Diamond DA-40 with G-1000 pirep

Making the equipment more
complex,


Yes, but is it? A GPS moving map approach is more complex than an NDB
approach? Or a DME arc? or anything else very complex? You sure? I'm
not.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes, but you will find at least three -20 accidents in the database that
would never have happened without that rear-hinged canopy. Nice as it is,
the -20 is an airplane with an accident built into it, just waiting for an
inattentive pilot (which is all of us occasionally) to screw up. Don't get me
wrong, all three of them are likely caused by pilot error, but it is a trap
engineered into airframe that is familiar to any glider pilot.

As a CFI(gliders), no new student gets into my trainer without first
hearing "the canopy lecture".

They fixed the problem in the 4-seater.

Vaughn

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

I have consistently noted that statistics of actual history are more
importatant than subjective analysis. It appears that the C1 is much safer
than about anything else in the single engine arena by the statistics.

While the rear hinged canopy may not be ideal, perhaps the trade off was
even less ideal. At any rate, while your point is valid, I believe that in
total the design must be a good one.



"Vaughn" wrote in message
news

"Thomas Borchert" wrote in message
...
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.

Yes, but you will find at least three -20 accidents in the database
that
would never have happened without that rear-hinged canopy. Nice as it is,
the -20 is an airplane with an accident built into it, just waiting for an
inattentive pilot (which is all of us occasionally) to screw up. Don't
get me
wrong, all three of them are likely caused by pilot error, but it is a
trap
engineered into airframe that is familiar to any glider pilot.

As a CFI(gliders), no new student gets into my trainer without first
hearing "the canopy lecture".

They fixed the problem in the 4-seater.

Vaughn

"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

I don't understand many peoples' obsession with growth in the popularity of
GA. The skies are plenty crowded enough as it is around where I fly.

"Dude" wrote in message
news

"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

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.

It is pretty short range; about 600 nm with reserves. I think of the
airplane as having the payload of a 172 with the speed and roominess of a
182. They do offer extended range tanks that hold 53 gallons.

I happened to get a ride in a DA-40 yesterday as well, no G1000, and
nothing as thorough as CJ, but it did give me an idea about
performance, which I was curious about We had two 200lb adults and 36
gallons on board. At sea level, ~75F, the Star climbed out at
800-900fpm and cruised about 125 indicated at 2000' at 23/2400, so
about 130TAS there, making the qouted 140K at altitude believeable.
The fuel flow was just a little over 9gph at that setting.
Acceleration on takeoff was very good thanks to the CS prop.

Great numbers, although to be completely honest, primed by marketing
enthusiasm, I expected just a bit more. Alas, composites or not, given
a certain HP loading, I suppose there is no free lunch, only little
better deals. But, I think they have found a nice market niche, these
will make popular IFR trainers and FBO rental planes. For private
owners, its a great option, but not completely clear cut, other
factors come into play. (This is not a plane I'd want to land on a
narrow dirt runway with tall brush on either side, for example.) I
don't think its an automatic Cessna killer (not even a 172SP, and
certainly not a 182), but it will give the lower-end 180hp fleet run
for their money, especially the low-wing Archer and Tiger, neither of
which has a CS prop (a bigger detriment than dated spam-can
construction, IMHO).

Overall, a very nice cruiser, loading-wise short of a 182 (d'oh), but
well above a 172. The performance is very similar to my 177B, although
the Star will walk away from it at altitude by up to 10 knots. (I do
agree that 41 gallons is not enough for the O-360 mill, I suspect the
larger tanks will be a popular option).

Dan Luke wrote:

like a lot of things about the airplane, it's just too bad it can't
carry a little more a little farther.

Then the DA42 might be your new plane.

Stefan

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

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
Why not? I'm right handed, but have flown yoke equipped airplanes
left-handed since I started flying.

I presume that the problem Bob foresees is how to write things down while
flying the airplane. With a yoke or stick centered at the pilot, it's easy
enough to switch hands. But with a side-stick/yoke (the Cirrus design, for
example, is actually more of a yoke than a stick in the way it works), you'd
have to cross your right hand over to handle the control while your left
hand writes.

Same issue in the right seat for right-handed pilots.

That said, I try to make it a habit to not do any writing unless the
airplane is configured for straight-and-level flight. With the trim
properly set, the plane ought to do fine long enough to write something
down, even hands-off. For minor roll control, the rudder pedals should
suffice to keep the wings level. It's not clear to me that a side-stick is
a disqualifying feature for a left-handed pilot in the left seat.

Pete