DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

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: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Antoine »

Hey Tommy good to hear from you. How's the Aerostar? I'd love to PM you but my PM box is full and the "delete" button is hidden beyond my search skills.
And now that you talk about cost: my "test pilot" also mentioned that a nice 2007 XL such as mine was way less costly to purchase than the NG he was looking at.
The funny bit is: we can get our Lycosaur to sip 7 GPH (42 lbs) of AVGAS at 130-135 KTAS - not much more (in lbs) than what the NG will need at what is its high cruise speed range.
I also checked the climb rate - the NG does 690 fpm vs over 1000 for the -180. At least 50% more!
The only thing I like/prefer about the diesels is their smoothness. Much better in this area.
But hey when you start a 5.9 liter Lycoming it sound "a bit" more macho than this teeny weeny thingy!
Summary: I would make the same engine choice today - in a heartbeat. And I think the combination of this normally aspirated, very robust engine with the sophisticated engine monitoring of the G1000 is fantastic.
I do not believe that a FADEC can beat manual leaning by much in steady state (cruise) conditions. Granted, we're missing the benefit of variable ignition timing, but that's about it.
User avatar
rwtucker
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1283
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:24 pm
First Name: Rob
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N831BA
Airports: KFFZ KEUL
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 110 times

Re: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by rwtucker »

Dave & I are probably wandering off target (I do that a lot). However, in sketching out segue from automotive engineering and six-sigma SPC to aviation (where the latter term is a stranger), Dave makes a great point. If there were an economic incentive and no disincentive in the form of legal exposure, Lexus or Honda could probably design a long lasting, high efficiency, high HP to weight ratio replacement for our Lycoming powerplants that would have us all lining up to buy one. Are low production numbers the reason why we don't see this cross-migration of technology? It may be a part of it but it could be less than we think. I take Dave's word for it that we are only manufacturing 1,000 piston engines a year but that must be US fixed wing only. When you consider the world market not just for new but for replacement engines, the market might be worthwhile on its face. My candidate for a major impediment to progress is the feds 1940's notion of how best to manage quality (which was not correct in 1940 either) and the ripple effects these regulations have exerted throughout the global GA market. I think these effects are more pervasive and negative than is immediately obvious. Whatever the cause, we are driving behind engines which, by today's standards, are based on crude and imprecise mechanics, electronics, metallurgy, combustion science, and much more. In automotive terms, we are driving WWII vintage autos with engines that require constant attention and belch smoke (great idea driving a circular piston up a tapered head with misfit rings, zero tolerance at zero degrees, and a chance of flying off at 550 degrees or with a little too much oil pressure). I agree with Dave that Austro is a great advancement compared to our Lycomings. Separately, I wonder if hybrid powerplants might represent the portal through which GA will catch up with the rest of the world of transportation.
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-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Rich »

The 1000 avgas engines a year might be a little low, but, based on the GAMA numbers for 2014 it's the right order of magnitude. Looks to be maybe 2000 a year tops, if piston helicopters are included. Some number of diesels are included in this number, but it's tedious to pick them out of the numbers. And there are some number of sales of the engines themselves, sans airframes. So maybe it's 2,000. It ain't 100,000 or even 10,000, that's for sure.

BUT

This includes numerous different engine models across several manufacturers. From <100 HP up to several hundred. So a given engine model might only have a few hundred units and another could easily be down in the 60 units per year range. So what would attract a business like Honda or Toyota that builds and sells millions of engines each year to crank out 6 different types of aircraft engines for a potential market of merely a couple of thousand units altogether (if you got 100 percent market penetration - unlikely), and take on all the additional headaches that entails? Some company like Rotax, maybe, which does in fact leverage their other other business lines in the manufacture of a few small engine types.

We like to blame the feds for inhibiting adoption of automotive technologies into the GA fleet. But the unstated obstacle is - US. That is, airframe manufacturers, we buyers, and old-school mechanics who will talk us out of anything that doesn't have one of these ancient, cranky, air-cooled engines in it. How do we know? Because of several attempts in the past to introduce newer technologies that have been greeted with total non-interest by the market.

Diesels are receiving acceptance in some areas, but the power-to-weight ratios make them questionable choices for the lighter planes, such as the DA-40. If someone ever does get a diesel that is a decent approximation of the avgas engine it would replace, then that would be a big deal. There are one or two of these floating around, but haven't made it into a viable product just yet.
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-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by CFIDave »

Getting back to the original question of DA40NG (turbodiesel JetA Austro Engine) vs. Lycoming avgas DA40s, some good news for potential diesel buyers.

