New Diamond DA50

[Utah-Jay]

I get the feeling that 1999kg MTOW is tied to some European regulation.

I really like this thing though it does have some drawbacks. Too bad it won’t sell well in the US. There are just way too many reasons(or excuses) for SR22 buyers to stay with Cirrus.

Correct, it is a landing fee/tax issue for 2000 KG’s and up. Same reason Diamond has the two package options on the DA62 to keep one under the landing fee threshold

 

[genna]

Correct, it is a landing fee/tax issue for 2000 KG’s and up. Same reason Diamond has the two package options on the DA62 to keep one under the landing fee threshold

In that case, chances are, you have a lot of built-in safety margin in that MTOW number. Now, I'm not advocating flying the plane over-gross or becoming a test pilot, but this might not be exactly a technical issue.

 

[NealRomeoGolf]

It's a T tail. They're all gonna crash.

 

[UngaWunga]

Neat.

 

[dans2992]

In that case, chances are, you have a lot of built-in safety margin in that MTOW number. Now, I'm not advocating flying the plane over-gross or becoming a test pilot, but this might not be exactly a technical issue.

I wonder if max gross will be different in the US?

 

[Spinka]

Correct, it is a landing fee/tax issue for 2000 KG’s and up. Same reason Diamond has the two package options on the DA62 to keep one under the landing fee threshold

It's a fee issue, but not landing fee. Below 2000 KG you are exempted from paying enroute IFR charges in Europe. This is the reason why most Senecas in Europe have been recertified to 1999 KG.

 

[PaulS]

Well, it's going to take more $$$ to push more weight, and it would effect short field and climb performance, but as you say, if those specs meet with your needs, being heavy can be a good thing in a lot of ways.

According to the video it runs at 8 or 9 GPH, 90% power (270 hp) for a TAS of 180+. Those are pretty good numbers. 1230 useful, or 880 with full tanks is pretty damn good for a single that will go 180+. TO and landing performance is 1444 ft take off over a 50 ft obstacle and 1115 landing over a 50 foot obstacle. Not bad. The question is how long will that engine last running at that high power? Who knows, but my mind is changing about this airplane.

 

[dans2992]

880 lb useful with full tanks? You’ll never have to do W&B calcs - if it fits, it flies!

 

[Tantalum]

the more I read about and know about this plane the more perfect it seems. Having that rear passenger door is also a huge

The Cirrus is (currently) the epitome of cabin comfort and scores well on performance. If the Diamond can make these performance figures and have that extra rear door it's going to be a real contender

The big issues are that absurd wingspan, the center joystick that some people hate, and the power plant may scare a lot of people away

 

[asicer]

If the Diamond can make these performance figures and have that extra rear door it's going to be a real contender

The big issues are that absurd wingspan, the center joystick that some people hate, and the power plant may scare a lot of people away

The DA40 has had all of that (good performance for 180HP, extra rear door, absurd wingspan, center joystick, scary powerplant) for several years now. I suppose it's mainly a matter of how the step-up market niche reacts.

 

[genna]

According to the video it runs at 8 or 9 GPH, 90% power (270 hp) for a TAS of 180+. Those are pretty good numbers. 1230 useful, or 880 with full tanks is pretty damn good for a single that will go 180+. TO and landing performance is 1444 ft take off over a 50 ft obstacle and 1115 landing over a 50 foot obstacle. Not bad. The question is how long will that engine last running at that high power? Who knows, but my mind is changing about this airplane.

not that good. 8-9gph is economy cruise. 90% is max continues power for 180kts @ 13-14gph. Still very good, but not THAT good

 

[genna]

The big issues are that absurd wingspan, the center joystick that some people hate, and the power plant may scare a lot of people away

And the fact that Cirrus exists. With BRS, more speed, established brand, great resale value, great support, fixed gear, known engine and Mx issues, FIKI, AC, BRS(yep I said it twice on purpose). This is in US. In EU this will be a hit I think

 

[Rocketman4992]

Looks like a beautiful plane. I hope in a few years it demonstrates high safety numbers so it is a real contender. What keeps me gravitating toward Cirrus is their safety record.

