What plane would you choose for this mission?

Henning said:
The problem with a DA 40 in TX is the heat. The airframe has temp limitations that will ground it about 75 days a year in central TX. The other issue, also heat related, is their horrible ride in turbulence with those long wings. I flew one in TX for a few months and it beat me up a lot worse than the PA 12 did.
Click to expand...

elaborate on the heat issue... first i've heard of it


As for the A/C comments - there are lots of STC's for the bonanza for that. Also, the ice-chest arctic air units work like a champ if you dont want to bother with the hassle and expense of adding and maintaining a/c

I know a land-baron who flies around in a nice cherokee six and loves his arctic air. Here in NC the flying days you truly need it are less than 10. Nothing special, just a clean plane. I know not the most impressive setup, but he is beyond the point where he needs to impress folks.
 
Henning said:
The problem with a DA 40 in TX is the heat. The airframe has temp limitations that will ground it about 75 days a year in central TX. The other issue, also heat related, is their horrible ride in turbulence with those long wings. I flew one in TX for a few months and it beat me up a lot worse than the PA 12 did.
Click to expand...
I believe that you are mistaken. There is no upper temp limit for the DA40, only the DA20. The minimum temp limit is -40 deg C.

2.16 OTHER LIMITATIONS
2.16.1 TEMPERATURE
' The airplane must not be operated when its temperature is less than -40 °C (-40 °F).
' CAUTION
' For cold weather starting of the engine refer to the latest
' instructions given by the engine manufacturer.

I agree that it is not as stable as the Bonanza but no big deal if you ask me. Aftermarket A/C is available for about $28k from Premier in Florida. http://www.diamondaircraft.com/news/news-article.php?id=96
 
Henning said:
The problem with a DA 40 in TX is the heat. The airframe has temp limitations that will ground it about 75 days a year in central TX. The other issue, also heat related, is their horrible ride in turbulence with those long wings. I flew one in TX for a few months and it beat me up a lot worse than the PA 12 did.
Click to expand...
Don't think the DA-40 has those limits. the DA-20 does. The DA-40 is limited only to temps above -40 (C or F)
 
TMetzinger said:
Don't think the DA-40 has those limits. the DA-20 does. The DA-40 is limited only to temps above -40 (C or F)
Click to expand...

Hmmm, that's rather interesting to note, I guess they built the DA 40 heavy enough that it doesn't have a heat limit. That goes a long way to explaining why a DA 20 is the best/fastest of breed for the horsepower beating its metal competition handily and why the DA-40 while being decades more aerodynamically advanced than its metal competition is such a dog.
 
Henning said:
Hmmm, that's rather interesting to note, I guess they built the DA 40 heavy enough that it doesn't have a heat limit. That goes a long way to explaining why a DA 20 is the best/fastest of breed for the horsepower beating its metal competition handily and why the DA-40 while being decades more aerodynamically advanced than its metal competition is such a dog.
Click to expand...
Really? Compared to what? The 172 and Archer both have the same HP but are significantly slower and have lower climb rates.
 
I regularly see 138 KTAS on the DA40 at 10 GPH at 6000 feet. Not as fast as a mooney, but roomier and fixed gear.

I do agree with Henning that a DA40 with its long wings can be an un-fun experience in turbulence. But otherwise, it's terrific.
 
Gary F said:
Really? Compared to what? The 172 and Archer both have the same HP but are significantly slower and have lower climb rates.
Click to expand...

180hp 172 does 130-133, so does an Archer best I remember. DA 40 typical cruise power settings ended up 130-133.

Now lets look at the difference in airframes. The DA 40 is super slick and clean, not a rivet out there, a low drag waste reducing the surface (drag) area over the C&P models significantly and equipped with airfoils that are decades and billions of dollars of R&D ahead of the C&P models as well.

The plane has the same horsepower and a design that is 3 generations ahead of the C&P competition yet goes the same speed/distance for the same fuel.

Let's use a modern comparison plane, an SR-20. Pull the power back on the SR 20 to 180hp and it will walk away from the DA 40 with 10+ kts to spare. Funniest thing about that is the SR-22 is heavier than the DA-40.

So why is the DA-40 a dog? It has a glider wing on it, great for efficiency when slow, but suck balls for getting anywhere quickly unless you are doing so at extreme altitudes which the non turbo DA 40 is not able to take advantage of.

IMO the DA 40 has the aerodynamics for a mission that it is not equipped to do nor marketed for. To make the DA-40 into a really useful plane with those wings it should be turbocharged and pressurized, either that or cut a few feet off each wing and make it an honest naturally aspirated airplane.

