Diamond DA40 Questions

[MachFly]

It's the foam inside that keeps the fuel from dispersing in an accident that makes them a fuel cell.

Fuel cell has a number of different meanings, the one your talking about is specific to racing. If we were discussing formula one then you would be completely right regarding the definition of a fuel cell. In aviation foam normally has nothing to do with it. Also if we were discussing electric cars a fuel cell would essentially be a battery, but in aviation or racing you would never refer to your battery as a fuel cell.

 

[Jaybird180]

I was thinking some more about this and it made me remember an incident that ended well; no damage or anything. A friend was VFR only but working on his instrument. He had a long trip to do and it involved instrument conditions so he took his instrument instructor along. During the flight they ran into ice. They called ATC but with ice on the antennas couldn't raise them They were getting close to their destination. Rather than turn around and return to clear air the instructor had my friend continue. The windscreen was iced over so they landed using synthetic vision. My friend was proud of the effectiveness of the synthetic vision. I think the instructor blew a great teaching moment and should have his certificate yanked but that's just me.I don't care if you can't reach ATC. Turn around, find clear air and talk to them when able and tell them what you did. Oh yeah, my friend flies a very nice Diamond DA40 with G1000 and Synthetic Vision.

Interesting scenario: lost comms in icing near the destination...wonder what the ATC guys have to say about this.

Q: What were the weather conditions?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Go to the NTSB database. Do searches on different makes. Use the search terms "thermal injuries" since for many years now this is what is used in reports when death is determined to be from fire. See what you find. Count the ones where the make is Cirrus. Look at Cessna and Piper and Beech. There is a often a huge difference between urban legend and the truth.

How about you do it for me? I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to prove myself wrong. I've also *never* seen this "thermal injuries" thing you speak of. I just went and looked up the most recent fatal crash-and-burn I could think of (not in a Cirrus, mind you) and that phrase appears nowhere.

There was a Cessna 421 crash a few days ago. No flak on the Red Board about being a flaming death trap even though there was a horrendous fire. had it been a Cirrus the haters would have been all over it.

There is no fireproof airplane - Thus, one 421 crash-and-burn isn't going to bring out the haters. However, the Cirrus does burn a lot. It's an earned reputation. Some of those crashes, it certainly didn't matter whether it was a Cirrus or any other bird. Some surely did.

The Corvalis tanks are between two carbon fiber wing spars. It is a very nice feature from a safety standpoint.

It is - Add metal fuel cells to the equation and you have the Diamond design. But, that may explain the relative lack of fires in the Columbiessna.

In both cases it appears that the part was not safety wired when placed back on and in the first chute pull case it is believed the nut wasn't even tightened down fully. If there was no chute then there might be a crash with a fire and no one would ever know. One of the things about a chute pull is that the plane is basically intact.

Well, except for the landing gear and the pilot's pride.

Well, I know of an incident where a pilot had a prop strike, bent the blade out with a hammer and took off. Amazingly he wasn't flying a Cirrus.

I have a friend who (yes he admits he was crazy) took a DC3 off with only one engine working. He had an air freight company and didn't want to miss the delivery. That same guy was flying one day when there were only three planes in the air in the Atlanta area. Two of them were with his company. The icing was so severe all of the airlines were grounded.

As for the CO incident, how about the May 1969 flight of a Debonair into icing? This is also a CO icing fatality. I have the radio transcript for that flight and it is scary. I believe the NTSB record is DEN69A0048. Do you really think flying into ice is unique to Cirrus?

The main thing I see when I look at accidents is that no matter how fancy the plane, stupidity kills. I just don't see anything making this unique to Cirrus. Kennedy wasn't in a Cirrus.

Cirrus certainly doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity - Just an abundance.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I haven't checked the Lancais because they are home build. Cessna Corvalis doesn't seem to be in the database. So the only thing I've checked was the Columbia 400. In total I found 25 reports.

Lancair Columbia 300 was NOT a homebuilt - But they had trouble convincing people of that, which is why they changed initially to "Columbia Certified Aircraft Corporation" and I think later to just Columbia Aircraft before Cessna bought them.

 

[bbchien]

Are you saying he was lying? I don't know any reason he would. He's retired and we were talking about when he owned an air freight company. He said if you said you couldn't make the delivery you lost the business.

