Does anyone own a Diamond DA-40

[Will Kumley]

Really just another thread of which plane to buy.

Was actually curious if anyone actually purchases a DA-40 for personal use or are they only used as trainers? If nobody owns them- why not? Is it the wider than normal wingspan that limits hangar selection? The idea that the wingspan makes them float like a Cessna( only heard this from a pilot co-worker so I can't verify it)? Or is there another reason?

Looking at previous threads on ownership and which plane to buy yada yada yada.... the DA-40 doesn't seem to get mentioned much. My wife has hinted more and more about us buying a plane but I believe our ideas of mission are still a bit out of alignment. We have two kids, one in college and one in high school. She thinks the kids will want to fly with us forever but I'm more of a realist and think the kids will gladly just let us go on our own most of the time.

This makes me think a Warrior, Archer, Cherokee 180, 172 or even 182 would suit us well. Since she wants more space and possibly more useful load I'm thinking her ideal flying machine would be a 182 at a minimum in the Cessna world, possibly even a 206/210 or a Piper Six and might get away with a Cherokee 235.

Yes I know there are others like the Grumman AA-5 series, Super Viking, a few Beechcraft, and even the cramped Mooney.

She also likes easy entry exit which is partly why I was just curious on the DA-40. I'm more interested in a good platform that can get 2-3 adults from point A to point B on the regular, IFR rated so I can use it for IFR training to help me justify the purchase with myself. I think she is considering/mentioning this is because we have to reserve the local planes a few weeks out and more often than not we cancel due to weather. If we had our own it would be easy to see that the weather is good and just go.
She did see this yeas AOPA prize plane and was like- ooh, that's pretty we could have fun with that. Um, Vans are great and an RV-10 would likely fit the bill but I haven't seen a built RV-10 I would be able to currently afford and being active duty with the potential to move still building just isn't a current option for me.

 

[steingar]

I landed just behind one the other day being flown by an MD. I like them a lot, really nice airplanes. I'd fly one if I could afford it, but they're beyond my price range. Skylane speeds on Skyhawk gas, good safety record, easy to get in and out. can't speak for ownership, though, sorry. The MD seemed to like his just fine though.

 

[Jim K]

I landed behind one and ran into the pilot in the FBO...turns out he was doing pipeline patrol....His comments were that it flew nice and was fast for the fuel burn. I don't know what kind of useful load they have, but they look nice a nice option for a four seater.

 

[PPC1052]

I learned to fly in a DA20. Fun plane. I liked it a lot. The visibility with the bubble canopy is awesome. But I will say it gets really hot in the summer time until you get launched and get some altitude. Even then on sunny days it can be pretty warm with the sun through that canopy.

 

[Deelee]

Really just another thread of which plane to buy.

In that case... nobody said to get a Bonanza?

Get a Bonanza.

Seriously... I don't know any DA-40 owners. All the ones around here seem to be operated by flight schools.

 

[midlifeflyer]

My flying club has a DA40. We don't do primary training. It's a decent traveling machine. Only real downside is it's light loading, not the most comfortable thing to fly in turbulence.

and summer heat in that bubble canopy.

 

[Will Kumley]

But I will say it gets really hot in the summer time until you get launched and get some altitude. Even then on sunny days it can be pretty warm with the sun through that canopy.

Sounds a lot like the Cherokee I learned in. Not a bubble canopy but crazy hot on the ground. We would usually taxi with the door open - although I don't think that is an option with the Diamond.

 

[Will Kumley]

In that case... nobody said to get a Bonanza?

Get a Bonanza.

Seriously... I don't know any DA-40 owners. All the ones around here seem to be operated by flight schools.

Oops, forgot about the Bo! My bad.

 

[Will Kumley]

My flying club has a DA40. We don't do primary training. It's a decent traveling machine. Only real downside is it's light loading, not the most comfortable thing to fly in turbulence.

Yeah, my co-worker sad the same thing. Said it was basically a glider with an engine and the plane caught him a little off guard when he rounded out for landing and floated almost halfway down the runway.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Yeah, my co-worker sad the same thing. Said it was basically a glider with an engine and the plane caught him a little off guard when he rounded out for landing and floated almost halfway down the runway.

That's called "learning to land it." No big deal once you learn how. The DA20 floats even more and I've landed one on an 1800' runway.

