Da40 And Da42 Operating Costs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: South Coast
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Da40 And Da42 Operating Costs
Anyone know any info on either of the Diamonds Above? Looking mainly for the operating costs of each - maybe an hourly cost?
If there are any owners out there how do you find these 2? Are they as good as they're reviews.
Also looking for average fuel burn per hour and maintenance costs etc.
Cheers
If there are any owners out there how do you find these 2? Are they as good as they're reviews.
Also looking for average fuel burn per hour and maintenance costs etc.
Cheers
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: South East England
Posts: 586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I hear you,ll spend very little on fuel but spend any savings and more on maintenance of the engines.The engines never get anywhere near the TBO and need constant attention.Have a chat with some of the schools who operate them or even better still the engineers who work on them ,they are not impressed.The CAA seem to have a very hands off attitude to the engines,claiming its a "european" issue.I,m sure if it was an American engine groundings would have taken place a long time ago given the shocking reliability record of the engines.All very political or perhaps the CAA just can,t get their heads round the technology!!.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you look at the Diamond UK web site there's lots of info on costs. Obviously, they are trying to sell aircraft, so the figures will be given in the best light, but nevertheless a good place to start.
www.diamondair.co.uk
www.diamondair.co.uk
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I hear you,ll spend very little on fuel but spend any savings and more on maintenance of the engines.The engines never get anywhere near the TBO and need constant attention.Have a chat with some of the schools who operate them or even better still the engineers who work on them ,they are not impressed.The CAA seem to have a very hands off attitude to the engines,claiming its a "european" issue.I,m sure if it was an American engine groundings would have taken place a long time ago given the shocking reliability record of the engines.All very political or perhaps the CAA just can,t get their heads round the technology!!.
Anyway I thought Diamond were guaranteeing the engines to 2000 hours or so.
I'd happily buy into a DA42 group near me (N reg of course
).........Anyone fancy starting one at EGHS or EGDY? 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The engines never get anywhere near the TBO and need constant attention
The Airframe comes with 2 years warranty, the Engine warranty begins 180 days after the date of unit test certificate (Form 1) or with the date of fitting the engine and is valid for a period of twelve (12) years resp. 2,400 flying hour mileage (TBR Time between replacement). Incidents occurring prior to this are applicable. In the event of a resale or other change in the owner/user of the engine, the warranty continues to apply for the period resp. mileage still remaining. It otherwise remains unaffected.
The warranty comprises the structural components listed below. A defective component contained in the subassemblies quoted below activates the warranty.
» gearbox
» cylinder head
» crankcase
» piston oil cooling
» high pressure fuel pump
» FADEC
You dont get that with a Lycoming or Continental
Same as anything else if is not maintained to the manufactures schedule then you will get problems. Since the cooling system mod and 2.7 software update we have had very little in the way of problems.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dunno ... what day is it?
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Same as anything else if is not maintained to the manufactures schedule then you will get problems
Ask the pilots who landed in a field in Essex not long ago (a friend had flown that aircraft). Or the club that is trying to sue Diamond for the down time on the aircraft. Or the FTO that has one Twinstar that has a rough running engine about once a week (a friend of mine is a controller, and she tries to hand over every time she sees it coming onto her frequency, as she knows a local standby is a fairly likely prospect) so always uses the other for IR tests, until that is in scheduled maintenance. Another friend of mine had to bring engineers out to where he was testing. Does nothing for the nerves.
Engines have been replaced after 300 hours, well short of even the current 1000-hour TBO. Pitch control units fail due to gearbox metal in the oil. Why are gearboxes putting chips in the oil, and why then is there no chip detector? Why did the 172 I flew with that engine have the engine just stop (fortunately on the taxiway, and I was not in it)? Are the tales that I heard true, that the DA-40/42 have smaller radiator and oil cooler than the C172/PA-28 fit, and that it is not enough?
Remember downtime is a cost, even for a private pilot. It is time when your money is invested in a toy you can't play with.