That's total BS. If you have one engine on a C47, you taxi in circles, you never get going. It has to do with gear location vs thrust location.

Total BS. Totally impossible. BS guage is pegged.
Do you even have a multi rating?

 

[peppy]

That's total BS. If you have one engine on a C47, you taxi in circles, you never get going. It has to do with gear location vs thrust location.

Total BS. Totally impossible. BS guage is pegged.
Do you even have a multi rating?

No I don't. I understand your point. I also know the capabilities of the pilot including some things documented on TV that I am aware of. I don't want to say much more i.e. reveal who I am talking about. Could it be done with rudder and differential braking?

 

[peppy]

Lancair Columbia 300 was NOT a homebuilt - But they had trouble convincing people of that, which is why they changed initially to "Columbia Certified Aircraft Corporation" and I think later to just Columbia Aircraft before Cessna bought them.

The name was changed because Lance sold the kit business to keep his certified effort going. At that point there was no commonality and Lance changed the name.

 

[peppy]

Cirrus certainly doesn't have a monopoly on stupidity - Just an abundance.

Thank you. It's always so nice to be insulted by people who don't know you.

 

[peppy]

How about you do it for me? I'm not going to spend a bunch of time trying to prove myself wrong. I've also *never* seen this "thermal injuries" thing you speak of. I just went and looked up the most recent fatal crash-and-burn I could think of (not in a Cirrus, mind you) and that phrase appears nowhere.

I have done it. For example you'll find a lot more with a C206 than an SR22.

The term thermal injuries shows up when examination shows that fire was the cause of death. If a plane smacks the ground at 200 knots it doesn't matter much if it burns or not. Most plane, unless there is fuel starvation, will burn on a 200 knot impact.

Doing a search from 1/1/2000 to 3/1/2013 gives

Cessna 17
Cirrus 0
Beech 13
Mooney 2
Diamond 1
Piper 18

I do know of one death by fire in a Cirrus. However, this is a level field search so unless you believe there is a Cirrus conspiracy within the NTSB then this is the best that I know to do. The one Cirrus death I know of in the US involved a seatbelt that wouldn't release. Unlike the supposed explosive fire mechanism claimed online, the plane leaked fuel and eventually caught fire. The passenger had time to get out.

 

[MachFly]

Lancair Columbia 300 was NOT a homebuilt - But they had trouble convincing people of that, which is why they changed initially to "Columbia Certified Aircraft Corporation" and I think later to just Columbia Aircraft before Cessna bought them.

In the history of aviation was there ever a more complicated line of aircraft where the same exact plane went by 5 different names

 

[MachFly]

Could it be done with rudder and differential braking?

He either had partial power on the other engine or got something/someone to accelerate the plane for him (which is unlikely).

 

[peppy]

He either had partial power on the other engine or got something/someone to accelerate the plane for him (which is unlikely).

When I run into him again I'll bring it up.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Thank you. It's always so nice to be insulted by people who don't know you.

I'm not insulting any particular person, including you.

After all, if you fly a Cirrus and you're still here talking to us, you must be smarter than the average bear.

 

[Jaybird180]

Anyone have a POH for DA40XLS?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Anyone have a POH for DA40XLS?

Diamond provides a PDF version on their web site, and kudos to them for doing so! http://www.diamond-air.at/fileadmin...ht_Manual/Basic_Manual/60101e-r8-complete.pdf

All of the possible supplements are available here: http://www.diamond-air.at/da40-180_afm_supp+M52087573ab0.html

 

[Jaybird180]

I think that was prior to the XLS which came out in 2010 IIRC

 

[peppy]

I'm not insulting any particular person, including you.

After all, if you fly a Cirrus and you're still here talking to us, you must be smarter than the average bear.

I just hate generalizations like the one you made and that is why I responded the way I did. I won't claim I haven't done it before but I try not to. I was trying to point out, with a bit of humor, how off base general statements can be. Yes, I've met Cirrus owners who surprised me by being uninterested in other Cirrus pilots and for whom their plane was just a means for getting to Hilton Head to play golf. I also met an owner of a very nice C310 who said he never flew for pleasure. I am probably skewed by my COPA membership but I know a lot of very safety minded Cirrus owners. If I were to make generalizations, the group that stands out to me are C152 owners. I love them. Every owner I have met had a strong love of flying. But again, I haven't surveyed C152 owners and I doubt you have surveyed Cirrus owners so I avoid generalizations unless they are compliments.

