What became of Diamond aircraft?

guest user

guest user

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 16, 2021
Messages
978
Display Name
Display name:
just passing through
Not too long ago, Diamond aircraft were the darling of the GA world (or seemed to be). Nowadays you hardly hear people talking about them.

* Yes, I'm sure they're still around, and I'm sure someone just had a 50 page discussion about them.
 
guest user said:
Not too long ago, Diamond aircraft were the darling of the GA world (or seemed to be). Nowadays you hardly hear people talking about them.

* Yes, I'm sure they're still around, and I'm sure someone just had a 50 page discussion about them.
Click to expand...
My flying club has three DA40s. They are still selling new ones.
 
My guess...too expensive to get excited about
I just watched a youtube video a couple days ago comparing the SE version with the cessna 172...which seems to be an odd comparison to make.
Regardless.... I'd consider one if I win the lottery....
 
The demand just so outpaces supply. My DA40 which I sold in 2010 would sell for the same today. They are awesome flight school planes so finding one for sale is tough. But they are still selling them as fast as they can make them.
 
Diamond also makes twins which are getting rare.
 
I found the DA-40 more fun to fly than the SR22. They seem like a better value as well.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Also in perspective: Cessna shipped 166 C172 aircraft and 38 C182 aircraft. So Diamond sold more than C172 and C182 combined.
Click to expand...
And more than the 207 Piper. I'd say they're doing just well enough especially considering that many of their fleet are diesel!

Cirri are cool.. but my financial windfall is DA-62.. or maybe an Aerostar
 
Brad W said:
My guess...too expensive to get excited about
I just watched a youtube video a couple days ago comparing the SE version with the cessna 172...which seems to be an odd comparison to make.
Regardless.... I'd consider one if I win the lottery....
Click to expand...

Last I knew a new DA40 was roughly the same price as a 172. I know which of the two I’d choose. They’re no more expensive than any of the other new aircraft that are in a similar part of the market.
 
mondtster said:
Last I knew a new DA40 was roughly the same price as a 172. I know which of the two I’d choose. They’re no more expensive than any of the other new aircraft that are in a similar part of the market.
Click to expand...
Well, considering a DA40 is about 20 KTS faster...

OTOH, if new, don't expect Diamond to let you update the G1000 as readily as Cessna, so if you care about that...
 
My question, was more as to perception than the hard number production.

For example, even here on PoA, when people come on asking about what aircraft to buy, we usually recommend the classic Cessna, Piper, Mooney, smattering of others. The Bonanza always makes an appearance. When someone talks of buying a high end aircraft Cirrus always comes up. I am struggling to remember if Diamond ever came up in a conversation about aircraft to buy that included Diamond, and I was curious why.

I think dmspilot's response came closest to what I was looking for.

dmspilot said:
I think the DA20 has been usurped by the various LSAs on the market while the DA40 was usurped by Cirrus.
Click to expand...
 
guest user said:
My question, was more as to perception than the hard number production.

For example, even here on PoA, when people come on asking about what aircraft to buy, we usually recommend the classic Cessna, Piper, Mooney, smattering of others. The Bonanza always makes an appearance. When someone talks of buying a high end aircraft Cirrus always comes up. I am struggling to remember if Diamond ever came up in a conversation about aircraft to buy that included Diamond, and I was curious why.

I think dmspilot's response came closest to what I was looking for.
Click to expand...
Few of those conversations are talking about new aircraft. And when talking used, there just aren’t enough diamonds for sale to get them included in a generic conversation.
 
I personally think diamonds are hideous looking aircraft. I’m sure they are fun to fly but man are they fugly. Just my opinion. But at least they’re low wing…..
 
guest user said:
My question, was more as to perception than the hard number production.

For example, even here on PoA, when people come on asking about what aircraft to buy, we usually recommend the classic Cessna, Piper, Mooney, smattering of others. The Bonanza always makes an appearance. When someone talks of buying a high end aircraft Cirrus always comes up. I am struggling to remember if Diamond ever came up in a conversation about aircraft to buy that included Diamond, and I was curious why.

I think dmspilot's response came closest to what I was looking for.
Click to expand...

I don’t think his response really answers it. Few of the inquiries on this board are discussing newer airplanes, and when they do discuss newer options they are usually expecting higher performance numbers than what the Diamonds deliver. Hence the Cirrus recommendation in those contexts.

