DA41 ? Let's design it!

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by CFIDave »

ihfanjv wrote:Cirrus went from a mass-producer to a manufacturer of premium aircraft for a niche of customers who appear to be price-insensitive.
Agreed. The reason for this is that virtually all buyers of NEW Cirrus aircraft qualify for business use (i.e., more than 50% of the hours flown are for business travel), and thus can write off most of the cost of purchase and operation as a beneficial tax deduction. The government here in the US helps pay for most Cirrus aircraft.

Which begs the key marketing question, who's the target customer for the "DA41"?

If you're going to target Cirrus, you'll need a plane optimized for efficient point-to-point business travel with an emphasis on a spacious cockpit and pilot/passenger comfort. I like to tell people that Cirrus makes a better "passenger's plane," but Diamond makes a better "pilot's plane" that's a whole lot more fun to fly. IMHO, the current DA40 reflects this.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by ihfanjv »

CFIDave wrote:
ihfanjv wrote:Cirrus went from a mass-producer to a manufacturer of premium aircraft for a niche of customers who appear to be price-insensitive.
Agreed. The reason for this is that virtually all buyers of NEW Cirrus aircraft qualify for business use (i.e., more than 50% of the hours flown are for business travel), and thus can write off most of the cost of purchase and operation as a beneficial tax deduction. The government here in the US helps pay for most Cirrus aircraft.

Which begs the key marketing question, who's the target customer for the "DA41"?

If you're going to target Cirrus, you'll need a plane optimized for efficient point-to-point business travel with an emphasis on a spacious cockpit and pilot/passenger comfort. I like to tell people that Cirrus makes a better "passenger's plane," but Diamond makes a better "pilot's plane" that's a whole lot more fun to fly. IMHO, the current DA40 reflects this.
I agree with you 100%.
Pascal

DA41 design - my take

Post by Pascal »

Hello All,

Since I am not an owner yet (I should purchase a DA20-C1 in April if all goes well), I am posting here my reply to the DA41 thread in the DA40 forum here. I hope you enjoy it. Please take the following with a grin of salt, I let my imagination go wild.

A better DA40

First, a disclaimer. I have a total of one flight in a DA40, so I am by no means an expert in that model. I have experience with DA20-C1s, 172s and 150s. And I fly on occasion as copilot in my friend’s 182. The DA40 is in my humble opinion already a great aircraft, so the idea of making it even better sparked my interest.

I drive a stick shift car. I love to make one with the machine. I dislike automatic transmissions, and I am a lousy passenger, so I can’t imagine being in a self-driving car one day. The same goes for airplanes. I once made a long flight with my friend in his 182. We took off, then the gps and auto pilot took control up until we entered the circuit at our destination a couple of hours later. Our job was to basically scan the gauges and the sky for traffic and manage communications with ATC. Not my idea of fun, but my friend enjoyed this automation very much. Now I do appreciate the autopilot in IR, as it significantly reduces the pilot’s workload.

Everyone’s got their pet peeves and preferences when it comes to aircraft. Myself, I prefer the quick ailerons and center stick of the DA20/DA40 with pushrods for controls over the pulley and cable systems of the Cessnas and the side sticks of the Cirrus. I wish the DA40’s ailerons were a little faster though. In that sense, the DA40 feels more like a truck than a DA20, just like a 182 feels like a heavy truck compared to a 172.

I am only 175cm tall, 5’9”. The DA40 and C182 have taller panels than the DA20. I would love the forward view to be improved by designing a smaller panel in the DA41.

I have been designing, building and flying several radio-controlled aircraft in the past. I am convinced several concepts translate directly to plane design, so I will provide my ideas here.

First of all, like others have said, I would put the airframe on a diet, with the stated goal of lightening it by 250 lbs. This would increase the useful load, which is a complaint we sometimes hear about the DA40.

I would also try to locate a lighter, smaller, all aluminum engine with a turbo compressor. Heck, my 2013 Jetta GLI has one, why would it be impossible to get smaller, lighter, more fuel efficient power plants sporting small, reliable turbos in airplanes?

