Diamond DA40 the best Aircraft for safety?

[poadeleted20]

Really? I had no problems in Colorado Springs on a 75 degree day a few summers ago. And I was loaded to 85% of gross weight.

That is pretty light (like two adults short of a full load) and a good place to be for high density altitude operations in non-turbocharged aircraft. If you match the gross weight percentage to the density ratio, you generally get very acceptable performance. Problem is that somewhere like Leadville, on a hot day, that percentage puts you down near the empty weight of the airplane, so all you can carry to meet that test is one person and an hour of gas, or something like that.

 

[KSCessnaDriver]

Don't forget that before they had the DA-40's with DOSS, they had DA-20's with Embry Riddle. Maybe this is just a progression to yet another contract company with the USAF? Wouldn't surprise me.

 

[Wingsofglass]

I would argue that for almost ANY airplane, the most unsafe portion is the pilot at the controls, and adequate, recurrent training is the best way to maximize the overall safety.

This is absolutely correct and why I think the DA40 has the safety record that it does. I've owned one of these for the past 4 years and flown it all over the country. The truth is what makes this plane safer than most is that it is so forgiving to fly. So it allows the nut behind the stick to make mistakes that would otherwise be fatal or result in an accident in a less forgiving plane (like a Cirrus).

The DA40 has incredibly benign stall characteristics and is very difficult to spin. There has never been a pattern stall/spin accident in a DA40. It is magnificently forgiving to land. I can come over the fence at 60 knots or 100 knots and it lands about the same without using up too much runway. Takeoff flaps, landing flaps, no flaps it handles about the same.
It has really wide landing gear with a great suspension so you can screw up a cross wind landing and it won't really swerve. You can drop it from 10 feet and it won't really bounce.

I don't think it's fair to classify it as a trainer since it has similar performance to a 182 or a SR20, but at the same time it doesn't have FIKI or a turbo so it keeps the sane pilot out of the riskiest weather. Its simple IO-360 is about as reliable a piston as you can get.

So yeah when you do have an accident it's pretty survivable in a DA40 but this plane helps the pilot more than most to stay out of one.

I fly mine in the Rockies all the time and I think it's pretty good for a normally aspirated 180hp plane. I have no problem flying at 15,000 feet within 100 lbs of gross where it does 130+ knots on about 7gph/hr.

Lastly, I promise never to make a >100 word post for the rest of the year. No one reads ‘em anyway.

 

[gprellwitz]

This is absolutely correct and why I think the DA40 has the safety record that it does. I've owned one of these for the past 4 years and flown it all over the country. The truth is what makes this plane safer than most is that it is so forgiving to fly. So it allows the nut behind the stick to make mistakes that would otherwise be fatal or result in an accident in a less forgiving plane (like a Cirrus).

The DA40 has incredibly benign stall characteristics and is very difficult to spin. There has never been a pattern stall/spin accident in a DA40. It is magnificently forgiving to land. I can come over the fence at 60 knots or 100 knots and it lands about the same without using up too much runway. Takeoff flaps, landing flaps, no flaps it handles about the same.
It has really wide landing gear with a great suspension so you can screw up a cross wind landing and it won't really swerve. You can drop it from 10 feet and it won't really bounce.

I don't think it's fair to classify it as a trainer since it has similar performance to a 182 or a SR20, but at the same time it doesn't have FIKI or a turbo so it keeps the sane pilot out of the riskiest weather. Its simple IO-360 is about as reliable a piston as you can get.

So yeah when you do have an accident it's pretty survivable in a DA40 but this plane helps the pilot more than most to stay out of one.

I fly mine in the Rockies all the time and I think it's pretty good for a normally aspirated 180hp plane. I have no problem flying at 15,000 feet within 100 lbs of gross where it does 130+ knots on about 7gph/hr.

Lastly, I promise never to make a >100 word post for the rest of the year. No one reads ‘em anyway.

Yeah, we do.

Actually, I will be very interested to see the DA-50 if it ever comes out. Of course, that is going to be more in the SR-22 range of performance.

 

[mrjones30]

This is absolutely correct and why I think the DA40 has the safety record that it does. I've owned one of these for the past 4 years and flown it all over the country. The truth is what makes this plane safer than most is that it is so forgiving to fly. So it allows the nut behind the stick to make mistakes that would otherwise be fatal or result in an accident in a less forgiving plane (like a Cirrus).