A Diamond DA20 is (roughly) the modern replacement for something like a Grumman AA1 and a Da40 is roughly the modern replacement for a Grumman Tiger. Neither the Grummans or the Diamonds are equivalent to an SR22.

Personal opinion, after being around both Cirrus and Diamonds from a flying and maintenance perspective, I’d favor the Diamond.
 
The Diamonds are fun. As long as the weather is pretty decent. I have done some long trips in them. Beats driving ;-). But you just can't get one. I would take a DA40 over a SR20, C172, and they perform a little better than a normally aspirated C182. The view is great, but they can sure get hot in the sun. The DA42 is a great, safe fun twin, kind of like a DA40 on steroids. The DA62 is a nice aircraft. But for about the same money you can get an M350 which beats it in weather capability, comfort, pressurized and beats it in every performance metric, except maybe one engine out ;-) But the Lycoming is not prone to giving up, and that plane glides really well.
 
I was itching for a DA40 so bad at one point I signed up with a not exactly local FBO in order to get some stick time in one. The center stick makes it super fun to fly, and they are easy to land, but if you removed those two qualities they would just be ho hum. I do not like castering nose gear, and it was an early model with a smaller rudder that didn't have enough authority on the ground. Plus you really do get beat up pretty bad in turbulence.

But Diamond is more pushing their higher end diesel singles and twins lately, which, are pretty cool.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Also in perspective: Cessna shipped 166 C172 aircraft and 38 C182 aircraft. So Diamond sold more than C172 and C182 combined.
Click to expand...

Diamond wishes they would ever sell 1/4 the 172s and 182s as Cessna over Diamond aircrafts life time.
 
The DA40 is easy to fly and docile, same ball park of initial investment like any C172/PA28-181 of the same vintage but really expensive to maintain when it is done in strict accordance with the Diamond Maintenance Manual. I assume that is the reason why the number of flight schools using DA20/40‘s is declining. DA42 in flight school settings created at the beginning their very own problems including gearboxes and the low TBR (not TBO) times of the Diesel engines.

I am under the impression that the new Chinese owners are more interested in the UAS segment. The recent announcement to start an assembly line in Brazil with a local company might be a hint intomthe same direction
 
aggiepack said:
The DA40 is easy to fly and docile, same ball park of initial investment like any C172/PA28-181 of the same vintage but really expensive to maintain when it is done in strict accordance with the Diamond Maintenance Manual. I assume that is the reason why the number of flight schools using DA20/40‘s is declining. DA42 in flight school settings created at the beginning their very own problems including gearboxes and the low TBR (not TBO) times of the Diesel engines.
Click to expand...

I’ve maintained Diamonds for over a decade and haven’t found that to be true of the gas powered ones. The diesels are another story, and one that I’d agree with you on. I don’t think the diesel powered aircraft will age gracefully.
 
The big ticket items with the DA40 are the 1000 h / 2000h inspections. The 2000 h inspection comes usually with a bill for at least 96 hours of labor. And there are some time-limited parts like rudder cables and hoses as airworthiness limitations as well.
 
The only problem with the DA 62 is I'd have to build a bigger hangar to fit it. Shouldn't be an issue if I have DA62 money however.
 
Personally I wouldn't recommend Diamond DA40s for the same reason I wouldn't pitch a Cirrus SR20: both of them command enough of a $premium over similar capability planes that it's not really worth the extra money to me. If someone writes a post saying they want a newer airframe, suitable for beginners and cost is no object then maybe a DA40 would be suggested? But all other things equal there are better used aircraft options out there for 250-350k$ IMHO.

... That said, I did try to rent a DA40 last week at a shop by me but there were no instructors available proficient enough to check me out in one... Alas, I ended up in a 172 :oops:. For some inexplicable reason I've always wanted to fly a T-Tail, which is why I wanted to hop into that Diamond.
 
I kinda think the Diamond is a less serious traveler, not as sold better in turbulence, maybe, as a SR20. It's subjective in my part of course.The Cirrus pseudo-stick (stoke?) is a bit annoying when hand flying for extended periods.
 
I know somebody who owned a DA40, then sold to get an SR22.

He liked the low stall speed of the DA40. But the hot cabin and light wing loading made for nausea in summertime turbulence.

The big wing also made it tricky to get the DA40 into a standard-size hangar -- there were only a few centimeters to spare on each wingtip, so he had to rig up some guides to align the plane perfectly when pushing it in.
 