 

[Arrow76R]

All I can say is that it's a good thing it won't fit in my hangar

 

[PaulS]

880 lb useful with full tanks? You’ll never have to do W&B calcs - if it fits, it flies!

It has 5 seats though, someone will overload it to a bad out come unfortunately. Can't fix stupid. Probably holds about 80 pounds of TKS, plus the inevitable future AC option. But still, pretty impressive.

not that good. 8-9gph is economy cruise. 90% is max continues power for 180kts @ 13-14gph. Still very good, but not THAT good

Oh Genna, burst my bubble with reality. But still pretty good.

And the fact that Cirrus exists. With BRS, more speed, established brand, great resale value, great support, fixed gear, known engine and Mx issues, FIKI, AC, BRS(yep I said it twice on purpose). This is in US. In EU this will be a hit I think

Chute and fixed gear, plusses for Cirrus. I suspect a diesel 22 is in the works or being talked about. I still like this plane though. Oh, and not sure about the Cirrus more speed thing, but will have to wait for the final numbers to come out.

 

[genna]

It has 5 seats though, someone will overload it to a bad out come unfortunately. Can't fix stupid. Probably holds about 80 pounds of TKS, plus the inevitable future AC option. But still, pretty impressive.



Oh Genna, burst my bubble with reality. But still pretty good.



Chute and fixed gear, plusses for Cirrus. I suspect a diesel 22 is in the works or being talked about. I still like this plane though. Oh, and not sure about the Cirrus more speed thing, but will have to wait for the final numbers to come out.

max claimed cruise speed of 22T is 213kts

 

[Tantalum]

max claimed cruise speed of 22T is 213kts

This is true, but that's up in the flight levels. Most people who fly them see closer to 180 to 190 if they are not on oxygen and if they elect to use the cannula they generally stay under 18,000 and get somewhere in the 190 range

 

[genna]

This is true, but that's up in the flight levels. Most people who fly them see closer to 180 to 190 if they are not on oxygen and if they elect to use the cannula they generally stay under 18,000 and get somewhere in the 190 range

which is faster than Da50’s claimed speed in the video(at unknown, but no doubt oxygen, altitude )

 

[Rockymountain]

One thing this plane has that is so nice is trailing link gear. Will be super easy to land. The Cirrus is up there in the difficult to land category with the springy gear. Has caused a lot of accidents. There is a way to land a Cirrus safely, but it is not forgiving of poor technique. I suspect it will be about 7-10 dBa’s quieter than the Cirrus, if it is anything like the diesel twins. Easier to get in and out. Out performs the normally aspirated Cirrus, but the Turbo Cirrus and the Piper M350 both smoke it in performance. If the base price is 850K the version with tires ;-) synthetic vision, TAWs traffic, charts, seats,,,, will be a mil. That is also where the tricked out turbo Cirrus sits.

I agree on the limited range though. 750nm which is an advertising number, not always applicable to the real world, is at LRC. At normal cruise It is going to be 6 something, add headwinds 5 something, need an IFR alternate, 4 something, just a little short for a million dollar plane. For comparison the turbo Cirrus advertises 1021 nm max range and the M350 1343 nm.

 

[Rockymountain]

@zaitcev

Complete hearsay for both rumors below:

• SMA/200 series engine CMI tried to sell to Cessna had a vibration and turbo problem. Neither could be solved to Cessna satisfaction.
• For Cirrus, the CD-200 series is under powered for the 22; over powered for the 20; and too heavy without significant changes to the planes.

Tim

This is true, but that's up in the flight levels. Most people who fly them see closer to 180 to 190 if they are not on oxygen and if they elect to use the cannula they generally stay under 18,000 and get somewhere in the 190 range

The only way my turbo Cirrus would see 213 KTAS was inverted and pulling . I did get 207 KTAS at 25,000 ft. Once, but that was running the engine really hot. Probably not practical for longevity of the engine, nor is 25,000 in an unpressurized plane good for the longevity of the pilot.

 

[Tantalum]

The only way my turbo Cirrus would see 213 KTAS was inverted and pulling . I did get 207 KTAS at 25,000 ft. Once, but that was running the engine really hot. Probably not practical for longevity of the engine, nor is 25,000 in an unpressurized plane good for the longevity of the pilot.