 

[PPC1052]

The DA20 floats even more and I've landed one on an 1800' runway.

Yeah, the DA20 really teaches you the value of nailing your airspeed on landings.

 

[Skyrys62]

I don't own, but rent them.
As others mentioned, great visibility, hot in the sun, about 130(ish)kts on 9-10gph, a little wonky in turbulence.
DA-40 useful about 825lbs, DA-20's are something over 600, don't remember exactly.
I have witnessed a man, wife, and 2 good sized college boys departing KY for PA..so 4 can fly, just not sure of the fuel/baggage on board when they left.

Also, you can lock the canopy open about 2-3 inches and that helps a lot with heat.
Ergonomically, I like them, except one thing...I can't move my legs around much. The rudder pedals adjust to you, the seats are fixed. I tried to raise my feet above the rudder pedals to straighten my legs out and stretch a bit, but no way that was happening. So if you get a charlie horse, be ready to unbuckle that seat belt lol. (that would suck when landing).

One of the local FBO's here just bought a mix of DA-20's and DA-40's to refurb and sell. I've heard different numbers, but something around 30-35 of them.
They are offering rides to those who want to check them out...but the PNW is probably a stretch

Edit: wanted to add that the A&P made comments about working on the Diamonds, something to the tune of proprietary stuff. Not sure myself, but as @GeorgeC mentioned, Wayneda40 should be a good resource.

 

[GeorgeC]

@wayneda40

I don't, but there are personally-owned DA40s tied down at some local airports. I have a little time in DA20/DA40s, they are fun, slick, efficient planes. As mentioned, be on speed.

 

[asicer]

Also, you can lock the canopy open about 2-3 inches and that helps a lot with heat.

Only on the ground and not in the air.

The vents are big and provide a lot of flow. However, they also produce a lot of noise when opened up all the way.

I've got a few thousand miles on DA40's. I really liked them. Been a while since I looked, but the Diamond Aviators Forum had quite a few owner-flown planes so for sure it isn't just a flight school special.

 

[wayneda40]

@wayneda40

I don't, but there are personally-owned DA40s tied down at some local airports. I have a little time in DA20/DA40s, they are fun, slick, efficient planes. As mentioned, be on speed.

GeorgeC is right... I've owned a DA40 (2008 Lycoming IO360) since 2015... and flown almost 2000 hours in it in the past 5 years, including several long trips from the US West Coast... to Cuba/Guatemala/Mexico, to Colombia South America, and to the Caribbean. They are a great aircraft for cruising... economical (8 gph) and reasonably fast (140 KTAS). But a limit that the OP must consider is useful load... for the DA40 that's basically 3 adults with full-fuel (50 gals).

I suggest checking out the Diamond user forum at... DiamondAviators.net

It's only a guess, but I'd say that of the ~2000 DA40s flying around the world, half were purchased for training and half for personal touring.

Best wishes,
Wayne

 

[atbroome]

I learned to fly in a DA-20, so I like the DA-40. I had a hard time adjusting to a 172. Most of the reasons why DA-40s would be lower on my list for ownership have already been mentioned (low useful load, hard to fit in hanger, rough in turbulence); I will add 2 more: 1) None of the modern digital autopilots are being STC'd for the steam gauge and early G1000 versions with the KAP-140. 2) Its hard to fully replace the now orphaned VM1000 engine monitor due to need to replace the fuel level sensors.

Sure the later G1000 ones have the GFC700 but those cost considerably more. I would not want an G1000 model due to it being orphaned by Garmin and Diamond. The owners group has been trying to force Diamond to offer upgrade options..I think they were making some progress. If the GFC500 every gets certified for the steam DA40s, I would really want one.

 

[Sinistar]

It sounds like you wont need a big family hauler which really opens up possibilities.

Maybe you should add B model Cardinals and Commanders to your list (doors on both sides, comfortable, same speeds as the other standard planes you listed. A Cardinal is fantastic 2 person plane and the RG is even quicker for travel.

I think you are PNW?. Not sure how much high DA flying you'll be doing. If a lot then I'd think you'd want HP, CSP etc. That will narrow down choices quickly. Theres also the Maule.

