Diamond DA40: My perspective as a passenger

iWantWings

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
437
Location
Southern California
Display Name

Display name:
wingsIwant
Recently a friend has asked if I wanted to go fly with him in a Diamond DA 40 - an offer I wasn't gonna give up.

From the right seat I got to fly some of the climb, cruise and descent phases of the flight - was thrilled to do that as I've often read about the DA40 with interest and had never seen one in "real life" before.

The first thing I noticed during the walk-around was how "smooth" and "free of parasite drag" the surface of the plane was. I mean, I'm used to the rivets that decorate a C172, but this DA40 was smooth like an egg; and it had wings. The height of the T-Tail was quite impressive: I'm used to lightly moving the elevator of hte C172 during the preflight, but this thing thing towers way up there.

Once inside, the seats were firm, but comfortable - I like that much. Quite snug, actually. That, combined with a more feet-forward seating position, made it feel like a race car (only thing missing was a 5-point harness ;) ) (an off-beat comparison: this makes me appreciate even more the interior space of the little cessna skycather - it, i think, had just as much, if not more, lateral space compared to the DA40).

Oh, and you climb in by stepping over the front of the leading edge, unlike some other low wings).

The between-legs stick made me grin like a fool - i tought i was going to be a fighter pilot ;).

The visibility was outstanding: totally unobstructed, 180* view with good forward over the panel view.

After engine sart I was impressed how relatively quiet it was at idle, at 1000 RPM, compared to the C172s I had flown mostly during training (I think the engine is an IO-360 with 180 HP, variable pitch prop).

The differenatial braking and free castoring nose wheel I was used to from the cessna skycatcher, it was pretty "normal", not difficult; for me it does require a bit of "foresight" and planning during taxi to avoid certain turns that would require added power and puping the brakes to get some tight turns).

Takeoff and climbs were very smooth -and it climbed nicely at a little over 1100 FPM with full fuel and about 290 lbs pilot and myself combined. At some point towards the 9,500 cruise altitude (the DA was a little higher), we climbed at 500 fpm and about 98 KIAS. (I wish i had remembered to look at the prop setting - don't know what my friend had set it to during climb).

Some of the many wonders of the G1000 was the traffic alert: gladly the other planes were in sight before teh aural and visual alert. Very nice to have though (but there was nearby traffic not reported - maybe their mode C transpoder was not picked up?).

There was very little pressure required to control the plane with the stick: two fingers is all it took (there was no electric trim, yeiy, but a mechanical wheel trim within easy reach on the center column between the seats).

I didn't do any of the two landings, probably a good thing, as my friend had the controls from pattern to touchdown. But I had a strange feeling that the plane was more "mushy" and "wobbly" at 72-74 KIAS than the C172 would feel. I could totally be wrong, but it felt to me that way; i also wasnt on the controls at that speed during the portion of the landing so maybe it was just my impression since i was sitting "idle".

So these were some of my first impresions. I really wish my school had a DA40 like this. Not sure exactly what DA40 model this was, but it had the (I?)O-360 engine, fuel injected with variable pitch prop, G1000 (about 200 hrs on the tach). The non-block rate was $158/hr; that would prolly not make it a frequent flyer for me, but occasionally it would be nice to have.:D
 
I loved DA40. Makes me not want to get in a Cessna anymore. But my FBO's DA40 had a prop strike, so no Diamond for me for some time.

I have about 8 hours in a DA40 and I love it. Visibility was the first thing you notice when you are inside.

But the aircraft needs to get used to. G1000 is a big change from steam gauges, and some people may take a bit more time to get used to it. My FBO requires at least 3 hours of G1000 time before you can rent it. Takeoff felt like I was in an elevator. Pitch up with better view felt a lot different from Cessna, and to me it felt almost like the aircraft did not pitch up. During landing, you flare less than on a Cessna, since the tail is kind of low. But there's a metal part there that protects tail from a tail strike.

Overall, in my experience, DA40 is a GREAT aircraft, but it does require some ahead of time thinking. It's a fast bird so you must slow down early. It's price, speed, and added complexity (constant speed prop) won't make it a very good trainer.
 
I have a few hours in a DA40 and I love the airplane too. I wouldn't call it "fast" but certainly it's significantly faster than equivalent class fixed gear planes. The only real gripes I have are the castering nosewheel, and not a great range if you don't have the extended range tanks.

The CS prop obviously is one more thing to deal with over a fixed pitch but it's still a tad less management than most as there is a wide range of MP/RPM combinations, and you don't typically need to pull the throttle first before prop on climbout.
 