Next we combine that with seats that are a long way from being comfortable (I flew one from Key West to Grand Cayman and by the time we were on approach my rear end was seriously hurting) and the worst ride in turbulence that I have experienced from small planes so yeah, I call it a dog.
 
Henning said:
180hp 172 does 130-133, so does an Archer best I remember. DA 40 typical cruise power settings ended up 130-133.

Now lets look at the difference in airframes. The DA 40 is super slick and clean, not a rivet out there, a low drag waste reducing the surface (drag) area over the C&P models significantly and equipped with airfoils that are decades and billions of dollars of R&D ahead of the C&P models as well.

The plane has the same horsepower and a design that is 3 generations ahead of the C&P competition yet goes the same speed/distance for the same fuel.

Let's use a modern comparison plane, an SR-20. Pull the power back on the SR 20 to 180hp and it will walk away from the DA 40 with 10+ kts to spare. Funniest thing about that is the SR-22 is heavier than the DA-40.

So why is the DA-40 a dog? It has a glider wing on it, great for efficiency when slow, but suck balls for getting anywhere quickly unless you are doing so at extreme altitudes which the non turbo DA 40 is not able to take advantage of.

IMO the DA 40 has the aerodynamics for a mission that it is not equipped to do nor marketed for. To make the DA-40 into a really useful plane with those wings it should be turbocharged and pressurized, either that or cut a few feet off each wing and make it an honest naturally aspirated airplane.

Next we combine that with seats that are a long way from being comfortable (I flew one from Key West to Grand Cayman and by the time we were on approach my rear end was seriously hurting) and the worst ride in turbulence that I have experienced from small planes so yeah, I call it a dog.
Click to expand...

Really makes ya go back and look at the 210 which at $45k will leave you with $150k reserves for all the other expenses of ownership.

and at 155k the 210 will haul 4 pax, and baggage all day long or what ever your butt will stand.
 
Arbiter419 said:
Do you mean indicated? It would true a lot higher as you increase your altitude.
Click to expand...

Yes, sorry. I think the only time I have gotten close to 130 (not at sea level) would be when I was breaking in the new Cylinder.....like 127 true at 7k. I was burning an ungodly amount of gas too.
 
Henning said:
180hp 172 does 130-133, so does an Archer best I remember. DA 40 typical cruise power settings ended up 130-133.

Now lets look at the difference in airframes. The DA 40 is super slick and clean, not a rivet out there, a low drag waste reducing the surface (drag) area over the C&P models significantly and equipped with airfoils that are decades and billions of dollars of R&D ahead of the C&P models as well.

The plane has the same horsepower and a design that is 3 generations ahead of the C&P competition yet goes the same speed/distance for the same fuel.

Let's use a modern comparison plane, an SR-20. Pull the power back on the SR 20 to 180hp and it will walk away from the DA 40 with 10+ kts to spare. Funniest thing about that is the SR-22 is heavier than the DA-40.

So why is the DA-40 a dog? It has a glider wing on it, great for efficiency when slow, but suck balls for getting anywhere quickly unless you are doing so at extreme altitudes which the non turbo DA 40 is not able to take advantage of.

IMO the DA 40 has the aerodynamics for a mission that it is not equipped to do nor marketed for. To make the DA-40 into a really useful plane with those wings it should be turbocharged and pressurized, either that or cut a few feet off each wing and make it an honest naturally aspirated airplane.

Next we combine that with seats that are a long way from being comfortable (I flew one from Key West to Grand Cayman and by the time we were on approach my rear end was seriously hurting) and the worst ride in turbulence that I have experienced from small planes so yeah, I call it a dog.
Click to expand...
That was a slow DA40. I will elaborate later when I have more time. Sheepskin seat-covers help with comfort and if you are not too tall a padded seat cushion is a good idea. Shorter wings would probably help with speed. One DA40 is now being tested with a supercharger and preliminary results are encouraging.
 
Gary F said:
That was a slow DA40. I will elaborate later when I have more time. Sheepskin seat-covers help with comfort and if you are not too tall a padded seat cushion is a good idea. Shorter wings would probably help with speed.One DA40 is now being tested with a supercharger and preliminary results are encouraging.
Click to expand...