 

[atbroome]

Oh sure, lets get someone else interested in the minimal supply of Cardinals and Tigers

 

[wrbix]

....vs an AA5:
- easy ingress/egress in both,
- “bubble canopy hot“ - can taxi and fly to certain speed with canopy opened in AA5, not in Diamond
- AA5 fits in a normal T hangar, not the Diamond.
- higher useful load in AA5B, and that huge cargo area with rear seat backs out is big enough for my two 80# Labs, full sized bikes, or sleeping.

Best things in life are often “in minimal supply”, for obvious reasons.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Was actually curious if anyone actually purchases a DA-40 for personal use or are they only used as trainers?

Plenty out there for personal use. I was on the board of directors that bought one for a flying club and had a large part in choosing the plane.

It turned out to be a fantastic buy for the club. We got a ton of new members who wanted to fly it, both for the tech (G1000) and the ramp appeal. And once you actually get in and fly it, it's a great experience. It's one of the best-flying GA airplanes ever built, the view is fantastic, and it's relatively quite cheap to operate.

Is it the wider than normal wingspan that limits hangar selection?

They're different, and change is hard. Talk to your average crusty old pilot or A&P and they'll poo-poo them. But, those differences make for some really nice results:

1) They're composite... And they're fast and efficient because of it.
2) Long wing, requiring a bigger hangar... Helps with the speed and efficiency as well as safety due to increased glide ratio.
3) You can't see any fuel in the tanks after you've burned more than a few gallons, so you have to use the weird contraption they include to see fuel levels. But that's because of the long, skinny aluminum fuel tanks that are sandwiched between dual main wing spars, which contributes to the DA40's stellar safety record. There has NEVER been a fire in an otherwise survivable crash of a DA40.
4) The seats don't move, the pedals do. But the seats are 26G rated. See safety.
5) It's got a stick instead of a yoke. Big whoop. Flies like a dream.
6) Canopy instead of door(s). You can get in both sides, and there's even a back door! Yes it will get hot faster, but if you get the 2003 and later models the airflow is substantially improved and I haven't had any issues with heat. You can also lock the canopy about 4" open for taxi to get some good airflow on the ground.

The idea that the wingspan makes them float like a Cessna( only heard this from a pilot co-worker so I can't verify it)? Or is there another reason?

Float like a Cessna? The only way Cessnas float is for a few minutes after you ditch in water...

But yes, you need to learn to land them correctly. FULL FLAPS. The flaps are effectively split flaps on the inboard 2-3 feet of each wing, so full flaps really helps. But if you have one of the idiot instructors who tells you to land with partial flaps and fly at 90 knots on final, you're going to have trouble. That happened to a friend of mine - And that school later managed to have a prop strike on that plane!

Looking at previous threads on ownership and which plane to buy yada yada yada.... the DA-40 doesn't seem to get mentioned much.

Well, they didn't get certified until 2001, so they're all still relatively expensive, and the first couple of years they had some issues with space and air flow in the cockpit. We're a pretty purchase-price-conscious group here. You won't hear the comparable SR20 getting mentioned much either.

Yes I know there are others like the Grumman AA-5 series, Super Viking, a few Beechcraft, and even the cramped Mooney.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend the Mooney Mite.

You're not spreading the OWT about the M20s being cramped, are you? You know that Al Mooney was 6 foot 5 inches tall, right? (I own a Mooney. I'm 6'4" 300# and it fits me quite well.)

Sounds a lot like the Cherokee I learned in. Not a bubble canopy but crazy hot on the ground. We would usually taxi with the door open - although I don't think that is an option with the Diamond.

It is. The canopy can lock about 4" open (at the trailing edge) which gives you a lot of airflow inside.

Most of the reasons why DA-40s would be lower on my list for ownership have already been mentioned (low useful load, hard to fit in hanger, rough in turbulence);

Useful load isn't that bad. Usually 600+ pounds with full fuel. It's not a four-adults-and-full-fuel plane, but neither is anything else with 180hp.

Also, I don't consider the DA40 to be "rough" in turbulence, it's just... Different. The longer wing tends to mean that it rolls less and yaws a bit more than your average spam can. It's a good idea to put your feet down firmly on both rudder pedals in turbulence to give it more yaw stability.

I will add 2 more: 1) None of the modern digital autopilots are being STC'd for the steam gauge and early G1000 versions with the KAP-140. 2) Its hard to fully replace the now orphaned VM1000 engine monitor due to need to replace the fuel level sensors.

