DA40-180 vs Cirrus?

[gbeaudry]

Dear All:

I am a low time VFR only pilot who has not flown in 4 years and feel the urge to get back up there, but this time, pushing for my IFR rating and getting it in my own plane. I took a demo flight in the SR22gts (with initial intent to get the SR20). Then, realized the DA40 might be a better bet. What are your thoughts?

 

[Iceman]

IMO if you are going to buy a cirrus go with the sr22. I feel the cirrus is more of a high performance aircraft and you might as well spend a little more and get the 22 vs the 20. Both the 22 and 20 will have similar expensive insurance and a similar cost of ownership.

But if it was me (low time vfr pilot) I would go with the DA40 because it is cheaper to own and (i have heard) easier to fly.

 

[RotaryWingBob]

Dear All:

I am a low time VFR only pilot who has not flown in 4 years and feel the urge to get back up there, but this time, pushing for my IFR rating and getting it in my own plane. I took a demo flight in the SR22gts (with initial intent to get the SR20). Then, realized the DA40 might be a better bet. What are your thoughts?

Both are great airplanes. I personally would take the Diamopnd because I like the center stick. YMMV...

 

[Dave Siciliano]

One thing to consider after all else is wing length. Several Cirrus and Diamond owners here at Addison are really peed because the wings are too long to fit in hangers built for birds with a shorter span. This may be the cart behind the horse, but do consider it if you don't want your new bird parked outside.

Dave

 

[Ken Ibold]

Given a choice between simply the SR20 and the Diamond, I would pick the Diamond. I think it flies better. The control harmony is better and the overall feel is nicer. I'm not enamoured of the SR20 side sticks, because being left handed that means autopilot on in order to write anything down. Not a problem, per se, but something of a hassle. Even without that issue, I don't particularly like the feel of the side stick, although it does have merit in creating a clean-looking cockpit. The SR22 is an apples to oranges comparison with the Diamond because it's simply a far more capable airplane. But the costs -- both financial and in terms of training and proficiency -- go up accordingly.

You might also look at insurance costs. One bugaboo with the Cirrus is that the landing attitude has a very narrow range. That is, the sweet spot between a tail strike or a porpoise is rather smaller than other airplanes. There have been a large number of prop strikes, which don't show up as accidents but do show up as insurance claims.

Edit: One other thing to add. You don't mention whether you're buying new or not. The older Cirrus models do have a shortcoming in the door latching system. Make sure the door and the fuselage aren't banged up if you're looking at used ones.

 

[gbeaudry]

Thanks Dave for this very pragmatic, yet unbelievably important reminder...


guy

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Thanks Dave for this very pragmatic, yet unbelievably important reminder...


guy

You're very welcome. Seems here at Addison, the hanger doors are 40 feet or less on 95% of the hangers. Next step is 60 feet and you're paying twin hanger prices.

Ken's remarks are excellent.

Another thought is icing on the more efficient wings. If you can visualize youself flying though icing conditions--even for short periods of time to climb or descend--the newer planes with the more efficient wings are much more subject to a disruption of critical air flow. The older Bonanza will carry a lot of ice before stalling. (I'm not condoning this, just pointing out the practicalities.) The newer planes are much more sensitive. Therefore, more need for de-ice systems if you're going to be doing much long distance, cross country stuff where this is more of an issue.

Best,

Dave

 

[Areeda]

A couple of comments but first I have been instructing in the Cirrus for about 6 months and have about 200 hrs, I've sat in the DA-40 but never flew one.

I agree with Chris if you're going to buy a Cirrus the 22 is the one you'll want after a couple of months. If money is a big issue the DA-40 is a better choice.

I did some comparisons a while ago. The following data is from various sources and is my best available data but no guarantees.

I tried to format this in line (I won't tell you how much time I spent). The frustrating thing is it looks fine when I enter it but all formatting gets changed (cleaned up that word) when I preview. So it's a pdf attachment

Like all airplane purchases the first thing you need to decide is what is the primary mission of the a/c and how much can you afford (or are you willing to spend). Given those two parameters you should be able to choose between the two.

Joe

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Joe:

Nice job. That's excellent info.

BTW, I know for a fact that GAMI is working on a turbo system for the SR22. Also, the fuel burn figures shown can be improved by running the engine LOP. I would think that in cruse the IO-500 would burn 15 to 16 gph.

