Instruction in Cessna 172 or Diamond DA40

[motospeed9058]

Let me preface this thread by stating that I'm not looking for the high wing vs. low wing argument, or the versatility of each plane? I've gotten that research out of the way.......as painful as it was...

Here is my idea, I'd just like the thoughts of the community to tell me if I'm nuts or if something I have come up with is not realistic.

So, every thing I have read up to this point, and everybody I have talked to up to this point has led me to a couple of conclusions.
1. Every student pilot should have a basic understanding of the 6pack instrument cluster.
2. The 6pack instrument cluster is going away by virtue of the all glass cockpit (granted this may be a time in the distant future)
3. Make your initial training as cheap as possible, then transition to something more expensive when ready.
4. Ultimately learn in the aircraft you want to fly.

Now, I'm not afraid to admit that my wife and I aren't exactly the smallest people in the world. Me 6'3" 280lbs, and wifey 5'7" and if I had to guess, somewhere between 150-175. So as I said, I'm not looking for high vs. low wing, I'm looking for reality and utility. What can I get for the best bang for my buck. Not to mention, I have two kids, combined, would prolly get me another 100lbs. Obviously, the Cessna 172 won't give me the weight limits I need for this in the long run.

So what I'm thinking is that I will do my initial training in the Cessna 172, so I have that fundamental knowledge of the 6 pack cluster, and because it's by far the cheapest option at the local field. Once comfortable with that, maybe after a few solos, then grab the CFI and switch over to the Diamond and ultimately get checked out in the diamond. It's got the higher max weight capabilities, I will have learned the 6 pack, as well as the glass cockpits, and it seems to provide a bit more passenger comfort as well, and it will provide a little more "family use" over the long run until I can get the Multi-Engine completed as well.

Am I nuts or unrealistic in this thought?

 

[bluee]

Pick the cheapest option to start. You wont be taking passengers anytime soon. After you pass a checkride, then go get checked out in the Diamond. Again, don't waste money you don't have to.

 

[AggieMike88]

Pick the cheapest option to start. You wont be taking passengers anytime soon. After you pass a checkride, then go get checked out in the Diamond. Again, don't waste money you don't have to.

Agree with this. It's totally a good idea to "start small" and then expand as necessary.

I learned in a Diamond DA20 (loved it), now rent a Warrior III (enjoying it), and am watching the C182 (and similar) market to learn about those for when I finally have the cash ready to purchase.

To accomodate your size, walk out to the flight line with your instructor and sit the diffierent aircraft you might train in with the door or canopy closed and your instructor in there with you. This will give you an idea how how comfortable you'll be during your lessons. While you're only in the seat for about 1.5 hours-ish, being comfortable helps keep stress levels lower.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Here are my two cents worth and it is not even worth what you paid for it.

Your points number 3 and 4 may be somewhat at odds with each other, depending on what you ultimately want to fly. I take it you want to fly the Diamond and it is more expensive than the 172.

I am about your same height and was almost at your weight before I started weight loss. I will tell you right up front that I am a Cessna fan. But I have a fair amount of Cherokee time also. What I have found is that the older I get, the harder it is for me to get into a low wing airplane. It just seems like a gymnastics exercise every time I get into one.

I have no idea what the useful load is in a Diamond. But it sort of sounds like you are a candidate for a Cessna 182. The kids will GROW. Faster than you can probably imagine. On the Piper side, an Archer is a pretty good compromise in the load carrying category.

Otherwise, ^^^ What they said.

 

[motospeed9058]

But it sort of sounds like you are a candidate for a Cessna 182.

Yeah, I've looked at that as well. Unfortunately, my school doesn't have any of those in the fleet. They are all 172's, Pipers, and 1 Diamond.

 

[poadeleted20]

To accomodate your size, walk out to the flight line with your instructor and sit the diffierent aircraft you might train in with the door or canopy closed and your instructor in there with you. This will give you an idea how how comfortable you'll be during your lessons. While you're only in the seat for about 1.5 hours-ish, being comfortable helps keep stress levels lower.