It is interesting how much variation there is from Cirrus to Cirrus.. my experience has been very favorable typically even while keeping CHT under 380.. but I read stuff on the COPA forum sometimes of people barely squeaking over 170 knots in their turbo

 

[genna]

It is interesting how much variation there is from Cirrus to Cirrus.. my experience has been very favorable typically even while keeping CHT under 380.. but I read stuff on the COPA forum sometimes of people barely squeaking over 170 knots in their turbo

I can't imagine a well running late 22T within w&b limits maxing out at below 175ktas. Even below oxygen altitudes. The NA G2 I flew would happily max out at 173(full rental power) at it's best speed altitude around 7Kft. 22T would have extra what 25-30% power available to it? Even more at around 11Kft.

Now, if we start talking about Best Economy/LOP running, that changes a lot of numbers. But this conversation is about best speed.

 

[Tantalum]

well running

I think that's the key. It settled in around 172 but the RPM, fuel flow, manifold pressure, could never really be aligned well per the POH.. adjusting one would throw off the other. It later turned out that some prop governor adjustments were incorrect as well as fuel flows and that got the plane back to a more POH friendly 183-187 at typical cruising altitudes and power settings

There's a g1 SR22 I've been flying recently and it does really well. Even at 11K (NA) and 67 percent power it's doing 167-168 KTAS.. down in the 6K-8K range it has a similar figures to what you reported.. somewhere in the 169-174 range depending on factors

Honestly, a non FIKI not turbo non O2 G1/G2 SR22 has pretty healthy useful.. around 1,100.. for a typical 2-3 leg you can get 4 people and sufficient gas plus (limited) luggage.

I never put much weight (get it?) into the full fuel payload capability of a plane. Outside of tankering fuel to an outpost with no avgas I really don't think there are many that have a need for 5 hr legs with 4 passengers and luggage

 

[genna]

I think that's the key. It settled in around 172 but the RPM, fuel flow, manifold pressure, could never really be aligned well per the POH.. adjusting one would throw off the other. It later turned out that some prop governor adjustments were incorrect as well as fuel flows and that got the plane back to a more POH friendly 183-187 at typical cruising altitudes and power settings

There's a g1 SR22 I've been flying recently and it does really well. Even at 11K (NA) and 67 percent power it's doing 167-168 KTAS.. down in the 6K-8K range it has a similar figures to what you reported.. somewhere in the 169-174 range depending on factors

Honestly, a non FIKI not turbo non O2 G1/G2 SR22 has pretty healthy useful.. around 1,100.. for a typical 2-3 leg you can get 4 people and sufficient gas plus (limited) luggage.

I never put much weight (get it?) into the full fuel payload capability of a plane. Outside of tankering fuel to an outpost with no avgas I really don't think there are many that have a need for 5 hr legs with 4 passengers and luggage

I sort of get the reason why people worry about "full fuel payload", I think it's largely new to aviation people. Or pilots that entered aviation with planes that have large full fuel payload numbers. Or often, marketing. It's sort of set it and forget it procedure. You always have full tank if that number is big enough to carry all you ever need. It simplifies a few things like always knowing how much time you have in the air(it's always the same) and not worrying about calculating it for every flight. Also makes life easier if you are sharing the plane since you can always have full tank.

Now, is it that difficult to make these calculations? No, of course not. Would it be anywhere near the top of the list of things for me to worry about the plane? No.

 

[PaulS]

I'm flying fairly new Cirrus NA 22 G6s and they are consistently about 4 or 5 knots slower than book. Granted I don't bother with adjusting for temp and other factors as I really don't care. I'm also running more and more at 65% as they burn about 5 or 6 less gallons per hour and it only takes a few minutes longer to arrive where I'm going.

I found this data sheet for the Diamond
https://www.diamondaircraft.com/fil...da50/DA50_RG_Preliminary_Factsheet_202006.pdf

The airplane will fly 181 knots at 16,000 feet ISA 1700 kgs.

A G3 22T will fly 186 knots, 3200 lbs, 16,000 ft ISA. on 11.3 GPH. There is fuel data for the diamond.

