New Diamond DA50

ktup-flyer said:
They've been trying to bring this thing to market for like 15 years
Click to expand...
And yet the fairings for the gear look like a total afterthought on the DA-50 RG airframe. Even Beech did better with Sierra, where they resorted to folding the gear outboard.
 
Last edited:
zaitcev said:
Too late to cry about weight and complexity on a retract, don't you agree?
Click to expand...

No, I would say the opposite.

They have x useful load. X - RG = Y and Y - Folding Wing = Z

They could do something like a folding wing, which only has a minor benefit that few buyers will care about and most will not like. Or they could do retract.

As someone else mentioned, the physics haven't changed and theres no free lunch. Aircraft builders today are trying to match the most efficient wing and airframe they can design (and manufacture cost effectively) to an engine to reach a certain set of performance numbers and then make the cabin as comfortable as they can while retaining as much useful load and performance as they can. The fairings look fine to me, I'm sure the engineers are smarter than I at such matters. What about the Sierra looks better to you? As the Sierra gear go into the wing rather than the fuselage, there's likely different things to keep in mind when designing them.

From a buyer's point of view, retract gear are common, desirable (appearances matter in these circles), and known systems that people can look at quickly and go "ok". If the gear doesn't come down, there is a manual override. If the wing decides to unfold in the middle of a flight (incredibly rare, I'm sure) there's not much you can do about it and that will play on the mind of a potential buyer. I've flown gliders that I put the wings on myself, so to meet its not anything special but I'm sure some people wouldn't care for it with the very small gain.
 
zaitcev said:
And yet the fairings for the gear look like a total afterthought on the DA-50 RG airframe. Even Beech did better with Sierra, where they resorted to folding the gear outboard.
Click to expand...

The DA50 was originally going to be fixed gear, so maybe that's why the RG looks funny.

EDIT: After looking again, the fairings are at the root of the gear, not something around the wheels when retracted. This is likely because Diamond makes really tough gear systems that can be extended and retracted all the way up to Vne, which makes them great speed brakes when needed. It's also got trailing-link gear, so it's going to make your landings really nice. With those in mind, I don't think the look is a significant detractor at all.
 
I think it looks awesome. I expect the price to be higher than cirrus and therefore out of reach of out of reach for a mortal like me. Considering it won't reach the market in any real numbers for another 10 years, add another 20 years before it depreciates enough for me to afford it and I'll be at least 5 years past being able to pass even basic med.
 
I instructed in a DA20 and Diamond makes nice handling airplanes.... the stick is superior to a control column, which was only put in post WW2 aircraft to make people think they were driving their car. But before I spent 1mm+ I would find an RV10 that would whip the DA50 in all areas of performance.... by a lot.
 
asicer said:
A DA62 is $1.4mil. Do you really think the DA50 is going to cost more than a DA62?
Click to expand...
PaulS said:
$1.5 is probably too high, but Cirrus is bumping a million, last I checked, a Bonanza was bumping a million. Your point about the diesel is probably a good one, but still, there has been a lot of hype over airplane for a long time, I expected more.
Click to expand...
 
It’s a sweet looking ride. Not really sure who they plan to market this too. I don’t see the TBO on the engine. Is it rebuildable or does one have to replace it? I thought most of the diesels in aircraft were the replacement kind with relatively low TBO. Anyone know?
 
The specs that Mtns2 linked shows a "Time Between Replacement (TBR)" of 1200 hours, projected 2000 hours. The plane looks nice, I'd totally order one, but since it won't fit in my hangar I guess I'll have to pass. Also, the ergonomics of the seats (rear seats in particular) don't make them seem too comfortable, but maybe that's not the reality.
 
Last edited:
I plan to buy 7 - one for each day of the week.
 
I've flown a few airplanes where control stick presented an interference against my legs: Remos GX, maybe FD CTLS, Progressive SeaRey, and others. In some, the interference was so significant that I would only be able to use 70% deflection. But, adverse yaw to the rescue. Just give it a bootful of rudder. The only airplane that I was NOT able to fly because of the stick versus thigh problem was Sonex (I could fly that one solo by sitting in the center). There's no way DA 50 is as small as Sonex inside :). My Carlson had a stick and it was very nice.
 