An interesting point, but only the first three years of production were non-G1000, and the GFC500 for example is not certified for ANY G1000 bird, even the types that it is certified on. For example, the GFC500 is certified on my Mooney, but it specifically excludes the same model if it was equipped with a G1000.

In any case, the number of non-G1000 DA40s is too small to make certification of other autopilots economical, so it's definitely a valid concern.

Sure the later G1000 ones have the GFC700 but those cost considerably more. I would not want an G1000 model due to it being orphaned by Garmin and Diamond. The owners group has been trying to force Diamond to offer upgrade options..I think they were making some progress. If the GFC500 every gets certified for the steam DA40s, I would really want one.

This is another thing that isn't specific to Diamond. ALL of the planes with G1000 are essentially orphaned right from the factory, especially those that have the non-WAAS G1000. This is a result of the way the G1000 is certified by the FAA, and pretty much everyone hates it. I expect the FAA will change the rules eventually such that Garmin will be able to certify software updates without the manufacturers' approval.

 

[Will Kumley]

Plenty out there for personal use. I was on the board of directors that bought one for a flying club and had a large part in choosing the plane.

It turned out to be a fantastic buy for the club. We got a ton of new members who wanted to fly it, both for the tech (G1000) and the ramp appeal. And once you actually get in and fly it, it's a great experience. It's one of the best-flying GA airplanes ever built, the view is fantastic, and it's relatively quite cheap to operate.



They're different, and change is hard. Talk to your average crusty old pilot or A&P and they'll poo-poo them. But, those differences make for some really nice results:

1) They're composite... And they're fast and efficient because of it.
2) Long wing, requiring a bigger hangar... Helps with the speed and efficiency as well as safety due to increased glide ratio.
3) You can't see any fuel in the tanks after you've burned more than a few gallons, so you have to use the weird contraption they include to see fuel levels. But that's because of the long, skinny aluminum fuel tanks that are sandwiched between dual main wing spars, which contributes to the DA40's stellar safety record. There has NEVER been a fire in an otherwise survivable crash of a DA40.
4) The seats don't move, the pedals do. But the seats are 26G rated. See safety.
5) It's got a stick instead of a yoke. Big whoop. Flies like a dream.
6) Canopy instead of door(s). You can get in both sides, and there's even a back door! Yes it will get hot faster, but if you get the 2003 and later models the airflow is substantially improved and I haven't had any issues with heat. You can also lock the canopy about 4" open for taxi to get some good airflow on the ground.



Float like a Cessna? The only way Cessnas float is for a few minutes after you ditch in water...

But yes, you need to learn to land them correctly. FULL FLAPS. The flaps are effectively split flaps on the inboard 2-3 feet of each wing, so full flaps really helps. But if you have one of the idiot instructors who tells you to land with partial flaps and fly at 90 knots on final, you're going to have trouble. That happened to a friend of mine - And that school later managed to have a prop strike on that plane!



Well, they didn't get certified until 2001, so they're all still relatively expensive, and the first couple of years they had some issues with space and air flow in the cockpit. We're a pretty purchase-price-conscious group here. You won't hear the comparable SR20 getting mentioned much either.



Yeah, I wouldn't recommend the Mooney Mite.

You're not spreading the OWT about the M20s being cramped, are you? You know that Al Mooney was 6 foot 5 inches tall, right? (I own a Mooney. I'm 6'4" 300# and it fits me quite well.)



It is. The canopy can lock about 4" open (at the trailing edge) which gives you a lot of airflow inside.



Useful load isn't that bad. Usually 600+ pounds with full fuel. It's not a four-adults-and-full-fuel plane, but neither is anything else with 180hp.

Also, I don't consider the DA40 to be "rough" in turbulence, it's just... Different. The longer wing tends to mean that it rolls less and yaws a bit more than your average spam can. It's a good idea to put your feet down firmly on both rudder pedals in turbulence to give it more yaw stability.



An interesting point, but only the first three years of production were non-G1000, and the GFC500 for example is not certified for ANY G1000 bird, even the types that it is certified on. For example, the GFC500 is certified on my Mooney, but it specifically excludes the same model if it was equipped with a G1000.