Secondly, I would use the DA50’s fuselage, as it is roomier than the DA40. I would try to have as many common parts with the other current Diamond aircrafts as possible, so as to reduce the costs (design, certification, but also inventory)

I would keep a 180 hp engine, maybe go up to 200 hp, but no more than 4 cylinders. That should be more than enough power in my opinion. A bigger engine weights more, requires more fuel, introduces heat dissipation problems, and costs more to purchase and to operate.

A new propeller with a different airfoil might add to the cruise speed, at the expense of climb rate.

I would shorten the wings by 12-18 inches. This would 1) increase cruise speed (highly desirable), 2) make ailerons livelier (highly desirable in my book), 3) make the aiplane fit in tighter parking spaces, and 4) increase stall speed by 5-7 knots, which is undesirable, but as with other things in life, everything is a trade off.

I believe the combination of optimized aerodynamics, weight reduction and a shorter wing could potentially generate an extra 15-20 knots of cruise speed, with no increase in fuel consumption while providing a roomier cabin. We would have been able to gain even more speed had the current design been not already very efficient aerodynamically.

I would make ailerons more effective by slightly shortening the wings, increase ground clearance by a few inches, and find a magic way to make the airplane usable on gravel strips without damaging the composite airframe or propeller (use Kryptonite maybe), and also make the airplane capable of landing on shorter and less than perfect grass strips. This would open up several hundred airfields in North America on which I would not want to land on with a DA40 for fear of damaging it.

I would also decrease the price of certified replacement parts, because that too is part of the total cost of ownership. The new Chinese ownership might be able to produce parts at a lower cost, one can only hope.

How could we make the DA41 a resounding success? First of all, better targeted marketing and promotion towards people who have the means to purchase an airplane. That includes the new rich people of China. A better website in many languages. Diamond Aviators fly ins all over the place during the summer months. Diamond aircrafts on display in the casinos in Las Vegas, in the hallways of major airports all over the world.

Pilots nowadays fly fewer hours per year. I believe a lot of effort should be invested in making life easier to rusty pilots, in the cockpit, with all sorts of electronic flying aids. The glass panels should be simplified. The current crop of glass panels have been designed by engineers and it shows. I believe their interfaces could easily be made a lot easier to use.

Examples:

Add a Start button which will, well start the engine! No more fiddling with prime pumps, mixture or power. Gets that engine started on the first try, every time, no sputtering, no drama. My car does it, why not on an airplane? While we’re at it, at that price point, add keyless entry please.

Only bluetooth headsets, no wires.

Slot for putting a sim card in the radio stack – gives you 4G mobile internet and phone number

With aforementioned Sim card ans mobile service, automatic update of all maps, approach plates, etc. Without the need for human intervention. You are always up to date.

Sirius XM radio – because you just can’t live without the Bluegrass channel and you know it :)

Put Foreflight features directly in the instrument panel, at prices comparable to an iPad with a Foreflight subscription.

When I submit a flight plan in ForeFlight, the airplane, which is connected to the internet via its mobile sim, gets the flight plan. I might be dreaming here, but the airplane could read the flight plan acceptance from the FAA and automatically set the transponder code accordingly.

Automatically suggest the available frequencies in the area and let the pilot select the frequency with a touch screen

Since the airplane basically runs ForeFlight, it could automatically turn on or off the transponder at appropriate times.

Automatic computer driven leaning, monitoring of fuel and oil pressure and temperature, cylinder heads, rpm with audible alarms when things become yellow, then red.

The experimental side of aviation has produced incredible innovation over the last few years. It is high time that the certified market gain better avionics at a significant reduction in costs, both in acquision and installation, with a weight reduction as well.

Add a mechanism against shock cooling. Around here, some winter days are pretty cold, and we need to be careful not to shock cool the engine, especially then coming for a landing while fliying with the engine idling. Would it be so difficult to have the computer which monitors the cylinders temperature also control air intake to keep the engine within normal operating temperatures?