The DA40 has incredibly benign stall characteristics and is very difficult to spin. There has never been a pattern stall/spin accident in a DA40. It is magnificently forgiving to land. I can come over the fence at 60 knots or 100 knots and it lands about the same without using up too much runway. Takeoff flaps, landing flaps, no flaps it handles about the same.
It has really wide landing gear with a great suspension so you can screw up a cross wind landing and it won't really swerve. You can drop it from 10 feet and it won't really bounce.

I don't think it's fair to classify it as a trainer since it has similar performance to a 182 or a SR20, but at the same time it doesn't have FIKI or a turbo so it keeps the sane pilot out of the riskiest weather. Its simple IO-360 is about as reliable a piston as you can get.

So yeah when you do have an accident it's pretty survivable in a DA40 but this plane helps the pilot more than most to stay out of one.

I fly mine in the Rockies all the time and I think it's pretty good for a normally aspirated 180hp plane. I have no problem flying at 15,000 feet within 100 lbs of gross where it does 130+ knots on about 7gph/hr.

Lastly, I promise never to make a >100 word post for the rest of the year. No one reads ‘em anyway.

Keep em coming, I sure read it. Every word of it!! (Seriously, not being sarcastic)

 

[TMetzinger]

This is absolutely correct and why I think the DA40 has the safety record that it does. I've owned one of these for the past 4 years and flown it all over the country. The truth is what makes this plane safer than most is that it is so forgiving to fly. So it allows the nut behind the stick to make mistakes that would otherwise be fatal or result in an accident in a less forgiving plane (like a Cirrus).

The DA40 has incredibly benign stall characteristics and is very difficult to spin. There has never been a pattern stall/spin accident in a DA40. It is magnificently forgiving to land. I can come over the fence at 60 knots or 100 knots and it lands about the same without using up too much runway. Takeoff flaps, landing flaps, no flaps it handles about the same.
It has really wide landing gear with a great suspension so you can screw up a cross wind landing and it won't really swerve. You can drop it from 10 feet and it won't really bounce.

I don't think it's fair to classify it as a trainer since it has similar performance to a 182 or a SR20, but at the same time it doesn't have FIKI or a turbo so it keeps the sane pilot out of the riskiest weather. Its simple IO-360 is about as reliable a piston as you can get.

So yeah when you do have an accident it's pretty survivable in a DA40 but this plane helps the pilot more than most to stay out of one.

I fly mine in the Rockies all the time and I think it's pretty good for a normally aspirated 180hp plane. I have no problem flying at 15,000 feet within 100 lbs of gross where it does 130+ knots on about 7gph/hr.

Lastly, I promise never to make a >100 word post for the rest of the year. No one reads ‘em anyway.

It's been my experience that if you come in at 100 KIAS on short final you're going to land VERY long, perhaps in the next county. I agree with the rest, however.

 

[poadeleted20]

This is absolutely correct and why I think the DA40 has the safety record that it does. I've owned one of these for the past 4 years and flown it all over the country. The truth is what makes this plane safer than most is that it is so forgiving to fly. So it allows the nut behind the stick to make mistakes that would otherwise be fatal or result in an accident in a less forgiving plane (like a Cirrus).

I've got less than 100 hours in the Cirrus, and none in the DA-40, but I must say that the Cirrus is a very easy-to-fly and forgiving airplane in terms of basic flight characteristics. While it's possible the DA-40 is even easier, I can't see the difference being significant, i.e., I don't see how there's a mistake you can make which would kill you or result in an accident in a Cirrus but not in a DA-40. In any event, even if I'm wrong, the vast majority of Cirrus accidents involve bad pilot decisions, not weak pilot skills, and that's nothing which better aircraft flight/handling characteristics are going to fix.

 

[Wingsofglass]

I've got less than 100 hours in the Cirrus, and none in the DA-40, but I must say that the Cirrus is a very easy-to-fly and forgiving airplane in terms of basic flight characteristics. While it's possible the DA-40 is even easier, I can't see the difference being significant, i.e., I don't see how there's a mistake you can make which would kill you or result in an accident in a Cirrus but not in a DA-40. In any event, even if I'm wrong, the vast majority of Cirrus accidents involve bad pilot decisions, not weak pilot skills, and that's nothing which better aircraft flight/handling characteristics are going to fix.

Of course you are right but there have been a number of stall/spin VMC accidents and a number of bounced landings/failed go arounds in a Cirrus that I belive would have been less likely in a DA40.

 

[poadeleted20]

Of course you are right but there have been a number of stall/spin VMC accidents and a number of bounced landings/failed go arounds in a Cirrus that I belive would have been less likely in a DA40.

