Diamond 40.. A good a/c to fly? [Archive]

Farrell

10th Oct 2006, 03:57

Looking at possibly converting into a Diamond 40

Can you show me how to do that trick!!! :)

Seriously though, the Diamond is a lovely aircraft to fly with great visibility, especially if you are coming off of a high winged machine like the 172.

As bugsmashers go, it's in a league of it's own. Of course it would need to be flight tested by me for a day or two so let me know when you get it!:p

Egnatia Instructor

10th Oct 2006, 07:28

Very easy to fly, and it will be newer than whet you are used to.
Performance is good and the fuel econ is great.
Also depends on G1000 or Classic, either way, great to fly.

EI

Say again s l o w l y

10th Oct 2006, 07:47

If you are used to something relatively powerful (180hp +) then you will be disappointed in the performance on the takeoff roll. It maybe modern, but it is still only 135hp. The same with the initial climbout.

Handling is very good, the stall is a non-event, visibility is good and the pre takeoff checks are simplicity themselves.

Overall a nice machine, but still with a few issues in regard to reliability. If only there was a 200hp diesel version!

oliversarmy

10th Oct 2006, 07:59

Ive just finished my check out on the DA40, im a low hour PPL and previously trained on the C152 and PA28.

The Diamond is very nice to fly, comfortable and relatively quiet inside.

The main differences are things like FADEC, fuel transfer and having not only working and up to date sat nav but all radio's and nav equipment working which if you have flown the typical C152 and PA28 is a novelty, and also getting used to the higher speeds, you can catch people up in the circuit if your not careful with the numbers, set up well it easily cruises at 124kts, ground speed on Satuday was 139kts along the south coast !!

The walk around is simple however dipping the tanks is an interesting exercise !!

It does like to eat the runway on take off, would be interested to hear other people's view on restrictions on runway length such as operating through Bembridge and Sandown which are my regular haunts.

Visibility is very good so enjoy !!

OA

sir.pratt

10th Oct 2006, 08:23

nice looking machine the da40, but i'm not sure about the narrow rear fuselage.

i guess i'm more of a tin machine - something like a C182R with a 150kt cruise for similar money. and it doesn't eat runway.

54.98N

10th Oct 2006, 08:26

Neither does the DA40 if you land it properly! Take off in (in the 180hp version) was always very sprightly! Now the diesel - never flew it so cant comment.

IO540

10th Oct 2006, 08:39

If i was buying a DA40 now, for IFR touring around Europe, I would buy the 180HP Lyco avgas version.

According to Diamond's own figures (ref: Loop magazine advert) there is a £20/hour difference in total operating costs, and when you factor in the huge price difference there is no contest.

And that's before one considers the big performance difference at anything below 8000ft or so. Funny how Diamond quote runway lengths for the avgas version, and quote fuel economy figures for the diesel version ;)

Diesels (or something burning avtur) are definitely the technology of tomorrow, but "tomorrow" (in terms of proven reliability) is not here yet.

S-Works

10th Oct 2006, 09:37

nice to fly but dog slow. the G1000 is great to use but give me a Cessna with a G1000 any day.

I fly the TDI version regularily for a guy who needs to go on business trips and does not have an IR. I flew the avgas version from Florida to Halifax and back. The avgas version is a much better aircraft, faster (not cessna fast) and of course much better on the ground roll.

The tdi is a good airways machine as the turbo keeps the power on to a good FL but at those levels the gap is very narrow in TAS. The tdi wins on the economy on a long haul.

Given the choice I would buy a Cessna 182 probably Turbo with a G1000 fit.

B2N2

10th Oct 2006, 12:53

Some articles here;
http://philip.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=000tqF&topic_id=Aviation&topic=

DA40XL;
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/679-full.html

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=00535CB4-D136-488C-9E3C-EB6172728CCF&Dynamic=1

http://fileresource.sitepro.com/filemanager/13/imagecollections/67/1F8853E2-C284-E71F-E1B6-6E90119DE797.jpg

C182 Turbo likes its fuel, 14-16 gallons /hr in cruise.
Compared to the DA-40 series, heavy to fly also.
I have never flown the DA-40 TDI only the Avgas versions.
The DA40XL will get a payload increase and with a speed of almost 160 kts it beats the 182 for sure.

but i'm not sure about the narrow rear fuselage.

