New Diamond DA50

[Bobanna]

JEB: Thanks for your rigorous comparison of the A36 to the DA-50 (vide supra). As much as I admire the Bonanza, I think we should also be including the Cessna 210 to illustrate the mediocre specifications of the DA50; the 210 does some things better than the competition, and some things not so much. Despite my disdain for Cessna in this market, the 210 represents an evolved design from long-ago that set a standard to evaluate the competition. But, they need avgas and they don't have the little table in back.

 

[wayne]

I don't disagree. But I do prefer the feel of a stick. My comment was more directed at people who aggressively poo-poo a stick

I don't dislike them, but they do seem a little different. Could easily be my lack of time flying them.

It would drive my wife nuts though. She's not wild about a yoke. She thinks the plane might fall out of the sky if she touches it; a slight exaggeration, but covers the gist of it. The side stick on the Cirrus opens up the cockpit and it's not right in front of her so she's not as concerned.

If the passenger side is easy to remove, then it might be a good option.



Wayne

 

[JEB]

I'd agree. 210 is a very capable airplane. I updated the comparison to include both normally aspirated and turbo versions. As we add more planes, you start to see that it becomes more and more subjective. This is like choosing your favorite ice cream from 3 options vs 31 flavors. There is definitely a difference in the way each airplane flys and the level of fit & finish. Interior on a nice Beech is just nicer than interior on a nice Cessna. I also think the Beech handles nicer - I have hundreds of hours in both brands.

The next guy who asks for this to include the PA-32 options (Saratogas and Lances) gets to take it over.
Performance Specs from AOPA and RisingUp
https://www.risingup.com
https://www.aopa.org/go-fly/aircraft-and-ownership/aircraft-fact-sheets
DA50 numbers are from the Diamond web site and A36(NA) numbers are based on my own plane.

 

[Bobanna]

JEB: Fabulous work on those specs! Thanks, you drove the point home, and, as you noted, this analysis doesn't allow for qualitative differences (fit and finish, handling, engine accessibility, etc.). A Cessna is a Cessna, and a Beechcraft is, well, a Beechcraft. It's hard not to get into a Ford-Chevy thing (Red tractor vs Green tractor) to have a pilot say the numbers don't matter, but we started this analysis to assess the capabilities of the DA50 which looks absolutely fresh, novel, and modern! The initial premise was that the DA50 doesn't offer much of a performance improvement over existing technology, but the DA50 looks wonderfully modern and gets kudos for integrating a diesel engine (for better or worse).

PS: The color-coding on your spread sheet is remarkable. Thanks for your detailed effort.

 

[3393RP]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

 

[JEB]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

A 4 hour leg in my plane is very reasonable when I'm crossing the country. 4 hours for me is right about a hair more than 750 miles.

The thing is, any decisions to decrease fuel weight to enable more people/cargo result in an even shorter range. Having extra range = more flexibility in what you can carry and how far. I'm also one of those guys who doesn't like to stretch a tank of gas - in the car, sure I'll push it down to a few miles. In the plane, I really like to plan on having well over an hour of extra fuel.

We're doing a comparison here based on truly measurable attributes. As we start to declare certain things "acceptable" the metrics become opinions.

 

[MooneyDriver78]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

Mooney, 5 is my planned maximum. But would anyone ever plan for just 30 minutes reserve? That’s why I use 5, gives me 2 hours reserve. But no way would I do that with passengers.

 

[asicer]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

That range is useful if you fly to an airport without fuel. How many airports in the US have 100LL but not Jet-A?

 

[Groundpounder]

That range is useful if you fly to an airport without fuel. How many airports in the US have 100LL but not Jet-A?

And how many have 24 hour 100LL self serve, but jet is only available when the FBO is open?

 

[3393RP]

Probably the same ones with T hangars that won't accommodate a 44' wingspan.

I doubt anyone here has to worry about the issues of owning a $1M plus piston single.