Why does Cirrus show up? I think its exposure. If you build a bunch of planes with poor handling but they sat in hangars and never flew then the Red Board comments will probably be "Hey the Sloppy SL-25 is very safe. You never hear of those crashing." Mission also changes exposure. The 172 is used a lot for training. That is a very safe mission statistically. Planes used for long IFR flights in adverse conditions face a greater risk even if the plane itself is as safe of a design as the 172. I consider the most dangerous aspects of the SR22 to be that it is fast and comfortable. I guess you could add easy to fly with a lot of gadgets and a great AP. All encourage long cross country trips which increases exposure to risk. As an example of how dramatically different the numbers can be, this past weekend I was looking at Flightaware. There were 48 SR22's in the system and 5 DA40's. On the other hand, if you look at the NTSB database for 2012, that year had 8 SR22 fatals and only one DA40 fatal. Now I think the DA40 is a safer plane than the SR22 (fuel tank, kinetic energy when landing). However, even if they are equal, and if you assume an equal mission profile, you get an expected 9X to 10X difference in fatal accidents due to the difference in flight hours. Guess which plane would you expect to hear people saying "You always hear about those crashing." FYI, not always, but most days, there are more SR22's in the system than any other single with the exception of the 172 and sometimes (like earlier today) it beats out the 172.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I think that was prior to the XLS which came out in 2010 IIRC

Huh???

 

[Jaybird180]

The link was to the 2000 model year. I want the XLS, which wasn't yet out in 2000

 

[Skylane81E]

Just go to diamondair.com and look around

 

[flyingcheesehead]

The link was to the 2000 model year. I want the XLS, which wasn't yet out in 2000

The one I linked to is for *ALL* DA40's (FWIW, there was no 2000 model year). Look at the list of page revisions, it was revised in Dec. 2010.

Some of the supplements may be required to find what you're looking for. I've got some experience with 'em, what are you looking for?

 

[bbchien]

You comment on the one engined C47 just cements your total lack of credibility.

Comenting on something for which you have ZERO knowledge or credential!

On some Twins, if the engine is inside the gear, you can apply a bit of same sided brake and turn away from the dead engine and control yaw. But in no other situation is this even physically possible, unless you have a JATO launch.

I have done it. For example you'll find a lot more with a C206 than an SR22.

The term thermal injuries shows up when examination shows that fire was the cause of death. If a plane smacks the ground at 200 knots it doesn't matter much if it burns or not. Most plane, unless there is fuel starvation, will burn on a 200 knot impact.

Doing a search from 1/1/2000 to 3/1/2013 gives

Cessna 17
Cirrus 0
Beech 13
Mooney 2
Diamond 1
Piper 18

I do know of one death by fire in a Cirrus. However, this is a level field search so unless you believe there is a Cirrus conspiracy within the NTSB then this is the best that I know to do. The one Cirrus death I know of in the US involved a seatbelt that wouldn't release. Unlike the supposed explosive fire mechanism claimed online, the plane leaked fuel and eventually caught fire. The passenger had time to get out.

SR22 and "fire" has 42 entries. These are my notes on all 233 Cirrus crashes as of January 2013.

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I am probably skewed by my COPA membership but I know a lot of very safety minded Cirrus owners.

I believe there was some research a couple of years ago that showed that active COPA members are FAR safer than the average Cirrus pilot. This does not surprise me in the least - Just like I would bet that PoA members are, on average, safer pilots than the general population. In both cases, you have a group of people who are clearly interested in learning more about flying, and learning is a positive for safety.

