Calling all DA40 XL and Cirrus SR22 owners
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling all DA40 XL and Cirrus SR22 owners
Basically I am looking to buy either of the above aircraft and was wondering about PERSONAL experiences with either for VFR flying.
Many thanks in advance.
Many thanks in advance.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have flown both quite a bit.
Personally I marginally prefer the G1000 to the Avidyne - if I were buying a Cirrus if I could I would want the new Perspective model with the Garmin and the Garmin autopilot.
The Diamond better fits the mould of a training aircraft. The performance is lack lustre compared with the Cirrus. However, it is a great deal easier to fly (depending on your experience level). I would expect the average PPL with 100 hours under his belt to be happy with the Diamond (G1000 aside) in a few hours at most, whereas the Cirrus might take any where up to 30 hours.
I can give you a lot more information but how relevant this would be without knowing your background and the purpose to which you would put the aircraft is questionable.
If I had to sum up in a few lines I would say they are two very different aircraft. If you want an aircraft with performance, serious touring ability, good load carrying and reasonable all weather IFR capability then the Cirrus would much more closely fit the bill. If you want an aircraft that is simple to operate, reasonably fast, will cope with reasonably benign IFR work and will be less costly to operate then I suspect the Diamond would better suite the bill.
I can only reiterate that they are a great deal more different than you might think so you would be wise to match the aircraft to your needs.
Personally I marginally prefer the G1000 to the Avidyne - if I were buying a Cirrus if I could I would want the new Perspective model with the Garmin and the Garmin autopilot.
The Diamond better fits the mould of a training aircraft. The performance is lack lustre compared with the Cirrus. However, it is a great deal easier to fly (depending on your experience level). I would expect the average PPL with 100 hours under his belt to be happy with the Diamond (G1000 aside) in a few hours at most, whereas the Cirrus might take any where up to 30 hours.
I can give you a lot more information but how relevant this would be without knowing your background and the purpose to which you would put the aircraft is questionable.
If I had to sum up in a few lines I would say they are two very different aircraft. If you want an aircraft with performance, serious touring ability, good load carrying and reasonable all weather IFR capability then the Cirrus would much more closely fit the bill. If you want an aircraft that is simple to operate, reasonably fast, will cope with reasonably benign IFR work and will be less costly to operate then I suspect the Diamond would better suite the bill.
I can only reiterate that they are a great deal more different than you might think so you would be wise to match the aircraft to your needs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks IO, I should have read the question properly.
In that case all the above remains true except the bit about IFR.
You will find having purchsed a Cirrus it is more adaptable to IFR flying if you decide to make a move in that direction.
In that case all the above remains true except the bit about IFR.
You will find having purchsed a Cirrus it is more adaptable to IFR flying if you decide to make a move in that direction.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Spain
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which aircraft
Many thanks for the replies, I posted this for a student of mine who does not use PPRUNE. I am an experienced instructor but the person who wants it is a brand new PPL and basically wants to tour around Europe with the family in nice weather. He has been offered a DA40XL with 100 hrs on it for about $220000 plus ferrying or has seen a G3 for about $550000 in Europe.
Will he be satisfied with the Diamond or will he want to upgrade to the Cirrus after some time?
Having never flown either of these aircraft I am not in a position to guide him.
Will he be satisfied with the Diamond or will he want to upgrade to the Cirrus after some time?
Having never flown either of these aircraft I am not in a position to guide him.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: England
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If money is not the deciding factor, suggest he (and his family) try both aircraft and then choose. The Cirrus experience (comfort, chute, looks, ...) for partner/families has been a deciding factor for many previously.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As he is a low time PPL and wants to tour around Europe with his family he maybe attracted to the extra safety feature of the chute in the Cirrus.
Whether its more of a comfort zone option I think flying single pilot with your most precious cargo the chute does add another safety option.
I flew a DA40 and was dissapointed with the cruise speed for long distance touring the extra speed of the Cirrus maybe a factor.
Comfort and build quality are better in the Cirrus with the large cabin.
On the downside the Cirrus will be more of a challenge initially as other posters have mentioned but if he can overcome that hurdle will probably be a better long term choice as he may outgrow the capability of the DA40
Pace
Whether its more of a comfort zone option I think flying single pilot with your most precious cargo the chute does add another safety option.