I've flown 5 of them and they all did the same speed... Maybe I'm not getting it on the step.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
I've flown 5 of them and they all did the same speed... Maybe I'm not getting it on the step.:dunno:
Click to expand...
I am surprised you keep flying different copies of this "dog". My DA40 started out slow but was able to get it to go faster after my A&P adjusted the rigging, replaced both mags, adjusted the timing and replaced the stock exhaust with the Powerflow exhaust. Diamond also came out with a "speed kit" with smaller tires and new fairings on newer models. Many rentals have no wheel fairings let alone a nose gear strut fairing. Two blade props are reportedly a couple of knots faster than the MT 3 blade.
 
Gary F said:
I am surprised you keep flying different copies of this "dog". My DA40 started out slow but was able to get it to go faster after my A&P adjusted the rigging, replaced both mags, adjusted the timing and replaced the stock exhaust with the Powerflow exhaust. Diamond also came out with a "speed kit" with smaller tires and new fairings on newer models. Many rentals have no wheel fairings let alone a nose gear strut fairing. Two blade props are reportedly a couple of knots faster than the MT 3 blade.
Click to expand...


So they deliver a dog and then you have to spend umpteen more thousands of dollars to pick up a few knots? You think this is a good deal?
 
Henning said:
So they deliver a dog and then you have to spend umpteen more thousands of dollars to pick up a few knots? You think this is a good deal?
Click to expand...
I love my DA40, worth every cent I have put into it. The weather here is improving. It looks like I'm gonna get to fly tomorrow. No flying when icing is an issue, a shortcoming of the DA40.
 
Henning said:
At this point there is only one GA aircraft that fits and that's a Bonanza...
Click to expand...

Not even close old wise one. Fly an RV and you would throw rocks at any Bonanza. You can LEGALLY do all of the maintenance, annuals are $500 a year usually. Parts are available and of much better quality the commercially built planes. You can change the panels to the lastest technology once a year if you have the money. Less fuel burn, more nimble, faster, no STC needed for mogas. What's not to like? :dunno:

And the overhead break thing. ;)
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
Not even close old wise one. Fly an RV and you would throw rocks at any Bonanza. You can LEGALLY do all of the maintenance, annuals are $500 a year usually. Parts are available and of much better quality the commercially built planes. You can change the panels legally once a year of you have he money. Less fuel burn, more nimble, faster, no STC needed for mogas.

And the overhead break thing. ;)
Click to expand...

If you are comfortable with that OK, many people are not comfortable flying someone else's homebuilt.
 
Henning said:
If you are comfortable with that OK, many people are not comfortable flying someone else's homebuilt.
Click to expand...
If you are playing a land baron flying passengers they might not be too impressed with the placard in homebuilts either.
 
Henning said:
If you are comfortable with that OK, many people are not comfortable flying someone else's homebuilt.
Click to expand...

The safety record of experimental and certified aircraft are the same. If stupid pilots would fly within their capabilities I believe the experimental safety record would be slightly better. There has been enough history now with over 7,800 flying RV's to prove to anyone they are safe, and IMHO safer. ;)

A prebuy inspection using the same criteria you would use on the Bonanza should expose any issues. I have bought and sold a dozen RV's never has an issue I could not fix myself, log it, and disclose it. Never had an airframe issue, mostly panel and engine stuff.

Parts are 1/3 or less to replace stuff.

Take a good and go for a ride. I still say you'll get the RV grin. :D
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The safety record of experimental and certified aircraft are the same. If stupid pilots would fly within their capabilities I believe the experimental safety record would be slightly better. There has been enough history now with over 7,800 flying RV's to prove to anyone they are safe, and IMHO safer. ;)

A prebuy inspection using the same criteria you would use on the Bonanza should expose any issues. I have bought and sold a dozen RV's never has an issue I could not fix myself, log it, and disclose it. Never had an airframe issue, mostly panel and engine stuff.

Parts are 1/3 or less to replace stuff.

Take a good and go for a ride. I still say you'll get the RV grin. :D
Click to expand...

Well, the RV series does have a pretty interesting accident history. That the tricycle/A models (at one point at least) had a worse landing accident record than the tail draggers did.
 
Henning said:
Well, the RV series does have a pretty interesting accident history. That the tricycle/A models (at one point at least) had a worse landing accident record than the tail draggers did.
Click to expand...

Mostly poor piloting technique, but the front gear on the "A" models can be a weak link. It is a "kick stand" to keep the prop off the ground, not a main gear. Most flip overs are due to repeated 3 point landings, and mostly pilots of certified planes with bad habits of coming it too fast and putting all the wheels on the ground at once and letting go of the stick.

Good technique is everything. Come in at a good landing speed and touch the mains first holding the nose wheel off the ground until there is no lift. Then hold the stick back until you park.