Why does Cirrus show up? I think its exposure. If you build a bunch of planes with poor handling but they sat in hangars and never flew then the Red Board comments will probably be "Hey the Sloppy SL-25 is very safe. You never hear of those crashing." Mission also changes exposure. The 172 is used a lot for training. That is a very safe mission statistically. Planes used for long IFR flights in adverse conditions face a greater risk even if the plane itself is as safe of a design as the 172. I consider the most dangerous aspects of the SR22 to be that it is fast and comfortable. I guess you could add easy to fly with a lot of gadgets and a great AP. All encourage long cross country trips which increases exposure to risk. As an example of how dramatically different the numbers can be, this past weekend I was looking at Flightaware. There were 48 SR22's in the system and 5 DA40's. On the other hand, if you look at the NTSB database for 2012, that year had 8 SR22 fatals and only one DA40 fatal. Now I think the DA40 is a safer plane than the SR22 (fuel tank, kinetic energy when landing). However, even if they are equal, and if you assume an equal mission profile, you get an expected 9X to 10X difference in fatal accidents due to the difference in flight hours. Guess which plane would you expect to hear people saying "You always hear about those crashing." FYI, not always, but most days, there are more SR22's in the system than any other single with the exception of the 172 and sometimes (like earlier today) it beats out the 172.

This is the same argument used by Cirrus marketing: That Cirri fly 2-3 times as much as other airplanes. Certainly you cannot just look at absolute numbers when it comes to accidents, you must normalize by fleet size and hours per year. However, the hours per year between the DA40's and the SR20's are almost identical. I did some analysis in this are in a previous thread (this is becoming the new high wing vs. low wing!) and the Cirri were not flying significantly more hours in a year than the DA40's (It was 124 hours/year on average for the DA40's and 132 hours/year on average for the SR20's). At some point I'll write an app to scrape data for other types.

 

[peppy]

You comment on the one engined C47 just cements your total lack of credibility.

Comenting on something for which you have ZERO knowledge or credential!

Nasty aren't we. I made a correct statement. I repeated what someone told me and said that was what it was. I don't fly twins and have never claimed to. I have accepted your comments. Considering that I respect the person who told me the story I questioned ways it might be true. After your comments I stated that I would ask him to explain when I see him.

 

[peppy]

This is the same argument used by Cirrus marketing: That Cirri fly 2-3 times as much as other airplanes. Certainly you cannot just look at absolute numbers when it comes to accidents, you must normalize by fleet size and hours per year. However, the hours per year between the DA40's and the SR20's are almost identical. I did some analysis in this are in a previous thread (this is becoming the new high wing vs. low wing!) and the Cirri were not flying significantly more hours in a year than the DA40's (It was 124 hours/year on average for the DA40's and 132 hours/year on average for the SR20's). At some point I'll write an app to scrape data for other types.

Difference in numbers or difference in hours flown, some how you have to explain the ATC numbers. For a Cub I know the answer. They don't fly in the system. So, one possibility is that a lower percentage of DA40 flights are in the system. If so I think that opens the possibility that, on average, DA40 pilots fly less risky missions than SR22 pilots. Somehow the Flightaware numbers must be accounted for.

What I find most interesting about this is that I consider the DA40 the safer plane and have even stated so in this thread. But, people just love to single out Cirrus when compared to Beech, Piper, Cessna etc.

 

[MachFly]

Think you guys might be interested in these:

http://www.diamondaircraft.com/why/safety.php

 

[peppy]

MachFly - Interesting data. Cirrus actually posted similar data for 2007 and 2008. I'm not a fan of data based on fleet size since it makes a 500hr/yr plane the same as a 0 hr/yr plane. However, the Columbia and the SR22 are similar capability and mission aircraft and the fleet age is similar.

 

[MachFly]

A bit more of interesting statistics:

Taken from: http://glasspilot.com/2012/04/topsale/

Do note that it's only comparing the SR20, not the SR22.

 

[peppy]

SR22 and "fire" has 42 entries. These are my notes on all 233 Cirrus crashes as of January 2013.

A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

Bruce, we've been through this before. The word "fire" will even flag a report that says "There was no evidence of a post crash fire." Also, just like before, the Cirrus numbers are meaningless unless compared to other makes. I'll remind you of those numbers. Taking 1/1/1999 as the start date (first Cirrus sold in 1999) and going through 12/31/2012, the number of NTSB entries with the word "fire" are:

Cessna all 976
Mooney all 86
Diamond all 7
Piper all 677
Cessna C206 41
Cessna C310 45
Cessna C210 123
Cirrus all 60
Beech BE36 80

 

[peppy]

MachFly - Your data also alludes to another interesting fact. If you plot kinetic energy on landing vs. percentage of accidents that are fatal you can do a pretty good linear curve fit. For that reason alone I expect an SR22 to look worse than a DA40 or C182 but about the same as a C400.