I flew one of the early 135kt G1000's and it was a sweet flying bird. 70kts on final approach you definately felt the glider roots; easy on the controls and you can put it where you want it. The speed has been improved with the introduction of the XLS.

The DA40 has always been IO-360 180hp CS (nevermind that Diamond 'experimented' with a FP version).
 
I flew the DA-20-C1 like crazy when our flight school had them. Loved that airplane's handling and speed. I can only imagine that the DA-40 is just like that, and glad to hear you really liked it.
 
I flew the DA-20-C1 like crazy when our flight school had them. Loved that airplane's handling and speed. I can only imagine that the DA-40 is just like that, and glad to hear you really liked it.

I used to fly both of them a while back. DA40 is really good but as far as handling is concerned I prefer the DA20.
I'd say that of all non-aerobatic GA planes I've ever flown DA20 has the best handling.
 
I loved DA40. Makes me not want to get in a Cessna anymore. But my FBO's DA40 had a prop strike, so no Diamond for me for some time.

I have about 8 hours in a DA40 and I love it. Visibility was the first thing you notice when you are inside.

But the aircraft needs to get used to. G1000 is a big change from steam gauges, and some people may take a bit more time to get used to it. My FBO requires at least 3 hours of G1000 time before you can rent it. Takeoff felt like I was in an elevator. Pitch up with better view felt a lot different from Cessna, and to me it felt almost like the aircraft did not pitch up. During landing, you flare less than on a Cessna, since the tail is kind of low. But there's a metal part there that protects tail from a tail strike.

Overall, in my experience, DA40 is a GREAT aircraft, but it does require some ahead of time thinking. It's a fast bird so you must slow down early. It's price, speed, and added complexity (constant speed prop) won't make it a very good trainer.

Those are probably some of the reasons why the DA20 might be more popular as a trainer than the DA40. I've read great many good things about the DA20 as a trainer.

This particular FBO (KEMT, El Monte, California) also had versions of the DA40 that were fixed pitch, "steam guages" and were used for flight training.

Out of curiosity, does the variable pitch prop take some time to undersntad and learn, compared to say, G1000? (by the way, the FBO i rent from has the Cessna Skycatcher with its G300, a stepdown from the G1000, but like the G1000 has a PFD and MFD arrangement; checkout is 3 hours, primarily 'cuz of the G300).
 
I have a few hours in a DA40 and I love the airplane too. I wouldn't call it "fast" but certainly it's significantly faster than equivalent class fixed gear planes. The only real gripes I have are the castering nosewheel, and not a great range if you don't have the extended range tanks.

The CS prop obviously is one more thing to deal with over a fixed pitch but it's still a tad less management than most as there is a wide range of MP/RPM combinations, and you don't typically need to pull the throttle first before prop on climbout.

I think what might make the DA40 popular is if soon there would be a diesel /JetA engine "option" in the states (i read something about the Austro Engine/ Mercedes Benz collaboration but that was some years ago and haven't read anything about that being available in USofA).

Of course, assuming better luck than the Thielert endeavor (based on some articles i read, have no other knowledge or experience on the matter)

So what, you callin' the DA40 slow??:D
 
I flew one of the early 135kt G1000's and it was a sweet flying bird. 70kts on final approach you definately felt the glider roots; easy on the controls and you can put it where you want it. The speed has been improved with the introduction of the XLS.

The DA40 has always been IO-360 180hp CS (nevermind that Diamond 'experimented' with a FP version).

Yup, you're experience is just what I've been generally reading about the DA40.

By the way, anyone have any idea on the following quote taken from Wikipedia? Not sure what to believe, or under what circumstance this holds true, but nonetheless i thought this was very interesting:

The level of safe operation is attributed to its high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and benign flight characteristics. The aircraft can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600-1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of decent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.[10]

Also interesting was this quoate from the same Wikipedia article:

In a 2011 analysis by Aviation Consumer magazine, the DA40 was shown to have a fatal accident rate of 0.35/100,000 hours, the lowest in US general aviation and considerably better that the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 with a combined fatal accident rate of 1.6/100,000 hours, despite its full aircraft parachute system.[11]

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA40
 
Last edited:
I flew the DA-20-C1 like crazy when our flight school had them. Loved that airplane's handling and speed. I can only imagine that the DA-40 is just like that, and glad to hear you really liked it.


I watched quite a few DA20 videos (youtube) and the pilots were pretty excited. I often read/hear references to it being a "powered glider" or the like. Am curious, after you trained in the DA20, what did you fly thereafter and how did it compare/feel?
 