Well, perhaps you have enough time in both types to make that judgement -- if so, please share that. But based on my Cirrus experience, I don't see how a Diamond could be any easier to fly than a Cirrus in the areas of avoiding stall/spin VMC accidents and a bounced landings/failed go arounds, and my experience extends from J-3C's to F-111's. The Cirrus really is an easy, forgiving plane with no bad habits I've been able to find, and was certified to the same standards as the DA-40 (except for spin recovery testing, and since it won't spin unless you kick it, I don't see that as relevant).

 

[Jim Logajan]

3 of the 7 fatal SR22 crashes in the US have had a post crash fire mentioned in the NTSB report. One of them crashed into a swamp so that one would have had a lower likelyhood for fire.

Aviation Consumer magazine did its own statistical analysis of the NTSB records and compared Cirrus with other aircraft. Its analysis is quite different from yours. It found:

• SR22: 16% of accidents had post-crash fires.
• Columbia: 14% of accidents had post-crash fires.
• SR20, Cessna 182, Mooneys: between 11% and 12% had post-crash fires.
• DA40: 0% of accidents had post-crash fires. (Diamond told Aviation Consumer that one accident that did not appear in the NTSB database did have a post-crash fire.)

So the Cirrus SR20 had no more post-crash fires than the metal Cessna 182 and Mooneys! Only the SR22 faired poorly, but only a 5% absolute difference.

So the DA40 is definitely safer with respect to post-crash fires.

The Cirrus models, on the other hand, do not appear to be terribly worse than most of their peers when it comes to post-crash fires.

 

[DavidWhite]

This was of accidents in 2011. You will fidn the same thing of you search from Jan2011 until Jan2012.

 

[denverpilot]

Lastly, I promise never to make a >100 word post for the rest of the year. No one reads ‘em anyway.

Read it.

 

[peppy]

Ron - The SR22 stalls at a lot higher speed than the DA40 and has a significantly higher max gross. The result is a big difference in kinetic energy. The attest ones have improved nose gear damping but PIO can be an issue especially on the older ones. If you are experienced and don't over react to a gust lifting the plane up prior to touchdown then you'll never experience it and will find the plane a dream. I tell people to think of a C310 but without shocks and on tiny tires.

Off topic a bit but a great blog on Cirrus engineering is http://cirrusengineering.blogspot.com/

You have to dig back a bit but his description of the trade offs between fiberglass and carbon fiber was great.

 

[Wingsofglass]

Well, perhaps you have enough time in both types to make that judgement -- if so, please share that.

Nope. Not even close. I have 600+ hours in a DA40 and maybe 15 in SR22s. To me the Cirrus is really easy and predictable to fly. I base my statement not so much on personal experience but according to research I have read on the Cirrus board that says 35 people have died in Cirrus stalls compared to 0 in a DA40. 4 people have died in failed go arounds after bounced landings in a Cirrus, 0 in Diamonds. Cirrus has outsold DA40s by 5x so I think that explains some but not all of it. Maybe the rest is explained by the differences in pilots of the two planes but I also think there may be more to the story. My stats, gleaned solely from the internet, may also be totally incorrect as well.

 

[DavidWhite]

IMO the DA40 (just from reading online) is a much safer airplane. If I had the money I would be all over one. I mean I wouldnt turn a Cirrus down if it were given to me, but if I had 600k burning a hole in my pocket I would spend it elsewhere.

 

[poadeleted20]

Nope. Not even close. I have 600+ hours in a DA40 and maybe 15 in SR22s. To me the Cirrus is really easy and predictable to fly. I base my statement not so much on personal experience but according to research I have read on the Cirrus board that says 35 people have died in Cirrus stalls compared to 0 in a DA40. 4 people have died in failed go arounds after bounced landings in a Cirrus, 0 in Diamonds. Cirrus has outsold DA40s by 5x so I think that explains some but not all of it. Maybe the rest is explained by the differences in pilots of the two planes but I also think there may be more to the story. My stats, gleaned solely from the internet, may also be totally incorrect as well.

The numbers just aren't statistically significant, especially regarding the DA-40. When you have rates per flight hour, let me know. In addition, when you talk about stalls, ask what they were doing when they stalled. For example, two of the earliest fatal stall-related Cirrus SR-series accidents involved a rancher trying to herd cattle and a low-time pilot's attempt to teach himself aerobatics in a non-aerobatic airplane. That's all about the pilot's stupidity, not the airplane's stall characteristics.