Along with all the changes just announced by Diamond Canada with the introduction of the DA62, they've also cut US dollar pricing for the DA40NG and DA42-VI. Diamond distributors can now offer these lower prices.

The result is that the DA40NG is no longer significantly more expensive than a Lycoming DA40. Anyone interested in a new or recent model-year DA40 in the US may want to consider the NG model.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
carym
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 5:00 pm
First Name: cary
Aircraft Type: DA42
Aircraft Registration: N336TS
Airports: KTYQ
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 83 times

Re: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by carym »

(I tried to post this a few minutes ago, but it seemed to have become lost in the world of missing electrons!)

While we are on the subject of diesel engines and FADECs, I have had to replace both my FADECs in just under 800 hours. The left FADEC had to be replaced because the ECU B actually "died". The engine ran just fine on ECU A, but quit when turned to ECU B. However, with two ECUs in the FADEC there was no catastrophic engine failure!

The right FADEC was recently replaced because there was a bad MAP sensor, and that sensor is located in the FADEC so the whole unit had to be replaced. That FADEC would lead to engine surging if I was >12-14K MSL. We thought this was due to a turbo getting weak (for several years), but once the FADEC was replaced I had no problem flying >16K MSL (thus proving it was the MAP sensor and not the turbo causing the problem). Again, no catastrophic engine failure.

To be forthcoming, I have had to replace starters, prop accumulator, glow plugs, and for several years I am using 1L oil every 7-8 hours. Despite these problems I love the quiet, smooth, efficient operation of these engines. Let's see how Dave feels after he has accumulated 800 hours on his Austro's.

On the other side of the coin, I had 4 engine failures in my C310 (in just over 700 hours of flying the plane). Those were O-470 engines said to be "bullet proof". Nothing like flying a twin engine plane on only 1 engine :(
Cary
DA42.AC036 (returned)
S35 (1964 V-tail Bonanza)
Alaska adventure: http://mariashflying.tumblr.com
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: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Colin »

You can purchase a plane that is reliable as a Lexus, but it is a $40m Gulfstream. I think it is technically more reliable than a Lexus.
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
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: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Colin »

I had an alternator failure at 10,500 MSL with the family in the plane. I know someone that had a battery failure after getting the plane jump started on the ground (always try to have learning events happen to other pilots). In both cases it was great that the engine turning had nothing to do with the electrical system remaining energized.

I said I loved FADEC. I really do. I did my multi-engine training in a DA42 and in an ideal world that's what I will be flying next year. I had a FADEC-engined BMW 535 glide to a stop at the side of the road because the instrumentation in cars no longer shows some of the things we watch on our tractor-era large-cylinder engines, so the first hint of a blown head gasket was the FADEC being unable to keep the engine delivering the power the throttle position demanded.

I will feel better about being single-engine FADEC when there are a few more thousand hours on them. I am pretty sure a FADEC DA40 disappeared over the English Channel in the first few years they were sold. No?
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
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-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by CFIDave »

Cary:
It's great that you're flying a DA42 still with its original 1.7-liter Thielert engines, a quite different engine from today's Austro DA40NG/DA42/DA62 diesels. Austro learned a thing or two from Diamond customer experience with early Thielert engines, although in fairness to Thielert (now Continental), the latest CD-135/155 engines have also improved with elimination of clutches and improved inspection/replacement intervals. But your point about FADEC engines continuing to operate even with faults is an important consideration when compared to older avgas engines.

So far with about 400 hours on our Austro-engined DA42-VI we've encountered zero FADEC or sensor problems, and I've only added half a quart of oil to each engine during the past two 100-hour oil change intervals.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Paul »

I'm with Antoine on this one. One of the great features of the DA40 is that it is arguably the safest piston plane made. Accidents are not only very rare but when they do occur, they are usually second order of magnitude pilot error type mistakes (buzzing a lake, CFIT etc.). I have no real data to back this up but it seems to me this is not the case in the NG versions where you start to see engine failure & stall spin accidents that just don't seem to happen in the piston version.

And while I purchased Jet A for $2.32 a gallon a few weeks ago with a fuel card, the DA40 is so fuel efficient that the premium in purchase price for the NG alone would get you 1,250 hours of Avgas flying at $6 a gallon fuel and 8gph flying.
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: DA40-NG comparrison to DA40-XLS

Post by Antoine »

Here some real data to back up your post, Paul

viewtopic.php?t=4843
Post Reply