No BRS = low sales.
Mooney is a better plane than this one, and its sales have been abysmal.
 
The specs are clearly stated as being preliminary and prototype. I'd expect the speed/range numbers to come up a bit more for a production version.
 
zaitcev said:
. In some, the interference was so significant that I would only be able to use 70% deflection. But, adverse yaw to the rescue. Just give it a bootful of rudder.
Click to expand...
Adverse yaw is a result of drag from using the ailerons. If you had less aileron authority then adverse yaw did not come to your rescue. A bootful of rudder is just yaw.
 
This is the 4th or 5th proclamation by Diamond on this airframe.

I sat it a mockup in 2007. 2000 and 7.

I weighed 50lbs less and was way less skeptical.

Until I get an invite to come fly it, I am ignoring it.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Adverse yaw is a result of drag from using the ailerons. If you had less aileron authority then adverse yaw did not come to your rescue. A bootful of rudder is just yaw.
Click to expand...
Additionally, saying “skidding turn to the rescue” gives me a bit of a shiver down the spine.
 
I thought I liked the DA62 until I sat in one. The rear seats are hard as a rock and the overall interior quality was bad. I doubt Cirrus is worried.
 
Mtns2Skies said:
Adverse yaw is a result of drag from using the ailerons. If you had less aileron authority then adverse yaw did not come to your rescue. A bootful of rudder is just yaw.
Click to expand...
I think his point is that by applying rudder, it moved his leg enough to allow for the stick to move freely in that direction.
 
MountainDude said:
Mooney is a better plane than this one, and its sales have been abysmal
Click to expand...
on what possible measure is Mooney a "better plane" than this one outside of the "I can burn 8 gallons an hour and still go XX knots"? People always discuss strictly along the 'fuel burn vs speed' metric, but there is so much more that goes into it with a plane. If people only cared about speed vs fuel burn there would not be all the 182, etc., plying the skies. And we'd all be driving a Prius or Volt. And no, most people who own and fly a 182 aren't hard core bush pilots. They like it for it's comfort and rugged feel, and frankly, two doors. This Diamond offers 3 doors, a much wider and more comfortable cabin, a modern design with modern ergonomics, built by a manufacturer that innovates and is still in business, with a newer engine design and implementation. There's something to be said for being able to sit in a plane with someone else (or your family) without shoulders overlapping. It's time that airplane comfort starts becoming commensurate with 2020 living standards

The lack of BRS doesn't mean no sales.. that's an angle Cirrus took, but the BRS is not some must have item. There are retrofit BRS available for other aircraft that no one takes advantage of, and plenty of people don't find the risk worth the added maintenance cost and weight penalty of the BRS. If Cirrus offered a no BRS option I'm sure they'd sell decent numbers of them. The disgracefully low SR-20 sales also show that BRS is not a magic ticket. People buy the 22 because it gives them >170 KTAS in a very comfortable and modern cabin. I've done many 4 person trips that would be either not be possible (W&B) or be extremely uncomfortable in any Mooney

Not a Mooney diss, that's a fantastic wing they designed and the Mooney grew up to be the TBM ultimately, hands down all time favorite airplane. But to make a blanket statement that "Mooney is better than DA-50" or to infer that Cirrus' sole reason for success is the chute just isn't true
 
timwinters said:
In fact I really liked it over a yoke.
Click to expand...
What I don't like about yokes is it forces an airplane's 3-dimensional flight path into a 2-d analog input. Left right or up and down. A stick is more logical for something like this, and feels more natural
 
Tantalum said:
What I don't like about yokes is it forces an airplane's 3-dimensional flight path into a 2-d analog input. Left right or up and down. A stick is more logical for something like this, and feels more natural
Click to expand...
When flying with one hand, there’s really very little difference in feel from a stick to a yoke. Unless you are thinking about it you don’t even notice.
 
The wingspan might hurt sales more than lack of BRS. 46’+ t-hangars are hard to come by.
 
Cervieres said:
The wingspan might hurt sales more than lack of BRS. 46’+ t-hangars are hard to come by.
Click to expand...