I flew a DA40 and was dissapointed with the cruise speed for long distance touring the extra speed of the Cirrus maybe a factor.
Comfort and build quality are better in the Cirrus with the large cabin.
On the downside the Cirrus will be more of a challenge initially as other posters have mentioned but if he can overcome that hurdle will probably be a better long term choice as he may outgrow the capability of the DA40
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you for the PM. I will reply here but feel free to PM me if I can help further.
There is a very significant difference in price, but I gather this may not be an issue. Never the less money is money. I guess there are some obvious financial considerations which may include the market for Diamonds being soft at the moment because of the problems the company has encountered. I also guess the jury may be out on whether Diamond survive and what impact this will have on resale values if they do not. On the positive side of the curve I suspect they have enough critical mass in terms of aircraft sold for someone to pick up the pieces if the worst happens. On the other side of the scale with the dollar in the ascent at the moment it may not be the best time to purchase an aircraft priced in dollars.
Leaving these issues aside in my opinion there is no doubt a new PPL would be able to fly the Diamond with relatively little instruction. On the other hand the Cirrius is, as single GA aircraft go, a relatively high performance machine. I cruise at around 160 knots for a reasonable fuel burn (it will go quicker). It is slippery, so a new PPL must get use to the usual issues focused around slowing down a fast aircraft and accustom to the changes in the scenery being going past more quickly.
Those that regularly convert people onto these aircraft will tell you that it can take 20 or more hours for a low time pilot to get comfortable with the Cirrus, whereas maybe a quarter of that for the Diamond.
Interior
The interior fit of the Diamond gives the impression of being made to a price and a weight. The furnishings are pleasant enough, but little appears “over engineered” - the bucket seats for example are fixed and give the impression of a glass fibre frame covered in a layer of good quality leather. That said I think the quality of the build for a plastic aircraft is as good as the Cirrus and generally both are of a high standard. Clearly you expect a lot more for your money with the Cirrus so it is not surprising that the interior of the Cirrus is very well appointed with perhaps the best seats I have found in any single and a well formed and put together interior. I always say perhaps disingenuously it was designed for big Americans. If you are seriously touring you would undoubtedly find the Cirrus more comfortable than the Diamond after three or fours hours in the Aircraft, the more especially if you are confined to the rear seats.
Avionics.
The Cirrus comes with the Avidyne system, the Diamond with the G1000. Both work well and in terms of day to day operation I don’t think there is much between the two. The Avidyne I think is a little easier to grasp and a bit more intuitive. I don’t really think there is anything the G1000 does the Avidyne doesn’t, except by integrating the 430 into the G1000 in contrast to the separate units with the Avidyne - the former is a neater piece of kit. I understand it is still the case that the G1000 can only be repaired by authorised Garmin service agents - so this could be a significant issue if there is not one close to hand. On the other hand the Avidyne units are I gather usually returned to the factory which is also a potential issue. For serious IFR flying (not relevant at this stage) I like the redundancy of the G1000 (you can swap the PDF to the MDF if one screen fails) - you cannot do this with the Avidyne. However, these issues aside both pieces of kit are excellent and will spoil a new PPL. In due course both avionics stacks are up to the job of serious IFR and work equally as well for that purpose.
Personally, if I were in the market for a Cirrus I would find it very difficult not to buy the Perspective with the G1000. This has a host of features which even for VFR flying are really useful (and not part of the G1000 fit in the Diamond). For serious IFR there are significant safety benefits - dual electronic gyros, keypad FMS, and the auto level.
The KAP140 in the Diamond is not great. I suspect there are some reliability issues and it is temperamental in turbulence. The Cirrus A/P is a better piece of kit and the Garmin autopilot if fitted significantly better still.
Touring
As I said earlier the Diamond flies very pleasantly but is as lack lustre as any other training aircraft. The handling is pleasant enough and the stick is not an issue. That said it is far better with the Lycoming or the new 2L Thielert. (I appreciate your friend is interested in the Lycoming). Everyone says the side stick on the Cirrus is not an issue - I would agree. Whilst I have a fair few hours, I had not flown a side stick before (only a yoke and stick). I was happy to make the first landing after 15 minutes local fly.
The Cirrus is all together a better touring aircraft once you are comfortable with it. However, for the reasons I have said earlier care would need to be taken to mentor a new PPL for some time to ensure he is really comfortable with the aircraft, and that process might taken significantly longer than with the Diamond. It is a better tourer because it is more comfortable, rarely struggles for performance, feels solid and will ride out turbulence with more aplomb and of course, is significantly quicker.