I know somebody who owned a DA40, then sold to get an SR22.

He liked the low stall speed of the DA40. But the hot cabin and light wing loading made for nausea in summertime turbulence.
 
Sundancer said:
I kinda think the Diamond is a less serious traveler, not as sold better in turbulence, maybe, as a SR20. It's subjective in my part of course.The Cirrus pseudo-stick (stoke?) is a bit annoying when hand flying for extended periods.
Click to expand...
Cirrus=sidestick
Skycatcher= Stoke
 
NoHeat said:
I know somebody who owned a DA40, then sold to get an SR22.

He liked the low stall speed of the DA40. But the hot cabin and light wing loading made for nausea in summertime turbulence.

The big wing also made it tricky to get the DA40 into a standard-size hangar -- there were only a few centimeters to spare on each wingtip, so he had to rig up some guides to align the plane perfectly when pushing it in.
Click to expand...
I’m sure 170KTAS vs 140KTAS probably factored somewhere in there as well. :)
 
Sundancer said:
I kinda think the Diamond is a less serious traveler, not as sold better in turbulence, maybe, as a SR20. It's subjective in my part of course.The Cirrus pseudo-stick (stoke?) is a bit annoying when hand flying for extended periods.
Click to expand...
I’ve flown one all over the place and even down to my reserves a couple times. It does fine as a traveler. You can also check out @wayneda40 ’s trips on his YouTube channel as well.
 
Diamonds are incredible aircraft. I looked heavily at Diamond and Cirrus. I flew both extensively to really get to know the handling, etc. I talked to a dozen maintenance shops to really understand the true cost of ownership. Originally I was looking for an SR22. I love the look and performance of the Cirrus (and my wife likes the parachute), but I had several concerns about Cirrus handling (spring-loaded side stick destroys feedback at slow speed), maintenance (75% of SR22's don't make it anywhere near TBO), and avionics in pre-2008 models. I finally decided on a 2008 Diamond DA40 XLS with 970 hours and I absolutely love it. Statistically, it's THE safest GA aircraft on the planet (even without a parachute), great avionics (G1000/GFC700 with WAAS, vertical navigation, synthetic vision), decent speed (150kts TAS), agile handling center stick and very easy to control, 850lbs useful load, 4 cylinder Lycoming IO-360 that is easy and relatively economical to maintain, burns around 8gph at 75%/150kts and 6.5gph LOP at 138kts. And no chute to repack every 10 years. Occasionally I would love another 200lbs of useful load and another 30kts of airspeed, but the price to pay for those, for the aforementioned issues, was way too high in my opinion. Diamond has it's challenges with the diesels, but the Lycomings are bulletproof.
 
Things I like about the DA40...

1. Low stall speed.
2. Easy to land.
3. Center stick = fun to fly.
4. Easy ingress/egress.
5. Good avionics.
6. Impressive safety record - although I have seen stats to suggest otherwise.
7. Efficiency. Better airspeed at the same fuel burns as a C172 or PA28. In fact, I flew it at the same airspeeds as my Arrow with about the same fuel burns. Maybe a little lower.

Things I don't like about the DA40...

1. Castering nosewheel, so a lot of braking steering at low speed.
2. The center stick is fun but unlike most airplanes with a center stick, you can't readily use a kneeboard or put charts on your lap. It's too close in. That scenario favors a Cirrus/Airbus/F16 style side stick. Don't get me wrong, if I could afford to rent an F16...
3. My (rental) DA40 could not idle at a normal speed due to vapor lock. Probably from a tight engine bay. We are talking about California. Consequently, the engine had to be semi gunned and more brake wear on the ground.
4. Range was limited. You really never had a good feel for how much fuel you were actually carrying because the gauges were affected by the high dihedral of the wings, and visually mostly full tanks would look empty when you viewed them through the filler port. I forget what the range is (I'm too lazy to look it up right now) but it was less than I was comfortably dealing with in any other plane.
5. You get beat up a lot. That is the trade between performance and low stall speed.

I view the DA40 as a plane you fly for fun, on good days, but not necessarily the best or most capable for point A to B missions involving distances outside of of its range.
 
Sac Arrow said:
Things I don't like about the DA40...

1...
Click to expand...
6. CG can go out the back a little too easily.

The fuel measurement device is super wonky, but I got around that by never using it. Either fill it to the bottom of the aux tanks or fill it all the way up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top