You dont get that with a Lycoming or Continental
Anyway, chatting with my friend the former DA-40 instructor about this issue, he said that the guarantee was 2000 hours, not 2400. Can't say myself, but I'd check if I were you. And you have to pay pro-rata for the hours flown so far, so you can't just buy an engine and forget costs above the maintenance.
I accept that petrol engines also fail at low hours, or have problems. I had such an issue recently, and know of another that was very low time when it failed. But both of these turned out to be defects in remanufacture, fortunately rectified with no serious harm done. DA40s and 42s are having engine problems in perfectly correctly-manufactured engines!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: UK
Age: 54
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every one is entitled to their opinions; the aircraft that landed in the field is still under investigation so I can’t comment. The only engines that have been replaced are the early series 19:1 compression ratios. All the others aren’t maintained by Diamond so I can’t say.
Pitch control units fail due to gearbox metal in the oil. That’s wrong for a start, its not the CSU that fails it’s the filter getting clogged, this has now been rectified with a slightly coarser filter. The old one was way too fine.
We don’t work on the 172’s but I have heard that the earlier model 172’s take fuel from either Left or Right tanks and not both, this has been put down to supply problems not engine related.
As for the radiators I don’t know if the DA40 & DA42 Radiators are smaller than the 172 and PA28. As I said earlier since the cooling system mod and 2.7 software update we have had very little in the way of problems. DA40 and DA42 are flown in the Emirates in their mild temperatures and if the radiators are good enough for that then I suppose it's good enough for our balmy climate.
As for the quote “The reason that the rebuilt Continentals I fly don't have such warranty terms is that they don't have a gearbox or FADEC”. What’s that got to do with warranty terms? Each has its own pro’s and cons.
As for the warranty I know and did check that’s why I posted, see here http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=628&L=1 . All the Life Time Extension Parts are changed and sent back for examination and from that product improvements are made. This is at no cost to the customer.
Don’t confuse ECU lights with internal engine problems. Some pilots I have spoken with still don’t understand the Engine Fadec combination. Earlier software parameters were way too tight and the slightest variation brought on the ECU lights. As I said earlier since the 2.7 software these have virtually been eliminated and an option to reset this in flight has been added.
Pitch control units fail due to gearbox metal in the oil. That’s wrong for a start, its not the CSU that fails it’s the filter getting clogged, this has now been rectified with a slightly coarser filter. The old one was way too fine.
We don’t work on the 172’s but I have heard that the earlier model 172’s take fuel from either Left or Right tanks and not both, this has been put down to supply problems not engine related.
As for the radiators I don’t know if the DA40 & DA42 Radiators are smaller than the 172 and PA28. As I said earlier since the cooling system mod and 2.7 software update we have had very little in the way of problems. DA40 and DA42 are flown in the Emirates in their mild temperatures and if the radiators are good enough for that then I suppose it's good enough for our balmy climate.
As for the quote “The reason that the rebuilt Continentals I fly don't have such warranty terms is that they don't have a gearbox or FADEC”. What’s that got to do with warranty terms? Each has its own pro’s and cons.
As for the warranty I know and did check that’s why I posted, see here http://web.thielert.com/typo3/index.php?id=628&L=1 . All the Life Time Extension Parts are changed and sent back for examination and from that product improvements are made. This is at no cost to the customer.
Don’t confuse ECU lights with internal engine problems. Some pilots I have spoken with still don’t understand the Engine Fadec combination. Earlier software parameters were way too tight and the slightest variation brought on the ECU lights. As I said earlier since the 2.7 software these have virtually been eliminated and an option to reset this in flight has been added.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One could debate whose fault this and that was, but the bottom line is that these engines were not properly tested before hitting the market.
What Diamond+Thielert should have done is build say 20 planes, and give them away to various types of users around the world. Some high time, some low time. In fact Thielert could have fitted loads of Cessnas and Pipers with the engines and just given them away, in return for regular feedback.
That's what I do in my business (electronics). The cost of giving away a load of stuff is a miniscule fraction of the cost of fixing real stuff shipped to customers.