Dave

 

[Areeda]

Dave,

I can't wait for the turbo charged version, I expect the performance will be similar to a Columbia 400.

Here's some actual cruise data from a recent trip in an SR22 (N517CD)

Leg: KSAF -> KLBL (Santa Fe, NM -> Liberal KS)
Alt: 9500 OAT: 21 C
Power 2550/21" 61%
TAS: 165
Fuel burn: 12.3 gph Econ: 14.2 nm/g
CHT 310
Lean: Best Economy

For best power on the same leg:
Power 2550/21.1 69%
17.1 gph 11.1 nm/g
TAS: 176, CHT 360

Leg: KLBL->KCID (Liberal to Cedar Rapids)
Alt: 9500 OAT unknown but about the same
Best economy: 2500/20.9" 62%
12.5 gph 14.8 nm/h
TAS: 167, GS: 187

Alt 7500
Best economy: 2550/23 67%
12.5 gph 14.7 nm/g
TAS: 162 GS: 185

Leg: KCID->KVLL (Cedar Rapids, Oakland/Troy near Detroit)
Alt: 7500
Best Power: 2530/22.8 75%
18.6 gph, 9.8 nm/g
CHT: 312-360, oil 190 F
TAS: 174, GS: 183

Leg: KVLL->KDUJ (Oakland -> DuBois PA)
Alt 9500
Best Econ: 2650/21.1 65%
Oil: 175F CHT 268-300, EGT 1315-1405
13.0 gph 13.8 nm/g

Leg: KDUJ->KHTO (DuBois -> East Hampton NY)
Alt: 7000 OAT 17C
Best Econ: 2520/22.1 64%
13.0 gph 12.7 nm/g TAS: 162 GS: 166
CHT: 280-212 EGT: 1310-1420

According to the book you shouldn't go lean of peak above 65% power although there are those who disagree. I personally find 65% power very comfortable use the lean assist to go best economy which is about 40-50 deg LOP and the temperatures go down to a very comfortable range and the engine runs as smooth as can be. The values for Best Power are lean assist to 50-75 deg rich of peak.

The values above are my notes on the flight plan. I haven't downloaded the info from the MFD yet.

Joe

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Dear All:

I am a low time VFR only pilot who has not flown in 4 years and feel the urge to get back up there, but this time, pushing for my IFR rating and getting it in my own plane. I took a demo flight in the SR22gts (with initial intent to get the SR20). Then, realized the DA40 might be a better bet. What are your thoughts?

Guy,

I had the opportunity to fly the SR22 and DA40 on the same day, and later took another demo flight in the DA40. I'd suggest you do the same.

I must agree with everyone else on the "SR22 if Cirrus" thing. Realize that this does turn it into an apples and oranges type of comparison, but when you do the apples-to-apples comparison between the SR20 and DA40 I think the DA40 wins hands down. The SR20 gives you the disadvantages of all the Cirri such as expensive insurance and higher price (IIRC), but it really doesn't do anything much better than the DA40.

As for the overall Cirrus vs. Diamond comparison:
* Cirrus has Avidyne. Diamond hypes the Garmin, but has the option of either Avidyne or Garmin glass panels or steam gauges with either Garmin or King avionics. I don't know of any other GA manufacturer gives you that sort of choice. (See the Avidyne vs. Garmin thread elsewhere in this conference too.)
* Cirrus "side yoke" vs. Diamond center stick. I actually liked the Cirrus side yoke a bit better. It felt natural in a very short period of time. Not a huge difference, though. The one kind of annoying thing with the Cirrus setup is the electric-only trim.

Now, knocking the SR20 out, you are comparing a 180hp bird to a 310hp bird. Do you want the economy or the speed? Most of the rest of the comparison comes down to that simple question. While I must admit I really enjoyed the kick in the pants I got from the SR22 on takeoff, I am a big fan of efficient airplanes. Newer DA40's will do 145kts on 10-11 gph. The SR22 will burn twice that just for another 40 knots.

If you want to spend money and go really fast, get the SR22. If you want a more economical yet still quite fast plane, get the DA40. But fly before you buy, and enjoy whichever you get. Also be sure to bring it to Gaston's to show it off.

