, 170hp each with a turbo.

Nice. That means a twin that matches what the SR22 does or maybe a little better depending on the altitude those numbers were at. Generally when I look at twins the fuel burn vs. speed is poor compared to a single but this plane isn't that way.

Overall I think it's a very good plane. Basically in my opinion it's a larger and safer DA40. Single engine service ceiling is about 13K, most light twin's are a lot lower. A completely redundant electrical system, with two completely redundant ECUs per each engine. The internal structure of the nose is out of an F1 car (not sure which one, but it's from the early 2000s).
There was a crash about 5 years ago when a DA42 hit a top of an alp and broke it's props, then fell about 70ft and hit another mountain almost head on, the crew was able to walk away.

All very nice. I remember going through a lust period when the DA42 first came out then cooling off when the engine issues hit. The Lycoming data wasn't so pretty.

So I think it's a safe airplane.

Duh!!

Now we just need to find a better way to improve the pilots. That's a statement about pilots in general. Nothing to do with you or Diamond.

 

[dell30rb]

Are you saying he was lying? I don't know any reason he would. He's retired and we were talking about when he owned an air freight company. He said if you said you couldn't make the delivery you lost the business.

Most folks that age walked to school even in the rain and snow. Uphill, both ways

 

[peppy]

Most folks that age walked to school even in the rain and snow. Uphill, both ways

 

[flyingcheesehead]

He was saying 150 @ 75% power.

Yep, 150 KTAS at 75% in a DA40XLS is about right.

I think the "marketing number" is 157 KTAS, but 150 KTAS is a real-world number.

 

[Jaybird180]

Yep, 150 KTAS at 75% in a DA40XLS is about right.

I think the "marketing number" is 157 KTAS, but 150 KTAS is a real-world number.

Do you have anything that substantiates it? Or do you have XLS experience? I've seen nothing yet.

 

[Skylane81E]

You are saying that it is easier to get into the back of a Cirrus than in a Diamond? I can only assume that you forgot to use the rear door in the Diamond and climbed through the front.

Ok, get into the other side of the back...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Do you have anything that substantiates it? Or do you have XLS experience? I've seen nothing yet.

Well, the fact that a non-XLS 40 gets 145 if you push it (and I do consider 75% to be pushing it) and talking with others who have flown them. Do you not believe him or what?

 

[Jaybird180]

The one I was flying book was 135, but I didn't see it....it was pantless

 

[MachFly]

Nice. That means a twin that matches what the SR22 does or maybe a little better depending on the altitude those numbers were at. Generally when I look at twins the fuel burn vs. speed is poor compared to a single but this plane isn't that way.

Technically I can cruise at 185kts, but I don't like to put extra strain on the engines.

The Lycoming data wasn't so pretty.

Yeah Diamond put Lycoming engine in there because they needed to put something in the airplane after they were not allowed to use Thielerts any more. It was kinda a rush job.

 

[MachFly]

Ok, get into the other side of the back...

Umm...sit on the left seat and move right.

 

[Wingsofglass]

In the XLS that I have flown 800 hours in, 150 knots is not realistic. I can see it on the perfect day somewhere between 7,000 feet and 9,000 feet with the prop at 2550 and 11 to 12 gph but it's rare and there's not point flying it that way. I do see mid to low 140s all day long on 8.5 gph and 2,450 RPM, which I have read is the RPM where the Powerflow performs at its best.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In the XLS that I have flown 800 hours in, 150 knots is not realistic. I can see it on the perfect day somewhere between 7,000 feet and 9,000 feet with the prop at 2550 and 11 to 12 gph but it's rare and there's not point flying it that way. I do see mid to low 140s all day long on 8.5 gph and 2,450 RPM, which I have read is the RPM where the Powerflow performs at its best.

Interesting. What MP do you normally run at? Are all the pants on it? Our non-XLS bird will do 145 if you run it at 75% and best power mixture. I don't do that - No sense in burning 1.5 gph to get that last 5 knots.

Maybe Jaybird's friend is more concerned with speed than fuel burn... Or talks about his best possible numbers.

 

[MachFly]

In the XLS that I have flown 800 hours in, 150 knots is not realistic. I can see it on the perfect day somewhere between 7,000 feet and 9,000 feet with the prop at 2550 and 11 to 12 gph but it's rare and there's not point flying it that way. I do see mid to low 140s all day long on 8.5 gph and 2,450 RPM, which I have read is the RPM where the Powerflow performs at its best.