Another factor was flying off ROUGH grass strips. One guy hit a 6 " gopher mound and wondered why he flipped. If he had done a proper "wheelie" landing he would have been fine.

The 10 and the 12 have no issues at all with the nose gear.

All planes have quirks and issues. The good news is RV's are cheap to fix?!:rofl:

It is Saturday! Time to fly!
 
Last edited:
Geico266 said:
The safety record of experimental and certified aircraft are the same. If stupid pilots would fly within their capabilities I believe the experimental safety record would be slightly better. There has been enough history now with over 7,800 flying RV's to prove to anyone they are safe, and IMHO safer. ;)

A prebuy inspection using the same criteria you would use on the Bonanza should expose any issues. I have bought and sold a dozen RV's never has an issue I could not fix myself, log it, and disclose it. Never had an airframe issue, mostly panel and engine stuff.

Parts are 1/3 or less to replace stuff.

Take a good and go for a ride. I still say you'll get the RV grin. :D
Click to expand...

I am sorry but the safety records are not even close. Certified aircraft are much safer. Even the EAA has had many articles saying the same thing.

The safety record of homebuilts is not as good as certified general aviation aircraft. In the United States, in 2003, amateur-built aircraft experienced a rate of 21.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours; the overall general aviation accident rate for that year was 6.75 per 100,000 flight hours.[
 
Last edited:
dennyleeb said:
I am sorry but the safety records are not even close. Certified aircraft are much safer. Even the EAA has had many articles saying the same thing.
Click to expand...

For ALL experimentals versus ALL certified, you're correct.

Meaningless in a discussion about a specific RV model, though.
 
TMetzinger said:
For ALL experimentals versus ALL certified, you're correct.

Meaningless in a discussion about a specific RV model, though.
Click to expand...

Oh, I did not know that RV's were certified

The RV crowd has a chip on their shoulder. You could come on here asking which turboprop to buy a tbm 850, meridian, or pc 12 and some RV guy would say why not a RV 10 it goes 300 kts on 9gph and has a 10000 lb usefull load,

it gets so old
 
Last edited:
The biggest issue I see with experimental aircraft is trying to get a non pilot into one with all of the placarding. You can talk until you are blue in the face, but most people when they see "EXPERIMENTAL" are not going to get in.

Back to the topic, the 210 idea is intriguing me. How do they handle heat? What would some estimates be for paint, panel upgrade, etc.. Also, it is a 50 year old airframe, should that be a concern? My goal is to get the plane setup the way I want it and to fly the tar our of it.
 
dennyleeb said:
Oh, I did not know that RV's were certified

The RV crowd has a chip on their shoulder. You could come on here asking which turboprop to buy a tbm 850, meridian, or pc 12 and some RV guy would say why not a RV 10 it goes 300 kts on 9gph and has a 10000 lb usefull load,

it gets so old
Click to expand...


You forgot to mention while being fully aerobatic.:rofl:

So the OP comes to the airport with a new client for the 150 mile flight. It's August in Austin and the temp. on the ramp is 120 degrees. Sweating as soon as they step out of the car in business suits, the new client is shown to their seat for the flight. First climb up on the wing, hold onto the canopy, and swing your leg in...

http://www.bettertester.com/N84RM/RV-4 84RM Photos/Cockpit/RV84RM-Cockpit_ (1).jpg

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the ride. We'll be the rebels at this meeting for sure with the wind blown, sweaty back, rugged look, everyone is trying to emulate.
 
Geico266 said:
Not even close old wise one. Fly an RV and you would throw rocks at any Bonanza. You can LEGALLY do all of the maintenance, annuals are $500 a year usually. Parts are available and of much better quality the commercially built planes. You can change the panels to the lastest technology once a year if you have the money. Less fuel burn, more nimble, faster, no STC needed for mogas. What's not to like? :dunno:

And the overhead break thing. ;)
Click to expand...
It looks like you suggest that somebody who purchases a homebuilt can do the maintenance on it. I thought that that only applies if you built that airplane yourself.
 
We all know that our Gecko friend has an RV bias. Of course, it's no secret that I have a twin bias, so I'm ok with him having an RV bias. He's got some good reasons, and I'll admit that the RVs have a lot of attractive traits. I'd buy a Lancair first any day, but that's because I like their tradeoffs more.

When you're talking about passenger perception, things that have no bearing on reality become important. Aesthetics for sure, but I've found most of the passengers I fly places feel much more comfortable with two engines. But that's perception. They'd be more comfortable in an over-gross Travel Air than an A36 Bonanza (even though the Travel Air wouldn't be better) simply because it's got two turning.

