DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Paul
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:53 am
First Name: Paul
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: 600MU
Airports: KOGD
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Paul »

If safety is the paramount objective, wouldn’t you want the IO-360 avgas version with its lower stall speed and more balanced loading over the NG?
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: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Rich »

Paul wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:36 pm If safety is the paramount objective, wouldn’t you want the IO-360 avgas version with its lower stall speed and more balanced loading over the NG?
Somewhat theoretical. Admittedly sample size is likely small, but so far zero fatal accidents in the US for the NG and only 1 worldwide that I can find.
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
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: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by CFIDave »

Years ago there were multiple DA40NG fatalities in Russia after Diamond Austria sold more than 100 of them to Russia for primary flight training. These accidents occurred before a big red guard was put over the Engine Master switch (the guard is now standard on all DA40NGs). Before landing, students flying the pattern at low altitude would reach to turn on the backup electric fuel pump (a smaller version of the Electric Master switch, located near it on the panel), and inadvertently switched off the engine instead. They'd then try to stretch the glide and stall the plane with bad results.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Rich »

Steve wrote: Tue Jan 28, 2020 5:30 pm Not a weak defense, since it isn't a defense of Cirrus at all. Simply stating the fact that statistical analysis of number of accidents without a denominator may be inaccurate. I'm not well versed in the accident rates of Cirrus vs Diamond, but my general understanding is that Diamond is better than Cirrus, and that Cirrus is slightly better than GA in general.

My comment was mainly to bring up that Insurance Companies thought (at the time that I purchased) that the DA40, even though it was a brand new airframe, was a lower risk than the Cirrus (which had been around for a few years).

Steve
The zero is typically in the numerator, such as fatal accidents/flight hours, fatal accidents/total accidents, or fatal accidents/fleet size. Looking at a short enough period, you can zero out any of these. In some years the DA40 showed no accidents at all, but running rolling 5-year fatal accidents/total accidents an interesting trend is the DA40 and the SR20 trending downward, with the SR22 pretty much maintaining it's historically higher rate. Both of the former at zero fatal accidents the last 2 years. At the moment I would consider the SR20 to be close enough to the DA40 to call it parity for this statistic. The relative fleet sizes seem close (US registered: DA40: ~750, SR20: ~917)

It would be interesting to know what the insurance situation is. I have been reading that the insurance companies, after years of holding rates pretty low, are now adding more restrictions and bumping rates. I've seen no change in either.
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
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Boatguy »

I went through this comparison about two years ago, and also considered a new C182 as they are roughly all the same price. I selected the DA40NG for these reasons:

1) Engine management, or really lack thereof. There is no engine management. It starts immediately whether in 10˚F or 90˚F, first time of the day or 10th time of the day. From SL to 14,500' and back, no overheating issues on climb or shock cooling on descent. You just select the power you want and the engine delivers. This means a reduced pilot workload. 100hrs between oil changes means less down time.

2) Because the diesel is so efficient, you need to reconsider the useful load numbers. Do a comparison with 3hrs of fuel and a 1hr reserve and you'll see a big shift in useful load. And even that comparison doesn't tell the full story because if you adjust for climb/descent fuel burn (8.3gph on climb, 4.0gph on descent) you'll find the DA40NG has even more advantage. It took awhile to adjust my thinking to the fuel burn. Now it's almost embarrassing when I buy fuel at an FBO, or don't buy fuel at all because I can easily get home without it. Roundtrip from just north of San Francisco to Death Valley (no fuel available there) at 14,000 cruising at 150KTAS with no fuel stops and 10gal in the tank when landing at home.

3) Turbo charger. It looks like you're in UT. Going almost anywhere means climbing over mountains. The naturally aspirated aircraft struggle in the mountains; the climb rate really falls off above 8,000' and they're gasping at 12,000'. The DA40NG climbs at 650-850fpm which is not overly impressive, but it does that irrespective of the altitude. I've taken mine to 15,000' and it was still producing 91% power.