 

[tspear]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

When I had the Aerostar, about once a month I flew around 1000 miles non-stop in 4 hours. Had over an hour reserve.
Mission changed, now with an SR22; until the recent shutdown; I would do once flight a quarter which is 4.5 hours leaving one hour reserve (have to pull power back to get the range); that gives me just over 600 miles with normal headwinds plus reserves. So a plane which does 750; I would find very marginal for a lot of flights.

Tim

 

[dell30rb]

I am also not very impressed with those numbers. You'd think it would be at least 20kts faster, especially considering it is turbocharged.

There has to be a ton of drag coming from that cowl. Its got some big honking intakes up high, and then add the two radiators at the bottom... I am sure Diamond did the best with what they had to work with. But contrast that with a similar HP gas engine.

 

[PaulS]

I am also not very impressed with those numbers. You'd think it would be at least 20kts faster, especially considering it is turbocharged.

There has to be a ton of drag coming from that cowl. Its got some big honking intakes up high, and then add the two radiators at the bottom... I am sure Diamond did the best with what they had to work with. But contrast that with a similar HP gas engine.

I think it's the weight..... I also think that another 50 hp would put this airplane ahead of the pack speed wise, but that would work for everyone else too.

 

[tspear]

I am also not very impressed with those numbers. You'd think it would be at least 20kts faster, especially considering it is turbocharged.

There has to be a ton of drag coming from that cowl. Its got some big honking intakes up high, and then add the two radiators at the bottom... I am sure Diamond did the best with what they had to work with. But contrast that with a similar HP gas engine.

Notice on the DA-42 how each major revamp fixed aerodynamic issues and speed increased? From CD-135 to CD-155 to NG (AE-300) to the -6.
Do not be surprised if that would be cleaned up in a future version.

Tim

Sent from my HD1907 using Tapatalk

 

[Davidl13]

JEB: Thanks for your rigorous comparison of the A36 to the DA-50 (vide supra). As much as I admire the Bonanza, I think we should also be including the Cessna 210 to illustrate the mediocre specifications of the DA50; the 210 does some things better than the competition, and some things not so much. Despite my disdain for Cessna in this market, the 210 represents an evolved design from long-ago that set a standard to evaluate the competition. But, they need avgas and they don't have the little table in back.

cessna P210N Silver Eagle.. Jet A , turbine performance and reliability , pressurized comfort... fly at uncrowned flight levels...upgraded to a modern panel.. “brand new” conversion $1.3m total... used significantly less...

 

[Davidl13]

Specs are deceiving and these specs are not accurate... likely some lazy marketing data from 30 years ago... to get an STC to market...for instance.. takeoff and landing distance is about 700’... climb rate at Vx is 2500ft/min...

and I was comparing what a dollar will buy...and burn Jet A ... given that an g36 and a da50 are in the same ballpark in terms of $$$. (For a used silver eagle).. new is more..and it is pressurized and turbine...


If you study actual specs of the silver eagle .. and purchase , operation, ownership and resale values,.you will see a different world... it may or may not be for you, but if you are going to spend $750k-1m, you would Have to be blinded to not look very closely at the Silver Eagle... a unique bird and the lowest cost turbine to own and operate..

I like to see what I can get for my dollars spent

 

[Tusayan]

There has to be a ton of drag coming from that cowl. Its got some big honking intakes up high, and then add the two radiators at the bottom... I am sure Diamond did the best with what they had to work with. But contrast that with a similar HP gas engine.

That’s not directly related to Avgas versus Diesel, it is a function of air cooled versus liquid cooled. Air cooled rejects heat at CHT temp, not a lower liquid coolant temp, so air cooling requires less surface area to do the job, meaning less cooling drag. An air cooled turbo Diesel is possible but not a terribly practical proposition, as demonstrated by SMA having never got their engine into normal production after decades of trying.

I’d guess about half the US airports where the DA 50 could land would have no jet fuel, but that many more of them have 100LL. If you want to use a GA single for getting to smaller places and smaller airports, it seems to me like a real issue. This just demonstrates that Diamond is dreaming of opening up GA to the upper classes in countries with little current GA, something that politics in those places has stubbornly resisted.