I find as the pilot it's important to appreciate passenger perceptions, but I'm more concerned with whether or not I'll actually be able to save your ass when something goes to hell.
 
I think most airplanes we are talking about here will fail to impress many passengers. I have heard people say, "It's so small! And it has PROPS!" about a King Air, and a Q-400.
 
Everskyward said:
I think most airplanes we are talking about here will fail to impress many passengers. I have heard people say, "It's so small! And it has PROPS!" about a King Air, and a Q-400.
Click to expand...

I heard that yesterday when hopping onto the DHC-8-100. I was about to tell the person "Do you understand how jet engines work? Because the turbofan jet engines on the 737 you were just on are basically oversized propellers."

There is one person I know who actually prefers propellers to jets, and he's a non-pilot. Reason: "I can see what a propeller is doing. Jets just magically make thrust." I like this person. :)
 
After riding in a Q400 earlier this week, I know why they might feel that way. A pump of some kind rattled and squealed for the entire trip. I assume it was a flow-pack or ACM issue, since the air volume from the Wemacs was non-existent. No mas.

Everskyward said:
I think most airplanes we are talking about here will fail to impress many passengers. I have heard people say, "It's so small! And it has PROPS!" about a King Air, and a Q-400.
Click to expand...
 
N2124v said:
Back to the topic, the 210 idea is intriguing me. How do they handle heat? What would some estimates be for paint, panel upgrade, etc.. Also, it is a 50 year old airframe, should that be a concern? My goal is to get the plane setup the way I want it and to fly the tar our of it.
Click to expand...

For your stated mission this 210 http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/Single+Engine+Piston/1961/Cessna/210A/1434290.html is an over kill, this aircraft has the ability to haul you anywhere on most any day. You load to conditions with any aircraft and never try to fly at gross on the hot days.
Why would you even think about upgrades with this aircraft for your mission? the major maintenance items are already completed.
Simply buy it and fly it. hold the $150k for expenses.
 
Everskyward said:
I think most airplanes we are talking about here will fail to impress many passengers. I have heard people say, "It's so small! And it has PROPS!" about a King Air, and a Q-400.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Esp. if you go with a newer plane. I have never had anybody that was not impressed. (maybe not the pilot so much)
 
Tom-D;832042]
Why would you even think about upgrades with this aircraft for your mission?
Click to expand...
Because they might want it to look like it was less than 50 years old with a panel less than 80? What does the big attitude gyro stuck up on the corner of the panel tell you about the layout? What chance do you think that it will have lights in the panel? Or do you think a red light hanging from the ceiling is desirable in today's market? Do you think the hand-held GPS mounted in the panel is part of the current IFR certs? Or might he want to buy something with some potential resale value when time comes to sell it? My question is why would anybody with a lick of sense even consider buying that dog? /QUOTE]

the major maintenance items are already completed.
Click to expand...

"and the little dog laughed to hear such mirth, and the dish ran away with the spoon"

Simply buy it and fly it. hold the $150k for expenses, because you'll probably need it sooner than you think.
Click to expand...

YGBSM
 
wabower said:
Tom-D;832042]
Because they might want it to look like it was less than 50 years old with a panel less than 80? What does the big attitude gyro stuck up on the corner of the panel tell you about the layout? What chance do you think that it will have lights in the panel? Or do you think a red light hanging from the ceiling is desirable in today's market? Do you think the hand-held GPS mounted in the panel is part of the current IFR certs? Or might he want to buy something with some potential resale value when time comes to sell it? My question is why would anybody with a lick of sense even consider buying that dog? /QUOTE]



"and the little dog laughed to hear such mirth, and the dish ran away with the spoon"



YGBSM
Click to expand...
I know you and I have flown much worse equipped aircraft on much greater missions, There are a lot of hours in the 210 that could be flown with out spending any money other than op costs.

Every one doesn't have to fly the best example of the type, some can simply go fly, have fun, and do what they must get done.
Remember some of us still look out the window, if the picture ain't right, we simply fix it.
 
Tom-D, I was just thinking down the road. I have flown some dogs before and trust me, if it has a windmill out front and is safe to fly, I don't care if it looks bad. But wife and other non pilot passengers equate looks with safety, plus, I like gadgets and gizmos.

As far as a twin goes, since I don't have the rating yet, I was not looking at them. Plus, with other family issues (older parents) not climbing up on the wing to get in is a plus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top