BTW more recent accident figures for Cirrus look better than what you show which is to be expected as the average time in type of the pilots has gone up.

 

[MachFly]

MachFly - Your data also alludes to another interesting fact. If you plot kinetic energy on landing vs. percentage of accidents that are fatal you can do a pretty good linear curve fit. For that reason alone I expect an SR22 to look worse than a DA40 or C182 but about the same as a C400.

An airplane that has lower wing loading will require less energy while landing, the less energy you need the slower you can fly. So an airplane that lands at a slower airspeed will be safer....and as far as I remember a DA40 lands at a slower airspeed than SR20.

Regarding the 22, should we be really comparing the SR22 with the DA40?
If you want to go buy a single engine composite airplane that can do 180kts your not going to buy a 40, your going to go for the 22 (or the Corvalis whatever). But if you only want 150kts then you won't be wasting your money on a 22, so then you want to compare an SR20 with a DA40.

In addition I'm not sure if we can blame the 22's high airspeed requirement on landing for all the crashes. Now I haven't flow the 22, but I have research it's flight characteristics (and I spend quite a lot of time in a 20).
So imagine your landing a 22, decide to go around, abruptly add power, due to the 300+hp engine you get a whole bunch of torque, you try to counteract with the rudder, but Cirrus' rudder is way too small so you drift to the side, hit something, burn, and die. Therefore it's mostly pilot error because they add power too fast and fair to correct for the drift, meaning we shouldn't be blaming the airplane for all the fires.

BTW more recent accident figures for Cirrus look better than what you show which is to be expected as the average time in type of the pilots has gone up.

Has the average time went up that significantly? You still have a whole bunch of newby pilots who are buying SR20s and 22s.

 

[peppy]

Since we are on statistics and the various ways to look at accident data, you might want to look at a manufacturer's obviously biased take. Go here to see the Cirrus take on things. To show how you play the game, you will see the DA40 broken out in one graph. However, another, in which Diamond looks awful, shows Diamond SE. The clue here is to note the high accident rate of the 172. Training planes have a lot of accidents but few of those are fatal. The training fleet is a significant percentage of Diamond aircraft. Had Cirrus broken out the DA40, which is isn't used nearly as much for training, I suspect the DA40 would have looked great. In this case shame on Cirrus. Just because everyone else plays these games doesn't get them off the hook.

Another interesting statistic is that if you take out instructional flights, jets, turboprops, commercial operations and (I think) twins, then what the NTSB is calling the GA rate for personal and business flying for 2010 is 2.38 per 100,000 hours.

 

[MachFly]

Don't get me wrong, I really like the SR20 and the 22. However I hate Cirrus' marketing, they lie way too often and I do not trust their data.

For example take a look at this post:

I have nothing against their aircraft, but their marketing policy is immoral, their almost laying lying.

Look at this:

http://www.whycirrus.com/compare/pdf/cirrus-vs-diamond-da40-xls.pdf

Love how they say the baggage door is standard on the SR20 and not available on the Diamond, Diamond has a rear passenger door that's big enough for comfortable to cargo in the back!
The only time I've seen SR20 meet those performance number that their saying is when it's super cold outside.
That so called "simple" single power lever is extremely complicated, 3 standard levers are much easier. I think of all aircraft of that size that I've flown, SR20 had the hardest engine management. And even if you say that it's simple it's still not one power lever, it's two.
Also they thought it was important to point out that the 40 isn't approved to spins either.

It's a good plane, but as far as marketing is concerned everything their saying is BS.

 

[peppy]

An airplane that has lower wing loading will require less energy while landing, the less energy you need the slower you can fly. So an airplane that lands at a slower airspeed will be safer....and as far as I remember a DA40 lands at a slower airspeed than SR20.

Yes, and I feel the safety numbers reflect that. Also, max gross is over 400 pounds higher which further increases landing kinetic energy.

Regarding the 22, should we be really comparing the SR22 with the DA40?
If you want to go buy a single engine composite airplane that can do 180kts your not going to buy a 40, your going to go for the 22 (or the Corvalis whatever). But if you only want 150kts then you won't be wasting your money on a 22, so then you want to compare an SR20 with a DA40.

Agreed.