Don't forget this is basically glider technology and still severely overdesigned.
Gliders that can pull 4-5 g's have a tail with the circumference of a soda can.
Diamond wouldn't bother putting a double spar in the wing if the tail would not hold up.
The maintenance manual is free to download from the Diamond website;
http://www.diamondair.com/pdfs/owners_world/technical_bulletins/DA40/DA40AMM.pdf
Look up the section fuselage and the section wings.

So is the POH/AFM
http://80.121.174.62/support/PDF/DA40-180/HB/AFM/60101-e-r7-complete.pdf

The G1000 handbook is free to download from the Garmin website here:
http://www.garmin.com/support/userManual.jsp?market=1&subcategory=59&product=010-G1000-DI

As far as subjective reasoning goes;
Would you rather board your airplane dry (temporary) but have less visibility in flight (permanent)?
Would you rather be cooler on the ground (temporary) but have less visibility in flight (permanent)?

S-Works

10th Oct 2006, 13:07

Seeing is believing on the performance figures and 160kts will be an eye opener. To date they have failed to deliver any of the promised performance.

Also very naughty quoting TAS at 10,000ft.

Not knocking them, they are a joy to fly, but I stiull think a Cessna beats them hands down at the moment.

IO540

10th Oct 2006, 13:10

Also very naughty quoting TAS at 10,000ft.

Have you seen where Lancair quote theirs? ;)

B2N2

10th Oct 2006, 13:32

Ok,Ok, my disclaimer almost 160 kts
I said "almost", that leaves some room for interpretation.

From the Lancair website: Cruise

@ 24,000 ft. (typical)

330 mph

and @ 8,000 ft. (typical)

Superior TIO-360

Lycoming IO-390

@ 24,000 ft. (typical)

Superior TIO-360

Lycoming IO-390

210 mph

220 mph

260 mph

n/a

mmmm, and using mph in stead of kts, I like that, numbers are higher, maybe Diamond should use kilometrs/hr on their website.
160 kts= 290km/hr. :8

172driver

10th Oct 2006, 13:35

Another thing to consider is the stick vs yoke situation, all Diamondairs have a stick. Seats are (or at least were - it's been a while) non-adjustable, however the pedals are.

Papa Charlie

10th Oct 2006, 15:03

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but does anyone have any experience of "Flying Time" based at Shoreham (the old Flying Hut club maybe?) who have a fleet of DA40's plus a Twin Star?
Thanks. :)

Footless Halls

10th Oct 2006, 15:06

The DA40D overall is a super aircraft.
Compared to a traditional SEP the aircraft is a lot more streamlined and I guess its power-to-weight ratio is also lower. So it demands superior speed control and anticipation. But calculate your speeds to fly correctly (depending on the weight of the aircraft) and fly accurately and you'll be safe.
Its glide performance is also excellent which makes PFL's different and, once you are attuned to it, easier as your glide range is better.
Exceptional visibility, ergonomics, FADEC and traditional stick controls all make for a pleasant experience.
And, last of all, cost. Despite its 125 kt cruise it's a cost effective ride.
Try it.

Fuji Abound

10th Oct 2006, 15:26

I have some time on the 42, a bit less on the 40, both the diesel versions. The 42 has the G1000 fitted as standard. It is the pedals that move not the seats. The argument is this makes for a far more rigid seat construction and therefore presumably it is easier to meet the impact safety specifications.

The FADEC appears to work very well. However on both the 40 and 42 the power reduction is far more linear than for a conventional engine. In consequence, and combined with a very clean airframe, the approach technique is more like a turbo prop.

In my view both aircraft are ideally a little under powered so expect longer take off runs and less load carrying ability, however on the plus side in the cruise the performance is exceptional and given the fuel consumption, the range is astonishing. The cockpit is modern and well designed. In the G1000 version I think it would be difficult to beet the cockpit ergonomics.

mark147

10th Oct 2006, 15:50

The DA40-180 is lovely to fly. The controls are very responsive. Cruise at 2,000'-5,000' is 130kTAS at 75% power (~10 US gal/hour).
Rear-seat passengers report some yawing in turbulence that you can't feel in the front seats (and hence can't control). Actually it's probably too fast an oscillation to control anyway.
Take off performance is very good even at max weight (plenty of power) but the landing distance can be quite long when heavy.
Someone mentioned the seats -- yes, they're not adjustable but they fit me very well and I can happily sit in them for a 2-hour flight. I guess it depends on your shape (I'm tall and thin).
The DA40-TDI I haven't flown but it's certainly slower and has poorer take-off performance but much lower fuel costs.
Mark

S-Works

10th Oct 2006, 20:44

Cirrus_Clouds

10th Oct 2006, 21:08

WOW!! Lots of replies!! :D , many thanks all! .. now time to read them!

