New Diamond DA50

Cervieres said:
Watching the TTx go was hard. Difficult to envision Textron pistons a decade from now without some new designs and better marketing.
Click to expand...
They make Citations, they just don't care much about the pistons. I paid as much for my house as a new 172.
 
Tantalum said:
Yes, the G3 and beyond (I believe) are 90+ gallons. The G5 SR22T and G3 SR22TN I was flying had the bigger tanks


Thanks Foreflight! The early stuff when I imported via the template into Foreflight is missing.. but the last 500 hours or so have distances


Yes. The typical "longer" flight for me is KMYF-KTVL (San Diego - Lake Tahoe).. nonstop. It takes about 2hrs to 2hrs 30 minutes, depending on winds. Sure as hell beats driving the 9+ hrs and also beats flying an airliner up there. KMYF-KMMH (San Diego - Mammoth) is also up there, but that's a 1.5-2 hr flight and relatively "close".. again, way better than the drive. KMYF-KTEX (San Diego to Telluride) is the furthest one. Incidentally, on that list I just gave you, only the Telluride flight is over 500nm

The SR22 is a capable plane, especially when combined with turbo and FIKI.. but past 700nm the benefit of GA travel vs the airlines starts to fade.. weather planning, comfort, and at some point door to door time. I honestly think 200-700nm is the GA sweet spot, with the majority of that in the 300-400 nm legs.. where driving sucks, and flying commercial is a big time headache
Click to expand...

The lines of GA are blurry (m600/TBM etc..) , and I agree for an under 200knot plane... 400-800 miles becomes a range that makes sense... and sub 500 mile (And under 12500’) trips are typical for most...but there is another factor that stretches that distance number and that is public commercial vs private transportation...and since 911, public airline transport has gotten to be a less enjoyable experience...

So if I can pull it off, even if the numbers don’t line up, I’d prefer to avoid the commercial human traffic
 
Davidl13 said:
So if I can pull it off, even if the numbers don’t line up, I’d prefer to avoid the commercial human traffic
Click to expand...
True, and by ga I mean the typical person in a bonanza, Cirrus, etc

With a TBM you can pretty much fly anywhere in the country..

I agree, flying commercial is a downright miserable experience

Most of my family is in Boston and Florida.. flying a piston single those distances from San Diego is a whole "to do"

But 300 knots or greater at 30,000 ft at TBM turns it into a viable option. and unless you can snag a direct ticket I'm willing to bet the door-to-door times are similar or even favor the TBM
 
Tantalum said:
...the need to tanker fuel back and forth. However I bet for the demographic this plane is geared towards that's a virtually non existent problem.
Click to expand...
While that's true for the most part, there's a few places without Jet-A where I could imagine the well-heeled would still like to visit (KFFA, Catalina, Death Valley, parts of Alaska, your vacation retreat in the hills, etc).
 
Flymeariver said:
just got my response back from Diamond. Estimated U.S. pricing is 850K base.
Click to expand...
Can someone enlighten me as to who the target demographic is? Who spends $850k when a quarter of that will get you a very nice second hand airplane, with similar performance and updated avionics? RV-10 anyone? Just curious.
 
asicer said:
Catalina
Click to expand...
Well there's no fuel there in general.. but it's like 20 miles from shore, so you don't need to tanker that much. I'd run MYF-AVX at tabs, which was plenty

asicer said:
Death Valley
Click to expand...
Yeah, they have no fuel either in general. That takes some planning.. when I did that run I had W&B too to worry about
 
SC777 said:
Can someone enlighten me as to who the target demographic is? Who spends $850k when a quarter of that will get you a very nice second hand airplane, with similar performance and updated avionics?.
Click to expand...

Same demographic who buys a brand new SR22 loaded up with all the features.
 
SC777 said:
Can someone enlighten me as to who the target demographic is?
Click to expand...
Same people buying Cirrus.. or anyone who doesn't want to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly a 40 year old hodgepodge mess that at any given time has a dozen eccentricities and squawks

We wonder why GA is dying.. there's money out there but people don't want to drop six figures onto a multi decades old plane. It's honestly pitiful
 
wheaties said:
Same demographic who buys a brand new SR22 loaded up with all the features.
Click to expand...
I guess I’m just not familiar with how the other half live. More power to them.
 
