Diamond Shares

[Flymeariver]

Anyone have experience with Diamond Shares? Seems like an interesting proposition. 1000/mo plus fuel you buy for a DA40XLS, get 100 hrs a year than a penalty fee for hours over that.

 

[Unit74]

Buy a nice RV9 instead. Less money "financed" , faster, same load, don't have to share and much cheaper to operate. Oh, but, but, but, it's new right?

If I'm understanding those specs on the 40, you get 260 lbs after full fuel? So that's me, a headset and a bag of Cheetoes.

 

[Flymeariver]

Buy a nice RV9 instead. Less money "financed" , faster, same load, don't have to share and much cheaper to operate. Oh, but, but, but, it's new right?

If I'm understanding those specs on the 40, you get 260 lbs after full fuel? So that's me, a headset and a bag of Cheetoes.

on the XLS I see 880 useful and the guy has 50 gal tanks. that should leave 580lbs w/ full fuel. I have been getting the wife into the PA-28-140 at tabs and survived. The Diamond of course is not as nice as the Cirrus but much cheaper on a share deal and just as fancy for her liking. The part Im mainly concerned about is if any anyone has experience with the actual DiamondShares program http://diamondshare.com

 

[Flymeariver]

Buy a nice RV9 instead. .

The RV9 is awesome though

 

[denverpilot]

Anyone have experience with Diamond Shares? Seems like an interesting proposition. 1000/mo plus fuel you buy for a DA40XLT, get 100 hrs a year than a penalty fee for hours over that.

Might want to calculate how many hours you could fly something else for $1000/mo if it's about flying.

If it's about flying something "new"-ish, that's a different but more subjective discussion.

100/year is right around the usual break point folks use as a rule of thumb between renting and buying.

Ways to reframe the question: "Would I hand the FBO $1000/mo in advance to rent X airplane they have? Or would I just pay as I go?"

Remember their stuff comes with fuel.

I think you can fly more hours in a year in something else for $1000/mo, easily, and they'll buy the gas.

 

[asicer]

Is that tach or hobbs?

Hm, $12k/yr for 100hrs/yr = $120/hr. $5/gal avgas times 9 gph = $45. $120+$45=$165/hr, which seems to be about the going wet hobbs rate for an older (pre-2006) DA40-G1000. The upside here seems to be:

1. You're flying a newer DA40 with all the upgrades they've had over the years.
2. You don't have to worry about daily minimums.
3. You get to brag about "owning" to some of your friends.

Anything I'm missing?

 

[Gucci Pilot]

You get to brag about "owning" to some of your friends.

You aren't "owning", you and two other guys are "leasing" from the one guy that is "owning".


Also members still have to pay Diamond Shares a $500 annual membership fee. Also from their website:

The lease is a fixed “Dry Lease” amount with no additional fees except for fuel and in some instances a share of hangar or subscription fees. Lease rates are based on a maximum number of hours and can vary from location to location based on local operating costs and the equipment selected on the aircraft.

 

[denverpilot]

So it's essentially a partnership where the second and third don't own any equity, but pay the going rate with no discount for the lack of equity, including hangar and "subscription" fees to fly the owner's airplane?

 

[Unit74]

So it's essentially a partnership where the second and third don't own any equity, but pay the going rate with no discount for the lack of equity, including hangar and "subscription" fees to fly the owner's airplane?

Smoke and mirrors. ....... For the guy who owns, he's making out.

 

[timwinters]

$12k/yr for 100hrs/yr = $120/hr. $5/gal avgas times 9 gph = $45. $120+$45=$165/hr

If I was "part owner" in something that cost me $165/hr, I'd at least want it to be something that's comfortable and wasn't a freakin' oven for three months out of the year.

Besides, why would I want to be "part owner" of something for $165/hr (plus surcharges) when I can be full owner of a nice plane, equal speed, for $125/hr all in, including reserves, insurance and hangar.

(Granted, Delaware hangar rent is likely far higher than mine but renatal doesn't appear to be included in the $165 anyway.)