In addition I'm not sure if we can blame the 22's high airspeed requirement on landing for all the crashes. Now I haven't flow the 22, but I have research it's flight characteristics (and I spend quite a lot of time in a 20).
So imagine your landing a 22, decide to go around, abruptly add power, due to the 300+hp engine you get a whole bunch of torque, you try to counteract with the rudder, but Cirrus' rudder is way too small so you drift to the side, hit something, burn, and die. Therefore it's mostly pilot error because they add power too fast and fair to correct for the drift, meaning we shouldn't be blaming the airplane for all the fires.

First, planes carry a lot of fuel and on hard impact they tend to burn. You can check my numbers in the earlier post showing what happens if you search on the word "fire." The Why Cirrus link I posted actually has an interesting plot of what you get if you search on "post crash fire."

Next, I agree and disagree. I have never felt I lacked adequate rudder authority. However transitioning from a 172 & 182 world to the SR22 was a wake up call on left turning tendencies. There have been several Cirrus crashes which are basically what you have described. The pilot initiates a go around and slams in power before adding rudder. I think there is an additional factor. Before or as the throttle is moved, the pilot pitches upward. This stalls the wing since the plane hasn't built up speed. Combined with the left turning tendency as the engine surges, the plane dips a left wing and that is it.

Has the average time went up that significantly? You still have a whole bunch of newby pilots who are buying SR20s and 22s.

Yeah, I think it has. At one time Cirrus was selling over 700 planes a year with a fleet size under 2,000. Now they sell less than 300 planes per year and the fleet size is much larger.

Related to this is the negative that fewer Cirrus pilots have gone through factory training since there are a lot of pilots who bought their planes used (including me).

Having first gotten into a Cirrus in 2002, it is amazing how things have changed. The latest planes are much improved. Additionally, what was once an uncommon plane is now all over the place. That's why I keep mentioning the Flightaware data. It is an indication of something. If you want to argue what it means that is fine but I don't think it should be ignored. Not only are the planes being flown a fair bit (newer planes fly more than older ones no matter what the make) but the SR22 seems to be flown a lot in the system which I take to mean a lot of cross country use and use in poor weather. Oh, and yes, I mean sometimes being flown when the plane shouldn't have been.

 

[peppy]

Don't get me wrong, I really like the SR20 and the 22. However I hate Cirrus' marketing, they lie way too often and I do not trust their data.

For example take a look at this post:

I don't see that as a horrible comparison. Diamond says their new AP stuff will be as good as a chute and the sales guys (what started this) say you are just as safe doing a falling leaf as coming down under canopy.

Did you notice that on the page where you got your graphs, the first thing, in the most prominent font size, is a list of number of accidents. To heck with fleet size or flight hours. Oh, that gets corrected in small graphs later on but the prominent item is the accident number table. Nothing wrong other than standard manufacturer spin. Hey, Mooney publishes speed numbers that are ROP with dangerously high cylinder head temps. Beechcraft publishes a comparison of load with full fuel. They don't use the latest Cirrus with the max gross increase but what's worse they don't normalize for fuel capacity. They show the G36 as better than the SR22 and the C400 but if you normalize to where they all carry the same fuel then the remaining load is about the same.

Now I need to contradict myself a bit. Overall, Diamond sales people have been great and they just pushed the positives of their plane. I haven't had gripes with the Cirrus guys except for one case where I thought he was spewing BS (regarding Corvalis climate control). The Cessna and Columbia guys are another story.

As for the fixed seat it is an issue for me. I just don't fit well in a Diamond. The panel seems too far away. I find loading "different." I put it that way since it is like a Saab having the ignition key on the center console. It's not necessarily worse but it is different. I'm not surprised that Cirrus points that out. Diamond is probably their best competitor. Cessna should be with the Corvalis but Cessna has so far mucked it up.

As for the power lever I like the integrated prop control but I can fully understand others not liking it. Unlike some I look forward to the day a good quality FADEC system arrives.

I'm sure the spin statement is just because of all of the crap regarding spins that has been posted.

BTW, thanks for rational comments. I'm enjoying our discussion and can see your points even when I disagree.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I find loading "different." I put it that way since it is like a Saab having the ignition key on the center console. It's not necessarily worse but it is different. I'm not surprised that Cirrus points that out.