For someone your size, the above is the most important advice on this page. The secondmost important is to pick one to start, and stay with it all the way to PPL unless you really aren't comfortable in it.

As for the 6-pack/glass issue, don't worry about it. Research at MTSU suggests the transition is equally easy either way for folks who start in one and then change to the other after PPL.

 

[TB20Pilot]

I started training in a DA40 with the G1000 cockpit. I found it really easy to fly, land and navigate. Then I finished my PPL and IR in a couple of old 172s (no GPS, one VOR/GS, no autopilot). I think the bare-bones 172 training was much more helpful. Going from a 172 to a DA40 is a snap but they do fly differently.

 

[Gary F]

Now, I'm not afraid to admit that my wife and I aren't exactly the smallest people in the world. Me 6'3" 280lbs, and wifey 5'7" and if I had to guess, somewhere between 150-175. So as I said, I'm not looking for high vs. low wing, I'm looking for reality and utility. What can I get for the best bang for my buck. Not to mention, I have two kids, combined, would prolly get me another 100lbs. Obviously, the Cessna 172 won't give me the weight limits I need for this in the long run.

Don't assume that the weight limits of the DA40 will work as your kids grow. Empty weights vary considerably, from about 1694 to 1839 lbs, the newer (G1000) DA40s are heavier. The older DA40s have a lower gross weight of 2535 lbs, the newer DA40s are 2646 lbs. Many DA40s have the long range (50 gal) tanks with smaller CG range. So be careful with W&B issues. You are a little tall for an older DA40, the newer ones have a different canopy for additional headroom. If you can fit the DA40 is a great plane but I suspect you might be better off with a 182 if you want to fly with the family.

 

[xaminmo]

I'm 6'5" and 290LBS. Inseam is 35".

I did initial training in three different DA40-180, and 6 different C172 planes ranging from K to SP.

Width wise, it was all good. DA40 has center stick, so it'll get in the way of any lap boards, but otherwise is fine.

The glass panel version of the DA40 has less knee room by an inch or two due to the bottom edge of the panel. It was not comfortable for me as it dug into my knees.

The sheepskin version of the DA40 seats gave me just enough less headroom that I was head cramped. I'd have been OK with an Aloft headset.

The round-dial DA40-180 planes with plain seats were great. I really enjoyed the plane. It was more responsive than the C172s.

Overall, local pricing at major schools was not substantially different between DA40 and C172, so I stuck with DA40. It's a fun plane.

C172 is like a pickup truck with tons of room all over inside. It's slower too.

W&B issues were generally about the same, and varied a little between airframes more than between make/model. I found that 20-40 pounds of books in the baggage compartment made things balance for me and my heaviest CFI.

$10-$15/hr wasn't a big deal for me, but if you can get it much cheaper, then go the cheap way.

The most important thing I found was to find the specific plane and the specific CFI I wanted to work with, and stick with them. Changing planes early on meant I spent time figuring out where things were, what radios, what type of flaps, etc. Changing CFIs meant getting different perspectives, which is good, but none of them really knew where I was in training. Overall, many changes meant additional hours spent syncing up.

So, pick the cheap plane, the CFI you like the best, and fly at least twice per week.

 

[motospeed9058]

I'm 6'5" and 290LBS. Inseam is 35".

I did initial training in three different DA40-180, and 6 different C172 planes ranging from K to SP.

Width wise, it was all good. DA40 has center stick, so it'll get in the way of any lap boards, but otherwise is fine.

The glass panel version of the DA40 has less knee room by an inch or two due to the bottom edge of the panel. It was not comfortable for me as it dug into my knees.

The sheepskin version of the DA40 seats gave me just enough less headroom that I was head cramped. I'd have been OK with an Aloft headset.

The round-dial DA40-180 planes with plain seats were great. I really enjoyed the plane. It was more responsive than the C172s.

Overall, local pricing at major schools was not substantially different between DA40 and C172, so I stuck with DA40. It's a fun plane.

C172 is like a pickup truck with tons of room all over inside. It's slower too.