Do you have all three wheel fairings?

That was the problem I had when I couldn't get it to 150kts.

 

[bbchien]

Did the Diamond review. Stated it was better. read what I post.

Would you please post your source document, as did I?

 

[peppy]

Would you please post your source document, as did I?

What you posted was a Cirrus only document. It says nothing and I mean NOTHING about how Cirrus compares to other makes. Post your data first. I posted basic numbers of a search and did it for different makes. Further more, on the Red Board, I posted numbers that went incident by incident analyzing Cirrus fires and even discussed the Cirrus specific issue of brake induced fires and the changes made to the plane. I'm going flying today and have run out of time to respond to your double standards.

Since this is a Diamond thread I will say that Diamond is exceptionally good and yes by that I mean the numbers are better than Cirrus. Beech 36 numbers aren't nor are C206 or C210.

 

[Jaybird180]

Thanks so much for the information. These were great!
A couple more questions if you will indulge.

1- I have heard that the power flow exhaust is the difference in the speed (along with the prop) between the 40 and the XL. Is this true?
Although I am not much on aftermarket applications, it appears to be the more cost effecient alternative. But I was of the impression that the pfe would only increase climb rates.

2- I am considering a tiedown instead of a hangar. With the composite body,does that create any type of problem? Aluminum ....corrosion , Composite......?

I pulled this from Post #7 of this thread. The poster was the OP of the thread and we (POA) threadjacked him. I note that he hasn't been on since March of this year...oh well.....

He did ask a question that I'd also like an answer to:

1- I have heard that the power flow exhaust is the difference in the speed (along with the prop) between the 40 and the XL. Is this true?

I'd like to know, if an older DA-40 can be modified to XLS performance (speed).

 

[flyingcheesehead]

1- I have heard that the power flow exhaust is the difference in the speed (along with the prop) between the 40 and the XL. Is this true?

I'd like to know, if an older DA-40 can be modified to XLS performance (speed).

You might be able to get close, but it'd be expensive and you'd end up without some of the other niceties on the newer planes.

I couldn't name all the differences off the top of my head, but the PowerFlow is only the start. Moving to the metal 2-blade scimitar prop would also be high on the list, as well as the "Speed gear" (this also raises the landing weight of the older birds from 2407 to 2535 and is a prerequisite for the MGW mod from 2535 to 2646).

But there's no way to upgrade to a G1000 if it isn't already there, and if you do have the G1000 it costs well north of $20,000 to upgrade it to WAAS and you still can't upgrade to the GFC700 autopilot from the KAP 140. No, those don't make you go faster, but they sure make the plane nicer. I also don't think you can add the electric rudder pedal adjustment.

You can put the new canopy on (our 2006 has it), but it'll cost in the 5-figure range as well, I think. I think you can add the long-range tanks and large rudder, but $$$$$.

If you want an XL/XLS, just buy one - You'll never get an older plane there for the same price. Now if speed is all you want... Maybe, but you'll never get the money you put into it back out of it when you sell.

 

[Jaybird180]

What's the difference on XL and XLS? Their naming scheme escapes me.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

What's the difference on XL and XLS? Their naming scheme escapes me.

Yeah, that one doesn't make much sense. 2008 and later are XLS, 2007 is XL, 2006 and earlier don't get any fancy letters (except FP for the fixed-pitch flight school models). There was also a "CS" model in 07/08 or thereabouts that didn't have the leather interior and such and was also aimed at flight schools like the FP, but still had a constant speed prop.

2003 and earlier are steam gauge, 2004-2006 are G1000 with KAP 140 (though you did have the option of Avidyne and steam still, only a couple were built). 2007 XL has G1000 with GFC 700, 2008+ add WAAS.

As far as I can tell, the WAAS and the larger canopy are the only changes from the XL to the XLS.

 

[Gary F]

You might be able to get close, but it'd be expensive and you'd end up without some of the other niceties on the newer planes.

I couldn't name all the differences off the top of my head, but the PowerFlow is only the start. Moving to the metal 2-blade scimitar prop would also be high on the list, as well as the "Speed gear" (this also raises the landing weight of the older birds from 2407 to 2535 and is a prerequisite for the MGW mod from 2535 to 2646).