I used to fly both of them a while back. DA40 is really good but as far as handling is concerned I prefer the DA20.
I'd say that of all non-aerobatic GA planes I've ever flown DA20 has the best handling.


Oh how cool, there's a DA42 in your signature. Am curious, would you ever consider the diesel DA 52?
 
I think what might make the DA40 popular is if soon there would be a diesel /JetA engine "option" in the states (i read something about the Austro Engine/ Mercedes Benz collaboration but that was some years ago and haven't read anything about that being available in USofA).

There already is a diesel version in US, it's the DA40 NG. It has the same Austro AE300 as the TwinStar.
DA40 is becoming more popular these days due to it's low fatal accident rate. But I don't think they are going to sell many DA40 NGs in US (perhaps in Europe). First there is no real need to a diesel engine because there is no shortage of 100LL, it is more economical though. Since AE300 is still a rare engine maintenance is difficult, not too many mechanics know how to service it. The TBO is rather low on it as well, only 1200 hours (I hear Diamond is planning to increase it to 2000), extremely low compared to the Lycoming engine. When it's time to actually do the overhowl you can't just pay some mechanic to do it like you would with any other engine, Diamond does not allow it (yet). You have to buy a brand new engine, the good thing is that they will buy your old engine but it still ends up a lot more expensive.
Maybe in 4-5 years they'll be diesel DA40s flying around but don't expect to see too many of them right now.


Oh how cool, there's a DA42 in your signature. Am curious, would you ever consider the diesel DA 52?

I don't know enough the the DA52 to give you an answer. The thing is that it's pressurized and my experience with pressurized aircraft is extremely limited. It's a very complicated system which I assume would require expensive maintenance, and the original price of it would probably need A LOT higher than the TwinStar.
I do like the Austro AE500s that Diamond is planning to install on it.

It is possible that Diamond will not put the DA52 into mass production (like the DA50), hopefully they will though. It's just way too early to say anything concrete about it.
 
By the way, anyone have any idea on the following quote taken from Wikipedia? Not sure what to believe, or under what circumstance this holds true, but nonetheless i thought this was very interesting:

Dunno about the speed or trim, but that sounds like the right neighborhood for descent rate on a falling leaf stall in the DA40, and yes that's less than the descent rate of an SR22 under the BRS (1500-1800fpm IIRC).
 
Yup, you're experience is just what I've been generally reading about the DA40.

By the way, anyone have any idea on the following quote taken from Wikipedia? Not sure what to believe, or under what circumstance this holds true, but nonetheless i thought this was very interesting:

The level of safe operation is attributed to its high aspect ratio wing, low wing loading and benign flight characteristics. The aircraft can be trimmed full nose up, engine set to idle and it will descend at 600-1200 feet per minute at 48 kn (89 km/h) hands-off, a lower rate of decent than the competitive Cirrus SR22 can achieve with its airframe ballistic parachute deployed.[10]

Sounds about right, don't remember the exact numbers.
The thing is that in Cirrus' case you can safely descend under a chute after loosing a wing in a mid-air, if you loose the whole wing on a Diamond your kinda screwed.

Also interesting was this quoate from the same Wikipedia article:

In a 2011 analysis by Aviation Consumer magazine, the DA40 was shown to have a fatal accident rate of 0.35/100,000 hours, the lowest in US general aviation and considerably better that the Cirrus SR20 and SR22 with a combined fatal accident rate of 1.6/100,000 hours, despite its full aircraft parachute system.[11]

Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_DA40

Here I took a few charts from Diamond's site:
http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/safety.php

chart_safety01a_large.gif


chart_safety01_large.gif


chart_safety03_large.gif
 
There already is a diesel version in US, it's the DA40 NG. It has the same Austro AE300 as the TwinStar.

Are you sure it's "in the US"? It's not listed on Diamond's North American web site, and there's exactly zero of them on the FAA registry.

For the singles, for the most part the diesels live in Europe and everything in the US burns Avgas.
 
Are you sure it's "in the US"? It's not listed on Diamond's North American web site, and there's exactly zero of them on the FAA registry.

For the singles, for the most part the diesels live in Europe and everything in the US burns Avgas.

You know what, now that you say this I might not be sure.
Trying to figure out where I know this from :mad2:

Think your probably right.
 
Diamond likes to compare their safety record to that of Cirrus. And I'm sure it's true.

Consider two main causes of GA accidents:

  • Stall-spin accidents are less likely in a plane that has a big wing with a lower stall speed, and that favors Diamond.
  • VFR flight into IMC is less likely if the plane cruises more slowly because the pilot is less likely to travel a distance that traverses multiple weather systems.
Another big reason is that Cirrus pilots don't use the BRS chute often enough. Lots of Cirrus fatalities could have been avoided by just pulling the chute.
 