In any case, the number of non-G1000 DA40s is too small to make certification of other autopilots economical, so it's definitely a valid concern.



This is another thing that isn't specific to Diamond. ALL of the planes with G1000 are essentially orphaned right from the factory, especially those that have the non-WAAS G1000. This is a result of the way the G1000 is certified by the FAA, and pretty much everyone hates it. I expect the FAA will change the rules eventually such that Garmin will be able to certify software updates without the manufacturers' approval.

This is a very informative and detailed response. Thanks! I do agree on it being newer which means it will cost more upfront than a 70s or early 80s model of anything in a comparable mission set.

 

[Will Kumley]

It sounds like you wont need a big family hauler which really opens up possibilities.

Maybe you should add B model Cardinals and Commanders to your list (doors on both sides, comfortable, same speeds as the other standard planes you listed. A Cardinal is fantastic 2 person plane and the RG is even quicker for travel.

I think you are PNW?. Not sure how much high DA flying you'll be doing. If a lot then I'd think you'd want HP, CSP etc. That will narrow down choices quickly. Theres also the Maule.

I agree a large family hauler isn't needed for me, but I've got to convince the wife on that one as she seems to like the idea of a larger plane capable of hauling more people all the time. Im definitely focusing on the lower cost of the others and lower fuel consumption of the smaller aircraft as well. Cardinals/Commanders look great, but as a very new pilot I'm thinking of staying away from retracts as I've heard insurance can be steep for someone like me and right now we are literally in the dreaming stage, which means if this even happens it will be a cheaper overall (maint,ins, gph, etc...) airplane

 

[PPC1052]

I agree a large family hauler isn't needed for me, but I've got to convince the wife on that one as she seems to like the idea of a larger plane capable of hauling more people all the time. Im definitely focusing on the lower cost of the others and lower fuel consumption of the smaller aircraft as well. Cardinals/Commanders look great, but as a very new pilot I'm thinking of staying away from retracts as I've heard insurance can be steep for someone like me and right now we are literally in the dreaming stage, which means if this even happens it will be a cheaper overall (maint,ins, gph, etc...) airplane

You can buy a lot of insurance for the difference in price between a Cardinal and a DA40.

 

[atbroome]

Well sure, but you are still stuck with a crappy KAP-140 in the pre GFC700 G1000 birds and an orphaned G1000; he wasn't asking about the other planes with orphaned G1000s and no autopilot options. And other autopilot concern - if you find one of the DA-40s without an autopilot, you better not ever want to add one since its the cost is apparently so high as to be not worth it.

An interesting point, but only the first three years of production were non-G1000, and the GFC500 for example is not certified for ANY G1000 bird, even the types that it is certified on. For example, the GFC500 is certified on my Mooney, but it specifically excludes the same model if it was equipped with a G1000.

In any case, the number of non-G1000 DA40s is too small to make certification of other autopilots economical, so it's definitely a valid concern.

This is another thing that isn't specific to Diamond. ALL of the planes with G1000 are essentially orphaned right from the factory, especially those that have the non-WAAS G1000. This is a result of the way the G1000 is certified by the FAA, and pretty much everyone hates it. I expect the FAA will change the rules eventually such that Garmin will be able to certify software updates without the manufacturers' approval.

 

[scottfromboston]

Owned 1/4 of one for a few years and put almost 200hr on it.

There’s not much I can say that hasn’t been said here - useful load is a limitation and the wings will be tight in standard hangars. I didn’t find comfort an issue, nor landing it. Access was great and cargo area useful (full-sized bicycles!!). The controls are well-balanced and the avionics are incredible (ours was GFC700-equipped).

Parts support was horrendous.

The Cardinal with fixed gear is worth consideration but the safety record of the Diamond was comforting.

 

[GRG55]

Really just another thread of which plane to buy.

Was actually curious if anyone actually purchases a DA-40 for personal use or are they only used as trainers? If nobody owns them- why not? Is it the wider than normal wingspan that limits hangar selection? The idea that the wingspan makes them float like a Cessna( only heard this from a pilot co-worker so I can't verify it)? Or is there another reason?

Two good friends at my airport each had one. Both loved their airplanes. Fast, economical, fun to fly, great visibility, the girls like them, what more could you ask for.

