DA40NG
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- nrenno
- 3 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 1:35 am
- First Name: Nilton
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N63WP
- Airports: KARB
- Has thanked: 18 times
- Been thanked: 3 times
Re: DA40NG
I am enjoying this interesting discussion.
I agree with Tommy that performance discussions need to be based on quantitative information. Baselines need to be established before meaningful comparisons can be made. Density altitude and power setting are key parameters that needs to be considered.
In my opinion, less is more. The simpler the machine, the more reliable it is likely to be. This might be the main reason why the IO-360 is a bullet proof engine.
Comparing fuel cost only is misleading. The acquisition, insurance and maintenance costs need to be considered. For example, an investment of $500k in a conservative fund would generate around $50k/year. This pays for a lot of fuel, besides insurance and maintenance.
I agree with Tommy that performance discussions need to be based on quantitative information. Baselines need to be established before meaningful comparisons can be made. Density altitude and power setting are key parameters that needs to be considered.
In my opinion, less is more. The simpler the machine, the more reliable it is likely to be. This might be the main reason why the IO-360 is a bullet proof engine.
Comparing fuel cost only is misleading. The acquisition, insurance and maintenance costs need to be considered. For example, an investment of $500k in a conservative fund would generate around $50k/year. This pays for a lot of fuel, besides insurance and maintenance.
Re: DA40NG
This is an interesting debate. I’m considering buying a new DA40 NG so keep the comparisons coming. Especially, if you’ve flown both. My real concern isn’t as much the cruise performance as the differences in slow flight maneuvering, take-off/climb performance towards gross weight, and stall speed increase impact on safety.
- AndrewM
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
- First Name: Andrew
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: N897KC
- Airports:
- Has thanked: 73 times
- Been thanked: 75 times
Re: DA40NG
Agreed, this is a wonderful discussion. The one thing that is missing however is more actual owners of the NG coming in and giving their views of not only the performance issues noted above, but also the overall ownership experience. What are the issues? Is maintenance much more expensive? Any other issues...? Is the T/O performance really an issue under different real-world experiences? I am looking to buy my second DA40, and this time considering the NG. Will be flying one later this month, and looking forward to that greatly.
- CFIDave
- 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
Tommy:
I'm glad you like your Aerostar so much. As about the highest-performance GA piston twin available, with a relatively high wing loading and stall speed, the Aerostar is just not a plane that I would like to own. Nobody buys a Diamond because it's the fastest; they buy it because of its "fun to fly" benign handling qualities and control feel, visibility, modern design, efficiency and economy of operation, and especially for its safety record. As you noted, different values for different pilots.
You obviously don't like the DA42 or DA62 twins; if so, you're not going to like a DA40 NG that, while handling like a Lycoming DA40, otherwise reminds me a great deal of flying my previously-owned DA42-VI. Smooth, quiet, efficient, with engines designed in this century. Flying my first DA40 NG x-country flight at night at 11,000 feet, I could'a sworn I was flying a DA42.
I already did the math to show that the weight difference for an NG vs. Lycoming in the real world is smaller due to the NG carrying less fuel weight (even with JetA weighing 0.7 lbs/gal more) for a given mission. Above 5-6000 feet the NG will out climb a Lycoming DA40 and go just as fast, if not faster. You're "cherry picking" performance by insisting that you must fly a DA40 down low.
I wish everyone could actually fly and experience a DA40 NG and then compare it to flying a Lycoming DA40. So far, everyone I know who has flown both prefers the NG; I've been providing NG transition training and multiple demo flights to pilots whose previous experience was flying Lycoming DA40s. I already told you that the owner of the new NG here traded in his 2008 DA40 XLS to get it, and is pleased with his decision.
IMHO, if you're just considering performance numbers or looking to save money by buying fewer gallons of cheaper JetA, you're missing the real reason to get an NG instead of a Lycoming DA40: the experience of flying a thoroughly modern aircraft with an engine as refined as the airframe. No more flying a "George Jetson airplane with a Fred Flintstone engine."
I'm glad you like your Aerostar so much. As about the highest-performance GA piston twin available, with a relatively high wing loading and stall speed, the Aerostar is just not a plane that I would like to own. Nobody buys a Diamond because it's the fastest; they buy it because of its "fun to fly" benign handling qualities and control feel, visibility, modern design, efficiency and economy of operation, and especially for its safety record. As you noted, different values for different pilots.
You obviously don't like the DA42 or DA62 twins; if so, you're not going to like a DA40 NG that, while handling like a Lycoming DA40, otherwise reminds me a great deal of flying my previously-owned DA42-VI. Smooth, quiet, efficient, with engines designed in this century. Flying my first DA40 NG x-country flight at night at 11,000 feet, I could'a sworn I was flying a DA42.
I already did the math to show that the weight difference for an NG vs. Lycoming in the real world is smaller due to the NG carrying less fuel weight (even with JetA weighing 0.7 lbs/gal more) for a given mission. Above 5-6000 feet the NG will out climb a Lycoming DA40 and go just as fast, if not faster. You're "cherry picking" performance by insisting that you must fly a DA40 down low.
I wish everyone could actually fly and experience a DA40 NG and then compare it to flying a Lycoming DA40. So far, everyone I know who has flown both prefers the NG; I've been providing NG transition training and multiple demo flights to pilots whose previous experience was flying Lycoming DA40s. I already told you that the owner of the new NG here traded in his 2008 DA40 XLS to get it, and is pleased with his decision.