Pretty close in my book. Of course the Diamond is still in the marketing phase versus real life phase. I keeps looking better to me, but the chute is a good thing in my mind.

 

[Gmonnig]

I think it’s a very attractive aircraft, in looks and performance. The only thing that made me scratch my head is the massive wingspan, as noted numerous times. Maybe a clipped wing model with winglets for the American market with 2.5ft lobbed off each wing will work. Then again, I could just upgrade from a 42’ hangar to a 50’, only a couple hundred more bucks a month if you can get on the waiting list.

 

[Datadriver]

What keeps me gravitating toward Cirrus is their safety record.

I'm not sure there has ever been a post-crash fire in a DA40/20. The fuel tank behind the wing spar is to thank.

 

[N1120A]

If they'd dump the center stick and make the fuel tanks bigger, this plane would be perfection.

I'm not quite sure why people are scared of diesels. They are historically MUCH more reliable than gasoline engines and spend much of their lives living in the world of max continuous torque.

 

[PaulS]

If they'd dump the center stick and make the fuel tanks bigger, this plane would be perfection.

I'm not quite sure why people are scared of diesels. They are historically MUCH more reliable than gasoline engines and spend much of their lives living in the world of max continuous torque.

I'm afraid of the gearbox.

 

[tspear]

I'm afraid of the gearbox.

Based on what I read, the gearbox used in the Diamond planes (either AE or CD brand) is holding up better than most avgas turbo charged top ends.

Tim

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm not sure there has ever been a post-crash fire in a DA40/20. The fuel tank behind the wing spar is to thank.

It's even better than that. There are dual main wing spars in the DA40 and the aluminum fuel tanks are *between* them. And the reason the DA40 doesn't have an airframe life limit like most composite airplanes is that they passed the structural certification tests with one of them missing.

While there have now been a few post-crash fires in Diamonds that I know of (3 I think), none of them occurred after crashes that would have been survivable otherwise.

I was quite shocked that anyone (@Rocketman4992) would be gravitating toward Cirrus because of "their safety record". While they've gotten to where it's average now, they used to be horribly bad. Cirrus was the new doctor killer for a while, until Cirrus and to an even greater extent COPA really started leaning hard on good training. They also had a pretty bad record of post-crash fires, since they didn't start building their tanks out of metal until fairly recently (2016 maybe?). The video of the one that crashed in a parking lot and got caught by a security camera will forever be burned into my memory - It took less than 1/10 of a second for the entire airplane to be engulfed in flames, and in the frame after the crash but before the fire you could see the splash of fuel as the (composite) wing tanks shattered.

 

[FormerHangie]

If they'd dump the center stick and make the fuel tanks bigger, this plane would be perfection.

I'm not quite sure why people are scared of diesels. They are historically MUCH more reliable than gasoline engines and spend much of their lives living in the world of max continuous torque.

There's nothing inherently more reliable about diesel cycle engines. Those diesels in heavy trucks go so many miles because they are engineered to do so, it is possible to make a gasoline engine last a very long time as well.

There's no reason that a diesel aero engine can't be reliable either. What does give me pause is that it is based on an automotive engine. I do believe that Continental has done a good job with this one and would have no problem flying behind it, but its long term durability is still a question mark

 

[tspear]

There's nothing inherently more reliable about diesel cycle engines. Those diesels in heavy trucks go so many miles because they are engineered to do so, it is possible to make a gasoline engine last a very long time as well.

There's no reason that a diesel aero engine can't be reliable either. What does give me pause is that it is based on an automotive engine. I do believe that Continental has done a good job with this one and would have no problem flying behind it, but its long term durability is still a question mark

From what I read over on Diamond aviators site; the Diesel engines work out to be around the same cost as avgas. MX is less frequent, however it does cost more.
The biggest deltas I have noticed anecdotally are:
1. A continuing decrease unexpected MX events with the Diesel engines. While the avgas engines have pretty much remained constant.
2. Diesel keeps getting many of the expensive parts to have life extensions (double clutch flywheel, gear boxes....). This will eventually lower the MX costs below avgas. Let alone the fuel price difference.

Tim