 

[zaitcev]

Air cooled rejects heat at CHT temp, not a lower liquid coolant temp, so air cooling requires less surface area to do the job, meaning less cooling drag.

The above assumes the same velocity of the air over the heated surface, which is a very big assumption. Liquid cooling permits a large flexibility in the design of the cooling airflow, something that the developers of the DA50 chose not to exploit.

 

[Tusayan]

It’s a valid assumption for any liquid cooled aircraft produced since the Mustang as far as I know, and certainly true for the DA50. No manufacturers of current liquid cooled aircraft want to fool around with what might be theoretically possible given added complexity, weight and the potential for leaks in long piping runs, so they just stick the radiator into the breeze. As a result radiators see the airspeed of the aircraft and cooling air velocity is close to a constant in this liquid versus air cooling comparison - although air cooling design as it practiced in 2020 does utilize better design than just sticking the cooling surface into oncoming air like the conventional DA50 setup radiator - doing that that was 1920s air cooled design, before pressure cowlings. As a result of all of the above the market chooses between neat, streamlined air cooling setups and ugly, dragging liquid cooling setups.

By the way, if you want a shock price a set of coolant hoses for a Diesel powered Diamond aircraft.

 

[Davidl13]

That’s not directly related to Avgas versus Diesel, it is a function of air cooled versus liquid cooled. Air cooled rejects heat at CHT temp, not a lower liquid coolant temp, so air cooling requires less surface area to do the job, meaning less cooling drag. An air cooled turbo Diesel is possible but not a terribly practical proposition, as demonstrated by SMA having never got their engine into normal production after decades of trying.

I’d guess about half the US airports where the DA 50 could land would have no jet fuel, but that many more of them have 100LL. If you want to use a GA single for getting to smaller places and smaller airports, it seems to me like a real issue. This just demonstrates that Diamond is dreaming of opening up GA to the upper classes in countries with little current GA, something that politics in those places has stubbornly resisted.

certainly 100LL is more available in the usa, it is a valid point for the GA flyer... I like Jet A better.. cost of goods and the engines that go with them.. and you do have a valid point ... very few fly in communities carry Jet A at this time...

 

[Challenged]

Beechcraft needs Golden Albatross mod

 

[Tantalum]

It’s a valid assumption for any liquid cooled aircraft produced since the Mustang as far as I know, and certainly true for the DA50. No manufacturers of current liquid cooled aircraft want to fool around with what might be theoretically possible given added complexity, weight and the potential for leaks in long piping runs, so they just stick the radiator into the breeze. As a result radiators see the airspeed of the aircraft and cooling air velocity is close to a constant in this liquid versus air cooling comparison - although air cooling design as it practiced in 2020 does utilize better design than just sticking the cooling surface into oncoming air like the conventional DA50 setup radiator - doing that that was 1920s air cooled design, before pressure cowlings. As a result of all of the above the market chooses between neat, streamlined air cooling setups and ugly, dragging liquid cooling setups.

By the way, if you want a shock price a set of coolant hoses for a Diesel powered Diamond aircraft.

The Extra 400 had a liquid cooled engine.. a fantastic (if not goofy looking) 6 seat, fast, pressurized airplane.. the liquid cooled engine is noted to be one of the root causes of its sales failure.

One thing I often wondered.. instead of a radiator, why not pump the coolant through the leading edge of the wing.. plenty of surface area out there, make it metal.. and help it double as a heated wing anti/deice.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

Conti was selling diesels for many years now. Just a few years ago their line-up consisted of 3 groups:

1. The 100-series. These were in-line, liquid cooled engines, derived from the Austro. It's basically the engine we're all familiar with in Diamond DA-42, which found a wide market with military customers in the smaller countries. Many attempts were made to adapt it to PA-28 and 172 as OEM engine, where it's generally underpowered.

2. The 200-series. These were opposite, air-cooled engines licensed from SMA. They were supplying conversions for Skyhawks and Skylanes since at least 1990s.

3. The 300-series. This is a liquid cooled, V6 engine, which Thielert developed as their "next-gen" engine. It's similar to RED V06 and other drone diesels. The DA-50 RG uses a certified version of it.

Although the SMA diesel was considered the most trustworthy among them and offered good power, for some reason TCM isn't selling it well. It's being phased out in favor of the CD-300.

I don't believe that the 100 is an Austro, or derived from one. Austro (owned by Diamond) was developed to replace the fragile Thielert engines. I think that Conti now owns the rights to the Thielert.

 

[tspear]

That’s not directly related to Avgas versus Diesel, it is a function of air cooled versus liquid cooled. Air cooled rejects heat at CHT temp, not a lower liquid coolant temp, so air cooling requires less surface area to do the job, meaning less cooling drag. An air cooled turbo Diesel is possible but not a terribly practical proposition, as demonstrated by SMA having never got their engine into normal production after decades of trying.

Well, the DA-42 has a few variants. L360 with avgas engines which are air cooled. NG and CDI which are both diesel engines.
At the same HP settings; the NG and CDI are within one know of the L360 per the AFM. (CDI faster, NG one know slower).
The problem with your general assumption on heat removal is the radiators produce less drag than a typical engine compartment.

Tim

 

[Tantalum]

I've been struggling to find (granted I've haven't looked too hard) - but where can one find torque, or kW figures for common GA engines? More just for curiosity's sake

 

[Tantalum]

However, the failure-mode effects analysis (FMEA) would suggest a lot of failure-prone plumbing, along with the weight and maintenance penalty for an elaborate coolant circulation system

it would have a whole host of complexities to work out. But at the same token, a weeping wing FIKI system has a lot of plumbing, must be very failure immune, and many aircraft systems in the complex GA world have complicated systems. Not insurmountable, but I suppose (at least not yet) there hasn't been enough of a need to cross that bridge

Still, the idea of a permanently warm leading edge and not requiring a radiator would have some advantages. So much of what we burn in avgas goes to heat waste, would be nice to recover as much of that as possible (also why I like turbo's!) as opposed to just dumping all that heat overboard

 

[Bobanna]

I've been struggling to find (granted I've haven't looked too hard) - but where can one find torque, or kW figures for common GA engines? More just for curiosity's sake

Online unit converters will give you kW from hp. Hp divided by rpm, multiplied by a constant (again, online) will give you the torque.

When you choose torque, this calculator will measure the approximate torque of an engine based on the horsepower, multiplied by 5,252 (conversion between foot-pounds and horsepower), divided by the RPM of the engine. For example, if your engine has 350 horsepower then the torque would be 367 foot-pounds, at 5,000 RPM.

 

[PaulS]

it would have a whole host of complexities to work out. But at the same token, a weeping wing FIKI system has a lot of plumbing, must be very failure immune, and many aircraft systems in the complex GA world have complicated systems. Not insurmountable, but I suppose (at least not yet) there hasn't been enough of a need to cross that bridge

Still, the idea of a permanently warm leading edge and not requiring a radiator would have some advantages. So much of what we burn in avgas goes to heat waste, would be nice to recover as much of that as possible (also why I like turbo's!) as opposed to just dumping all that heat overboard

Yup, it's actually a great idea, wings, tail, rudder heat them all, and it's a lot of heat. Personally I think liquid cooled engines are a great idea. They don't have the wide temperature swings of air cooled engines, which I think make them more reliable.

 

[bnt83]

it would have a whole host of complexities to work out. But at the same token, a weeping wing FIKI system has a lot of plumbing, must be very failure immune, and many aircraft systems in the complex GA world have complicated systems. Not insurmountable, but I suppose (at least not yet) there hasn't been enough of a need to cross that bridge

Still, the idea of a permanently warm leading edge and not requiring a radiator would have some advantages. So much of what we burn in avgas goes to heat waste, would be nice to recover as much of that as possible (also why I like turbo's!) as opposed to just dumping all that heat overboard

Somehow I doubt there would be adequate heating capacity to justify using it as an anti-icing system.