For both it was their first airplane ownership experience. One flew it IFR quite a bit in the warm weather months. One had the misfortune of having a rampie back another airplane into his 3-blade MT prop. The prop had to go back to Europe for repair and the plane was down about 3 months. Unusual accident, but one of the hazards of having late generation high tech components and airframe compared to the readily available "old tech" stuff us geezers own and the kids complain is for ancients from the time of the Pharaohs.

In both cases the pilots upgraded, but stayed composite. They both wanted to "go even faster and higher". One has a turbocharged Lancair ES and the other is now flying a Cessna TTX.

...My wife has hinted more and more about us buying a plane but I believe our ideas of mission are still a bit out of alignment. We have two kids, one in college and one in high school. She thinks the kids will want to fly with us forever but I'm more of a realist and think the kids will gladly just let us go on our own most of the time.

This makes me think a Warrior, Archer, Cherokee 180, 172 or even 182 would suit us well. Since she wants more space and possibly more useful load I'm thinking her ideal flying machine would be a 182 at a minimum in the Cessna world, possibly even a 206/210 or a Piper Six and might get away with a Cherokee 235...

I agree a large family hauler isn't needed for me, but I've got to convince the wife on that one as she seems to like the idea of a larger plane capable of hauling more people all the time. I'm definitely focusing on the lower cost of the others and lower fuel consumption of the smaller aircraft as well. Cardinals/Commanders look great, but as a very new pilot I'm thinking of staying away from retracts as I've heard insurance can be steep for someone like me and right now we are literally in the dreaming stage, which means if this even happens it will be a cheaper overall (maint,ins, gph, etc...) airplane

You are on the right track. Do not buy a 6-place load hauler if the typical mission is likely to be 2 of you in the plane almost all the time. A Cherokee 235/Dakota or a 182 would be good choices for 2 with lots of fuel and baggage, and the periodic trip with 3. A 206, 210 or Piper Six is going to be measurably more expensive to maintain and fly. And you will probably come to hate that if you fly it 1/2 empty most of the time. The operating cost between a sedan and a mini-van isn't all that great; the operating cost between a sedan with wings and a mini-van with wings is considerably greater.

 

[Sinistar]

I agree a large family hauler isn't needed for me, but I've got to convince the wife on that one as she seems to like the idea of a larger plane capable of hauling more people all the time. Im definitely focusing on the lower cost of the others and lower fuel consumption of the smaller aircraft as well. Cardinals/Commanders look great, but as a very new pilot I'm thinking of staying away from retracts as I've heard insurance can be steep for someone like me and right now we are literally in the dreaming stage, which means if this even happens it will be a cheaper overall (maint,ins, gph, etc...) airplane

Just in case you missed it, the Cardinals are also fixed gear. So probably similar insurance to a 172. As you have probably seen there are 180HP 172's. I think some have constant speed props. However, I believe all the 'B' model Cardinals have 180HP and constant speed prop...plus those nice big doors and better visibility. If you start looking at Cardinals I believe there are now grumblings (if not actual bulletins / ADs) regarding the wing. So research that carefully. The lack of the wing struts give the Centurions and Cardinals a much cleaner look but it would seem that design may now be coming back to haunt them (probably just really high time stuff though). Piper is experiencing the same on some of the models you listed. So its not unique to Cessna.

We also opted to stay away from retracts. Partly due to the added cost. But more because we're just getting older and figure its just one more thing to forget. I know a guy who's dad had this beautiful Navion. As I understand it, he had a gear up landing. After it was repaired he somehow accidentally dropped the gear in the hangar. Totally sucks. We opted for the old 182. After learning to land in it I can tell you the fixed gear are strong The Dakota/Pathfinder seem to be the Skylane equivalent. They haul a lot and are also 235HP constant speed prop planes. They will haul (4) people but it gets tight and usually not full fuel if anyone is over 180lbs...same as a 182.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

And other autopilot concern - if you find one of the DA-40s without an autopilot, you better not ever want to add one since its the cost is apparently so high as to be not worth it.

This is true. King is pretty proud of their stuff. While I can't find anything about the KAP 140, the similar-ish KFC 225 starts at $38,000 according to an undated AEA article I found.