PaulS said:
It's actually kind of fun, lol. The last guy I told who had an issue with Cirrus told me he flew one for fifteen minutes and his hand hurt for a week. I told him you have to trim an airplane when you fly it.
Click to expand...

He obviously wasn’t using the hand he uses to...........ah, never mind. :)
 
Tantalum said:
Same people buying Cirrus.. or anyone who doesn't want to spend ludicrous amounts of money to fly a 40 year old hodgepodge mess that at any given time has a dozen eccentricities and squawks

We wonder why GA is dying.. there's money out there but people don't want to drop six figures onto a multi decades old plane. It's honestly pitiful
Click to expand...

what is pitiful???
 
Hey! I resemble that remark. My plane isn’t eccentric - it has character!
 
Davidl13 said:
what is pitiful???
Click to expand...
How expensive things are for what you get, compared to the rest of 2020.. performance wise there are some great buys out there, especially for Mooney, namely J

But try and show a dude and his wife who are used to their 2020 GMC Yukon, iPhone X's, Tesla, what $85K of their hard earned money gets them, compared to the standard they're used to.. they'll take a hard pass
 
Tantalum said:
How expensive things are for what you get, compared to the rest of 2020.. performance wise there are some great buys out there, especially for Mooney, namely J

But try and show a dude and his wife who are used to their 2020 GMC Yukon, iPhone X's, Tesla, what $85K of their hard earned money gets them, compared to the standard they're used to.. they'll take a hard pass
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.. yea aviation is really expensive.. Far overpriced...this is the fault of the FAA.. they should drop the barriers to entry for all GA, let the buyers choose...

It’s ridiculous the cost of production due to over regulation
 
Davidl13 said:
Ah, I see.. yea aviation is really expensive.. Far overpriced...this is the fault of the FAA.. they should drop the barriers to entry for all GA, let the buyers choose...

It’s ridiculous the cost of production due to over regulation
Click to expand...
Fingers crossed for the EA world.. I feel like I keep hearing about and seeing more RVs out there
 
Tantalum said:
But try and show a dude and his wife who are used to their 2020 GMC Yukon, iPhone X's, Tesla, what $85K of their hard earned money gets them, compared to the standard they're used to.. they'll take a hard pass
Click to expand...

Thank goodness for that. There are a many $85K used aircraft that suck me in, but steeply depreciating throw away consumer articles being used as examples of aspirational quality leaves me unimpressed, and in particular I find that stepping into the commercial environment that sells them leaves me wanting to take a shower. Airplanes attract me as a way to escape that junk, even if I do have to tolerate a certain amount of it in daily life.

I’m happy that the aviation hardware I’ve purchased allows me to escape that stuff and exposes me to the group it does, with the the values and knowledge it has. Worth every penny.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
True, and by ga I mean the typical person in a bonanza, Cirrus, etc

With a TBM you can pretty much fly anywhere in the country..

I agree, flying commercial is a downright miserable experience

Most of my family is in Boston and Florida.. flying a piston single those distances from San Diego is a whole "to do"

But 300 knots or greater at 30,000 ft at TBM turns it into a viable option. and unless you can snag a direct ticket I'm willing to bet the door-to-door times are similar or even favor the TBM
Click to expand...

With the required fuel stop, LA to NYC in the TBM would be about 7.5 hours takeoff (CA) to touchdown (NY) including the entire fuel stop. It looks like the nonstop airline flights are about 5.5 hours, with the shortest 1-stop airline flight just shy of 7 hours. At least 1 hour is lost on the airline trip for check-in, boarding, etc and at least 15-30 minutes getting out at the other end. Add in the ability to get closer to your actual departure/destination and the fact that you won't have to wait for bags or rental cars, and yes, the TBM looks mighty good.
 
My philosophy is that light GA replaces airliners on anything that doesn't require a fuel stop at best power or best engine longevity. I also am gifted with good personal endurance, probably because I've been drinking at least a gallon of water a day for 20 years. Still, I find the DA50's range lacking. It needs another 10 gallons, or so
 
Thrilled to see advancement and new tech out there in the piston GA world!!
 