Out of a ~156 T hangars at our airport, I see ~4 of them it might fit in. There are 16 or so bigger square hangars with a lease pushing a $1k a month, of course none are available
 
It would fit in my private hangar, but I probably couldn’t get anything else in there with it. I can fit a Mooney, a 162, and a 182 in there at the same time (though it’s tight)
 
Salty said:
When flying with one hand, there’s really very little difference in feel from a stick to a yoke. Unless you are thinking about it you don’t even notice.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree. But I do prefer the feel of a stick. My comment was more directed at people who aggressively poo-poo a stick
 
Also, the BRS thing is just an excuse to justify pathetic sales figures from companies who stopped innovating in 1965 and have been cranking out the same product, at ever increasing prices and decreasing performance figures, for the last 5 decades, with the only real innovation seen thanks to Garmin

People like Diamond show that you still can advance the design and tweak it. The DA62 is a veritable beast, though at the price point it's a hard sell. Nevertheless Diamond makes a very impressive product

I do believe that the monster wingspan is going to be a detriment though
 
zaitcev said:
I've flown a few airplanes where control stick presented an interference against my legs: Remos GX, maybe FD CTLS, Progressive SeaRey, and others. In some, the interference was so significant that I would only be able to use 70% deflection. But, adverse yaw to the rescue. Just give it a bootful of rudder. The only airplane that I was NOT able to fly because of the stick versus thigh problem was Sonex (I could fly that one solo by sitting in the center). There's no way DA 50 is as small as Sonex inside :). My Carlson had a stick and it was very nice.
Click to expand...

The Diamond sticks also aren't floor mounted and hinged, they're hinged just below the seat so they hardly move at all where your legs are around them. I've always had "thunder thighs" and had no interference problems in the DA40 at all.

MountainDude said:
No BRS = low sales.
Mooney is a better plane than this one, and its sales have been abysmal.
Click to expand...

To be fair, Mooney can't market their way out of a wet paper bag. It's not always the product...

Sierra_Hotel said:
The specs are clearly stated as being preliminary and prototype. I'd expect the speed/range numbers to come up a bit more for a production version.
Click to expand...

Most of the time, the numbers move in the opposite direction between press release and certification.
 
Salty said:
I think it looks awesome. I expect the price to be higher than cirrus and therefore out of reach of out of reach for a mortal like me. Considering it won't reach the market in any real numbers for another 10 years, add another 20 years before it depreciates enough for me to afford it and I'll be at least 5 years past being able to pass even basic med.
Click to expand...

It does look absolutely brilliant. I have a hard time with the negativity directed at the DA50. A new certified piston aircraft designed almost from scratch is a great thing, especially if it can compete with Cirrus for market share and drive innovation. Textron should take note.
 
Can that engine be put in something like a Saratoga or Cherokee 6 or 210 or 206....seems like it would be crazy nose heavy. Pulling up the old 182 to a Jet A pump would bring a smile.
 
It's not about having a stick. The sticks on the Cirrus and Columbia are great. It's having it between your legs and losing tons of room for nothing.

bnt83 said:
Does the CD-300 have a reasonable reliability record?
Click to expand...

Diesel engines generally have a much better record than gasoline engines.
 
Cervieres said:
Textron
Click to expand...
they don't give a rat's A$$.. they killed the Lancair, err, TTx, and are letting the Bonanza and Baron die on the vine out there. Cessna exists solely to satiate the flight schools. Otherwise Textron has made it abundantly clear the disdain they have for the piston GA buyer, the people they cut their teeth on. All they care about now is making knock off PC-12 and Twin Otter
 
Tantalum said:
they don't give a rat's A$$.. they killed the Lancair, err, TTx, and are letting the Bonanza and Baron die on the vine out there. Cessna exists solely to satiate the flight schools. Otherwise Textron has made it abundantly clear the disdain they have for the piston GA buyer, the people they cut their teeth on. All they care about now is making knock off PC-12 and Twin Otter
Click to expand...

Watching the TTx go was hard. Difficult to envision Textron pistons a decade from now without some new designs and better marketing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top