 

[Jeanie]

600K dollars? Holy guacamole, batman.... If I had that kind of green I'd buy a P Baron or something and save the difference for care and feeding of same

 

[dell30rb]

No kiddin...

You can buy a couple year old g1000 da-40 for much, much less than 600,000

 

[Alexb2000]

Why is it when anyone mentions the price of a new airplane they are always immediately compared to used airplanes 20-30-40 years old?

When someone buys a new car no one says why didn't you buy a 75' monte carlo for $2000, cheap, just as fast or faster, easy to work on, etc.

I guess it's just an airplane thing.

 

[zaitcev]

When someone buys a new car no one says why didn't you buy a 75' monte carlo for $2000, cheap, just as fast or faster, easy to work on, etc.

Oh yes they do. Read comments at The Truth About Cars, it's full of it. The editors even encourage it with the warm welcome for bitter clingers.

 

[eMKay]

Why is it when anyone mentions the price of a new airplane they are always immediately compared to used airplanes 20-30-40 years old?

When someone buys a new car no one says why didn't you buy a 75' monte carlo for $2000, cheap, just as fast or faster, easy to work on, etc.

I guess it's just an airplane thing.

Because a 40 year old airplane is not much different than a new one, while a 40 year old car is much, MUCH different than a new one. Like the difference between a 5" black and white TV, and an 80" LCD.

2009 vs 1959 Chevy. Yeah, I'll take the 2009 thanks, but if these were 2009 vs 1959 Cessna 172's I think I'll take the 1959 and throw in a fancy glass panel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

This is my favorite, mostly because I had an Odyssey and loved it (until it was wrecked by a semi, and because it's much safer than POS old cars, my pregnant wife and I were unharmed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAx2jtr3K8

 

[Alexb2000]

Because a 40 year old airplane is not much different than a new one, while a 40 year old car is much, MUCH different than a new one. Like the difference between a 5" black and white TV, and an 80" LCD.

2009 vs 1959 Chevy. Yeah, I'll take the 2009 thanks, but if these were 2009 vs 1959 Cessna 172's I think I'll take the 1959 and throw in a fancy glass panel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_ptUrQOMPs

This is my favorite, mostly because I had an Odyssey and loved it (until it was wrecked by a semi, and because it's much safer than POS old cars, my pregnant wife and I were unharmed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nAx2jtr3K8

Using your example there are a lot of differences between a 59' and a 09' 172. There are so many when you think about it it's hard to list.

Advantages 2009:

24V better grounding, wiring, etc.
Airbags and sholder harness standard
G1000 w/ GFC700 autopilot
Corrosion protection from the factory
Fuel Injected IO360 at 180HP
Better dash lights
Better seats
NO seat track AD or any other significant AD
No hidden damage, engine corrosion, rigging problem, etc.
Whatever else I missed

Advantages 1959:

Purchase price, maybe see below.


Look at the Van Bortel deal on a new 172:

http://www.vanbortel.com/pdfs/UAD_PC.pdf

You can basically dry lease a 172 and put 100 hours on it in 6 months for $50 per hour!!!

Now you don't have a project sitting in the shop for a year, you can just go fly a brand new airplane. You have a full warranty. You can give it back vs. giving it away if you want something else.

I just don't see it, unless perhaps you were an A&P that loved the classics and could do much of the labor.

 

[eMKay]

Using your example there are a lot of differences between a 59' and a 09' 172. There are so many when you think about it it's hard to list.

Advantages 2009:

24V better grounding, wiring, etc.
Airbags and sholder harness standard
G1000 w/ GFC700 autopilot
Corrosion protection from the factory
Fuel Injected IO360 at 180HP
Better dash lights
Better seats
NO seat track AD or any other significant AD
No hidden damage, engine corrosion, rigging problem, etc.
Whatever else I missed

Advantages 1959:

Purchase price, maybe see below.


Look at the Van Bortel deal on a new 172:

http://www.vanbortel.com/pdfs/UAD_PC.pdf

You can basically dry lease a 172 and put 100 hours on it in 6 months for $50 per hour!!!

Now you don't have a project sitting in the shop for a year, you can just go fly a brand new airplane. You have a full warranty. You can give it back vs. giving it away if you want something else.

I just don't see it, unless perhaps you were an A&P that loved the classics and could do much of the labor.

Yes there are a lot of differences, but it's a tiny amount of differences compared to cars. There is no way you can compare the two. As for actually purchasing a used vs. new plane, I would just buy say an early 80's that has a new engine and new avionics for 1/3 the cost of a new one.