Why did Diamond/Thielert not do this? I would suggest because aviation is a business where you can "do a Lycoming" (talking about their cranks, notably SB569 but all the preceeding stuff too) and get away with it.
Under European consumer legislation these owners could sue Diamond into the ground, and no doubt some have done (D had to give 100% refunds in some cases I know of, on well used planes) but business users (e.g. schools) can't because the consumer protection legislation doesn't (usually) cover them. In reality, most owners won't sue because a) people have better things to do and b) you will then get NO support from the dealer, the factory, absolutely everybody will wash their hands of you, and you are stuck with the plane......
What Diamond+Thielert should have done is build say 20 planes, and give them away to various types of users around the world. Some high time, some low time. In fact Thielert could have fitted loads of Cessnas and Pipers with the engines and just given them away, in return for regular feedback.
That's what I do in my business (electronics). The cost of giving away a load of stuff is a miniscule fraction of the cost of fixing real stuff shipped to customers.
Why did Diamond/Thielert not do this? I would suggest because aviation is a business where you can "do a Lycoming" (talking about their cranks, notably SB569 but all the preceeding stuff too) and get away with it.
Under European consumer legislation these owners could sue Diamond into the ground, and no doubt some have done (D had to give 100% refunds in some cases I know of, on well used planes) but business users (e.g. schools) can't because the consumer protection legislation doesn't (usually) cover them. In reality, most owners won't sue because a) people have better things to do and b) you will then get NO support from the dealer, the factory, absolutely everybody will wash their hands of you, and you are stuck with the plane......
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Up north
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA40 TDi maintenance costs
Hi All,
I’m considering buying a Diamond DA40 with a 2.0D engine and G1000. I’d be very interested to hear from owners or anyone with experience of this make /model.
Does anyone have real world example of the costs of 100 & 200 hour inspections?
I gather the 2000 hour inspection is a biggy, anyone had it done? If so how much was it?
Thanks
CFG
I’m considering buying a Diamond DA40 with a 2.0D engine and G1000. I’d be very interested to hear from owners or anyone with experience of this make /model.
Does anyone have real world example of the costs of 100 & 200 hour inspections?
I gather the 2000 hour inspection is a biggy, anyone had it done? If so how much was it?
Thanks
CFG
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: north of barlu
Posts: 6,207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Big gliders!
Basicly the both aircraft are big gliders and the GRP structure is little understood by most UK maintenance companies who have a "send it to the factory" attitude when you have a little bit of hangar rash, this results in high costs and long down time that could be avoided by selecting the right maintenance company for both maintenance and repair.
Most of the good GRP repair companys in the UK are in the glider business and so not approved to work on powerd aircraft, some have a Part M subpart F and could do some powerd aircraft work, one or two have full EASA 145 approval and those are the people that you need to talk to if you want to keep the cost of airframe ownership down.
The engine situation is in the hands of the factory's both engines have had a few problems but these are being overcome, Austro has the advantage of being slightly behind Theilert and so has seen some of the problems that Theilert have had, on the other hand the Theilert engine has much more time in the air (most of it in UAV's) and soon will be in a position to extend some of the maintenance items (the clutch change should soon go to 600 hours).
From a control point of view the Thielert is a less complicated engine and the weight is much lower than the Austro, I would say that the Theilert weight advantage balances the Austro power advantage.
The jury is still out on the Austro on the issue if cold inflight restart and what to do if the re-start fails, but that is an issue that could do a thread by it's self.
At the moment on the engine issue I can see no clear advantage one way or the other between the two Deisel engines, the only thing I can say is that with fuel costs going up both of these engines will become more attractive.
Most of the good GRP repair companys in the UK are in the glider business and so not approved to work on powerd aircraft, some have a Part M subpart F and could do some powerd aircraft work, one or two have full EASA 145 approval and those are the people that you need to talk to if you want to keep the cost of airframe ownership down.
The engine situation is in the hands of the factory's both engines have had a few problems but these are being overcome, Austro has the advantage of being slightly behind Theilert and so has seen some of the problems that Theilert have had, on the other hand the Theilert engine has much more time in the air (most of it in UAV's) and soon will be in a position to extend some of the maintenance items (the clutch change should soon go to 600 hours).