Of course, they point out the "lack" of a baggage door on the DA40 because, well, it's a rear passenger door! Never mind that Cirrus lacks one of those, too, or that it's a combined pax/bags door that's a lot bigger than the baggage door on the Cirrus. But, sales and marketing being what it is...

Diamond is probably their best competitor. Cessna should be with the Corvalis but Cessna has so far mucked it up.

You've got that right! I think Cessna has been marketing "tried and true design" and "easy to work on materials" and the like for so long that they have no idea how to market the Corvalis.

As for the power lever I like the integrated prop control but I can fully understand others not liking it. Unlike some I look forward to the day a good quality FADEC system arrives.

I dislike the integrated prop control because I prefer to reduce RPM over MP. That is, I'd much rather run at 24"/2200 than 21"/2500. Cirrus takes that choice away. But you're right, it's long past the time where we should have FADEC. I'm looking forward to a good quality, *reasonably priced* FADEC that runs the engine in a fashion that'll make it last as long as possible.

BTW, thanks for rational comments. I'm enjoying our discussion and can see your points even when I disagree.

Yes! Even if you're full of crap. (I keed, I keed! )

 

[Jaybird180]

The one I linked to is for *ALL* DA40's (FWIW, there was no 2000 model year). Look at the list of page revisions, it was revised in Dec. 2010.

Some of the supplements may be required to find what you're looking for. I've got some experience with 'em, what are you looking for?

I saw that after I posted.

I talked with an XLS owner who claimed 150KTAS and I haven't been able to verify. IIRC it was a 2011 model.

 

[peppy]

Of course, they point out the "lack" of a baggage door on the DA40 because, well, it's a rear passenger door! Never mind that Cirrus lacks one of those, too, or that it's a combined pax/bags door that's a lot bigger than the baggage door on the Cirrus. But, sales and marketing being what it is...

Yep. Marketing tries to set perception in their favor. I better watch out. We're starting to agree. That might cause a rip in the space-time continuum.

You've got that right! I think Cessna has been marketing "tried and true design" and "easy to work on materials" and the like for so long that they have no idea how to market the Corvalis.

The Corvalis is a great plane. Another problem though is that it is inherently expensive to manufacture. For example, the control surfaces on a Cirrus are aluminum because they are easy to make. Making them out of carbon fiber saves very little weight and adds a lot to manufacturing costs.

I dislike the integrated prop control because I prefer to reduce RPM over MP. That is, I'd much rather run at 24"/2200 than 21"/2500. Cirrus takes that choice away. But you're right, it's long past the time where we should have FADEC. I'm looking forward to a good quality, *reasonably priced* FADEC that runs the engine in a fashion that'll make it last as long as possible.

The best thing about FADEC is that a hot start is just like in your car. Also, no mixture knob or boost pump switch. If you use the system like Diamond then even the prop control is integrated. I like it.

FYI, on an SR22, the throttle is wide open from 2500 to 2700. That range is a pitch change only. Also, the single lever was not a Cirrus invention. They just adopted a control scheme offered by Continental.

Yes! Even if you're full of crap. (I keed, I keed! )

You been talking to my ex?

 

[MachFly]

First, planes carry a lot of fuel and on hard impact they tend to burn. You can check my numbers in the earlier post showing what happens if you search on the word "fire." The Why Cirrus link I posted actually has an interesting plot of what you get if you search on "post crash fire."

Why do you need to carry a lot of fuel? Just fill up what your going to need and go. For example I've been flying a TwinStar for about three years now and in that time period I've topped off all tanks only 4 or 5 times.

Next, I agree and disagree. I have never felt I lacked adequate rudder authority. However transitioning from a 172 & 182 world to the SR22 was a wake up call on left turning tendencies. There have been several Cirrus crashes which are basically what you have described. The pilot initiates a go around and slams in power before adding rudder. I think there is an additional factor. Before or as the throttle is moved, the pilot pitches upward. This stalls the wing since the plane hasn't built up speed. Combined with the left turning tendency as the engine surges, the plane dips a left wing and that is it

Actually your right, I've never felt lack of rudder authority in a Cirrus either, however I have felt that it has less of it.

Is it possible to keep the 22 in a power on (well maybe 50% power) falling leaf without dropping a wing?