"Can you show me how to do that trick!!! "

Wouldn't you like to know :E hehe! .. nice one :ok:

englishal

11th Oct 2006, 08:58

but i'm not sure about the narrow rear fuselage.
I have heard it said that Diamond had to add the extra bits to the tail "boom" of the TwinStar for looks alone. People didn't believe that the tail would be strong enough, so they beefed it up a bit to make it look stronger......

I have flown DA40s and T182s and I'd opt for the DA40 every time. It is more comfortable, it may be a little slower, but we're talking a little here (Avgas). If you want high performance to go somewhere quick go for something completely different (TBM700:} or a twin ). The 182's are like sitting in a goldfish bowl and very old design. By contrast the DA42 is ergonomically designed with comfortable seats, good visibility, and safety has been thought about. Look in the engine bay of a 182. If you nose in, that engine will be on your lap. In the DA42, the cockpit "cell" is designed to survive 25g (as well as the seats) and has been designed to make crashes more survivable (may even have airbags, can't remember).

Flying with a stick is more comfortable IMO, but that is just personal preference. All in all, with a G1000 fit, a very nice aeroplane to fly.

IO540

11th Oct 2006, 09:13

I have never flown a DA40 or DA42 (plan to have a go one day) but it seems to me that the DA40 and the DA42 are both good 1-person (with occassional 2-person use) VFR/IFR transports.

I don't know how they handle ice but would suspect not very well at all. It's a straight tradeoff between being slippery and not minding being a bit rough :) Also I don't think a de-iced (TKS) prop is an option. So, without TKS one would be very limited as to departure and arrival conditions (need to avoid climbing through ice).

The DA42 with full TKS and 1 or 2 people should be a good airways touring plane.

Both have a low wing loading and will get chucked around in turbulence much more than say a TB20. This is confirmed by pilots.

Every time I speak to somebody who flies them regularly, I keep hearing of a big collection of issues though; the engines (FADEC mostly) and the G1000. But I don't want to spread 2nd hand rumours.

One can read a lot from Diamond's decision to sell mainly the avgas DA40 in the USA, while offering diesel only on the DA42. If there is an engine issue, a DA42 should cope with it without anybody even hearing about it. That's exactly what I would do (can't risk the US market) but potential customers are entitled to working it out for themselves.

B2N2

14th Oct 2006, 13:19

One can read a lot from Diamond's decision to sell mainly the avgas DA40 in the USA, while offering diesel only on the DA42. If there is an engine issue, a DA42 should cope with it without anybody even hearing about it. That's exactly what I would do (can't risk the US market) but potential customers are entitled to working it out for themselves.

The DA-42 avgas version has had it's share of problems in development.
The center pedestal/throttle quadrant not having room for 6 levers being one of them.
IO360 180HP engines supposedly gave the plane almost rocket-ship performance. Article in Flying mentioned something like 3500 fpm rate of climb at sealevel.
However, the DA-42 TDI has 50 gallons of fuel capacity( long range 76). With Jet A/Diesel that's 5 hrs of endurance. On Avgas that would be 2.5 hrs with full tanks.
Loading up the airplane with people/luggage/deicing fluid would give you even less. Meaning you have an IFR range/endurance of 200 miles/ 1.5 hrs. or less.
So stellar performance but very little usefull range/endurance.
I think that was the main reason for shelving the Avgas option for now.
I would have to guess as to the differences in engine and propeller weights and the effect on usefull load and CG. I doubt the Avgas version would have been available with the wood/composite MTV prop.
No doubt the Avgas version would have been a lot noisier then the TDI version. TDI is very quit compared to Avgas twins.

Considering 180 HP vs 135 HP there might also have been issues with Vmc and the size of the rudder. That could lead to a whole range of different speeds; Vmc, Vx,Vyse, Vy.
That would lead to essentially having two completely different airplanes instead of the "same" airplane with two engine options.

The Thielert 1.7 seems to have a poor rep in Europe(or on this forum at least), anybody eager to disclose as to why?
I have heard of one converted C172 have dual ECU (FADEC) failure in England but that's about it.

Footless Halls

14th Oct 2006, 17:10

125kts from a tdi you are having a laugh. 112-115kts.

