[quote=nathanda40 post_id=88494 time=1636074124 user_id=3447]
I'm looking at these STC's for the various available props. The Hartzell 2-Blade clearly says DA 40 XL, but we have a 2002 DA 40. Is this still compatible? Having a hard time understanding the nuances here.

https://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/uploads/DIAMOND-DA40XL.pdf
[/quote]

Yes it is. Note the oil cooler modification kit which is apparently included for older models.

I'm looking at these STC's for the various available props. The Hartzell 2-Blade clearly says DA 40 XL, but we have a 2002 DA 40. Is this still compatible? Having a hard time understanding the nuances here.

https://hartzellprop.com/wp-content/uploads/DIAMOND-DA40XL.pdf

I have no issue with steam gauges or glass as I have flown behind both. However, when I combine ease of future saleability and extra 5-7 knots I would think the newer plane wins out? A plane could never be considered a liquid asset but I assume the newer (2007/8) glass plane is easier to sell and possibly depreciate less than an older non glass plane, especially as I assume both are at an age where someone else has taken the initial heavy depreciation. I am looking to spend in the region of £150k (given how sterling is trading will have to be a sterling vendor!) with VAT paid and woul hope this gets me into an XL.

Steam gages work great for IFR. My DA40 is actually a little better equipped in some ways than the Boeing 767 that I am Flying this week. My 767 doesn't have Synthetic Vision, WAAS or satellite weather. In fact no airliner has SV but my old DA40 does.

I really liked my G1000 DA40XL but in the end it didn't do anything that my older DA40 couldn't do. So after considering the price differential, the weight and CG difference and the mission I decided to cash out on the XL and keep my 2002. Also as Antoine mentioned the difference in CG has a significant effect on how it feels. That is a hard thing to quantify but I like the feel much better than the aft CG, G1000, MT Prop equipped airplane. The newest DA40s are very nice. I just wouldn't discount the older planes.

True. If you're not flying IFR, an older DA40 can be a very nice alternative.
IIRC Lance wrote in another thread that they have nicer handling too.

So I would say: if you fly IFR, go for an XLS. If your mission is VFR, pick a well kept "steam gauge" that is cheap enough to let you upgrade it to look good and match your needs. It won't have a GFC700, but this is overkill for VFR-only.

[quote="Lance Murray"]There is a big difference between Active traffic (TCAS) and ADS-B. ADS-B does a lot but there will be holes and latency issues.
[/quote]

Not with direct ADS-B transmissions. There are issues today with non-ADS-B aircraft. But reception from ADS-B Out has no holes nor latency. While this is fairly rare today in 3 years it should be commonplace. In fact even now I find it more and more common.

(Trivia: The refund for the wingtips was $5,000.)

There is a big difference between Active traffic (TCAS) and ADS-B. ADS-B does a lot but there will be holes and latency issues.

[quote="Hetch"]Hi Antoine,

I am also a prospective DA40 xls buyer. Regarding your advice to get active traffic, wouldn't complying with the ADS-B requirements fulfill the same objective? Thus making the plane just as safe as one with active traffic monitoring? You can guess why I am asking lol

Thank you.[/quote]

Take a look at the Steam gage 2002-2003 DA40's. They have a far better useful load and far better CG. I regularly cruise at 138-142kts in my 2002.

[quote="Hetch"]Hi Antoine,

I am also a prospective DA40 xls buyer. Regarding your advice to get active traffic, wouldn't complying with the ADS-B requirements fulfill the same objective? Thus making the plane just as safe as one with active traffic monitoring? You can guess why I am asking lol

Thank you.[/quote]

In the US, this will come to be mostly true in about 3 years. Less so today. Qualifiers for today's situation:

1. You need some form of ADS-B IN to detect such traffic. As a practical matter, dual-band IN is a must.
2. Right now most aircraft are not ADS-B mandate compliant, so you mostly see traffic responding to interrogation picked up by ground radar and relayed to the ADS-B infrastructure.
3. Today, to be able to see non-ADS-B traffic you need to be in range of at least one of the ADS-B towers. Right now this is most, but not all, US airspace above a few hundred feet AGL. In some spots it's available all the way to the surface.

In 2020:
1. 1 (above) still applies.
2. If one assumes 100% conformity to regulations. You would see every bit of traffic with ADS-B that you would see with TCAS.
3. 100% regulation conformance is a big assumption. But the percentage of willfully non-conforming aircraft you'd encounter that would instead have their transponders operating is an interesting question. So how much better TCAS would be is debatable.

Outside the US, the state of usefulness of ADS-B varies widely, since large percentages of aircraft may not be subject to ADS-B requirements at all.

In any case you will never see, today or in any future scenario, aircraft without an operating transponder or ADS-B OUT system, whether legally or illegally, with either TCAS or ADS-B IN.