4) Safety which has been covered earlier in this thread. I went out with my CFII and tried to push the envelope a bit (at altitude); the handling is very benign.

5) Joy to fly. It just feels nimble and responsive. And the expansive view, which can be warm without some sun shades, is delightful.

But it's not all good news.

The DA40 cockpit is definitely more snug than the SR20. I'm a little over 6' / 185lbs and after 3 1/2hrs I'm ready to get out and stretch my legs. That said, the passenger seats are more accessible and surprisingly roomy.

Diamond has some poor support policies. While I've never had any push back on a warranty service claim, it's annoying to pay shipping on warranty parts. Fortunately Diamond is saying they want to address some of the support issues and is meeting with representatives of the owners in early March. You can download the agenda of the meeting from TwinStartScott's post in this thread and you'll pretty much know all the issues that are of concern to owners:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=6946&start=140

Good luck with making your decision!
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: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Rich »

Utah? Looks more like Massachusetts for the OP.
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
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: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Rich »

Confused. Oil changes = downtime? A couple of hours I can do myself and I pick up everything I need right here at the airport.
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
User avatar
AaronF
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2020 5:09 am
First Name: Aaron
Aircraft Type: DA40NG
Aircraft Registration: OEBYE
Airports:
Has thanked: 59 times
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by AaronF »

Having more hours logged on the SR20 than on the DA40NG, I think the best aspect of the DA40NG is that the EECU is doing all the non-essential work for you. No mixture, no shock cooling, no hot start issues etc. Just set the power and that’s it.

Other bonuses are: impressively low fuel consumption (~5 USG/hr @ 60% load / 110+ TAS - almost half consumption compared to the SR20), widely available Jet A1, quiet and smooth engine, rear passenger door, cooling gap on canopy + openable windows.

Perhaps the main down side of the DA40NG is that there is no chute to fall back on. The Austro engine is 100% electrical power dependent (you loose 24VDC, you have ~30 mins of flight time remaining until your emergency EECU battery quits). It is indeed good to have a chute, but if you don’t have one, it will probably affect time you spend on pre-flights / familiarizing with aircraft systems and emergency procedures :lol:

One of the things I enjoy the most flying the DA40NG is the expansive views. At cruising speed, the pitch attitude for level flight is slightly below horizon which, thanks to the bubble canopy, lets you enjoy incredible views of above and below.
User avatar
shorton
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:42 pm
First Name: Scott
Aircraft Type: DA42NG
Aircraft Registration: N68MJ
Airports: KSNA
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by shorton »

If you are interested in the high altitude performance of the DA40NG, you might want to consider adding a supercharger to a Lycoming DA40. You can view this very informative thread for more information:

viewtopic.php?p=75645#p75645.

You get excellent high-density altitude performance with a fairly simple system that doesn't cost much, it looks like $30,000 and 2 weeks to install. Another big benefit is that Lycomings can be serviced by every A&P and parts can be obtained overnight, at the latest.

From my prior experience as a CFI at a flight school with a fleet of DA42NG's, I believe the maintenance requirements and significant downtime of the Austro are understated. You can blame the training environment for some of the issues, I suppose, but the long wait for parts was frustrating. And that was even with the benefit of a Diamond Service Center on the field. There are not many A&P's that can service an Austro.
Scott Horton, JD CPA
ATP, FAA Gold Seal CFI, CFII, MEI
https://orangecountyflightinstruction.com
KSNA, Orange County, CA
User avatar
Don
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 377
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:15 pm
First Name: Don
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N623DS
Airports: KTOA
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: DA40 vs. Cirrus SR20

Post by Don »

At least for me, the chart below says it all. (Fatal Accidents per 100,000 hours of flight)
Diamond-Safety- Fatal Crash Rates per 100K hours.png
Diamond-Safety- Fatal Crash Rates per 100K hours.png (121.88 KiB) Viewed 3606 times
Diamond Star XLS, N623DS, SN40.1076
Post Reply