From a control point of view the Thielert is a less complicated engine and the weight is much lower than the Austro, I would say that the Theilert weight advantage balances the Austro power advantage.
The jury is still out on the Austro on the issue if cold inflight restart and what to do if the re-start fails, but that is an issue that could do a thread by it's self.
At the moment on the engine issue I can see no clear advantage one way or the other between the two Deisel engines, the only thing I can say is that with fuel costs going up both of these engines will become more attractive.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: England
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Diamond Aviators Net forum specialises in these aircraft, so you'll probably get some useful responses if you post the same questions there. Membership is free.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Bristol
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA40 with G1000 and GFC700
I have had a DA40-180 (AVGAS N-reg) for the past two years, so can't help on diesel operating costs (although FYI, 133ktas at 8.3gph 8,000ft, 140ktas at 9.0gph 4,000ft on expensive AVGAS).
But two suggestions:
a) you definitely want the G1000. I've flown 6-pack and G1000 and love the G1000 - it's just great, especially IFR (although also VFR it helps a lot with situational awareness so a quick check with the map is all that's needed, so spend a lot less time head down looking at a map confirming where you are)
b) you definitely also want the GFC700 autopilot if you are going to fly IFR - although don't know if you can get this on the DA40D (not sure if it is approved in EASA-land). I've flown with other autopilots, but the GFC700 is way ahead of others I have tried - incredibly good, is completely integrated with the G1000 and helps relieve workload when you really need it i.e. when the conditions are bad (even in moderate-severe turbulence, where it flies very smoothly and well).
The only issue with both of these is that there is a lot to learn - you need to spend a good amount of time with the simulator from Garmin.
But two suggestions:
a) you definitely want the G1000. I've flown 6-pack and G1000 and love the G1000 - it's just great, especially IFR (although also VFR it helps a lot with situational awareness so a quick check with the map is all that's needed, so spend a lot less time head down looking at a map confirming where you are)
b) you definitely also want the GFC700 autopilot if you are going to fly IFR - although don't know if you can get this on the DA40D (not sure if it is approved in EASA-land). I've flown with other autopilots, but the GFC700 is way ahead of others I have tried - incredibly good, is completely integrated with the G1000 and helps relieve workload when you really need it i.e. when the conditions are bad (even in moderate-severe turbulence, where it flies very smoothly and well).
The only issue with both of these is that there is a lot to learn - you need to spend a good amount of time with the simulator from Garmin.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: London
Age: 31
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi, the Da40 Tdi seems as good as the reviews. I haven't seen a plane with as good performance, both in altitude and in fuel burn. I have recently completed a long european trip, to italy and back either side of the alps. I have flown the plane now for a good 70 hours or so and easy to get 120kts IAS, stillish air up to 5,000 feet at 5.5 US gallons an hour. The interesting thing was that flying to italy from the UK via Cannes ~ 9 hours flying over 2 days, was cheaper than one way on a BA flight per seat. Awesome aircraft with or without G1000.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
was cheaper than one way on a BA flight per seat.
You would need to factor in depreciation, maintenance and other operating costs to make a valid comparison.
However, we fly for the fun and utility, if we flew for the cost savings then I guess we wouldn't!
Its a very good aircraft. My own view is its not quite the same package as the top end US SEP hardware, but is close, and assuming the engine problems have been resolved represents good value for money.
Cirrus, Mooney, TB20s to mention a few without doubt offer a quicker more capable package - albeit at a price and without doubt with a much more costly fuel burn. The DA42 compares with these far more favorably but leaving aside the twin versus single debate its still probably not quite a good.
I would love to see a DA40 with the performance of a Cirrus.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 16th Sep 2012 at 21:39.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DA42 burns almost the same fuel at almost the same cruise speed as my TB20 i.e. 11 USG/hr at 140kt IAS, though of course for the 42 this is the total fuel burn for both engines.