W&B issues were generally about the same, and varied a little between airframes more than between make/model. I found that 20-40 pounds of books in the baggage compartment made things balance for me and my heaviest CFI.

$10-$15/hr wasn't a big deal for me, but if you can get it much cheaper, then go the cheap way.

The most important thing I found was to find the specific plane and the specific CFI I wanted to work with, and stick with them. Changing planes early on meant I spent time figuring out where things were, what radios, what type of flaps, etc. Changing CFIs meant getting different perspectives, which is good, but none of them really knew where I was in training. Overall, many changes meant additional hours spent syncing up.

GREAT INFO!!! Thanks very much!

 

[bimmerd00d]

i'm 5'9 290 and the instructor was about my height, but obviously thinner. We fit in the DA20, but it became a height issue at that point. The Remos Light Sport fit us like a glove. Not sure if the DA40 is much larger in the front seats. My knees were up in my chest in the Diamond.

 

[jwriteclub]

I would train in the 172. I love the DA-40, but it is a somewhat more challenging plane to fly. Once you've gotten your PPL, I expect it should be an easy transition for you.

The other advantage of the DA-40, as a cross country machine is it has a great ramp presence -- the FBO you're visiting will park it right out there with the jets (unlike an old luscombe, which they "moved" off the ramp, and then completely "lost" one time).

 

[AggieMike88]

My knees were up in my chest in the Diamond.

The pedals in the DA20 are adjustable (pull the t-handle and they slide back and forth).

At the Academy, it's normal for the previous pilot to pull them to the aft most stop as they clean up the aircraft.

Likely this is what you encountered.

 

[xaminmo]

i'm 5'9 290 and the instructor was about my height, but obviously thinner. We fit in the DA20, but it became a height issue at that point. The Remos Light Sport fit us like a glove. Not sure if the DA40 is much larger in the front seats. My knees were up in my chest in the Diamond.

The DA20 is to the DA40 like the C150 is to the C172.

In other words, the DA40 is MUCH larger than the DA20.

Remos is sort of in the middle, but it's still a 2-seater. DA40 is a 4-seater. Still not quite as roomy as a C172, but still good room. Also, with a center stick, there's no Yoke-In-The-Knee problem.

I would train in the 172. I love the DA-40, but it is a somewhat more challenging plane to fly. Once you've gotten your PPL, I expect it should be an easy transition for you.

The other advantage of the DA-40, as a cross country machine is it has a great ramp presence -- the FBO you're visiting will park it right out there with the jets (unlike an old luscombe, which they "moved" off the ramp, and then completely "lost" one time).

The DA40 is a little more challenging, but not too bad. It glides a little better than C172, and has more ground effect. Also, it flies like a plane with a bigger engine due to the sleek, low profile design. Also, many of them are constant-speed prop, which seems to throw people who haven't flown them, but I'm the other way. Fixed pitch prop is weird to me because I have to keep fiddling with it.

 

[Gary F]

I would train in the 172. I love the DA-40, but it is a somewhat more challenging plane to fly. Once you've gotten your PPL, I expect it should be an easy transition for you.

How so? I have about 400 hours in each and think the DA40 is just as easy and a lot more fun to fly.

The other advantage of the DA-40, as a cross country machine is it has a great ramp presence -- the FBO you're visiting will park it right out there with the jets (unlike an old luscombe, which they "moved" off the ramp, and then completely "lost" one time).

Won't argue with that.

 

[bimmerd00d]

The pedals in the DA20 are adjustable (pull the t-handle and they slide back and forth).

At the Academy, it's normal for the previous pilot to pull them to the aft most stop as they clean up the aircraft.

Likely this is what you encountered.

Hm, maybe it was more the space between us, it was his choice to tAke the light sport. He asked if I saw it while walking over to the da20, I think he really wanted to take the remos instead. He was raving about it while we were flying.


Sent from somewhere closer to sea level than I'd like to be.