But there's no way to upgrade to a G1000 if it isn't already there, and if you do have the G1000 it costs well north of $20,000 to upgrade it to WAAS and you still can't upgrade to the GFC700 autopilot from the KAP 140. No, those don't make you go faster, but they sure make the plane nicer. I also don't think you can add the electric rudder pedal adjustment.

You can put the new canopy on (our 2006 has it), but it'll cost in the 5-figure range as well, I think. I think you can add the long-range tanks and large rudder, but $$$$$.

If you want an XL/XLS, just buy one - You'll never get an older plane there for the same price. Now if speed is all you want... Maybe, but you'll never get the money you put into it back out of it when you sell.

I hate to nit pick but the "Speed Kit" does not have anything to do with the gross weight increase which requires newer main landing gear struts that can be retrofitted to older DA40's for about $5,000. I went from steam gauge to Garmin G500 with SVT and there are many advantages over the Garmin G1000 and I can elaborate if anybody is interested. The free Diamond owner's forum is a useful resource for those who are considering purchasing one of the many variants of this fine airplane. http://www.diamondaviators.net/forum/

 

[Jaybird180]

I hate to nit pick but the "Speed Kit" does not have anything to do with the gross weight increase which requires newer main landing gear struts that can be retrofitted to older DA40's for about $5,000. I went from steam gauge to Garmin G500 with SVT and there are many advantages over the Garmin G1000 and I can elaborate if anybody is interested. The free Diamond owner's forum is a useful resource for those who are considering purchasing one of the many variants of this fine airplane. http://www.diamondaviators.net/forum/

Few questions off top of my head:
1. What's the cost of the upgrade
2. What's the performance delta of your airplane vs one of the new ones (useful load, speed, and climb performance)
3. What year is your plane
4. What are the capabilities of your G500(SVT) over G1000

 

[Gary F]

Few questions off top of my head:
1. What's the cost of the upgrade
2. What's the performance delta of your airplane vs one of the new ones (useful load, speed, and climb performance)
3. What year is your plane
4. What are the capabilities of your G500(SVT) over G1000

1. Which upgrade? I've had many. The G500 with SVT cost about $28,000.

2. I have the best useful load of any DA40 I'm aware of (933 lbs, some newer ones as low as 796) as the earlier DA40s were lighter and the G500 did not change the weight appreciably. http://www.diamondaviators.net/wiki/Main_Page#Weight_and_Balance_by_year_and_serial_number
The newer DA40s with the speed kit and 2 bladed props are a little (4 to 10 kts?) faster.

3.2003

4. Garmin G1000 software upgrades must be performed by a Diamond service center, G500 upgrades by any Garmin dealer for starters. The G500 screen sizes are better in my opinion, the G1000 has a lot of excess screen size, wasted space. I have 4 screens (G500 PFD, MFD and 530 and 430) which means I can have more information presented simultaneously. I also have a dedicated engine monitor and don't have to change the MFD for that information. SVT was $5,000 or half the cost of the G1000. WAAS upgrades for the 530/430 are much cheaper and easier than the G1000.

 

[Jaybird180]

1. Which upgrade? I've had many. The G500 with SVT cost about $28,000.

2. I have the best useful load of any DA40 I'm aware of (933 lbs, some newer ones as low as 796) as the earlier DA40s were lighter and the G500 did not change the weight appreciably. http://www.diamondaviators.net/wiki/Main_Page#Weight_and_Balance_by_year_and_serial_number
The newer DA40s with the speed kit and 2 bladed props are a little (4 to 10 kts?) faster.

3.2003

4. Garmin G1000 software upgrades must be performed by a Diamond service center, G500 upgrades by any Garmin dealer for starters. The G500 screen sizes are better in my opinion, the G1000 has a lot of excess screen size, wasted space. I have 4 screens (G500 PFD, MFD and 530 and 430) which means I can have more information presented simultaneously. I also have a dedicated engine monitor and don't have to change the MFD for that information. SVT was $5,000 or half the cost of the G1000. WAAS upgrades for the 530/430 are much cheaper and easier than the G1000.

Who created that wiki chart? Need a little history please to understand why it was created. as I'm sure Diamond didn't make the airplane with the G500 installed (and you also confirmed).