Interesting that diamond skewed the numbers by including only the 172S&R; try the whole fleet
 
Interesting that diamond skewed the numbers by including only the 172S&R; try the whole fleet

Why? A C172R/S is a lot different from the first production run 172's. They are comparing new airplanes, that flight schools can use on flashy advertising.
 
a 172 is 172 is a 172

Hardly. So a 737-100 is the same as a 737-900ER? Give me a break. The differences between a new 172 and a pre-shutdown 172 are huge. The pre-shutdown one fly much nicer.
 
You've proven my point that they should've been included in the stats
 
You've proven my point that they should've been included in the stats

Can you or can you not read the stats the are being compared. Aircraft produced in the LAST 10 year. How many pre R/S models have been built in the last 10 years? Heck, how many R models have been built in the last 10 years?
 
Diamond likes to compare their safety record to that of Cirrus. And I'm sure it's true.

Consider two main causes of GA accidents:

  • Stall-spin accidents are less likely in a plane that has a big wing with a lower stall speed, and that favors Diamond.
  • VFR flight into IMC is less likely if the plane cruises more slowly because the pilot is less likely to travel a distance that traverses multiple weather systems.
Another big reason is that Cirrus pilots don't use the BRS chute often enough. Lots of Cirrus fatalities could have been avoided by just pulling the chute.

Or not taking off with the thought that "if the poop hits the prop, I'll just pull the chute." There are quite a few really big gambles in the go/no-go that Cirrus pilots have taken and lost, and then not been able to bring themselves to pull the chute, or at least not in time, as in the case of the guy who was iced up and falling out of the sky so fast that the chute separated from the airframe when he finally pulled it.

The DA40 has a good safety record, IMO, because it's an easy-to-fly airplane with some excellent safety features, especially the fuel tank design. Cirri burn, Diamonds don't.
 
I own a DA40 and have done the falling leaf decent a few times. First off it's not a fair comparison to a chute because with the chute, your forward velocity is the wind. In the DA40, it's about 50 knots. Also, the decent rate fluctuates a lot as the plane gets near stall and then drops a bit picking up speed before repeating the cycle. So with poor timing, you would be sinking much faster than a cirrus under the canopy.

With the trim set to takeoff in a DA40 and the power all the way off, the plane will settle into a very stable decent at best glide.
 
Can you or can you not read the stats the are being compared. Aircraft produced in the LAST 10 year. How many pre R/S models have been built in the last 10 years? Heck, how many R models have been built in the last 10 years?

Of course I see that; my point is that they chose the stats that favor them the best can't fault them for that. It's tough to go head-to-head with the Skyhawk safety record over the long-term.
 
VFR flight into IMC is less likely if the plane cruises more slowly because the pilot is less likely to travel a distance that traverses multiple weather systems.

I really don't think 5kts is going to make a significant differences.
 
Last edited:
Of course I see that; my point is that they chose the stats that favor them the best can't fault them for that. It's tough to go head-to-head with the Skyhawk safety record over the long-term.

except that the accident rate for all 172s over the same time period is not as good as the da40, I believe,

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
 
DA40 has the best safety record according to the numbers.

DA40 has the lowest fatal rate at .35, followed by the Cessna 172 at .45, the Diamond DA42 at .54 and the Cessna 182 at .69. Cessna's Corvalis line, which began life as the Columbia, has a fatal rate of 1.0, a bit less than the GA average of 1.2. The Columbia/Corvalis models are essentially similar in construction and performance to the Cirrus SR22, but without the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS).

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Cirrus_Safety_Record_Average_205914-1.html
 
Interesting that diamond skewed the numbers by including only the 172S&R; try the whole fleet

Diamond does not really need to compare their aircraft with the whole history of the 172s. They have a competition with the aircraft that Cessna is currently making. They are not going to bother competition with some guy who is selling his 1955 172.
 
Diamond does not really need to compare their aircraft with the whole history of the 172s. They have a competition with the aircraft that Cessna is currently making. They are not going to bother competition with some guy who is selling his 1955 172.

They have a better safety record than any 172 look at the article I posted above.
 
They have a better safety record than any 172 look at the article I posted above.

Yeah I know. The point is that if your looking for buy an airplane for 20K you wont even consider buying a brand new DA40, but you if your looking to buy an airplane for 400K then you wont even look at a 70 year old 172. Diamonds are safer than 172s from the 50s but there is no point for Diamond to be screaming this because no one would be seriously comparing these aircraft.
 