Yeah, I think it has. At one time Cirrus was selling over 700 planes a year with a fleet size under 2,000. Now they sell less than 300 planes per year and the fleet size is much larger.

Related to this is the negative that fewer Cirrus pilots have gone through factory training since there are a lot of pilots who bought their planes used (including me).

Having first gotten into a Cirrus in 2002, it is amazing how things have changed. The latest planes are much improved. Additionally, what was once an uncommon plane is now all over the place. That's why I keep mentioning the Flightaware data. It is an indication of something. If you want to argue what it means that is fine but I don't think it should be ignored. Not only are the planes being flown a fair bit (newer planes fly more than older ones no matter what the make) but the SR22 seems to be flown a lot in the system which I take to mean a lot of cross country use and use in poor weather. Oh, and yes, I mean sometimes being flown when the plane shouldn't have been.

Agreed

 

[MachFly]

I don't see that as a horrible comparison. Diamond says their new AP stuff will be as good as a chute and the sales guys (what started this) say you are just as safe doing a falling leaf as coming down under canopy.

Wait, wait, Diamond never said that crashing in a falling leaf in their aircraft is safe. You said "I had a Columbia sales guy once use the falling leaf argument," so that's Cessna. And it was one guy that told you that, it's not like they put that on their website as an advertisement for their aircraft for everyone to see.

Did you notice that on the page where you got your graphs, the first thing, in the most prominent font size, is a list of number of accidents. To heck with fleet size or flight hours. Oh, that gets corrected in small graphs later on but the prominent item is the accident number table. Nothing wrong other than standard manufacturer spin. Hey, Mooney publishes speed numbers that are ROP with dangerously high cylinder head temps. Beechcraft publishes a comparison of load with full fuel. They don't use the latest Cirrus with the max gross increase but what's worse they don't normalize for fuel capacity. They show the G36 as better than the SR22 and the C400 but if you normalize to where they all carry the same fuel then the remaining load is about the same.

I did notice that...that is why I didn't post those numbers.
So yes I expect the marketing guys to not tell me everything. But what Cirrus' marketing guys are doing is a lot worse. You've already read what I had to so about it so I'm not going to waist time complaining.

Now I need to contradict myself a bit. Overall, Diamond sales people have been great and they just pushed the positives of their plane. I haven't had gripes with the Cirrus guys except for one case where I thought he was spewing BS (regarding Corvalis climate control). The Cessna and Columbia guys are another story.

As for the fixed seat it is an issue for me. I just don't fit well in a Diamond. The panel seems too far away. I find loading "different." I put it that way since it is like a Saab having the ignition key on the center console. It's not necessarily worse but it is different. I'm not surprised that Cirrus points that out. Diamond is probably their best competitor. Cessna should be with the Corvalis but Cessna has so far mucked it up.

Cirrus points out that the seats don't move yet they don't say that the controls movie. Also they don't say why the seats don't move, Diamond's seats significantly increase safety and in my opinion that's important.

Diamonds are pretty roomy and Cirrus isn't much bigger. So may I ask where exactly do you not have enough room?

As for the power lever I like the integrated prop control but I can fully understand others not liking it. Unlike some I look forward to the day a good quality FADEC system arrives.

Oh no, I like integrated power levers, I got FADEC in the TwinStar and it is great. My problem with Cirrus' lever which isn't FADEC (I assume it's not that much of a problem in a 22, but in a 20) is that you will have very hard time getting the aircraft to fly at it's cruise speed without overheating the engine and without consuming 20GPH. So far SR20 is the only non-high performance aircraft that I have flown where I actually wanted to have a second pilot there to control the engine. In the 40 the three levers are easy and simply. In a 20, I take off, do the big mixture pull, get the red fin out, carefully put the power levers in the right spot according to the red fin, dedicate a lot of my attention monitoring the CHT, and all of that takes away a lot of my attention that's needed for flying the airplane.

Overall it is something that I'm willing to live with, I'm not going to be telling people not to buy a Cirrus because of the engine controls. It's a slight disadvantage, but oh well (Diamond isn't perfect either). My problem is that Cirrus is saying that their aircraft is better because it has one lever, while realistically that makes it worse. And it's not even one lever, it's two, so that is a clear lie.

If I owned a Cirrus I would install one of those aftermarket 3 lever kits on it and controlled the engine properly.