 

[Gary F]

Who created that wiki chart? Need a little history please to understand why it was created. as I'm sure Diamond didn't make the airplane with the G500 installed (and you also confirmed).

I did along with members of the Diamond Aviators Net forum. It is anything but comprehensive but contains useful (but unconfirmed) information. The G500 is my DA40 which was converted from steam gauges.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

2. I have the best useful load of any DA40 I'm aware of (933 lbs

Ours (2006 w/G1000, GDL69A, extended range tanks, big rudder, big canopy) has a 906 lb useful load, for reference. I did put our bird on the W&B list at one point (40.648) but it doesn't seem to be there any more.

WAAS upgrades for the 530/430 are much cheaper and easier than the G1000.

This is by far the biggest disadvantage of the G1000. You can get a 430 or 530 upgraded to WAAS for ~$4K installed. The G1000 upgrade is more like $24,000. Not even close to worth it, sadly, which is probably why very few of them have been upgraded (I only know of one).

 

[Gary F]

Ours (2006 w/G1000, GDL69A, extended range tanks, big rudder, big canopy) has a 906 lb useful load, for reference. I did put our bird on the W&B list at one point (40.648) but it doesn't seem to be there any more.



This is by far the biggest disadvantage of the G1000. You can get a 430 or 530 upgraded to WAAS for ~$4K installed. The G1000 upgrade is more like $24,000. Not even close to worth it, sadly, which is probably why very few of them have been upgraded (I only know of one).

Send me your numbers by PM and I will try to add them to the WIKI at DAN. Your useful weight seems much higher than expected for your year model and equipment. Is it possible to get SVT in a G1000 that does not have WAAS? It was required for my G500 installation.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Is it possible to get SVT in a G1000 that does not have WAAS? It was required for my G500 installation.

I'm not sure, but we wouldn't get it anyway. $10,000 for a little SD card with a software unlock on it? Blech. No way. SVT does not give you any additional capability whatsoever, it just makes things a little easier to process. It might be more worthwhile if we had more people flying in really low weather or near terrain, but we're hundreds of miles from anything called "mountain" that isn't a ski area.

 

[atbroome]

Have any of the primary engine monitors (JPI EDM-900/930, EI MVP-50P) been STC'd for the DA-40 to replace the factory engine monitor?

Starting with a steam 2003 looks to be my ideal path to DA-40 ownership.

1. Which upgrade? I've had many. The G500 with SVT cost about $28,000.

2. I have the best useful load of any DA40 I'm aware of (933 lbs, some newer ones as low as 796) as the earlier DA40s were lighter and the G500 did not change the weight appreciably. http://www.diamondaviators.net/wiki/Main_Page#Weight_and_Balance_by_year_and_serial_number
The newer DA40s with the speed kit and 2 bladed props are a little (4 to 10 kts?) faster.

3.2003

4. Garmin G1000 software upgrades must be performed by a Diamond service center, G500 upgrades by any Garmin dealer for starters. The G500 screen sizes are better in my opinion, the G1000 has a lot of excess screen size, wasted space. I have 4 screens (G500 PFD, MFD and 530 and 430) which means I can have more information presented simultaneously. I also have a dedicated engine monitor and don't have to change the MFD for that information. SVT was $5,000 or half the cost of the G1000. WAAS upgrades for the 530/430 are much cheaper and easier than the G1000.

 

[Gary F]

Who created that wiki chart? Need a little history please to understand why it was created. as I'm sure Diamond didn't make the airplane with the G500 installed (and you also confirmed).

True but the DA20 has a factory G500 option. Sort of a waste in a non-IFR aircraft.

Have any of the primary engine monitors (JPI EDM-900/930, EI MVP-50P) been STC'd for the DA-40 to replace the factory engine monitor?

Starting with a steam 2003 looks to be my ideal path to DA-40 ownership.

The Vision Microsystems VM1000 monitor is functional but I'm not sure how well it will be supported as I don't believe it is still in production. I have talked to the guys at JPI during Oshkosh and apparently it is possible to use one of their systems. I believe the JPI 900/930 can be used in place of the VM1000 but it probably won't be cheap and it will likely require modification of the existing panel. I would really like to upgrade to JPI one day.