No, I'm not having a laugh. I'm just telling you what the figure is which I see on the ASI

S-Works

15th Oct 2006, 07:56

No, I'm not having a laugh. I'm just telling you what the figure is which I see on the ASI

then you should hang on to as it the fastest DA40 TDI I have ever seen!!

I flew one earlier in the week into Gamston for maintanance and at 88% and 4000ft it showed 112kts IAS. Which is inline with the others I have flown.

I am not knocking it, very nice aircraft, they are Warrior or basic 172 (not my Hawk!) type peformance, not a Cirrus type hotship.

Cirrus_Clouds

21st Oct 2006, 17:45

Well cheers for the input all, I have booked my conversion course to this a/c type today - even after reading a posting about a DA40 crash on this site (a silly thread to say the least!) - (i'm not suprised!.. having seen many stupid things here before).

I'm rather looking forward to flying it! :ok:

B2N2

23rd Oct 2006, 23:48

I have booked my conversion course to this a/c type today

Let us know how it went and what you think of the plane... :ok:

clarksn

24th Oct 2006, 09:39

Sorry to go slightly off-topic, but does anyone have any experience of "Flying Time" based at Shoreham (the old Flying Hut club maybe?) who have a fleet of DA40's plus a Twin Star?
Thanks. :)

Just started to train/add type experience in the DA42 - very friendly. They told me that the DA42 was very different to anything else I had flown (Cirrus, Piper, Grumman) and they were right - landing technique was a bit alien at first. My second session is next week!

Steve

MichaelJP59

24th Oct 2006, 17:23

then you should hang on to as it the fastest DA40 TDI I have ever seen!!
I flew one earlier in the week into Gamston for maintanance and at 88% and 4000ft it showed 112kts IAS. Which is inline with the others I have flown.
I am not knocking it, very nice aircraft, they are Warrior or basic 172 (not my Hawk!) type peformance, not a Cirrus type hotship.

Well, just flown one today and at 90%/3000ft it was showing ~125kts, seems strange to have such a difference...

I'd much rather fly one than your typical PA28/Cessna, I much prefer the stick and overall it just feels so much more modern. Like driving a modern car compared to an old Triumph Herald.

Having said that, I agree its underpowered and I would take the avgas one over the DA40D if I had the choice.

soay

24th Oct 2006, 18:09

I flew brand a new one last week, and over a 4 hour flight, at 88% power, the IAS was 123 knots at ~ 3000 feet, while consuming 6.5 usg/hr. Surprisingly comfortable seats, excellent view out, beautiful handling and easy to land. Rate of climb at sea level could be better, but the turbo comes into its own as you go higher.

Papa Charlie

24th Oct 2006, 21:29

I've got about 20 hours on the avgas DA40 a couple of years ago; been flying PA28s from Shoreham so an opportunity to try the diesel version would be good! (I do prefer stick to yoke!) :)

Crashed&Burned

1st Nov 2006, 21:05

I've been with Flying Time at Shoreham (previously the Flying Hut) for some time and have found them friendly and welcoming. One aspect I really like is that there is no club joining fee, (an extra charge I have always found a bit irritating for the priviledge of sitting on a threadbare settee in some nissen hut).

Flying Time seems to have had an injection of cash recently, hence the growing 'fleet' of DA40s. They also have a Diamond Twin - very classy machine.

I have flown most single engined Cessnas and Pipers plus odds and sods such as Chipmunks and even Bolkows (OK, I am a bit past it, I know) and the DA40 diesel is a delight to fly. Very aerodynamic, doesn't want to slow down until you chop the power and drop the mega flaps. No nosewheel steering - differential braking on the main wheels, a stick rather than the US yoke style and outstanding visibility.

It gets my vote. Have fun.:)

B2N2

2nd Nov 2006, 20:52

Last Sunday I had the chance to fly a DA-40 XL. (Lycoming IO-360)
Pretty impressive performance really. Quiet 3 bladed scimitar composite prop.
With 3 people and 3/4 fuel we flew 153kts TAS at 5000'.
With 22"MP and 2300RPM 140 kts TAS @ 10 gallons/hr.
Also a usefull load increase of 110 pounds over the regular DA-40 CS.
Integrated autopilot/flight director, active traffic system, nexrad weather...
oh dear oh dear..almost fainted...:ok:

http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=00535CB4-D136-488C-9E3C-EB6172728CCF&Dynamic=1