 

[gbeaudry]

I have now read virtually every review written on both planes in the last 5 years, as well as consulted this and AOPA's Forums and am leaning more and more towards the DA40, since by all accounts it appears to be:

1. more forgiving of less experienced pilots in flight
2. more economical to operate
3. equipped with equally, if not better avionics than the SR20
4. cheaper to buy and maintain

Anything else?

 

[Ken Ibold]

I have now read virtually every review written on both planes in the last 5 years, as well as consulted this and AOPA's Forums and am leaning more and more towards the DA40, since by all accounts it appears to be:

1. more forgiving of less experienced pilots in flight
2. more economical to operate
3. equipped with equally, if not better avionics than the SR20
4. cheaper to buy and maintain

Anything else?

Not borne out by statistics (yet), but I would not be surprised if the Diamond turned out to be safer than the Cirrus over the next 30 years of fleet operation. The instances of post-crash fires in Cirri have been very high, even by light airplane standards. Diamond has put a lot of effort into crashworthiness (Cirrus parachute notwithstanding) and "insulates" the fuel tanks between two spars. None (or only one or two) DA40s have crashed so far, so we'll have to see if that strategy decreases the risk of fire, but after talking extensively with Diamond president Peter Maurer about it, I'm convinced it will.

And since I mentioned that parachute, there have been a few saves, but I think for the most part the chute provides more of an advance in peace of mind than it does in acutal safety.

 

[bbchien]

If you want to spend money and go really fast, get the SR22. If you want a more economical yet still quite fast plane, get the DA40. But fly before you buy, and enjoy whichever you get. Also be sure to bring it to Gaston's to show it off.

Kent's analysis is spot on.

 

[John J]

Guy;

Ken says it very well. The C 22 is very much a different plane than the DA 40. I got to fly a C 20 and it is very close to the DA 40. I have not flown a C 22 which must be quite a machine with it's power. As you had mentioned in you post your are a low time VFR pilot. If I were in that situation I would go with the DA 40 for it is a plane that will give you time to build up your confidense and it will perform well as a transition plane for you IR. The C22 is a real fast plane with lots of management issues and it might be a lot to take in. The DA 40 will give you the tools and time to get to those fast and lots of management planes.

Let us know what you get

John

 

[Anthony]

I think a good comparison would be the DA40-180 versus the Grumman Tiger. Same horsepower, similar performance, but the Tiger is not composite, which to me is a good thing. Also, the Tiger will fit in your hangar.

However, I have never flown a DA40, but would really like to.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Re: DA40 safety, BRS chute

Not borne out by statistics (yet), but I would not be surprised if the Diamond turned out to be safer than the Cirrus over the next 30 years of fleet operation. The instances of post-crash fires in Cirri have been very high, even by light airplane standards. Diamond has put a lot of effort into crashworthiness (Cirrus parachute notwithstanding) and "insulates" the fuel tanks between two spars. None (or only one or two) DA40s have crashed so far, so we'll have to see if that strategy decreases the risk of fire, but after talking extensively with Diamond president Peter Maurer about it, I'm convinced it will.

Ken,

Worldwide there have been a few more crashes haven't there? It's been quite a while since I looked at this and can't remember if I was looking at just DA40 accidents or all Diamond airplane accidents. Whatever it was, I do remember that while there were accidents, there were no fatal accidents and no post-crash fires. So, I think you're right on.

And since I mentioned that parachute, there have been a few saves, but I think for the most part the chute provides more of an advance in peace of mind than it does in acutal safety.

IMHO, the chute has caused as many crashes as it's saved. I really believe that the chute gets a lot of people into situations they wouldn't go into otherwise. "Well, we might get in trouble but if I lose control I can just pop the chute..." It seems the Cirrus accidents involve more idiotic moves than others. For example, taking off into a 400-foot overcast on the first flight after electrical repairs; VFR into IMC in mountainous terrain (CFIT), etc.

Then, when the poop hits the prop, the pilot tries to regain control and can't bring themself to pull the chute. I'd guess it's a very similar reaction as those who are wearing chutes but don't bail out when they should.

 

[gbeaudry]

The more I read your opinions gentlemen, the more I am leaning towards the DA40. I am learning tremendously from your replies and inputs, and value each comment you are making. Thank you. Please keep on adding.

guy

 

[Dave Siciliano]

Dave,

I can't wait for the turbo charged version, I expect the performance will be similar to a Columbia 400.