And KAP-140 + G1000 is VERY poorly (barely) integrated. You have to set the altimeter setting in three different places, altitudes in two, etc... The only thing that makes it over from the G1000 to the KAP-140 is course deviation and heading bug.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Side comment about the bubble canopy and heat. It led me to purchase an in-ear headset as a summer backup so instead of a billed cap under the headset, I could wear a floppy hat over the headset. Still pretty hot, but I was amazed at the difference the extra "shade" made.

 

[DA40FAN]

2003 DA40 owner. Agree with what other owners/renters have said -- great handling, easy to fly, best safety record, efficient (mine does 135-140KTAS on 8gph). Re the heat Jet Shades makes a set of their inserts for the Diamond. Pricey but effective in reducing heat and glare. When combined with taxing with the canopy cracked, still comfortable in 90+ temps. Re useful load, the early (2001-06) DA40s can have their MTOWs increased by 110lb. (2007 onward already have the increase, but tend to be heavier.) With earlier ones it requires a new main landing gear, with later ones simply a change to the elevator travel. The steam gauge ones like mine are the lightest DA40s. My useful with the MTOW modification is 945lb, 705lb with full fuel (40gal). However, there is also a maximum landing weight that is less so to get the full MTOW requires carrying and using a minimum of 110lb of fuel (19 gal). Re autopilots, there are no STCed APs for DA40s so your only choice is KAP140 in 2001-06 and GFC700 in 2007 and later.

 

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

economical (8 gph) [...] for the DA40 that's basically 3 adults with full-fuel (50 gals).

You have a 6 hour bladder?

There is always the "Fuel Balls (tm)" option to reduce your tank capacity.

 

[steingar]

Says me, if you really don't want a family hauler and want to go fast a vintage Mooney is right aircraft. Why pay for and schlep a back seat you aren't going to use? You can buy a shot body Mooney and install a glass panel for what the Diamond will cost. Still go 140 knots on 8-9 gallons an hour. You just have to remember to lower the gear when you land.

Steingar, un apologetic Mooney fanboy

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Says me, if you really don't want a family hauler and want to go fast a vintage Mooney is right aircraft. Why pay for and schlep a back seat you aren't going to use? You can buy a shot body Mooney and install a glass panel for what the Diamond will cost. Still go 140 knots on 8-9 gallons an hour. You just have to remember to lower the gear when you land.

Steingar, un apologetic Mooney fanboy

You know I love Mooneys... But there's definitely a choice to be made, if one can afford the purchase price of a Diamond. The Mooney is certainly economical, but the vintage ones are 50+ years old. That means you have a much higher chance of something breaking and being stranded somewhere, and it means you'll generally spend more on maintenance overall.

Yes, it'll take you a while to spend the difference in purchase prices on maintenance... But there's the intangible factor of not having to deal with putting it in the shop as much, and not worrying as much about breaking down on the road.

FWIW, the club's 2006 DA40 cost about 30-50% less for maintenance than our late 70s/early 80s spam cans did. And that includes all of the optional inspections, including pulling the wings off it every 1000 hours. It's a solid bird.

 

[NordicDave]

My flying club has a DA40. We don't do primary training. It's a decent traveling machine. Only real downside is it's light loading, not the most comfortable thing to fly in turbulence.

and summer heat in that bubble canopy.

100% agree with the above. Also, they have a penchant for yawing in some wind conditions and require peddling the rudder petals. For front passenger, the stick gets in the way. Until more recently the seats are VERY hard and not comfortable, this was a common complaint.

GA is all about trade-offs. DA40 has a slippery airframe and the cruise performance and fuel burn is terrific on it's 4 cylinder engine. My opinion, it's definitely a step-up plane and not advised for flight training. The insurance is 3x a Cessna 182, and worse for a student pilot/owner. The insurance companies are highly concerned with hangar rash on the long wings, and repairing composite is much more expensive over a spam can Cessna.

Nice planes and the visibility and control rod connections from stick to flight surfaces are both outrageously great. At cruise, just squeezing the stick guides the plane. It's a great flight experience to it's strengths.

 

[Will Kumley]

Says me, if you really don't want a family hauler and want to go fast a vintage Mooney is right aircraft. Why pay for and schlep a back seat you aren't going to use? You can buy a shot body Mooney and install a glass panel for what the Diamond will cost. Still go 140 knots on 8-9 gallons an hour. You just have to remember to lower the gear when you land.