Parachute
Well, there are plenty of lies, damn lies and ill informed views about the chute. Fact is you hope you never need it, but fact is if you do the evidence so far would suggest it could save your life. Given the afore you have to make your own mind up whether that is a factor in the decision making process, Some will say you will almost certainly never need the chute and some will say it encourages you to take chances you would not otherwise.
Reliability
I have found both aircraft reliable – you are purchasing into almost certainly a low hour and low time aircraft. How well they will stand the test of time is another matter – but I suspect there will not be much between them because after all most of the components are not specific to the aircraft manufacturer but are assemblages of parts from the same part bins.
There are some specific issues with both aircraft, the list isn’t too long, but I am not going to roll it out here, not least because none of the issues would in my view be persuasive in terms of which aircraft you buy.
Good luck to you and your friend.
There is a very significant difference in price, but I gather this may not be an issue. Never the less money is money. I guess there are some obvious financial considerations which may include the market for Diamonds being soft at the moment because of the problems the company has encountered. I also guess the jury may be out on whether Diamond survive and what impact this will have on resale values if they do not. On the positive side of the curve I suspect they have enough critical mass in terms of aircraft sold for someone to pick up the pieces if the worst happens. On the other side of the scale with the dollar in the ascent at the moment it may not be the best time to purchase an aircraft priced in dollars.
Leaving these issues aside in my opinion there is no doubt a new PPL would be able to fly the Diamond with relatively little instruction. On the other hand the Cirrius is, as single GA aircraft go, a relatively high performance machine. I cruise at around 160 knots for a reasonable fuel burn (it will go quicker). It is slippery, so a new PPL must get use to the usual issues focused around slowing down a fast aircraft and accustom to the changes in the scenery being going past more quickly.
Those that regularly convert people onto these aircraft will tell you that it can take 20 or more hours for a low time pilot to get comfortable with the Cirrus, whereas maybe a quarter of that for the Diamond.
Interior
The interior fit of the Diamond gives the impression of being made to a price and a weight. The furnishings are pleasant enough, but little appears “over engineered” - the bucket seats for example are fixed and give the impression of a glass fibre frame covered in a layer of good quality leather. That said I think the quality of the build for a plastic aircraft is as good as the Cirrus and generally both are of a high standard. Clearly you expect a lot more for your money with the Cirrus so it is not surprising that the interior of the Cirrus is very well appointed with perhaps the best seats I have found in any single and a well formed and put together interior. I always say perhaps disingenuously it was designed for big Americans. If you are seriously touring you would undoubtedly find the Cirrus more comfortable than the Diamond after three or fours hours in the Aircraft, the more especially if you are confined to the rear seats.
Avionics.
The Cirrus comes with the Avidyne system, the Diamond with the G1000. Both work well and in terms of day to day operation I don’t think there is much between the two. The Avidyne I think is a little easier to grasp and a bit more intuitive. I don’t really think there is anything the G1000 does the Avidyne doesn’t, except by integrating the 430 into the G1000 in contrast to the separate units with the Avidyne - the former is a neater piece of kit. I understand it is still the case that the G1000 can only be repaired by authorised Garmin service agents - so this could be a significant issue if there is not one close to hand. On the other hand the Avidyne units are I gather usually returned to the factory which is also a potential issue. For serious IFR flying (not relevant at this stage) I like the redundancy of the G1000 (you can swap the PDF to the MDF if one screen fails) - you cannot do this with the Avidyne. However, these issues aside both pieces of kit are excellent and will spoil a new PPL. In due course both avionics stacks are up to the job of serious IFR and work equally as well for that purpose.
Personally, if I were in the market for a Cirrus I would find it very difficult not to buy the Perspective with the G1000. This has a host of features which even for VFR flying are really useful (and not part of the G1000 fit in the Diamond). For serious IFR there are significant safety benefits - dual electronic gyros, keypad FMS, and the auto level.
The KAP140 in the Diamond is not great. I suspect there are some reliability issues and it is temperamental in turbulence. The Cirrus A/P is a better piece of kit and the Garmin autopilot if fitted significantly better still.