 

[luvflyin]

Never heard of it but based on the above responses I think I got the picture. It's a $120 an hour dry. Use it or lose it. $120 an hour dry seems a bit high to me, but I don't know Diamonds. It reminds me of Gift Cards. The retailer gets the money up front and wins when they are not used. Are there any provisions in the deal that let you off the hook if something beyond your control prevents you from flying? Dear Diamond owner. Please refund Johnny's $1000 dollar fee this month. He's been a bad boy and has been grounded.

 

[scottfromboston]

No experience with the Diamondshare program, but if you can find two compatible partners you should be able to put together a partnership for less than that money.

There haven't been huge improvements (IMO) since 2008 (XLS) or so when they got WAAS. So far, with 4 of us, I'm into mine (2007 XL) for ~100 Hobbs hr/year at about 680/mo on a tiedown, owner assisted annuals, sufficient reserves.

We have 840 useful with 50 gallon tanks but leave it at 40. I've never had an issue, but filling the seats is snug. The RV9 is a good machine (I was shopping 6's when I bought the DA40) but are still two-seaters.

 

[Unit74]

All in, I fly my Archer 10 hours a month for way less than that. It certainly is not as fancy as that Diamond, but it does everything it does for half the price. Carries 200 lbs more weight and the trade off is about 10 gallons of fuel. The plane is really nice, but the only "glass" is a 430W. What's that worth to you now and later, as you will have zero equity in it?

Just saying....

 

[Unit74]

No experience with the Diamondshare program, but if you can find two compatible partners you should be able to put together a partnership for less than that money.

There haven't been huge improvements (IMO) since 2008 (XLS) or so when they got WAAS. So far, with 4 of us, I'm into mine (2007 XL) for ~100 Hobbs hr/year at about 680/mo on a tiedown, owner assisted annuals, sufficient reserves.

We have 840 useful with 50 gallon tanks but leave it at 40. I've never had an issue, but filling the seats is snug. The RV9 is a good machine (I was shopping 6's when I bought the DA40) but are still two-seaters.

So is a DA40 unless your flying to an anorexia convention.

 

[Sac Arrow]

I think it's a raw deal personally.

 

[asicer]

I should also point out that I haven't seen anything with a G1000 rent for less than $165/hr. I'm not so into G1000's that I'd pay a huge premium for one on a regular basis, but to each his own.

 

[scottfromboston]

So is a DA40 unless your flying to an anorexia convention.

You and I have differing interpretations of anorexia.

I should also point out that I haven't seen anything with a G1000 rent for less than $165/hr. I'm not so into G1000's that I'd pay a huge premium for one on a regular basis, but to each his own.

At a minimum I wanted an approach-certified GPS and AP with GPSS. Biggest assets for me in the airplane are the autopilot and the engine monitor. IMO the rest of the glass is nice but not necessary, particularly when supported with the ipad.

 

[Unit74]

You and I have differing interpretations of anorexia.

Your right.... The DA will still be over gross.

 

[scottfromboston]

Your right.... The DA will still be over gross.

Beach trip last summer. 180 (me) + 200 (friend) + 125 (wife) + 125 (friend's wife). Includes +5 for clothing and small bags for each. 30 gallons. 30lb under gross with 3+ hours of cruise fuel. Perhaps I'm the exception, but I knew that this was not a long-range machine for four people. Beach or islands (1hr) was the only mission scenario where I saw four seats filled.

I'll never understand the full-tanks mindset unless I can figure out how to get my wife to go more than an hour between bathroom breaks.

Admittedly the useful load is the biggest obvious limitation. Given the access, it's also not a great airframe for the bigger or older folk.

Greenhouse canopy has never been an issue.

 

[luvflyin]

Another "con" of diamonds is the low wing loading. I flew one just once. There was a little turbulence, not all that much, but the plane got bounced around more than other planes I've flown.

 

[Flymeariver]

Thanks guys, always nice for perspectives.

Currently the PA-28-140 costs me 125/tach hr x 1.10 plus 180/mo towards hangar.
This is also a non equity deal but wet rate.

Cirrus SR20= 214/hr wet
Diamond-as discussed.

It may best be described as shiny plane syndrome. The Cherokee is a 67 vs the DA40 being an 2014. The wife says the current plane is only comfortable enough for her to go for an hr ride or slightly more which limits worthwhile trips. Was thinking the Diamond appears wider so maybe her butt wouldn't be so squished. Having an autopilot is also tempting me, 4 hrs of hand flying a few weeks ago sure was tiring.

 

[timwinters]

Put her in a diamond for a couple of hours and see if she likes it. My bet is that she'll think it's far less comfortable than your Cherokee.

 

[Maciej]

Put her in a diamond for a couple of hours and see if she likes it. My bet is that she'll think it's far less comfortable than your Cherokee.

Newer ones are exceptionally comfortable.

I too am strongly considering doing a DiamondShare up by me at KCDW. I genuinely love the planes and for the monthly payment it makes a lot of sense for me considering the amount I fly each month. I'm sure it's not for everyone, but it's much better than personally buying a new plane.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Newer ones are exceptionally comfortable.

What year?

I sat in a fairly new Twin Star a couple years ago and thought it was not very comfortable at all.

 

[Urowolf]

Read a lot of expertly opinions on this forum re Diamond Share, thought something should be posted by someone who is actually familiar with it.

Have about 600 hrs, IFR, flew SR22 for 10 years with AIRSHARES Elite from CDW. When we disbanded, flew on rentals but with $360 per hour my customary Florida flight would fetch $4800 price tag. My buddy and I are new owners of DA40 XLT out of CDW as of past November.

PLANE:
I have been a fan of glass and it's capabilities for a long time, but the latest iteration of G1000 and the 700 autopilot plus synthetic vision is really something. It is a different level of performance and confidence and safety all together. Nothing against steam, but that is a fact. Yes that comes at a cost but you get what you pay for.
I am of cirrus background and it is an amazing cruiser which changed GA forever. I am not bending the truth when I say that I enjoy DA40/XLT more. The cockpit view is insane, the quality of manufacture and the Austrian laconic design is superb. It is a four cylinder 'bullet proof' Lycoming 180 first approved in 1950's. If 145knots on 10gph with useful load of over 800lbs does not turn you on then what does? Last weekend round trim to Myrtle Beach from Caldwell was $360 total for four people (and yes my wife packed so load was relevant). The DA40 is a great and stable platform that is a Utility Category when lightly loaded. It handled turbulence of 35 knot cross wind just fine.

PROGRAM:
My friend and I never owned a plane before. It was a leap for sure but the finances are working out great. Maintenance is minimal as the plane is new. John Armstrond really delivered on everything promised from smooth transition training to already getting an additional member to help with the note. It is a life changer. No longer do I imagine dollars flying out of my exhaust while idling. I practice approaches at the end of the trip not worrying about the additional 15min Hobbs expense.

I have no agenda and additional success of Diamond Share will not affect me directly. But I felt it important to state my experience here to help those who may find it a great solution to their flying addiction.

 

[EminiTrader]

Before I went to Cirrus I was close to buying a new Diamond and doing this program. After many discussions and talking to another owner I walked away from Diamond altogether and joined the ranks of 6PC and the little red handle.

 

[leecm]

I am a DA40XLT owner since 2012 and have about 500 hours in it out of my 800 hours total. I also have time in PA-28, C-172 and some time in a Cirrus SR22. I have fallen in love with my DiamondStar and have flown it all over the country from Maine to Florida, from Delaware to Arizona and Montana, including The Bahamas. It has served me very well over the past fours years, including the All Women's Cross Country Air Race Classic twice. The G1000, with WAAS, Active Traffic, G700 autopilot, Synthetic Vision, XM Weather, 145kts at 10gph, and superb visibility makes it a great cross country ride. A very comfortable ride for two people with luggage. The stall characteristics of the plane make it a very safe aircraft to fly and land. So enough about my love of the DiamondStar. During the first year of my ownership, I offered a precursor program of the DiamondShare program to a fellow pilot. It worked out great for the two of us, helping me to offset my first year ownership expenses. My friend, a CFII, took advantage of the program, to fly a very modern aircraft at a reasonable cost. Owning a modern aircraft with advanced avionics is not for everyone, but taking advantage of the DiamondShare program is an affordable way to fly a sweet plane.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

If I was "part owner" in something that cost me $165/hr, I'd at least want it to be something that's comfortable and wasn't a freakin' oven for three months out of the year.

Tim, you've been flying an older one. The ventilation on the newer ones is much improved.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

So is a DA40 unless your flying to an anorexia convention.

I dunno what your definition of "Anorexia" is, but ours is a three-seater even with my fat ass in the left seat... And that's with long-range tanks too.

 

[Flymeariver]

I dunno what your definition of "Anorexia" is, but ours is a three-seater even with my fat ass in the left seat... And that's with long-range tanks too.

Just curious...umm what size do you consider fat? I try not to hurt the feelings of the wife but she is rather "plump"

 

[Maciej]

What year?

I sat in a fairly new Twin Star a couple years ago and thought it was not very comfortable at all.

I believe following 2010 the interiors were improved and the seats became more comfortable.

Now, onto what I really wanted to post earlier, but I was working in my shop and posting on my phone...

I've always found it particularly fascinating that when these threads arise that the instant comparison is to immediately say well my 1960s-1970s plane is vastly superior because it costs less. When in reality I find it very difficult to find another industry where people draw the same conclusions. It almost seems incendiary to desire a newer plane, and when these threads arise old school guys post en masse about how older planes are better.

Mind you, I'm not posting this to say that the Bo's or Mooney's for sale are better or worse, what I am saying is that as technology improves it's common to embrace it. However, in my experience in the aviation world people seem to cling onto their nostalgia and always actively complain about newer planes. Then there are people such as myself that are younger (I'm 27) and are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a plane, that are always told to avoid buying a fancy shmancy plane and go for the good old Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, etc.

I genuinely believe that this mentality is what is stifling growth in general aviation, because people my age want something newer and more technologically advanced. My background is in automotive racing and I always find it comical when I go into threads like this and people insinuate that composite planes aren't as safe as their trusty aluminum paneled planes. There's a reason why in the pinnacle of automotive engineering and racing, carbon monocoques are the go to for a chassis. Now as composites become more economical to use most of the higher end manufacturers are electing to go with carbon monocoques because of the strength and safety of them.

I ultimately decided to buy a used Diamond DA20C1 and have loved every moment of owning it, I retrofitted it with a Garmin G500 because the tri-state area is quite traffic ridden and I feel more comfortable having the better situational awareness that the glass panel provides me with, and at the end of the day I wouldn't have gone with any other plane. I used it for fuel efficient (4.8gph) time building and have had some extraordinary experiences with it. My next step is selling my plane and jumping into a DiamondShare most likely as I don't have the resources to pick up a new DA40XLT, and instead of buying a used DA40 I can have a reasonable monthly payment and have access to a brand new plane.

 

[kayoh190]

^^^^ gorgeous!

 

[Mtns2Skies]

I believe following 2010 the interiors were improved and the seats became more comfortable.

Now, onto what I really wanted to post earlier, but I was working in my shop and posting on my phone...

I've always found it particularly fascinating that when these threads arise that the instant comparison is to immediately say well my 1960s-1970s plane is vastly superior because it costs less. When in reality I find it very difficult to find another industry where people draw the same conclusions. It almost seems incendiary to desire a newer plane, and when these threads arise old school guys post en masse about how older planes are better.

Mind you, I'm not posting this to say that the Bo's or Mooney's for sale are better or worse, what I am saying is that as technology improves it's common to embrace it. However, in my experience in the aviation world people seem to cling onto their nostalgia and always actively complain about newer planes. Then there are people such as myself that are younger (I'm 27) and are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a plane, that are always told to avoid buying a fancy shmancy plane and go for the good old Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, etc.

I genuinely believe that this mentality is what is stifling growth in general aviation, because people my age want something newer and more technologically advanced. My background is in automotive racing and I always find it comical when I go into threads like this and people insinuate that composite planes aren't as safe as their trusty aluminum paneled planes. There's a reason why in the pinnacle of automotive engineering and racing, carbon monocoques are the go to for a chassis. Now as composites become more economical to use most of the higher end manufacturers are electing to go with carbon monocoques because of the strength and safety of them.

In fairness it depends on what you're looking for. I agree with your assessment when it comes to "go places" and sight-seeing planes. When it comes to bush aircraft I don't think a suitable replacement has yet been built for the Cessna 180/185 or the Dehavilland beaver. One could argue for the GA8 airvan or Quest Kodiak, but they aren't as rugged in a wheel configuration being tricycle gear. Both of those planes are overkill compared to the Cessna anyway.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Just curious...umm what size do you consider fat? I try not to hurt the feelings of the wife but she is rather "plump"

I'm about 300#, partially because I'm 6'4" so I'm not particularly wide. I do think it's a good idea to have your wife sit in anything you want to buy, and for more than a couple minutes. Skirts are a no-no in the front seat of a Diamond unless they're REALLY short 'cuz you've got a stick coming out of the front of the seat! But, there are some who don't find the particular geometry of the DA40 comfortable. That's true of any airplane - I can't fit in a DA20 at all due to my height, and I find most Bonanzas and Barons uncomfortable because of the shape of the top of the fuselage, I tend to bump my head a lot in them.

Everyone is different, everyone needs to try an airplane on before they buy it. Here's why: http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...ir-force-discovered-the-flaw-of-averages.html

 

[timwinters]

Tim, you've been flying an older one. The ventilation on the newer ones is much improved.

On the ground? That's where the problem is. In the air it's okay, as long as I'm wearing a ball cap.

Well maybe that's an exaggeration. Into the sun in this one is pretty much hell regardless, even in the winter.

And, actually, I forgot how tall you are. I'm surprised you fit, I barely fit at 6-2...both legroom and headroom.

 

[timwinters]

I've always found it particularly fascinating that when these threads arise that the instant comparison is to immediately say well my 1960s-1970s plane is vastly superior because it costs less. When in reality I find it very difficult to find another industry where people draw the same conclusions.

Likely because there is no other industry that compares. At 3500 hours, my 1958 C182 is every bit the plane today that it was when new. Actually it's better in many ways. That's hard to say of any other type of play/work machine that's 58 years-old.

I can upgrade my plane with modern day avionics just like new planes have, but I choose not to because I like actually flying the plane, not just watching the plane fly itself.

My airframe is far more durable. I can land on unimproved runways without concern.

My airplane is far more versatile. I can land on 1000' runways without concern.

And yet, it cruises at the same speed as the DA-40 I'm also flying...on a mere 2 GPH more. A small price to pay for the increased versatility, utility, durability & comfort.

And, yes, it's one heck of lot more comfortable for my 6-2, 205# build. Amazing for a 1958 bird that was built before ergonomics was even a word.

And yes...It's about 1/3 the price.

So what's not to like?

But, lastly, let's have this talk in 50 years when your diamond is 58 years old and still going strong! Har on that thought.

 

[FormerHangie]

Now, onto what I really wanted to post earlier, but I was working in my shop and posting on my phone...

I've always found it particularly fascinating that when these threads arise that the instant comparison is to immediately say well my 1960s-1970s plane is vastly superior because it costs less. When in reality I find it very difficult to find another industry where people draw the same conclusions. It almost seems incendiary to desire a newer plane, and when these threads arise old school guys post en masse about how older planes are better.

Mind you, I'm not posting this to say that the Bo's or Mooney's for sale are better or worse, what I am saying is that as technology improves it's common to embrace it. However, in my experience in the aviation world people seem to cling onto their nostalgia and always actively complain about newer planes. Then there are people such as myself that are younger (I'm 27) and are fortunate enough to be able to purchase a plane, that are always told to avoid buying a fancy shmancy plane and go for the good old Cessna, Piper, Beechcraft, etc.

I genuinely believe that this mentality is what is stifling growth in general aviation, because people my age want something newer and more technologically advanced. My background is in automotive racing and I always find it comical when I go into threads like this and people insinuate that composite planes aren't as safe as their trusty aluminum paneled planes. There's a reason why in the pinnacle of automotive engineering and racing, carbon monocoques are the go to for a chassis. Now as composites become more economical to use most of the higher end manufacturers are electing to go with carbon monocoques because of the strength and safety of them.

First, let me compliment you on the pictures, they are spectacular.

Second I completely agree. If general aviation is going to thrive, we've got to get some up to date equipment in the air. When I was learning to fly back in the late 70's, the aircraft I flew were built in the middle 70's. You're not going to attract new people with 30 plus year old equipment. The Diamond looks like current technology. That 40 year old 150 that one of the local flight schools is operating does not.

 

[timwinters]

First, let me compliment you on the pictures, they are spectacular.

Second I completely agree. If general aviation is going to thrive, we've got to get some up to date equipment in the air. When I was learning to fly back in the late 70's, the aircraft I flew were built in the middle 70's. You're not going to attract new people with 30 plus year old equipment. The Diamond looks like current technology. That 40 year old 150 that one of the local flight schools is operating does not.

In 1975 my high school's shop teacher owned two relatively recent vintage aircraft.

Today, a shop teacher likely couldn't afford one airplane, much less two...likely not even my '58 model 182.

That's a far bigger issue than any new vs old debate.

 

[Gucci Pilot]

@Maciej Don't mean to get the thread off topic but real quick....What airport is that in the 3rd pic?! Gorgeous!

 

[Maciej]

Likely because there is no other industry that compares. At 3500 hours, my 1958 C182 is every bit the plane today that it was when new. Actually it's better in many ways. That's hard to say of any other type of play/work machine that's 58 years-old.

I can upgrade my plane with modern day avionics just like new planes have, but I choose not to because I like actually flying the plane, not just watching the plane fly itself.

Sometimes it's not about the plane flying itself but providing you with better situational awareness, for example, my plane doesn't have auto pilot, but I have the G500 to show me on a bigger screen all of the traffic in my immediate vicinity. On a routine day as soon as I take off I have at least three or four traffic alerts as I exit from under the bravo of NY out to wherever I'm headed.

My airframe is far more durable. I can land on unimproved runways without concern.

You have to remember that these planes are new, eventually they'll trickle down to those roles, if I'm not mistaken Diamond already has a tundra edition plane for unimproved strips. Which, before you attempt to go on the offensive, isn't an entirely new plane, just one that's more spartan with bigger tires.

My airplane is far more versatile. I can land on 1000' runways without concern.

That's subjective, I can land my plane on a postage stamp, I'd say that most pilots aren't comfortable unless it's 3000' of runway anyway. And ultimately remember, it's not about what you can do, it's what everyone else wants to do. I love flying aerobatics, I can pull 8Gs in the Extra that I fly, doesn't mean anyone else is sick enough to follow lol

And yet, it cruises at the same speed as the DA-40 I'm also flying...on a mere 2 GPH more. A small price to pay for the increased versatility, utility, durability & comfort.

I'd hope it's close, it's the same engine from the 50s/60s lol

And, yes, it's one heck of lot more comfortable for my 6-2, 205# build. Amazing for a 1958 bird that was built before ergonomics was even a word.

Sure, it's comfortable, it's also old school. I'll tell you this much, every time I get into an old classic car I can tell you I'm super comfortable as well, but the cars aren't anywhere near as refined or sophisticated as my new BMW.

And yes...It's about 1/3 the price.

But is it safer? When you mangle an aluminum plane those panels become razor sharp panels. When you put down a carbon monocoque plane you're much safer in the monocoque. It's the same reason why Formula 1 cars are designed and have survived head on impacts at 180mph+.

There's nothing wrong with the older planes, I'm just saying that they aren't for everyone, just because something suits one person doesn't mean we should immediately suggest that that's the correct recipe for everyone else.

So what's not to like?

But, lastly, let's have this talk in 50 years when your diamond is 58 years old and still going strong! Har on that thought.

It won't be this one, but it'll probably be the next Diamond I pick up that I'll be holding on to for a long time, so I'd gladly take you up on that offer.