Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

Poor?

It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra 20
knots.

I suppose you could slow it down to Archer speeds and get more range.

They do have a diesel version in Europe, it gets about the same cruise on
5.5 gph. Its easier for a new design to do better with a new engine design.




"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
"C J Campbell" wrote:
The tanks are 41 gallons, so allow for 240 lbs useable fuel,
which would give you a total load of about 890 lbs.

Those are some pretty poor numbers for a new, 4-place design. This
airplane would not meet my regular travel needs, i.e. IFR trips between
Mobile and Houston. On most trips, at least west bound, I'd need to
make a fuel stop.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dude" wrote:
Poor?

For a new, 4-place design, yes. Another 100# of useful load plus the
53-gal. tanks would make it a more interesting airplane.

It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra
20
knots.

Those are some ancient designs; I certainly wouldn't be interested in
buying a new model of either one as a cross country cruiser. The D-40
has some nice features, but it falls short in the range/payload
department. If all Diamond was trying to do was make a better Archer,
well, I guess maybe they succeeded -- but so what?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

So what interests you?

The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is too high
for a new pilot (less than 300 hours). Also, the cost to own the SR is much
higher than the DA40 due to insurance costs, and other issues. Sure, 100
pounds would be more interesting, and I bet they could go to 200 hp and get
it, but would that really make it more marketable?

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more weight
requirements due to the new FARS. Also, the DA40 is a pussycat in pitch.
The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more money.



"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
Poor?

For a new, 4-place design, yes. Another 100# of useful load plus the
53-gal. tanks would make it a more interesting airplane.

It has the same engine as a 172 SP or an Archer, but it gets an extra
20
knots.

Those are some ancient designs; I certainly wouldn't be interested in
buying a new model of either one as a cross country cruiser. The D-40
has some nice features, but it falls short in the range/payload
department. If all Diamond was trying to do was make a better Archer,
well, I guess maybe they succeeded -- but so what?

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.

Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Dan,

If it didn't
have a side stick,


Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
do.


--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

In article ,
wrote:

Dan,

If it didn't
have a side stick,


Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
do.

But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
the left seat.

--
Bob Noel

Bob Noel wrote:
In article ,
wrote:


Dan,


If it didn't
have a side stick,


Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
do.


But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
the left seat.


Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
left-handed since I started flying.

Matt

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
In article ,
wrote:

Dan,

If it didn't
have a side stick,


Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority of those who
do.

But it is a definite problem for some. I flew the Lancair ES.
I'm left handed. I wouldn't be able to fly a side stick from
the left seat.

I am left handed and flew the Cirrus from the left seat with no problems at
all. It seemed very natural.

"Thomas Borchert" wrote:

If it didn't
have a side stick,


Have you flown it? A total non-issue to the vast majority
of those who do.

Yes (in a Lancair). Hated it.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...

"Dude" wrote:
So what interests you?

Something that will take my daughter, my grandson, me and some luggage
to Houston, against a 15kt headwind, nonstop, with comfortable IFR
reserves.

There are always mission trade offs, perhaps its just not the plane for you.
That doesn't make it any less a good design, just not designed for your
purpose.


The SR20 is interesting, but I am still thinking the wingload is
too high for a new pilot (less than 300 hours).

Let him rent Skyhawks awhile.


This is what has been killing GA for years. There have been surveys to find
why more wealthy people do not take up aviation as a hobby. They found a
number of problems that will not change FAA hassles, pimple faced
instructors with no people skills, etc.

The other thing was the flight schools are mostly dumps with a bunch of old
ratty planes. Even a new Skyhawk is essentially an old plane.

How do we expect to grow general aviation if we REFUSE to change what we are
doing to attract new pilots? Isn't this the definition of insanity? Cessna
is unconsciously doing to aviation what Microsoft and IBM did to
technology - killing fast growth and innovation in favor of predictable
business.



Sure, 100 pounds would be more interesting, and I bet
they could go to 200 hp and get it, but would that really
make it more marketable?

It would to me.

You have to remember that these planes now come with a lot more
weight requirements due to the new FARS.

Like what, for instance?


Better crash protection for one. This necessarily adds weight. Everyone
wants more avionics now too. I wonder if the 40 could make your trip if it
only had a single 430 and long range tanks.

The only thing better in my book is the Lancair, and it's a lot more
money.

It's really in a different class, along with the SR-22. If it didn't
have a side stick, I'd rather have an SR-20 than a D-40 for the better
range & load.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM