Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

"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 in message
...
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.


The same engine burns the same gallons per hour no matter what you put it
in. The Lycoming IO-360 burns about 10 gph whether it is in a DA-40 or a
172S. Since the DA-40 goes farther in that hour it should go farther than
the same amount of gas in a 172S. The reason the 172S has a longer range is
that it has bigger fuel tanks. The DA-40 does offer an option of bigger
tanks; it will then fly farther than the 172S. Useful load for the two
planes is about the same, so essentially you could carry a little more
payload in the DA-40 than in the 172S for the same trip.

"Ray Andraka" wrote in message
...
Is there a means to leave the transponder on? Ground radar is being
tested at
Providence now, and is likely going to be showing up at air carrier
airports
around the country soon requires the transponder on for any movement on
the
ground. Providence announces on ATIS that transponder use is mandatory on
all
taxiways and runways. If the trasnponder automatically goes to standby
when the
airspeed is below stall, this could be a big problem.


There should be; I'll check it out.

Hi,

The funny thing about this is that so many planes are coming out with this
panel. Once you become familiar with it, the instrumentation on all these
different types will be virtually identical. A person familiar with G-1000
on one type would probably require far less time to transition to another
type than it used to take.

It will even be more easy to handle this stuff while the number of airplanes
G1000 equipped raises. There's a correlation between the number of users of
a machine in the past and the (less) difficulty in learning to handle it.

British biologist Rupert Sheldrake wrote a couple of books about these
'morphgenetic fields' as he calls them. It's the same phenomenon why a
QWERTY keyboard is a lot easier to use for a total newbie than alle the
ergonomicaly designed stuff that was introduced the last years...

Kind regards,
Peter

C,

I suppose the NTSB site would be worth investigating.


IIRC, you'd find zero fatal accidents. Zero, zip, nada. Same for the
DA20. Pretty impressive.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Dan,

For a new, 4-place design, yes.


Absolutely no! Totally depends on the mission. It doesn't fit yours,
even with the long range tanks, because you need to move four people
all the time over long distances? Ok, the Star is not for you. But I
truly wonder how many people really need that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Ray,

Is there a means to leave the transponder on?


Yes. It's in the set-up of the transponder. The options a

- turn off when below 30 kts.
- turn off xx seconds after below 30 kts
- don't turn on/off autmagically

The manual for the Garmin GTX330 can be found on their website.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

Thomas Borchert wrote:

Airline pilots that transitioned from "steam gauge" to the tape altimeters and
V/S often had problems at first. But, those folks are type rated and restricted
to type.

That's the problem with this new "gee wiz" Light A/C G/A stuff. No
standardization and no type requirements.


While you have a point, IMHO one has to be very careful not to fall into the "it#s
bad because it's different" trap. Otherwise, we would never have (had) any
progress at all.

No, "it's" not bad at all. How "it's" used will be either good or bad, or somewhere
between. For the airline pilot, the fancy stuff is good because he or she is isolated
to that equipment with adequate training and exposure for proficiency to occur.

And, keep in mind the airline crews have two sets of eyes, two pairs of hands, and FMS
alphanumeric keyboards with which to enter data, as opposed to twisting knobs.



At other times, we complain about too much regulation in flying. In this case,
you're calling for it. I don't think you can have it both ways - and I DO think
most pilots are still able to learn, and many might even enjoy it.

I don't believe I called for regulation, although you apparently inferred that from my
comparison to type ratings.

The record for light aircraft IFR operations is not good. Making the equipment more
complex, albeit more capable, could make things worse without really good training
(i.e., not the blind leading the blind) and a commitment to currency and proficiency.