Tell me about the Diamond DA40

markstanco

markstanco

Pre-Flight
Joined
Aug 7, 2013
Messages
70
Location
Texas
Display Name
Display name:
Mark
Our club is going to buy one it looks like. Looking for positive or negative thoughts on this plane. Mainly negative however.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
I've got like 30-40 hours in a DA-40, and I think it's a nice airplane. It's easy to fly, has no bad habits, and pretty quick for its power. Visibility from the cockpit is excellent, although getting in and out requires a bit of physical dexterity. It's not a "4 adults plus bags" plane, but neither is any other 180HP plane unless you short-fuel it. My only negative comment might be that with its long wings, it's not the best ride in the world in moderate turbulence. The only other possible negative is that it's not all that common, so unless there's a Diamond Service Center nearby, there's likely to be something of a learning curve for your regular mechanic. All things considered, in that vintage of aircraft, I'd probably rather have a Cirrus SR20 and would definitely prefer an AG-5B Tiger, but that's largely a personal taste thing, and I think you'll pay more for a comparable Cirrus.
 
It has a fairly low usable weight. My 172 with a 180 can haul a couple hundred pounds more. Of course, I only carry 40 Gallons of fuel.
It has a longer wingspan than many others so if you plan to hangar it, take that into consideration.
Based on reports from a friend of mine that has one, it seems that maintenance costs are pretty high, when it needs maintenance. But maybe that is just his mechanic. His last annual on a 2007 DA40 was over $6k. My hightest annual on a 1977 C172n was less than 2k and that included a couple of options (like wheel fairings).


Other than that, I love that plane.
 
markstanco said:
Our club is going to buy one it looks like. Looking for positive or negative thoughts on this plane. Mainly negative however.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Set aside 10$/hr in reserves for the 1000 hour inspection.
I have one hour total in DA/40 and loved it.
 
I don't know much about it other than a CFI I know nicknamed it a "retarded Cirrus"... haha.
 
We own a 2007 DA40XL in a 4-person LLC. We looked at the SR20 and C182. The DA40 is definitely the easiest to fly and most forgiving of the three. If you can find one, the DA40XLS with 40-gal tanks is the ideal configuration. It sips fuel between 8.5 and 9.0 gal/hr depending on altitude @135 kts TAS. My wish list includes WAAS and SVT, both standard on the XLS but not XL. It does however have the Garmin GFC700 AP. I love the center stick which provides pure mechanical feel, unlike the Cirrus side yoke with spring loaded artificial feel. My wife complains about the stick though on long trips. Our marriage has been kept intact by Dr. Laura on the XM radio (I usually use pilot isolate on the intercom so Dr. Laura does not get interrupted by the pesky ATC chatter). It is a rough ride in turbulence. Our maintenance costs are not that high and we've never had trouble finding parts or expertise. It's a Lycoming so it's not exotic. It's all composite so pay attention to bonding. It is a 3-adult or 2-adult/2-child cross country machine. You will rarely use the 50-gal capacity. 50-gal tanks used to be an option but now they're standard and the 40-gal tanks are an option.

Here's a good link to learn more: http://da-40.blogspot.com
 
Main negative is it handles turbulence quite poorly. It seemed underpowered during climb, but apparently it turned out that something was wrong with the engine on the sample I flew. :eek:
 
Undrrpowered? It supposed to climb a 1100 feet a minute. No?

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
 
I've owned an 2008XLS with SVT, WAAS and everything else. Put about 800 hours on it before moving up. Here's the bad:

1) You might not be able to afford it. Five year old planes can still be > $200k.

2) You might not fit in it. The seats don't move only the rudder peddles move so if you are really big or really small it might not work Oregon Aero seats solve some but not all of these problems. Later XLSs have a larger canopy which can also help.

3) It might not have the load/cg you need. 3 people are rarely a problem 4 will rarely work.

4) You might not like the ride as you feel the bumps due to the long wings.

Offsetting these things are:

1) It's the safest single engine plane made. And if it's not, it's really hard to find a safer one. Magnificently forgiving to fly, slow stall speed, 28g cockpit, airbags, sealed fuel tanks etc. As a pilot you really need to work hard to hurt your self in a DA40

2) Really capable for what it is. 140 knots on 8-9 gallons can take you places. G1000, SVT, WAAS, XM, Active traffic makes it a good IFR platform for non ice IMC. Those 180 horses combined with those long wings gives you surprising climb performance even in high density conditions.