Touring
As I said earlier the Diamond flies very pleasantly but is as lack lustre as any other training aircraft. The handling is pleasant enough and the stick is not an issue. That said it is far better with the Lycoming or the new 2L Thielert. (I appreciate your friend is interested in the Lycoming). Everyone says the side stick on the Cirrus is not an issue - I would agree. Whilst I have a fair few hours, I had not flown a side stick before (only a yoke and stick). I was happy to make the first landing after 15 minutes local fly.
The Cirrus is all together a better touring aircraft once you are comfortable with it. However, for the reasons I have said earlier care would need to be taken to mentor a new PPL for some time to ensure he is really comfortable with the aircraft, and that process might taken significantly longer than with the Diamond. It is a better tourer because it is more comfortable, rarely struggles for performance, feels solid and will ride out turbulence with more aplomb and of course, is significantly quicker.
Parachute
Well, there are plenty of lies, damn lies and ill informed views about the chute. Fact is you hope you never need it, but fact is if you do the evidence so far would suggest it could save your life. Given the afore you have to make your own mind up whether that is a factor in the decision making process, Some will say you will almost certainly never need the chute and some will say it encourages you to take chances you would not otherwise.
Reliability
I have found both aircraft reliable – you are purchasing into almost certainly a low hour and low time aircraft. How well they will stand the test of time is another matter – but I suspect there will not be much between them because after all most of the components are not specific to the aircraft manufacturer but are assemblages of parts from the same part bins.
There are some specific issues with both aircraft, the list isn’t too long, but I am not going to roll it out here, not least because none of the issues would in my view be persuasive in terms of which aircraft you buy.
Good luck to you and your friend.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder why the choice of these two planes.
They are not obviously similar.
The Cirrus is made by about the only recent success story in GA and is therefore a "safe bet" for a long range tourer.
The DA40 (avgas version) is considerably slower, considerably cheaper to run, considerably less capable regarding weather (compare the operating ceilings).
For VFR (which is itself pretty limited for long range European touring, although a clever instrument-capable pilot with a bit of time to play with can go suprisingly far under "VFR") both will do the job.
Personally, I would go for a nice 2002 TB20GT
Flies nicer than an SR22, in my view, and equally capable against weather, and has a longer range.
When it comes to safe bets however, there is also the Cessna 400. I don't think Cessna will go bust, and I don't think they will drop this plane. But Diamond might just possibly go bust, if they don't get their engine situation sorted.
They are not obviously similar.
The Cirrus is made by about the only recent success story in GA and is therefore a "safe bet" for a long range tourer.
The DA40 (avgas version) is considerably slower, considerably cheaper to run, considerably less capable regarding weather (compare the operating ceilings).
For VFR (which is itself pretty limited for long range European touring, although a clever instrument-capable pilot with a bit of time to play with can go suprisingly far under "VFR") both will do the job.
Personally, I would go for a nice 2002 TB20GT
Flies nicer than an SR22, in my view, and equally capable against weather, and has a longer range.When it comes to safe bets however, there is also the Cessna 400. I don't think Cessna will go bust, and I don't think they will drop this plane. But Diamond might just possibly go bust, if they don't get their engine situation sorted.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, I would go for a nice 2002 TB20GT
It is metal though so you dont want to leave it outside,
The avionics are old fashioned - now that isnt a bad thing, not a bad thing at all, and I know, potentially simpler and less costly to maintain, but everyone wants glass - its sexy,
Its take off performance is a bit lack luster - the 22 needs 400 feet less runway at max,
Nearly all arent properly de-iced - not much of a VFR issue mind you.
That said I think it does everything the 22 does as well, on some counts a bit better like load carrying, on others a bit worse like climb and speed.
Personally I think you should have gone for the TB21 but then I suppose you would have to compare it with the turbo SR22.
Interestingly very similiar aircraft although Socata were there years before - clearly a design team ahead of their time, perhaps with Commander as well.
Was the Socata a copy of the Commander or the other way around?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nearly all arent properly de-iced - not much of a VFR issue mind you.
The TB20/21 can be had with full TKS which on a G-reg (and probably on a Spanish reg too) is certified for flight into icing conditions. It is only N-reg which isn't.
It is metal though so you dont want to leave it outside,
Was the Socata a copy of the Commander or the other way around?