IMHO, if you're just considering performance numbers or looking to save money by buying fewer gallons of cheaper JetA, you're missing the real reason to get an NG instead of a Lycoming DA40: the experience of flying a thoroughly modern aircraft with an engine as refined as the airframe. No more flying a "George Jetson airplane with a Fred Flintstone engine."
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
- TimS
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 553
- Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
- First Name: Timothy
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N1446C
- Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
- Has thanked: 94 times
- Been thanked: 97 times
Re: DA40NG
I loved the Aerostar 602P upgraded to the 700. I would out race older KA-90s on occasion.
Anyway, having had this debate multiple times with people who have bought many planes. Only old guy is on his 30th plane
Any buyer should determine what matters to them. Dave is pointing out that for many, strict performance at low level is of less concern. There are other variables in play.
Comfort, cost efficiency, cruise performance, and then a distance fourth is low level cruise performance. So if I wanted a roughly 130 knot block speed plane; I am much more likely to look at the NG.
Tim
Anyway, having had this debate multiple times with people who have bought many planes. Only old guy is on his 30th plane
Any buyer should determine what matters to them. Dave is pointing out that for many, strict performance at low level is of less concern. There are other variables in play.
Comfort, cost efficiency, cruise performance, and then a distance fourth is low level cruise performance. So if I wanted a roughly 130 knot block speed plane; I am much more likely to look at the NG.
Tim
-
- 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
This is the point I am trying to make right here. Literally every question you are asking is available (with the exception of actually flying the plane) on Diamond's web site under support / technical publications. You can pull up every POH for every plane that Diamond makes. You can go through the entire DA40 NG POH specifically section five and see all of the performance parameters. You can then compare these performance parameters against the DA40-180 (or any single engine airplane) and see exactly what all the differences are.BKR wrote:This is an interesting debate. I’m considering buying a new DA40 NG so keep the comparisons coming. Especially, if you’ve flown both. My real concern isn’t as much the cruise performance as the differences in slow flight maneuvering, take-off/climb performance towards gross weight, and stall speed increase impact on safety.
I loved my DA40 XLT, best single engine airplane I ever flew. It was just to much fun both up high and down low. I honestly do not believe there is a better single engine plane out there on the market. I have many posts on this forum raving about the the 40s virtues.
However, no, I am not a fan of the diesel. It changed way to many flying characteristics of the airplane and those changes can be seen and quantified within section five of the POH that is available on line to anyone who wants to see. I did like flying the DA42. You cannot have a bad landing in that airplane. The trailing link gear makes it impossible to have a bad landing. A bad landing in a 42 is really a crash landing. There is nothing in between.
I really got spoiled in my 40. The view of the world through the canopy for me was just to much to give up. You just don't get that view in the 42 or 62 with those engines starring at you every time you look left or right outside the canopy. I like seeing the world go by and that is another reason I really like flying down low.
The DA40NG in just about every category of performance down close to sea level has been degraded because of the added weight and reduced power vs. the DA40-180. Takeoff distance over 50' obstacle, Balked landings, Stall speeds, Climb rate at takeoff, all of these have been negatively compromised by the diesel. These may not be important items to others, however, for me they are everything. Again, everyone can find all of this info in the POH provided by Diamond under technical publications on the web site. Inform yourself of everything available before you take the plunge.
Then again, if you live in the mountains everything changes. My priorities are definitely not yours.
- CFIDave
- 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
Yes, the Diamond Canada factory is still producing Lycoming XLT aircraft on the same production line as Austro NGs (and DA62s), although demand for NGs is greater due to worldwide demand for JetA-burning planes where avgas is unavailable. Now that Canada owns the DA40 Type Certificate (transferred from Austria), they have the potential to make enhancements to both DA40 versions.BKR wrote:Is the factory even producing the XLT version currently or in the near future?
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
-
- 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
Generally speaking, everything else being equal, all turbo charged or turbo normalized airplanes will have their performance negatively compromised down low at sea level plus a few thousand feet. Weight and the turbo system itself will rob power at the lower levels. It is what it is.
By the way, I have been to the London factory many times and you cannot meet a nicer bunch of people. Hopefully that attitude will continue to be reflected in their products and flourish now that Dries is gone.
By the way, I have been to the London factory many times and you cannot meet a nicer bunch of people. Hopefully that attitude will continue to be reflected in their products and flourish now that Dries is gone.
-
- 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
Did some digging in the AFMs of the DA40-180 and DA40-NG and found some rather shocking differences.
I am assuming that this is NOT a mistake and that certification authorities did not let such an anomaly go unnoticed. This is the table showing stall speed at 1200 Kg (MTOW) for the DA40-180
And this is the same at 1200 Kg (which is 110Kg less than MTOW) for the NG How come the NG stalls much earlier at the SAME mass? I'll try a guess:
the aircraft is so poorly balanced that it stops flying much sooner than a properly designed one.
I am assuming that this is NOT a mistake and that certification authorities did not let such an anomaly go unnoticed. This is the table showing stall speed at 1200 Kg (MTOW) for the DA40-180
And this is the same at 1200 Kg (which is 110Kg less than MTOW) for the NG How come the NG stalls much earlier at the SAME mass? I'll try a guess:
the aircraft is so poorly balanced that it stops flying much sooner than a properly designed one.