Yeah I know. The point is that if your looking for buy an airplane for 20K you wont even consider buying a brand new DA40, but you if your looking to buy an airplane for 400K then you wont even look at a 70 year old 172. Diamonds are safer than 172s from the 50s but there is no point for Diamond to be screaming this because no one would be seriously comparing these aircraft.

I don't agree. I could look at buying a 2005 172 or a 2005 DA40 for the same price or possibly an older 182 and get each plane for around the same price. With that said the 172 is closest to the DA40 but I bet a lot of buyers do compare the two when buying. If you are buying a brand new 172 vs a brand new DA40 this would also hold true. A new DA40 is safer than a new 172 according to the numbers. I only point this out because you specifically compared the safety to that of 50s 172s.

The magazine studied accident records dating back as far as 30 years on 11 popular GA light aircraft. Among its findings are that the Cirrus overall accident rate is 3.25/100,000, placing it closer to the top of the list of airplanes Aviation Consumer considered and about half of the GA average overall accident rate of 6.3/100,000. Only Diamond's DA40 and DA42 had better overall accident rates -- dramatically so in the case of the DA40, whose overall rate is 1.19, a little more than a sixth of the GA average.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree. I could look at buying a 2005 172 or a 2005 DA40 for the same price or possibly an older 182 and get each plane for around the same price. With that said the 172 is closest to the DA40 but I bet a lot of buyers do compare the two when buying. If you are buying a brand new 172 vs a brand new DA40 this would also hold true. A new DA40 is safer than a new 172 according to the numbers. I only point this out because you specifically compared the safety to that of 50s 172s.

I don't think your following me. Jaybird pointed out that Diamond only compared the DA40 with 172S&R, not any of the older once. So my point is that there is no need for Diamond to compare a new DA40 with an old 172.
 
Never understood the logic of, "Diamond's have the same sink rate as a Cirrus with a parachute open." Yeah, so what? The Diamond is also moving forward at well over 50mph when it hits. The Cirrus: zero (or whatever the prevailing winds are).

There's a huge difference between hitting something (a building or a tree) at >50mph and settling on it at zero mph in a plane that's designed to absorb the vertical impact.

Cirrus has its own issues (actually, fatal accident rate is WAY down), but let's be fair. Zero mph and >50mph: a universe apart.

Rant over. ;-)
 
Never understood the logic of, "Diamond's have the same sink rate as a Cirrus with a parachute open." Yeah, so what? The Diamond is also moving forward at well over 50mph when it hits. The Cirrus: zero (or whatever the prevailing winds are).

There's a huge difference between hitting something (a building or a tree) at >50mph and settling on it at zero mph in a plane that's designed to absorb the vertical impact.

Cirrus has its own issues (actually, fatal accident rate is WAY down), but let's be fair. Zero mph and >50mph: a universe apart.

Rant over. ;-)

Not really 0 mph vs 50 mph. If you figure out the resultant vector it is sqrt(50*50+50*50) which is 71 mph vs 50 mph.

But having said that, yes I would rather be crashing in a Cirrus and a parachute versus a dainty DA40 :D
 
I'm at a juncture where I have narrowed my plane search down to either a DA40 or a SR20-G3 with Avidyne. While each marketing department can say whatever it wants regarding safety, I have two issues with the DA40 that I would love to hear from fellow pilots:

1. Due to the low wing load factor, it's a rough ride in turbulence.
2. Diamond "cheaped out" on the materials with the DA40.

Please only respond if you have PERSONAL experience with each and no, I'm not looking to be convinced as to which is safer.
 
Last edited:
To address your specific questions:

1) Doesn't seem horrible to me (I have 600 hours in the DA40). But, it is a light aircraft (MGW is less than 2700 pounds). The P3C I flew in the Navy handled turbulence better...

2) What specific materials? It is carbon fiber and glass fiber. The build quality is very good. Interior? Mine has held up well for 13 years under (admittedly) gentle use. it is not as plush as a Cirrus.

Hope that helps,

Steve
 
To address your specific questions:

1) Doesn't seem horrible to me (I have 600 hours in the DA40). But, it is a light aircraft (MGW is less than 2700 pounds). The P3C I flew in the Navy handled turbulence better...

2) What specific materials? It is carbon fiber and glass fiber. The build quality is very good. Interior? Mine has held up well for 13 years under (admittedly) gentle use. it is not as plush as a Cirrus.

Hope that helps,

Steve

Thanks for the feedback Steve. I was referring to both fit and finish as well as some of the parts for not being as durable/breaking. I also heard sometimes it takes a long(er) time to get parts.
 
Back
Top