If you want glass, then there is very little choice.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, of course the Cirrus is not de-iced, but it does have full wet coverage of all flying surfaces. In fact the same layout as the 42 which they got certified - the only difference being you will get around a third of the run time due to the smaller fluid reservoir.
It will be interesting to see how they last. You are also correct that there is some external furniture subject to corrosion - although not much - why manufacturers want to fit bright work these days I dont know - it harks back to the golden age of cars I suppose with oodles of chrome.
You could compare airframes with boats. Wooden boats have been around for years. If you keep them painted and varnished they last forever - but, and it is a big but, if you dont the cost of rectification can be substantial. Aircraft are the same -allow corrosion to develop and it is a costly business to put it right. Plastic boats on the other hand do seem to last forever, although in the early days there were plenty of structural and gel coat problems (and of course osmosis, hopefully not relevant to aircraft). I wonder which one of these will befall plastic tastic airframes?
It will be interesting to see how they last. You are also correct that there is some external furniture subject to corrosion - although not much - why manufacturers want to fit bright work these days I dont know - it harks back to the golden age of cars I suppose with oodles of chrome.
You could compare airframes with boats. Wooden boats have been around for years. If you keep them painted and varnished they last forever - but, and it is a big but, if you dont the cost of rectification can be substantial. Aircraft are the same -allow corrosion to develop and it is a costly business to put it right. Plastic boats on the other hand do seem to last forever, although in the early days there were plenty of structural and gel coat problems (and of course osmosis, hopefully not relevant to aircraft). I wonder which one of these will befall plastic tastic airframes?
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would be suprised if the "plastic" rotted, because gliders have been made of fibreglass for decades.
The main difference is likely to be that removable fibreglass parts are going to see more damage from routine maintenance; the biggest source of widespread but minor damage to aircraft by far. It's very easy to crack a fibreglass cowling by monkey handling - £5000 gone just like that - and I've got the same problem on the TB20.
On the Cirruses and Diamonds, I am advised that there are a lot of internal parts e.g. around the engine which rot. These are stuff like zinc plated steel.
I think aluminium airframes don't start rotting for something like 15-20 years, as far as the major parts go, but a lot of smaller parts start well before that and the "plastic" planes share those parts too.
One might wonder which will last longer parked in Spain. I don't know.
The main difference is likely to be that removable fibreglass parts are going to see more damage from routine maintenance; the biggest source of widespread but minor damage to aircraft by far. It's very easy to crack a fibreglass cowling by monkey handling - £5000 gone just like that - and I've got the same problem on the TB20.
On the Cirruses and Diamonds, I am advised that there are a lot of internal parts e.g. around the engine which rot. These are stuff like zinc plated steel.
I think aluminium airframes don't start rotting for something like 15-20 years, as far as the major parts go, but a lot of smaller parts start well before that and the "plastic" planes share those parts too.
One might wonder which will last longer parked in Spain. I don't know.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spain or Thailand
Age: 52
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus are known to be involved in many accidents while Diamond's safety record is exceptional.
Compare the insurance for both of them. If you are a low time pilot you might not even get an offer for a Cirrus to be insured.
Compare the insurance for both of them. If you are a low time pilot you might not even get an offer for a Cirrus to be insured.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Cirrus are known to be involved in many accidents while Diamond's safety record is exceptional.
Compare the insurance for both of them. If you are a low time pilot you might not even get an offer for a Cirrus to be insured.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spain or Thailand
Age: 52
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could that be due to very different marketing, not to mention a very different mission capability? An SR22 is a lot more capable compared to the DA40. In the USA, the SR22 is marketed as a saloon car replacement, to young well funded men. This is the only realistic way forward in GA these days, but it will attract a higher % of pilots who think they are invincible.
But also, the SR22 is a lot less forgiving and needs more skills. Really, both planes should not be compared. I would consider an SR22 as an adequate airplane for someone with 500+ hrs and IF experience and the Diamond the most pleasant and safest way to get there.
Also, there is a big difference on prices and specifications. They have only have a few things in common: they are modern, plastic 4 seaters.
I have flown both and will stay with my Diamond for personal reasons. I can carry another couple to fly them around, but I can also use the rear seats to put bikes and my dog. That will be a bit hard to do in a Cirrus.
If I would have a younger girl-friend at home which loves me for my money while travelling to business meetings with people whose money I like to have in order to stay with that hottie at home, I guess I wanted to be home faster and die young...
