Diamond DA-40

[Chuck]

Hi, all,

Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.

TIA, Chuck

[Markus Voget]

Chuck > wrote:

> Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
> at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.

While I cannot claim much experience (except for a short flight in the
Diesel version of the DA40, which a liked a lot), I can recommend the
following extensive report on-line:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40


Greetings,
Markus

[Thomas Borchert]

Chuck,

Yes. Wonderful airplane. It's not a "Lexus of the air", the glider
heritage shows. But it's still great. Visibility is unbeatable. Access
to the cabin (both back and front) is marvelous - if it is not raining.
If it is, you're in a real hurry because of the open canopy.

When there's just two aboard, folding down the backseats gives an
absolutely cavernous baggage area with that huge folding door in the
back. Loading mountain bikes or similarly bulky stuff would be a snap.
It flies and handles very well.

The seats are not adjustable, only the pedals are. The KAP autopilot is
not something I really like, I prefer the S-TEC.

You might want to read Aviation Consumer on the plane and their
comparison to the SR20, which is basically similar in pricing, if you
equip both the same. Bottom line that I took away: The DA40 is more fun
to fly, the SR20 is the more serious travel machine.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Dude]

Unless he has updated it, that article is no longer relevent in many
respects.

Diamond has made many changes in the plane since that was written. Also, I
am told that the Aviation Consumer article used one of the first few made
for their testing as well.

I have flown an older one (2001) and a newer one (2004) and there is a lot
of difference in comfort and a bit in speed. It would take about $ 5,000 to
$8,000 to update an older one, and then you could update the prop when the 3
blade wore out.

Interestingly, I had a hard time with the conclusion that Aviation Consumer
came to. If you read the words, they seem to like the Diamond better, but
the score gave the nod to Cirrus. IIRC they gave the same points to both
planes on safety, which may have made a difference, and appears to be
anything but correct.

I would say that if you are a serious pilot that uses the plane for serious
travel, then the SR20 may win on the mission. If you are realisticly using
the plane for more fun flying, experience getting, and shorter hops then the
Diamond will definitely win. Mission is important here, and most people
overestimate their serious use percentage as part of the rationalization to
buy in the first place.

Lastly, if you are the type whose head is not always 100% in the cockpit -
buy the Diamond!


"Markus Voget" > wrote in message
...
> Chuck > wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
> > at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.
>
> While I cannot claim much experience (except for a short flight in the
> Diesel version of the DA40, which a liked a lot), I can recommend the
> following extensive report on-line:
> http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/diamond-da40
>
>
> Greetings,
> Markus

[Brian Sponcil]

I was looking on aso.com and noticed that the price difference between a
2004 DA-40 and a 1999/2000 is around $100,000. As you point out, the 2004
model has been improved upon but it seems like you'd still come out 90k
ahead buying a 1999 model and updating it. Perhaps there's more to it than
I realize. FWIW - the only DA-40 owner I've talked to absolutely loved his.


-Brian
Iowa City, IA


"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Unless he has updated it, that article is no longer relevent in many
> respects.
>
> Diamond has made many changes in the plane since that was written. Also,
I
> am told that the Aviation Consumer article used one of the first few made
> for their testing as well.
>
> I have flown an older one (2001) and a newer one (2004) and there is a lot
> of difference in comfort and a bit in speed. It would take about $ 5,000
to
> $8,000 to update an older one, and then you could update the prop when the
3
> blade wore out.

[Chuck]

Thanks everyone for your replies. They are much appreciated.

I tried the Cirrus, but my knees kept hitting the upper part of the
panel, so I don't think I'd be comfortable in that plane.

I do plan to do some serious travelling in it, but first must start
working toward that IFR rating.

Thanks again,

Chuck

[Malcolm Teas]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in message >...
> ...The seats are not adjustable, only the pedals are. The KAP autopilot is
> not something I really like, I prefer the S-TEC. ...