 

[Irish_Armada]

I'm 6'5" 210 lbs and currently training in a C-172. I think that if I ever was able to own a plane after getting my PPL, I'd want a DA40 but until today had never flown in one. About a month ago I was able to sit in a 2001 DA40 that was for sale near me but with my height/torso, I really did not have enough headroom to be comfortable in that plane, and that was without my headset on. Pretty depressing. Then I found out about the increased canopy size of the newer DA40 XLS's and had hope again. Well, had the chance to fly in a 2012 XLS this morning and happy to report that it was an amazing experience. Granted, I've only flown in '79 Cessna's up til now, but to me the DA40 XLS seemed to be a fantastic airplane. It has an absurd view out of it's bubble canopy, just awesome. Loved the centerstick, electric trim, and throttle. Also loved that I could be in a relaxed position and still have my left hand resting on the centerstick and my right handle on the throttle. That thing booked it off the runway too, we were airborne in no time. Most importantly for me though, I had more than enough headroom to be comfortable with my headset on. I moved my head around quite a bit to try to find a point where I'd make contact with the canopy glass but it never happened (well, not without really exaggerated movement that is). Super stoked about that so now I can dream of buying an XLS someday because I fit great in those (or CS, I think they also have the larger bubble canopy). Sorry to hijack this thread a bit, but people were talking about space and space was my main concern in the Diamond -- just wanted to report to everyone that this 6'5"er happily had plenty of room for comfort in the XLS.

 

[Dr. O]

Man, talk about pushing the cart ahead of the horse... The man can't fly yet here we and he are debating the differences between airplanes that he might, maybe, someday, if the wind is just right, and the Peso doesn't devalue, think about looking at...

Jeez... Go learn to fly and get your ticket!

It doesn't matter what you learn to fly in... All airplanes fly the same - pull the yoke back and the speed drops... Push the yoke forward and the speed climbs.. Works the same in a 747 as it does in a J3 Cub...

The panel is meaningless because VFR flight is a heads up and out the window flying mode... Forget about what type of panel this or that airplane has... Just go learn to fly...

cheers ...
denny-o old, and I mean old, and grumpy pilot..

 

[xaminmo]

I'm 6'5" 210 lbs and currently training in a C-172. I think that if I ever was able to own a plane after getting my PPL, I'd want a DA40 but until today had never flown in one. About a month ago I was able to sit in a 2001 DA40 that was for sale near me but with my height/torso, I really did not have enough headroom to be comfortable in that plane, and that was without my headset on. Pretty depressing. Then I found out about the increased canopy size of the newer DA40 XLS's and had hope again. Well, had the chance to fly in a 2012 XLS this morning and happy to report that it was an amazing experience. Granted, I've only flown in '79 Cessna's up til now, but to me the DA40 XLS seemed to be a fantastic airplane. It has an absurd view out of it's bubble canopy, just awesome. Loved the centerstick, electric trim, and throttle. Also loved that I could be in a relaxed position and still have my left hand resting on the centerstick and my right handle on the throttle. That thing booked it off the runway too, we were airborne in no time. Most importantly for me though, I had more than enough headroom to be comfortable with my headset on. I moved my head around quite a bit to try to find a point where I'd make contact with the canopy glass but it never happened (well, not without really exaggerated movement that is). Super stoked about that so now I can dream of buying an XLS someday because I fit great in those (or CS, I think they also have the larger bubble canopy). Sorry to hijack this thread a bit, but people were talking about space and space was my main concern in the Diamond -- just wanted to report to everyone that this 6'5"er happily had plenty of room for comfort in the XLS.

On the new XLS, did you have any issues with your knees and the bottom edge of the panel? I'm assuming it was G1000?

I'm 6'5", 35" inseam, and the G1000 DA40-180 was fine if it didn't have the sheep-wool seat covers, and didn't have the G1000.

I still look forward to flying the DA-50 whenever it shows up over here.

The DA planes glide nicely and have good stall characteristics. I did most of my primary training in the DA40-180 with round gauges, GNS530W/430W, one with traffic alerts, the other with autopilot. I love 'em. They fly more like a high performance plane, even though they're only 180HP. But compare to a Warrior 180 or a C172 180HP and it's a huge difference.