Steingar, un apologetic Mooney fanboy

Not gonna lie, I do like the look of the Mooney. However, after I got my cert in the Cherokee 140 my wife still hasn't flown in it as she thinks the back seat is too small. I personally think its a non-issue as she will now sit in the front seat next to me but she seems to think our son in college will want the extra room in the backseat. I'm still trying to convince her that he likely won't be hanging out with us much more once he gets back into school after this covid calamity calms down enough for the schools to open campuses again. I hear the Mooney backseat isn't much better, and possibly tighter than the backseat of a Cherokee 140. There is one on the ramp at my airport that is rumored to be cheap but its been parked for a few years after a prop strike that is still evident when looking at it and peeking in the windows the front seats are back against the rear seas so unless I have a legless child I'm confident she won't even look past the door of a Mooney.

So far, the only plane I've flown with my wife after getting my cert is the trusty 172, it works but we are finding that getting one scheduled is harder and harder as the weather improves and students at the flight school also take advantage of the weather.

 

[Tusayan]

Nice planes and the visibility and control rod connections from stick to flight surfaces are both outrageously great. At cruise, just squeezing the stick guides the plane. It's a great flight experience to it's strengths.

The biggest issue with the DA-40 in my mind is that it flies like a sailplane, meaning a bit truckish in roll. Control harmony is not a strength by my observation. Other issues are poor front seat headroom (for those that need it) and hard, uncomfortable seats. It strikes me as an aircraft that's good for shorter people who value efficiency. The visibility is good and the back seat room is fine.

 

[steingar]

Not gonna lie, I do like the look of the Mooney. However, after I got my cert in the Cherokee 140 my wife still hasn't flown in it as she thinks the back seat is too small.

If a Cherokee back seat was too small the Mooney is no better. You had said you didn't care about a back seat, which is why I specifically made the recommendation. My Mooney may be old, but I don't think she spends any more time in the shop than any other airplane. She's no maintenance hog.

 

[Cervieres]

I own a 2012 XLS and fly 150-200 hours a year. This was my first aircraft purchase after renting for 15 years. I agree with most of what has been said so far regarding the pros and cons of the design. Prior to the purchase, I had about 100 hours in DA40s during instrument and commercial training, and was impressed by the handling and low operating costs. The center stick is polarizing, but you really can develop some great stick and rudder skills as well as a better understanding of aerodynamics and energy management. My typical cross country flight is 250NM and involves carrying 2 adults and a 9 year old with 50 pounds of bags and full fuel. Cruise power settings consistently give a TAS of 130kts at 7.5GPH at 10-12,000'. An SR20 would have been my second choice and is arguably a better XC platform. I never liked Cirrus handling and they feel like airplanes designed around an autopilot. At the time of purchase, I was a relatively low time pilot and more interested in building airmanship. I really wanted a Commander 115TC, but that's a whole different topic. If you're seriously considering a DA40 and want to PM me, feel free. I think it is a brilliant plane.

 

[Cervieres]

2003 DA40 owner. Agree with what other owners/renters have said -- great handling, easy to fly, best safety record, efficient (mine does 135-140KTAS on 8gph). Re the heat Jet Shades makes a set of their inserts for the Diamond. Pricey but effective in reducing heat and glare. When combined with taxing with the canopy cracked, still comfortable in 90+ temps. Re useful load, the early (2001-06) DA40s can have their MTOWs increased by 110lb. (2007 onward already have the increase, but tend to be heavier.) With earlier ones it requires a new main landing gear, with later ones simply a change to the elevator travel. The steam gauge ones like mine are the lightest DA40s. My useful with the MTOW modification is 945lb, 705lb with full fuel (40gal). However, there is also a maximum landing weight that is less so to get the full MTOW requires carrying and using a minimum of 110lb of fuel (19 gal). Re autopilots, there are no STCed APs for DA40s so your only choice is KAP140 in 2001-06 and GFC700 in 2007 and later.

I just bought Jet Shades last month for mine. Absolutely life changing for summer flying. They should should be standard equipment for the DA40/42.

 

[Sinistar]

You mention your wife wanting more room for your grown son in the back seat. I have a hunch if you, wife and junior do a flight she might be in the back seat...and maybe this is why she's worried about it.