 

[wayne]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

That is max range. No wind and it takes 4.9 hours, so 153 knots. Not the max 181 knots. I'd like to see the range at a higher cruise speed. Even if it's "only" 600 nm, then it's still quite a ways for one leg of a trip.

You are correct though, at 750 nm that's further than probably 95% of single piston-engine flights, much less the individual legs. I travel quite a bit by SEL planes and only a few flights have been that far or farther; those all had a stop along the way.

 

[Tantalum]

Somehow I doubt there would be adequate heating capacity to justify using it as an anti-icing system.

Maybe, but with something like 70% (?) of the energy contained in avgas going to heat seems like a missed opportunity.. water has a tremendous heat capacity, at 180 to 190 degrees for typical coolant all you have to do is heat the surfaces to above freezing.. hell, toilet around the exhaust manifold a few times if it's not warm enough... that crap in cruise is a healthy 1,500

Yeah yeah.. not that easy or someone would have done it.. but I do like liquid cooled engines in general as a principal and based on the videos and what I know about the extra 400 it's a shame that plane did not sell more.. 215 ktas of pressurized 6 seat comfort

It's like a bigger Cirrus just without the chute..

 

[Tantalum]

^coil it.. not toilet

 

[PaulS]

Typically in an engine, approximately 1/3 of the energy is turned into power, 1/3 is turned into waste heat out of the block and 1/3 goes out the exhaust pipe. This engine burns 9 gph of diesel per hour in cruise. Jet A has the approximate btu equivalent of fuel oil. A typical 2500 square foot house can be heated with maybe 5 gallons of fuel oil per typical winter day. The heat from 3 gallons of Jet A per hour is a lot of heat and can melt a lot of airframe ice, IMO. Of course a more serious look would need to be done, but it's not a bad idea.

 

[N1120A]

It's funny that some complain the range of the DA-50 is "only" 750 miles. How many of you routinely fly further than that nonstop or stay aloft more than four hours? In what aircraft?

750NM without IFR reserves - it is with day VFR reserves. I consider the range of any plane I have to be that with no less than 1 hour of fuel remaining, and that is because my alternate is 6NM away. If my alternate were farther, it would be even more.

cessna P210N Silver Eagle.. Jet A , turbine performance and reliability , pressurized comfort... fly at uncrowned flight levels...upgraded to a modern panel.. “brand new” conversion $1.3m total... used significantly less...

And a lot more operating costs on an airplane that hasn't been built in nearly 40 years.

That is max range. No wind and it takes 4.9 hours, so 153 knots. Not the max 181 knots. I'd like to see the range at a higher cruise speed. Even if it's "only" 600 nm, then it's still quite a ways for one leg of a trip.

You are correct though, at 750 nm that's further than probably 95% of single piston-engine flights, much less the individual legs. I travel quite a bit by SEL planes and only a few flights have been that far or farther; those all had a stop along the way.

I mean, that really depends on how fast your plane is and what your winds are. 50 gallons is pitiful in a cross country plane of this class.

 

[Tantalum]

So I went though my logbook.. of the last 120 hours roughly 12 of them have been over 500 nm.. 75% of these flights are between 250 and 400 nm, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable range profile for most single engine pistons

What this doesn't account for are the people who mentioned flying to some place either without gas, or without JetA, and the need to tanker fuel back and forth. However I bet for the demographic this plane is geared towards that's a virtually non existent problem. This feels like a comfortable 300-500 nm FBO to FBO type plane

 

[Salty]

Typically in an engine, approximately 1/3 of the energy is turned into power, 1/3 is turned into waste heat out of the block and 1/3 goes out the exhaust pipe. This engine burns 9 gph of diesel per hour in cruise. Jet A has the approximate btu equivalent of fuel oil. A typical 2500 square foot house can be heated with maybe 5 gallons of fuel oil per typical winter day. The heat from 3 gallons of Jet A per hour is a lot of heat and can melt a lot of airframe ice, IMO. Of course a more serious look would need to be done, but it's not a bad idea.

I think the problem is consistent and safe delivery of the heat to everywhere it is needed.