3) Best view of any plane with that bubble canopy and just a joy to fly with that center stick

I traded my DA40 for a Cirrus SR22T. I love going places in the Cirrus. I love flying the DA40.
 
 
Wingsofglass said:
I traded my DA40 for a Cirrus SR22T. I love going places in the Cirrus. I love flying the DA40.
Click to expand...

DA40 and SR22T is not exactly a good comparison, different price range and complicity different ownership costs.
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
DA40 and SR22T is not exactly a good comparison, different price range and complicity different ownership costs.
Click to expand...

...don't think he was comparing them- think he moved up.

---

The DA40 is a fine plane, I know no one who has any experience in one who does not love it.
 
Most everything has been covered already but I'll just add that I have about 1.5 in a DA40. Great airplane. I really enjoyed everything about it. I'm not sure how dinging up the airframe would go when speaking about finances. I've seen a DA42 take a bird to the wing and have the entire wing sent to be repaired. It was down for weeks.

And like others have said, it doesn't handle turbulence as well as others.
 
Our club owns one and I just completed my check ride. Other than the view, there's not much going for this plane. Negatives:

* High costs...even simple things cost more...sometimes WAY more (we're increasing the hourly rate to ABOVE our 300hp 6 passenger Saratoga)!

* Gets tossed around in turbulence like a piece of toilet paper, with back end "fishtailing" side to side...can't stop this with rudder.

* On a hot, sunny day watch out...really hot inside, and the glare is awful.

* For all the advanced technology including composites, you'd think it would be faster, have a great climb rate, and carry more...what's the point of all the technology?

* Low low low wings make checking fuel sumps difficult, and ours is prone to condensation, so plan to spend lots of time laying on the asphalt.

* Scares some passengers (looks like a toy with the long pole in the back).

* Horrible IFR machine, due to inability to hold direction (back to the fishtailing)

Honestly, I just don't get this plane.
 
I have about 20 hours in a DA40. Really it's in the same class as a 172SP. I really liked it. It was very efficient, and a joy to fly.

Positives:

-Faster cruise speed than a 172SP with the same fuel flow.
-Great climb rate.
-Good visibility.
-Center stick control with a positive feel.

Negatives:

-Limited range (fixed with the extended range tanks)
-Rudder could have had more authority (fixed with later models)
-Cooling is problematic, had a hard time keeping CHT's under 400 on 100+ days.
-Don't particularly like the castering nosewheel but a steerable one would come with a weight, and probably drag penalty.
-Cockpit is a bit cramped, hard to use a normal kneeboard with the stick where it is.
-Door and canopy hinges have to be babied somewhat to keep from cracking the mounts.
 
I'd think an SR20 would be a better choice. Faster, better useful load, does not look weird. Good ride in turbulence.
 
Wingsofglass said:
3) It might not have the load/cg you need. 3 people are rarely a problem 4 will rarely work.
Click to expand...
I would point out that this is a characteristic of pretty much any 180HP airplane. You really need 230-235HP to have a true 4-person airplane.
I traded my DA40 for a Cirrus SR22T. I love going places in the Cirrus. I love flying the DA40.
Click to expand...
Big difference between 180HP and 310HP, both in performance and purchase/operating cost.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
* For all the advanced technology including composites, you'd think it would be faster, have a great climb rate, and carry more...what's the point of all the technology?
Click to expand...
If you compare it to legacy-design airplanes of the same power and vintage, it does all that

* Horrible IFR machine, due to inability to hold direction (back to the fishtailing)
Click to expand...
I've trained a few people for their IR in DA40's, and I strongly disagree.
 
I have over 600 hours in my 2003 DA40 originally steam gauges upgraded to Garmin G500 with SVT. I think it's a great airplane. Not the fastest but better than most similarly powered 4 place traditional metal airplanes. It is much more fun to fly than a Cirrus SR20 and probably much safer. You can get more information from Diamond pilots here in our free forum. http://www.diamondaviators.net/forum/
 
Cpt_Kirk said:
Most everything has been covered already but I'll just add that I have about 1.5 in a DA40. Great airplane. I really enjoyed everything about it. I'm not sure how dinging up the airframe would go when speaking about finances. I've seen a DA42 take a bird to the wing and have the entire wing sent to be repaired. It was down for weeks.