 

[Irish_Armada]

On the new XLS, did you have any issues with your knees and the bottom edge of the panel? I'm assuming it was G1000?

I didn't. And yes it was fully equipped with the G1000. I might have read somewhere that knee space might be an issue too, but it wasn't for me. The rudder pedals were positioned all the way back and while the high point of my knees is clearly much higher than the lowest part of the panel, because my knees were closer to me than the panel, they never came close to hitting each other. In other words the angle of my leg from my knees down to my feet was plenty to avoid any leg/panel contact (if that makes sense). If all that sounds awkward, it really wasn't; it felt very natural. I was actually quite surprised how comfortable I was in it.

 

[dmspilot]

provide a bit more passenger comfort

I don't agree...DA40 doesn't handle turbulence as well as a 172 (which doesn't say much), harder to get in and out, and the center stick might annoy the front seat passenger. It's faster though.

I know some people say to train in plane you'll fly after you get your certificate, but I think that is really only applicable if you plan on buying one. If you're going to be renting, you will enjoy the versatility of being checked out in several different makes and models, especially if one goes down for maintenance unexpectedly. Therefore, train in the cheaper, simpler airplane. Weighing the disadvantages and advantages of each as you will experience them after you are already a pilot in order to determine which you should get primary training on is not that meaningful.

eta...ok, I just replied to a thread that was two months old until a few posts ago... please don't do that...

 

[gcd89]

172. More economical.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm 6'5"

About a month ago I was able to sit in a 2001 DA40 that was for sale near me but with my height/torso, I really did not have enough headroom to be comfortable in that plane, and that was without my headset on. Pretty depressing. Then I found out about the increased canopy size of the newer DA40 XLS's and had hope again. Well, had the chance to fly in a 2012 XLS this morning and happy to report that it was an amazing experience.

Most importantly for me though, I had more than enough headroom to be comfortable with my headset on. I moved my head around quite a bit to try to find a point where I'd make contact with the canopy glass but it never happened (well, not without really exaggerated movement that is). Super stoked about that so now I can dream of buying an XLS someday because I fit great in those (or CS, I think they also have the larger bubble canopy).

Interior room has improved quite a bit on the DA40 since 2001 (the first model year). The 2003 birds moved the panel to provide more knee room, and the 2007's and later (XL, XLS, and CS) have the larger canopy. I fly a 2006, but it has the larger canopy due to it being replaced after it was cracked in a hail storm.

That said, while it's big enough for me (6'4") I think it'd be pretty tight for taller folks like you - Maybe your extra height is in your legs. I definitely suggest that anyone who's interested in any kind of plane go sit in it. Even better would be to take a nice long (3++ hour) cross country flight in it. See if you're still comfortable!

I would train in the 172. I love the DA-40, but it is a somewhat more challenging plane to fly.

Really? I would suggest training in the 172, but for the exact opposite reason: The DA40 is too easy to fly! The only things I can think of that might be considered more difficult in the DA40 would be that you actually do need to use the rudder a bit, it seems like there's a bit more adverse yaw (probably due to the longer wings... Or maybe just due to the overly sensitive "ball" on the G1000!) and there's a third knob to play with on the throttle quadrant. I suppose the other thing would be that it's a bit more busy after takeoff, since you've got flaps to retract, a fuel pump to turn off, and a prop to pull back...

However, the DA40's flight characteristics are just beautiful - It's REALLY easy to land, and maneuvers are very easy to fly. The C172 isn't as easy or fun to fly, but it's got *just* enough bad habits to make good pilots, IMO.

 

[TMetzinger]

I've seen people transition into the DA-40 from the C-172 with less than three hours of dual, though most insurers want five hours. Main differences are the CS prop, the different sight picture, and learning how to plan early to slow the airplane down.

Most common mistakes I've made or seen is not respecting the 108 KIAS flap limits for takeoff flaps, if you're not careful you CAN accelerate past this speed after takeoff with them still down, and (just as in mooneys) not slowing down enough for approach and landing, resulting in looooooooooooong floats.

The stick takes 10 min or less to get used to.

I really like the DA-40 and would be happy to teach a primary student in one.