I'm told at the place I rent (where they have a DA40 and a DA20) that
the distance from the seat to the pedals is the same in both models.
I rent the DA20 and am 6 foot 3 inches. It's a nice plane, but a
little small for me. A long cross country in that might get
uncomfortable.

-Malcolm Teas

[[email protected]]

I had a tour of the Diamond factory...

To say I was impressed would be an understatement...

...built like a tank.....the workmanship on internals that
you cannot see in the finished aircraft was impeccable..

These people take their jobs and their product VERY
seriously...

Dave



On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 07:37:35 GMT, Chuck
> wrote:

>Thanks everyone for your replies. They are much appreciated.
>
>I tried the Cirrus, but my knees kept hitting the upper part of the
>panel, so I don't think I'd be comfortable in that plane.
>
>I do plan to do some serious travelling in it, but first must start
>working toward that IFR rating.
>
>Thanks again,
>
>Chuck

[Aaron Coolidge]

Chuck > wrote:
: Hi, all,

: Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
: at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.

: TIA, Chuck

Do check the range, as the fuel tanks seem to be rather small.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

Aaron Coolidge wrote:

> Chuck > wrote:
> : Hi, all,
>
> : Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
> : at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.
>
> : TIA, Chuck
>
> Do check the range, as the fuel tanks seem to be rather small.

All the better to improve the full-fuel payload number! (ducking)

[Aaron Coolidge]

TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
: Aaron Coolidge wrote:
:> Do check the range, as the fuel tanks seem to be rather small.

: All the better to improve the full-fuel payload number! (ducking)

I think that's the reason they limited it to 41 gal. At the claimed 145 knots,
you can go 435 nm with a 1-hour reserve. In my Cherokee 180, at 118 knots,
you can go 4 hours or 472 nm with a 1-hour reserve. Granted, it takes one
more hour in the Cherokee. If the Diamond had 80 gal of fuel capacity, or
even 60 gal, it would really be something nice.
--
Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Dude]

Uh, no.

If you want to compare it to your cherokee, then you can use the Diamond at
the same speed. At 118 you will only use about 6.5 gph in the Diamond.

That gives you the same 472 NM on only 26 gallons.

OR

You can go 5 hours for 608nm with a 1 hour reserve.

Slicker plane wins.

Still need bigger tanks? The Diamond has an option for an extra 10 gallons.
If you want to make a case for how great the older technology is, you better
go for a bigger engine plane and claim a high tolerance for fuel bills. You
are going to be hard pressed to beat the Diamond without going up to 200 hp.
Mooney's can win, but they are retracts, Tigers are the closest thing, but
they will lose slightly. Diamond has them both whipped pretty hard on
safety.

In my book, its all about how far you can get with 3 hour legs and still
have adequate reserves. I don't want to sit that long, and I would just as
soon not go that much longer anyway. So I don't need bigger tanks.

I know some of you like to fly 5 hour legs, but my butt and bladder aren't
rated for that long.


"Aaron Coolidge" > wrote in message
...
> TTA Cherokee Driver > wrote:
> : Aaron Coolidge wrote:
> :> Do check the range, as the fuel tanks seem to be rather small.
>
> : All the better to improve the full-fuel payload number! (ducking)
>
> I think that's the reason they limited it to 41 gal. At the claimed 145
knots,
> you can go 435 nm with a 1-hour reserve. In my Cherokee 180, at 118 knots,
> you can go 4 hours or 472 nm with a 1-hour reserve. Granted, it takes one
> more hour in the Cherokee. If the Diamond had 80 gal of fuel capacity, or
> even 60 gal, it would really be something nice.
> --
> Aaron Coolidge (N9376J)

[Aaron Coolidge]

Dude > wrote:
: Still need bigger tanks? The Diamond has an option for an extra 10 gallons.
I didn't realize this.