And like others have said, it doesn't handle turbulence as well as others.
Click to expand...

How big was the bird?
 
dell30rb said:
I'd think an SR20 would be a better choice. Faster, better useful load, does not look weird. Good ride in turbulence.
Click to expand...

That depends what you're looking for. DA40 is more of a pilot's plane, SR20 is more of a passenger's plane.
 
A few statistics:

MachFly said:
chart_safety01a_large.gif


chart_safety01_large.gif


chart_safety03_large.gif
Click to expand...
 
I think we all know the Cirrus's high accident rate has nothing to do with the airplane. Its easy to fly and has no bad habits. So is the Diamond.

I can see that insurance for a Cirrus in a club setting might be a major cost consideration. Otherwise I give an edge to the Cirrus.
 
markstanco said:
Our club is going to buy one it looks like. Looking for positive or negative thoughts on this plane. Mainly negative however.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Love the DA40. I've flown both steam and glass, 100 or so hours combined. I can't think of any negatives. Great fuel burn for the performance, dirt simple, love the stick, comfortable seats, great visibility, decent IFR platform, room for 3 adults and luggage, easier to land than a 172.

I owned a 182RG and put a 1000 hours on it. Loved it, but...If I had to do it over again, I would have bought a DA40.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
MachFly said:
That depends what you're looking for. DA40 is more of a pilot's plane, SR20 is more of a passenger's plane.
Click to expand...

Yes this is what I meant when comparing the DA40 to the SR22T. The DA40 is more fun to fly and you feel more connected to the sky when flying it then you do in the Cirrus. Maybe in the bumps a little too connected. If you just want to get from point A to B in as much comfort as possible, an SR20 is a better bet and comparable from a performance standpoint. The SR22 and 22T are completely different from a DA40 in both cost and capability.

And while I couldn't agree more that the safety of these planes comes down to the pilot, even with my dual AHRS, dual ADCs, dual batteries and alternators, stall protected autopilot that can fly a coupled missed, stability control, blue auto level button, infrared camera and of course chute, I still felt safer in the DA40 than I do in the Cirrus. The DA40 is not nearly as capable but it's a hell of a lot more forgiving.
 
To those who commented back on my comment about the DA40 not being a good IFR machine...I'm not doing IFR in it so no, I'm not an authority. It comes from 2 instructors who won't use it due to instability / fishtailing, and one experienced IFR pilot who went up once, and never again.

I'll defer to others on this point. However, the DA40 will not be on my short list for IFR training. Most likely: Saratoga.
 
VWGhiaBob said:
To those who commented back on my comment about the DA40 not being a good IFR machine...I'm not doing IFR in it so no, I'm not an authority. It comes from 2 instructors who won't use it due to instability / fishtailing, and one experienced IFR pilot who went up once, and never again.

I'll defer to others on this point. However, the DA40 will not be on my short list for IFR training. Most likely: Saratoga.
Click to expand...

The DA40 is a horrible IR training machine.

Cause it's too easy.
 
Wingsofglass said:
Yes this is what I meant when comparing the DA40 to the SR22T. The DA40 is more fun to fly and you feel more connected to the sky when flying it then you do in the Cirrus. Maybe in the bumps a little too connected. If you just want to get from point A to B in as much comfort as possible, an SR20 is a better bet and comparable from a performance standpoint. The SR22 and 22T are completely different from a DA40 in both cost and capability.

And while I couldn't agree more that the safety of these planes comes down to the pilot, even with my dual AHRS, dual ADCs, dual batteries and alternators, stall protected autopilot that can fly a coupled missed, stability control, blue auto level button, infrared camera and of course chute, I still felt safer in the DA40 than I do in the Cirrus. The DA40 is not nearly as capable but it's a hell of a lot more forgiving.
Click to expand...

Definitely agreed.
 
markstanco said:
Our club is going to buy one it looks like. Looking for positive or negative thoughts on this plane. Mainly negative however.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So Mark, I was kinda hoping you will reveal this to us as the thread goes along, but since you still didn't, I'll ask. Why mainly negative?
 
MachFly said:
So Mark, I was kinda hoping you will reveal this to us as the thread goes along, but since you still didn't, I'll ask. Why mainly negative?
Click to expand...

I'm not Mark, but personally, when I am looking at reviews of a product I want to buy, I look at the negative ones first.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top