If you have written up until here, congratulations, I will offer you a beer next time you come to visit Montreal, QC.
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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by Antoine »

CFIDave wrote:
ihfanjv wrote:Cirrus went from a mass-producer to a manufacturer of premium aircraft for a niche of customers who appear to be price-insensitive.
Agreed. The reason for this is that virtually all buyers of NEW Cirrus aircraft qualify for business use (i.e., more than 50% of the hours flown are for business travel), and thus can write off most of the cost of purchase and operation as a beneficial tax deduction. The government here in the US helps pay for most Cirrus aircraft.

Which begs the key marketing question, who's the target customer for the "DA41"?

If you're going to target Cirrus, you'll need a plane optimized for efficient point-to-point business travel with an emphasis on a spacious cockpit and pilot/passenger comfort. I like to tell people that Cirrus makes a better "passenger's plane," but Diamond makes a better "pilot's plane" that's a whole lot more fun to fly. IMHO, the current DA40 reflects this.
Dave: your answer is in your post.
I think (it would be arrogant to be more affirmative) that a few SR22 buyers share your view of which is the better pilot's plane.
But the hard fact is that less and less of these "pilot's plane pilots" are buying DA40s year over year.
My explanation is that the SR2x keeps getting better and has gathered huge momentum. The useful load bump of the G5 was a major blow to the competition be it Cessna or DAI. And now the SR20 got it too...

The DA41 vision is the logical evolution of the DA40 which I firmly believe to be the best 4-seater in production today. No other plane offers this combination of safety, fun, visibility and balanced power.
This is why I don't think the DA50 would fit the bill - I see this more like an "SR23".

The DA40 is first and foremost a joy to hand fly, and my proposal is to PRESERVE and ADD to this: lighter airframe, more speed, more power, while dramatically increasing the cross country / useful load capability.
So the DA41 is not attempting to be a Cirrus clone - rather a superlative DA40, with a very enticing personality: the pilot's plane, the one you hand fly each time you can, the one that makes you feel that YOU are the plane.
This is how I feel at the apex of a lazy 8 , looking down at lake Geneva with nothing but the bubble canopy in between. And if you want to do business travel, just get the AC and TKS...

The DA41 has another silver bullet one should not underestimate: people train in a DA40, not in an SR22.
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by AndrewM »

With regards to the useful load, I heard that the current DA40 could get a significant lift without modifications... just a documentation and testing issue -- circa 200lbs -- but DAI was unwilling to spend the money to get that approved (circa US$400K). Is that fact or fiction?
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by ihfanjv »

Antoine wrote: So the DA41 is not attempting to be a Cirrus clone - rather a superlative DA40, with a very enticing personality: the pilot's plane, the one you hand fly each time you can, the one that makes you feel that YOU are the plane.
This is how I feel at the apex of a lazy 8 , looking down at lake Geneva with nothing but the bubble canopy in between. And if you want to do business travel, just get the AC and TKS...

The DA41 has another silver bullet one should not underestimate: people train in a DA40, not in an SR22.
I think it would not make much business sense to do anything to the DA40 other than:

(1) Switch to the IO-390. No brainer and unbelievable that Diamond did not lead the way on this change

(2) Increase useful load significantly - I can't imagine this would be a major issue. The wing is huge, the stall speed is already so low. It probably would need a stronger gear and maybe some tail work to deal with CG issues

(3) Make air conditioning a factory option: This is critical for many pilots of the greenhouse effect DA40 in the South and West 300+ days per year and essential if the aircraft is to be used for anything other than playtime or training. I have to wear workout gear or outdoor gear when planning on flying the DA40 in Florida

(4) If possible, relocate the stick to a side stick. Look, I think the DA40 is more of a pilot's plane than the Cirrus, but I think for anything other than training and "fun flying" the center stick is a major issue. It is terrible for passengers, and for IFR the Cirrus side yoke blows away to center stick because you can rest your left arm on the doorsill and have your kneeboard free for your writing and your lap for your iPad or EFB. The center stick jusrt gets in the way. Your mythical DA41 should have a true side stick like the TTX.