The reliability scenario seems to be improving but whether a private owner can consider the engine technology to be "proven" after the debacles of years past, is a personal view. I'd like to see a few more years. All DA42 private owners I know have been extremely critical of Diamond's handling of the issues and would not trust the company as far as they could throw it.
One Diamond maintenance shop I know tells me to not even consider buying a DA42, due to the amount of stuff they are forced to replace during each Annual, due to simple corrosion.
Commercial owners are mostly schools (FTOs) and they are notorious for down-playing any downtime because it makes them look bad to do otherwise.
Another factor for the UK is that on flights other than commercial or "training" (no idea if "training" has ever been defined) you are supposed to self declare the avtur duty, and that really kills the fuel burn cost advantage of diesel.
People who rent them generally like them, and having flown in a DA42 I can see why. It flies very nicely.
The reliability scenario seems to be improving but whether a private owner can consider the engine technology to be "proven" after the debacles of years past, is a personal view. I'd like to see a few more years. All DA42 private owners I know have been extremely critical of Diamond's handling of the issues and would not trust the company as far as they could throw it.
One Diamond maintenance shop I know tells me to not even consider buying a DA42, due to the amount of stuff they are forced to replace during each Annual, due to simple corrosion.
Commercial owners are mostly schools (FTOs) and they are notorious for down-playing any downtime because it makes them look bad to do otherwise.
Another factor for the UK is that on flights other than commercial or "training" (no idea if "training" has ever been defined) you are supposed to self declare the avtur duty, and that really kills the fuel burn cost advantage of diesel.
People who rent them generally like them, and having flown in a DA42 I can see why. It flies very nicely.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Age: 52
Posts: 1,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I flew an hour in one years ago and liked it a lot. However, that huge high aspect ratio wing with low loading is not very forgiving in turbulence. It was a very rough ride in light chop. I don't know if the composite construction adds to the stiffness, but I have feeling it does.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IRS NAV ONLY
Posts: 1,230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by guythorold
Hi, the Da40 Tdi seems as good as the reviews. I haven't seen a plane with as good performance, both in altitude and in fuel burn.
And if that weren't the case, a fully equipped DA40D with G1000 (and everything you need for IFR: ECU backup battery, DME, ADF, WX500) has an empty mass of about 830 kg. With MTOM 1150kg this means that useful load is 320kg. Adding a full tank of Diesel fuel (and that is for standard tank - not long range), this is reduced to 230 kg, which makes it a very good 2-seater - but still I wouldn't call performance at MTOM breath-taking.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Hotel Gypsy
Posts: 2,821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that both the 40 and 42 are fine aircraft which are demonstrating that the mould can be broken. OK, there are reliability issues (far, far better than at the beginning) and they aren't the biggest, fastest etc. However, their direct operating costs are very attractive, especially since he gearbox issue has started to diminish. Looking at the twin training side of things, I think it would only be a madman (or American) who would entertain the option of a Seneca/Seminole/Duchess due to the fuel costs. The only other kid on the block is the Tecnam P2006T which, when parked next to a 42, clearly demonstrates that it is a rather poorly built Italian toy.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was a very rough ride in light chop.
I think the 42 is a fine aircraft. It stands apart from other twins and if you want a new twin that SHOULD have low operating costs then its just about the only game in town. The 40 on the other hand has a lot of competition and I am not sure the fuel savings are sufficient.
Even with regards the 42 if you consider the whole financial package (which I suspect people often don't) you can get a fine twin with updated avionics and in a condition that should result in not too many surprises for perhaps half of the cost of a used 42. The savings on maintenance (and the 42 could well prove more costly to maintain) buys a lot of Avgas and that is if you disregard the depreciation.
Of course I suspect the cost is not the only factor otherwise otherwise no one would ever buy a new 42. The overall package is a world apart from other designs of at least 20 or more years ago and if that float your boat - well you have little choice.
For me the 42 is too slow; I think if you are in the market for an honest twin cruiser you want in excess of 170 knots. I also think you might want something a little more robust, roomy and comfy, but it is a good aircraft and I would be very pleased to own one. On the other hand I have no aspirations to own a 40.