Here's some actual cruise data from a recent trip in an SR22 (N517CD)

Leg: KSAF -> KLBL (Santa Fe, NM -> Liberal KS)
Alt: 9500 OAT: 21 C
Power 2550/21" 61%
TAS: 165
Fuel burn: 12.3 gph Econ: 14.2 nm/g
CHT 310
Lean: Best Economy
============================================

Great numbers Joe. Of course I meant IO-550 in my previous post.
The LOP thing still seems to bother some folks, but I've been running that way for over four years in my TN A-36. No worse cylinder replacement history that others with the TN and much better range. Of course, I have an engine monitor and GAMIs on both my planes.

As for percent power, I let CHT management dictate that. None of the LOP nay sayers have been able to show me how running LOP if no CHT exceeds 380 hurts anything. As a matter of fact, my planes run much smoother LOP and the plugs stay cleaner.

In my P-Baron, there are clear LOP settings in the POH.

Came back from San Diego last weekend at FL230. 2,200 RPM, 30" of MP and 13.5 gph (per engine). No CHT over 380. Gave me over a six hour range at 196 TAS. ROP would have been about 3 gallons per hour more (per engine) to the same indicated air speed. This gave me an extra hour of range ( 3 gallons per engine per hour for five hours that I ran LOP.)

My partner runs ROP more. When I fly after him and go to the lean side, the engines run pretty rough for about 20 minutes (until all the crud gets burned off the spark plugs). Once the plugs get clean, it runs smooth as baby's bottom. That should tell you something about what's going on running rich if you have other options.

Best,

Dave

 

[himz.falcon]

Dear Guy, i have flown the diamonds for the past 2yrs including the Diamond-20-C1, Diamond Star-40-180, Twinstar TAE-125, i can assure to you that The DA40-180 is one of the best airplane Diamond Aircraft Indurtries have come up with, it hardly has any technical issues compared to the Da-20, Da-42s, along with G1000, a good Benedix/King KAP 140 dual axis auto pilot it is just a peace of mind here are some technical detail about that airplane-
Constant speed, variable pitch prop(mt prop)
4 stroke, 4 cylinder engine by Lycoming of 180 hP( this engine is so good they are installing them on the twinstars (da-42) as new counter-rotaing props to replace the stupid thielert eninges.
Total fuel capacity- 41.2 Gal, 40 gal use able in two tanks 20.6 in each wing.Max imbalance allowed is 8USG.
Span : appr. 11.94 m appr. 39 ft 2 in
Length : appr. 8.01 m appr. 26 ft 3 in
Height : appr. 1.97 m appr. 6 ft 6 in
Vne-179,
Vno-129 but it can do about 150 in normal conditions
a) Engine manufacturer : Textron Lycoming
b) Engine designation : IO-360 M1-A
c) RPM limitations
Max. take-off RPM : 2700 RPM
Max. continuous RPM : 2400 RPM
The maximum demonstrated operating altitude is 16,400 ft (5,000 meters).
Maximum number of occupants:
Normal Category : 4 (four persons)
Utility Category : 2 (two persons), both of whom must sit in front
Intentional spinning, dynamic stalling not allowed
G1000 also has Txp based traffic avoidance system
If it was me i would buy a Diamond anyday due to cheap cost and harldy any maintainence issues, and their landing gear is tough enough to handel student pilots and commercial pilots.
cheers!
happy Ldgs

 

[AdamZ]

Falcon:

First I see you just logged into POA for the first time yesterday. So let me welcome you to the front porch of aviation. Hope you like it here. Second the thread you replied to is actually four (4) years old. You have as we say resurected the dead! As a new poster you will probably see a lot of very old threads because they are old to us but new to you. Check the date on the orginal post first. Of course if you mark all threads read you will start getting only new posts and threads within a couple of hours.

Enjoy POA

 

[Dr. O]

Let me comment that the Cirrus seems to have taken the place of the "Fork tailed doctor killer"... It just seems to this old bird to require more flying time/experience of the pilot than the many of the buyers have...

denny-o

 

[TMetzinger]

The SR-22 is absolutely a high-performance airplane, but in the hands of a competent pilot with good judgment is quite safe. But I do believe that the accidents in the SR-22s are caused by people operating close to the edge of the Cirrus envelope (tackling weather, usually) and well outside of their pilot skills envelope. Looking at a comparable airplane, like the turbocharged Mooney Bravo (both fast, turbocharged, sensitive to ice) the Mooney appears to have a lower rate of accidents. My instinct is that's due to the fact that nobody gets insured in a Bravo without significant experience, and that the instruction they get does not have a "see how easy this is" feel underlying it.