Man is it HEAVY. Love the look and someone using the CD-300 in a certified...but left wanting more. 44' wingspan sucks. But then again, a dude with 850k probably isn't in a standard t hangar. The weight is also less than ideal, but that probably comes from being composite. Love the stuff, but it makes an aircraft heavy compared to aluminum. Like an RV-10 vs a Cirrus. Max takeoff weight is 4400 but only 1232 useful. The shear mass probably cuts into some of that useful. Like we've seen, the retractable doesn't always give you a ton of extra speed. I'd rather save the insurance money and take the useful load for the extra few knots. Calling it a 5 place is like calling a Six a 7 place. It's a VERY roomy 4 place.
 
Looks like almost sitting on the floor with knees way up.
 
Racerx said:
Man is it HEAVY. Love the look and someone using the CD-300 in a certified...but left wanting more. 44' wingspan sucks. But then again, a dude with 850k probably isn't in a standard t hangar. The weight is also less than ideal, but that probably comes from being composite. Love the stuff, but it makes an aircraft heavy compared to aluminum. Like an RV-10 vs a Cirrus. Max takeoff weight is 4400 but only 1232 useful. The shear mass probably cuts into some of that useful. Like we've seen, the retractable doesn't always give you a ton of extra speed. I'd rather save the insurance money and take the useful load for the extra few knots. Calling it a 5 place is like calling a Six a 7 place. It's a VERY roomy 4 place.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if it's heavy? If you're flying a PA-24 or a DA50 and they both have around 1,200 lbs of useful load, does it matter that it's 2,000 lbs empty or 3,000 lbs empty? Obviously that's where the need for longer wings comes in on the DA50, but as long as I'm not exceeding some legal weight (like 12,500) does it matter what the max weight is? Honest question.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why does it matter if it's heavy? If you're flying a PA-24 or a DA50 and they both have around 1,200 lbs of useful load, does it matter that it's 2,000 lbs empty or 3,000 lbs empty? Obviously that's where the need for longer wings comes in on the DA50, but as long as I'm not exceeding some legal weight (like 12,500) does it matter what the max weight is? Honest question.
Click to expand...
Well, it's going to take more $$$ to push more weight, and it would effect short field and climb performance, but as you say, if those specs meet with your needs, being heavy can be a good thing in a lot of ways.
 
Nice aircraft. Would have preferred more speed though. :/
 
I'm good with the speed, but that 44' wingspan though! I'd have to move to an airpark and build a custom hangar.
 
Heavy is good, means a better ride in turbulence, but that might be offset with that big wing
 
Groundpounder said:
Heavy is good, means a better ride in turbulence, but that might be offset with that big wing
Click to expand...
Heavy might be good, but if they sell a bunch of them, I'm going to buy stock in a company that builds tugs.
 
How much to rent that plane? :) Oh wait, nevermind. That won't happen. :(
 
SoonerAviator said:
Why does it matter if it's heavy? If you're flying a PA-24 or a DA50 and they both have around 1,200 lbs of useful load, does it matter that it's 2,000 lbs empty or 3,000 lbs empty? Obviously that's where the need for longer wings comes in on the DA50, but as long as I'm not exceeding some legal weight (like 12,500) does it matter what the max weight is? Honest question.
Click to expand...

The weight probably contributed to the wingspan. I thought early numbers were 38'6". More weight less performance as far as cruise and short field. Now, some of that weight is due to the CD-300 engine which I think is a great step forward from the 1950s designs most everyone flies. So the weight on the nose gets a pass. But part of the reason the cruise isn't better is also because of the weight. Sure the useful load is the same, but the engine, prop, and aerodynamics can handle the weight of the same design was aluminum and hundreds of pounds lighter one would expect a relative useful increase. Is it a deal breaker? Absolutely not...I don't have that kind of coin anyway. It's just a nitpicky observation born out of jealousy for those lucky enough to afford/fly one. Plus Im a welder by trade so I got that bias too.

I do enjoy seeing someone being able to do something moderately out of the box. I wonder if losing the retract option would lighten it up enough to shorten the wings just a bit. Weve seen numerous examples through the years that a well designed fixed gear doesn't cost you that much cruise.
 
I get the feeling that 1999kg MTOW is tied to some European regulation.

I really like this thing though it does have some drawbacks. Too bad it won’t sell well in the US. There are just way too many reasons(or excuses) for SR22 buyers to stay with Cirrus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top