DA40NG

Open for questions of visitors of DAN. Posts of our guests are on moderation queue.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
H60 pilot
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:26 pm
First Name: Mick
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N691YW
Airports: PHNL
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by H60 pilot »

CFIDave wrote:If so, then how were we cruising along at 150+ knots TAS yesterday on a 2 hour x-country flight in a new DA40 NG?
Question if you don't mind Dave; What altitude and power setting was the NG doing 150 ktas?
I ask because the lowest altitude I can determine per the NG's POH is between 12000-14000 ft. to see those numbers.
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Tommy »

Dave,it's easy to cherry pick performance depending on what you are focusing on as in your example. When you look at the greater spectrum of performance there's no way the NG will out perform the NA especially the closer you get to sea level. What you are implying is the NG will fly faster, longer while being heavier and burn less fuel than the NA. It's just not going to happen over the larger spectrum.
If you were to compare both the NG and the NA within a specific range of let's say sea level to 8,000' then you would get a more complete picture. Then compare the two at say 10,000' and up. Look at the whole picture (take off distance over 50' obstacles, climb rate, landing distance, stall speeds, maneuverability etc.) not just cherry picking what you know is the best airspeed at a specific altitude. By the way, what was your fuel flow at 10,000' to achieve 150 tas?
The DA42 and the 62 are the same way down low. They're dogs and yes I have time in the 42. Get up over 14,000' and you will get max. speed. However, you will also be at max power setting and fuel flow. Bring your oxygen with you.
No matter how you cut it, if you want speed and performance you need to be light (which the diesel is not) and you need a big motor which means you will burn a lot of fuel. Big motor + lots of fuel = more speed. Yes, a turbo will help, but, that also does not come without a price.
If your airport is high altitude, say 5,000' or higher and most of your flying is to other airports of equal or higher elevation then there is no choice. You have to go with the NG, you'd be crazy not to. However, if your home airport is at say under 3,000' msl and most of your flying is to airports of similar elevation (like half of the US) then you would have no advantage going NG. NA would be the choice hands down.
In addition, what is the average length of flight and altitude. Not every flight is at 10,000' and 1,200 miles.
Common sense people, common sense. Look at the whole range of use.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by CFIDave »

H60 pilot wrote:
CFIDave wrote:If so, then how were we cruising along at 150+ knots TAS yesterday on a 2 hour x-country flight in a new DA40 NG?
Question if you don't mind Dave; What altitude and power setting was the NG doing 150 ktas?
I ask because the lowest altitude I can determine per the NG's POH is between 12000-14000 ft. to see those numbers.
We were running 90% power (max continuous power is 92% so we could have gone faster), cruising for 2 hours at 151 knots.

The reason these are better than "book" airspeeds is that we weren't at max gross weight with only 2 large pilots and full fuel onboard. The AFM/POH performance numbers for the NG are for its max gross weight of 1310 kg/2888 lbs.

In comparing aircraft, it's worth remembering that a DA40 NG with full fuel can carry about 70 lbs more payload than a typical Lycoming DA40 XLS/XLT with full fuel, with both planes at their respective maximum gross weights. The 70 lbs difference is because the NG has about 30 lbs more useful load, combined with about a 40 lbs difference in fuel weight (the NG "extended range" tanks hold only 39 gallons of JetA vs. 50 gal of avgas for the XLS). Because of the higher fuel efficiency of the NG, it doesn't need to carry as many gallons for the same mission.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by CFIDave »

Tommy wrote:What you are implying is the NG will fly faster, longer while being heavier and burn less fuel than the NA.
Yes, that's exactly right. The Austro diesel has a BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) that's about 30% better than an avgas Lycoming engine. Combine that with the turbo's ability to more-rapidly climb up to higher altitudes where the thinner air creates less drag (you typically gain about 3 knots TAS for each additional 2000 feet of altitude). These factors, in turn, require the NG to carry less fuel for a given mission (it only needs 39 gallon tanks), offsetting some of the 200 lbs extra weight of the Austro engine relative to a Lycoming.

You just need to think about flying a DA40 NG differently than what you're used to with a Lycoming DA40. Even for shorter trips it's worth it to climb up higher, because it's so easy. Yes, a Lycoming will out-climb an NG at sea-level. So what? A Beech Baron BE58 will out-climb an Austro engined DA42-VI at sea level, but at 5000 feet when formation flying with a friend's Baron, we discovered that the the DA42-VI will out-climb the Baron. At 10,000 feet they both cruise at about the same airspeed, with the Diamond burning less than half the fuel.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
Colin
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2006
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2010 8:37 pm
First Name: Colin
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N972RD
Airports: KFHR
Has thanked: 319 times
Been thanked: 527 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Colin »

My plane can stay in the air 7.5 hours. I have never been in it more than 5hrs 20min but that was an extreme case (my wife wanted to see how long we could be comfortable, apparently KABQ – KCPS is our range). In our DA40 IO-360 I once did 4.6hrs and was extremely uncomfortable once I got on the ground (KABQ – KICT). In the non-reclining seats with the roar and vibration of the tractor engine, I didn't really like legs longer than 3.2 hours (that's after 1,600 hours of experimentation, I know it seems sort of exact). All the talk of "I can make it that far with only one fuel stop..." makes me want to book a JetBlue ticket. But I am wimpy.