The Diamond is not as fast, not as capable, and not as likely to be used in the types of operations as the SR-22. It is very fuel-efficient, comfy, fast (for the fuel burn) and fun to fly. It's also MUUUUUCH cheaper to purchase and operate.

For me the ideal "new" piston single keeps coming down to a DA40XLS or a 182, depending on the useful load I want.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

For me the ideal "new" piston single keeps coming down to a DA40XLS or a 182, depending on the useful load I want.

Ditto... I always keep coming back to those two, as well. The DA40XLS's only bad thing, in my opinion (being in HOT TEXAS) is the canopy... though I'd love the visibility that provides, it'd be hotter than heck. And when it rains like it does here, not much better. ;-)

 

[Clark1961]

So if a thread displays movement after a necropost, is it now a zombiethread?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Falcon:

First I see you just logged into POA for the first time yesterday. So let me welcome you to the front porch of aviation. Hope you like it here. Second the thread you replied to is actually four (4) years old. You have as we say resurected the dead! As a new poster you will probably see a lot of very old threads because they are old to us but new to you. Check the date on the orginal post first. Of course if you mark all threads read you will start getting only new posts and threads within a couple of hours.

Of course, there's nothing wrong with resurrecting an old thread if you've got something valuable to contribute either.

 

[sba55]

According to the book you shouldn't go lean of peak above 65% power although there are those who disagree.

This is probably not the best thread for engine management discussions, but I'm frankly tired of these book recommendations. They are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simple facts that have been demonstrated literally thousands of times. LOP, _at any power setting_, is just fine. It's certainly better than:

The values for Best Power are lean assist to 50-75 deg rich of peak.

this setting, which is close to being the worst. Yet it's in the book. The book is not about what's good for the engine.

Sorry for the rambling, sometimes I just don't know...oh, and of course the car industry has run their cars LOP for ages. This is like shock cooling. Sometimes I think pilots like to argue about things that have no basis in reality whatsoever. It's to our own disadvantage. But back on topic:

Comparing the SR20 to the DA40, I would also chose the DA40. I've got about 50 hours in that one, and only 10 in the Cirrus, but I can say that the DA40 behaves much nicer. That said, the DA40 is NOT comfortable in turbulence. I don't know off-hand what the wing loading is, but being in any sort of turbulence is not fun for the passengers. Besides being thrown around a lot, you will also see significant airspeed variations. In turbulence, even light turbulence, you will be 5-10 knots slower. That aside, the 40 is a great airplane.

 

[gprellwitz]

This is probably not the best thread for engine management discussions, but I'm frankly tired of these book recommendations. They are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simple facts that have been demonstrated literally thousands of times. LOP, _at any power setting_, is just fine. It's certainly better than:


this setting, which is close to being the worst. Yet it's in the book. The book is not about what's good for the engine.

Sorry for the rambling, sometimes I just don't know...oh, and of course the car industry has run their cars LOP for ages. This is like shock cooling. Sometimes I think pilots like to argue about things that have no basis in reality whatsoever. It's to our own disadvantage.

Heck, if we can resurret a zombie, we can certainly repurpose it to meet our own needs! Interestingly, AOPA has an online article about LOP operations that just came out: http://www.aopa.org/members/files/p...907.html?WT.mc_id=090703epilot&WT.mc_sect=gan

 

[Areeda]

This is probably not the best thread for engine management discussions, but I'm frankly tired of these book recommendations. They are wrong. It's not a matter of opinion, it's simple facts that have been demonstrated literally thousands of times. LOP, _at any power setting_, is just fine. It's certainly better than:


this setting, which is close to being the worst. Yet it's in the book. The book is not about what's good for the engine.

Felix
First of all you're quoting posts from summer 2005.

It is still my preference to operate a new aircraft by the book.

I have learned a bit about LOP ops since then and do use them at higher power settings with EGT values depending on power settings and APS's Red Fin.

Joe