 

[wayne]

I mean, that really depends on how fast your plane is and what your winds are. 50 gallons is pitiful in a cross country plane of this class.

I agree. While it's probably enough for the majority of flights, it could cover more easily by being a bit bigger. I think there is too much focus on "full fuel payload". Bigger tanks is options. If I run an SR22 LOP, which is normal, I can fly for over 5 hours and still have at least VFR reserves. Really, how often are 4 people going to fly in a SR22 for 5 hours without a bathroom break? That much fuel is good for long solo flights, or options when the weather goes bad unexpectedly, or tankering fuel for a return flight (lack of availability or super high price). The newer SR22 models hold another 10 gallons or so; I think that's due to so many newer models being turbo.

So I went though my logbook.. of the last 120 hours roughly 12 of them have been over 500 nm.. 75% of these flights are between 250 and 400 nm, which, in my opinion, is a reasonable range profile for most single engine pistons

What this doesn't account for are the people who mentioned flying to some place either without gas, or without JetA, and the need to tanker fuel back and forth. However I bet for the demographic this plane is geared towards that's a virtually non existent problem. This feels like a comfortable 300-500 nm FBO to FBO type plane

May be more aimed at potential Cirrus buyers in Europe. JetA is cheaper there. Not sure if their flights are shorter, the same or longer.

You have your distances in your logbook? Impressive. I know which were my bigger flights, and can figure out the approximate distance with SkyVector, but I don't have the distances in my logbook.

Were those 500 nm trips non-stop? Probably if you were flying a SR22. We love the 250 nm to Lexington to visit our daughter there. It's usually 1:30-1:45 flight time each way, which is waaaaay better than the 6+ hour drive, especially for weekend/long-weekend trips.

 

[PaulS]

I think the problem is consistent and safe delivery of the heat to everywhere it is needed.

Obviously, that's where the men get separated from the boys. I have Sea doo that has a plate that acts as a radiator to the water. I've never looked closely at it, but I assume it just has channels for the coolant to pass through. I don't think the technological issues of design the cooling medium would be too difficult. What might difficult is circulating the coolant reliably, then you have the issue of 250 degree exposed surfaces and passenger contact. Plus longevity issues. It would be quite a design and certification process. I really don't think anything like this will happen until a viable unleaded avgas is developed, or a more robust diesel comes about.

 

[Tantalum]

a plate that acts as a radiator to the water

Funny, I was thinking similarly. Some boats use a plate like that for refrigeration, A/C, etc.

It's certainly do-able

 

[Tantalum]

The newer SR22 models hold another 10 gallons or so; I think that's due to so many newer models being turbo.

Yes, the G3 and beyond (I believe) are 90+ gallons. The G5 SR22T and G3 SR22TN I was flying had the bigger tanks

You have your distances in your logbook?

Thanks Foreflight! The early stuff when I imported via the template into Foreflight is missing.. but the last 500 hours or so have distances

Were those 500 nm trips non-stop? Probably if you were flying a SR22. We love the 250 nm to Lexington to visit our daughter there. It's usually 1:30-1:45 flight time each way, which is waaaaay better than the 6+ hour drive, especially for weekend/long-weekend trips.

Yes. The typical "longer" flight for me is KMYF-KTVL (San Diego - Lake Tahoe).. nonstop. It takes about 2hrs to 2hrs 30 minutes, depending on winds. Sure as hell beats driving the 9+ hrs and also beats flying an airliner up there. KMYF-KMMH (San Diego - Mammoth) is also up there, but that's a 1.5-2 hr flight and relatively "close".. again, way better than the drive. KMYF-KTEX (San Diego to Telluride) is the furthest one. Incidentally, on that list I just gave you, only the Telluride flight is over 500nm

The SR22 is a capable plane, especially when combined with turbo and FIKI.. but past 700nm the benefit of GA travel vs the airlines starts to fade.. weather planning, comfort, and at some point door to door time. I honestly think 200-700nm is the GA sweet spot, with the majority of that in the 300-400 nm legs.. where driving sucks, and flying commercial is a big time headache