The reclining seat made a huge difference. So did JetA (for cost).
Colin Summers, PP Multi-Engine IFR, ~3,000hrs
colin@mightycheese.com * send email rather than PM
http://www.flyingsummers.com
N972RD DA42 G1000 2.0 s/n 42.AC100 (sold!)
N971RD DA40 G1000 s/n 40.508 (traded)
User avatar
Keith M
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 363
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 9:54 am
First Name: Keith
Aircraft Type: DA40D
Airports: EGNH
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 46 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Keith M »

Colin wrote:The reclining seat made a huge difference.
Did the cabin crew offer eye shades and a blanket as well! 8)
You gotta love a good autopilot!
User avatar
Sandy
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 247
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2016 12:30 pm
First Name: Sanford
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N159PS
Airports: KPDK
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 48 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Sandy »

@Rich,

Where did you have the PF exhaust installed? Did it require other (prop, etc.) changes, as well? Cost?
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 4592
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
First Name: Rich
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N40XE
Airports: S39 Prineville OR
Has thanked: 145 times
Been thanked: 1180 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Rich »

Sandy wrote:@Rich,

Where did you have the PF exhaust installed? Did it require other (prop, etc.) changes, as well? Cost?
I did it in my hangar, with my IA/A&P mechanic signoff. Swapping out the old system for the new is bolt-on with the requisite incantation of magic words here and there :) I had another mechanic that does composite work patch the hole in the lower cowling where the old exhaust exited the bottom. (He did it in his garage/shop.)

I have the MT prop so I didn't have to change that. If you have the "wrong" kind of Hartzell, however, you'd need to swap it out, basically doubling the cost for parts.

So it was basically what the unit cost (roughly $6K IIRC, in 2006) plus what I paid the guy to do the lower cowling ($250). PF now supplies some of the stuff required for the patch, but it still requires some work to get a clean-looking install.

Incidentally, I was able to recoup a bit of the cost by selling the old exhaust system parts. There are still quite a few of the old systems out there. This would also be true of the Hartzell, I would think.
2002 DA40-180: MT, PowerFlow, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal., Surefly, Flightstream 210, Orion 600 LED, XeVision, Aspen E5
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2043
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
First Name: Antoine
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N121AG
Airports: LSGG
Has thanked: 87 times
Been thanked: 220 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Antoine »

I see this debate is heating up!
Let us push the DA40-TDI on the scene, with the 155 HP Conthielert engine.
I have a few hours in its 135 HP sibling and I think it's a dog, but the 155 HP version seems to climb very well and hit 150 KTAS. And it shares the same slow speed "magic" with all of the DA40 variants minus one...
Tommy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 801
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 10:48 am
First Name: Tommy
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N591CA
Airports: KCGF
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: DA40NG

Post by Tommy »

Dave, again, what you are doing is cherry picking and high lighting what you want people to see. Diamond literature is really good at that. You do yourself and others a disservice by not completely looking at the entire performance envelope of any airplane when comparing. The entire section five of the POH should be reviewed and studied from sea level to service ceiling to get a comprehensive picture of the differences in performance between a NG and a NA 40. It is quite enlightening. The same can be said about the 42s and 62s.
No matter how you cut it, weight is the enemy of performance and the NG is I believe about 230 lbs. heavier than the Lycoming. While you can carry less fuel because of diesel efficiency, it also weights almost a pound more than 100LL. So right off the bat you are starting with an aircraft that has poorer performance from the get go. Does the performance increase as you increase in altitude, of course it does. However, if you look at the whole picture, the comparison is surprising and may not be what one initially would expect.
That being said, I can't talk for Beech, but, my Aerostar 600 will start sea level climb at better than 1,800' a minute and hold 900' through 10,000'. I will beat a DA62 from sea level to 15,000' over time. I will hold 200 kts. +- through 8,000' and better than 195 kts. through 10,000'. I will hold 194 kts. at 15,000'.
Yes Dave, I will burn, about 34 to 32 gph through 5,000'. At 10,000' I'm at 28 gph and at 15,000 I'm at 24 gph and you're burning 20 gph to get max performance at 95% even though the POH NOTE: suggests 75% for cruise.
All of my fuel burns are ROP. So yes, I burn more 100 LL and yes it is more expensive than diesel.
My plane, without getting into a lot of detail because it would take up to much space and time to list everything, is completely refurbished. All new Garmin glass, all new interiors, 200 hr. overhauled engines, wing extensions and winglets, all lighting interior and exterior LED's, all performance upgrades, all new paint. It took 2 1/2 years and just over $330,000, but it is better than new. I can buy a lot of avgas for what I have saved refurbing vs. buying new.
One of the nice things about the Aerostar that I really loved about the DA40 is the ability to look right out of the side windows and not see a wing or engines. You can't do that in a 42 or 62 or any other twin that I am aware of. I also have overhead windows. The panoramic view is very much the same as the DA40. Oh, by the way, Bose A20s work wonders.
So as you can see, everyone has different tastes, likes and puts different values on all of them to come up with a final selection. It is the knowledgeable pilot that will make the correct selection. Again, for those of you looking to make a purchase, study the POH section five exhaustively. You will not regret it. I guarantee.
I almost forgot, once you start adding on all of those options that everyone likes to have like air-conditioning, tsk, etc., you're speed and carrying capacity starts to take a nose dive in a big way. Don't believe me, look up the numbers. The numbers don't lie.
Post Reply