: If you want to make a case for how great the older technology is, you better

I wasn't doing this. I was merely stating that the Diamond only carries 41
gal of fuel, when having more fuel vs. payload tradeoffs can be useful. See
also the above.

I have no problem flying 4, 5, 6, or even 8 hour legs, when I am flying
alone on a trip. I will probably get a Mooney 231/252 with extended range
tanks for my next airplane.

PS, I can't fit in the DA40, anyway, as my knees hit the bottom of the
instrument panel. Too bad, because they're nice flying airplanes.
--
Aaron Coolidge

[Dylan Smith]

In article >, Chuck wrote:
> Hi, all,
>
> Does anyone have any experience with the Daimond DA-40-180? We saw one
> at Sun 'n Fun and we're thinking of buying it.

Only had a short flight in it (I flew both as PIC and as a back seat
passenger) in a 2001 model.

I found it to be better performing in all respects compared to a 200-hp
Piper Arrow. The visibility from the left seat was great. Being able to
get in the back door as a rear seat passenger was helpful. It flies very
nicely. Pity I can't afford one!

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Gil Brice]

Why is this?


>
> Lastly, if you are the type whose head is not always 100% in the cockpit -
> buy the Diamond!
>
>

[RevDMV]

In my personal search for a best new plane I've done demo flights in
all the new single engine aircraft available.

The DA-40 was hands down the most fun to fly. It made a fairly low
time pilot like me look good, it didn't seem to have any bad habbits.
Great visibility, good performance and nice looking.

I flew an early version which had some issues that have been addressed
and some the havn't in the latest upgrades.

Those that have include the new extended bagage area. The original
just didn't have any space at all. With little kids it had the useful
load, but I would need more room for all the kid supplies.

Another upgrade is the panel which has been moved up to give more leg
room. It was a little tight and I'm a normal sized guy.

One that won't ever change is the non-adjustable seats. One size never
fits all, and although I found the seating position to be ok, I know
that somewhere some time I would ant to move it and would hate that I
couldn't. The rudder pedal adjust instead. Granted this is a YMMV kind
of issue.

The control stick is great for a pilot, but with a non-flying
signifigant other could be an issue.

Someone already linked Phillip Greenspun's web site. Its a good read
and I think will give some honest info on long term ownership. One
thing I noticed from reading it was teh problem with the MT prop
spewing grease. I don't think he's had a complet resolution to the
problem and I believe that smoehwere he notes that this is an issue he
has seen on the DA40 pilots forum as well. It would seem that Diamond
has opted to use a new prop in the latest version.

All in all a good plane.

[Dude]

The stall performance is nothing short of amazing. The plane is even more
forgiving than a 172. The Cirrus on the other hand can roll over pretty
easy, and the stall performance is the subject of many heated discussions.

Bottom line, there are less fatalaties in the Diamonds. There were some
recent discussions on reading too much into statistics, but if you talk to
the Diamond owners or reps, you hear some very reassuring stuff.

My prejudice is that if you are a really serious pilot (you enjoy the
minutiae of every bit of flight planning, engine management, constant
navigational checks while flying, fly IFR all the time, etc...), then you
are likely to be able to judge well your risk in any given plane. You also
likely fly enough to stay really cuurent and on top of things.

On the other hand, if you are more relaxed like the average pilot ( you do a
basic weather check, electronic flight plan if any, lean your engine "close
enough", start enjoying the view or thinking about business, fly IFR only
when necessary, etc.) then you would do best to buy with an eye more towards
safety. You are likely flying under 70 hours a year, and staying in top
shape with your skills is a constant exercise in relearning things you
already knew before.

Just from the posts you read on this group, you would hop in a clipped wing
experimental with some of these guys. On the other hand, I wouldn't buy one
for myself. Different planes for different folks.




"Gil Brice" > wrote in message
m...
> Why is this?
>
>
> >
> > Lastly, if you are the type whose head is not always 100% in the
cockpit -
> > buy the Diamond!
> >
> >
>
>