(5) Make the front seat comfortable. How hard could this be? Take the newer DA42 seat, add some actual cushioning, and be done with it.

Doing anything more than above, and you probably have the Pipestrel Panthera, which was announced in 2012 and has not yet hit the market (which also initially was going to use the IO-390, but transitioned to a 6 cylinder powerplant somewhere in the development phase).

People do indeed train in the SR20 and SR22. Many do so because "it has the parachute" and because they plan on training in the kind of aircraft they will ultimately fly.

Look, I regularly fly Diamonds and Cirruses (and Cessnas) and this is the reaction when I walk a non-pilot the DA40 for the first time: "Wow, it is small and looks like a mosquito. Are you sure it is safe? I'm not sure." When they sit in the DA40 and the instrument panel starts rattling and shaking they get even more nervous. When a non-pilot walks up to a SR20 or SR22 they usually say "Wow, that's a cool plane. Looks fast!" And when they sit in it they usually say something like "this is nicer inside than my car, and I have a nice car."

With the DA40 I have to rush through the startup to get the big fan going up front, I have to explain to them to cup their hand out the tiny little widow to get air and we bake anyway, and I have to tell them that the shaking instrument panel as a-ok and normal. With the Cirrus the first thing I do is fire up the motor to get the ice cold air from the AC blasting at my passengers, which makes them comfortable right away. Then I brief them on the parachute and whatever your opinion is on the parachute, non-pilot passengers are universally comforted by the concept. No passenger has told me "wow this plane is great except for the parachute, I wish it did not have a parachute because I would feel much safer if there was no parachute." I don't think it is debatable that if you have an option to have a BRS system vs. not having a BRS system - all other things being equal - there is no reasonable person who would say "I chose not to have the BRS system." Of course, all things are not equal and adding BRS is a weight, storage, and design compromise, but just sayin'...

I love the merits of both aircraft, but this is the reality.

I hope the new owners of Diamond North America do one or two things, either (1) mass produce the DA40 in its current form (but with the no-brainer IO-390) and finally offer a reliable support network and lower the price to create a more mass-market airplane, and (2) resurrect the DA50 concept - or simply buy/adopt and certify the Lancair Evolution.

The truth is that composite aircraft should be relatively cheap to build in large numbers. Once you have the tooling, molds, etc, and a well thought out design from a build-efficiency standpoint, the man-hours required to build composite aircraft should be relatively cheap as compared to weld and rivet. Look at the Lancair Evolution - the design and construction is so simple (yes, it is hard and beautiful to make things simple). If the Evolution was factory built they could crank those things out!
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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by rwtucker »

ihfanjv wrote: If possible, relocate the stick to a side stick.
Make the front seat comfortable.
instrument panel starts rattling and shaking.
This is a great discussion. I agree with Antoine's suggestion that we dream a little (maybe a lot) before we frame the discussion with the harsh exigencies of reality. There will be time to figure out if we will get 9 kts. or 16 kts. with a lighter airframe and an IO-390.

I see a lot of variation in this discussion based on matters of taste and one-off problems with specific airframes. Too much variance threatens developing to a market niche. As I mentioned before, the DA40 seats are very comfortable over long hours of flying, more comfortable than the seats in my Lexus or my wife's Cadillac. My instrument panel has never rattled or shuddered. I understand that this can be an issue with a metal 2-blade prop, especially one that is not balanced well. I have flown a lot of side sticks and I prefer the simplicity, feel, and ability to swap hands that you get with the center stick. Between the Cirrus and C400 side stick, I find the C400 superior. The best side stick I have flown is on the Eclipse 500.

On the other hand, most of us seem to agree on the following, more or less in this order of priority: price point ~$450K, true 4-passenger paymoad (+ ~150 lbs.), faster (+10-15 kts.), better CG, roomier (a little), seat options (I'll pick the current design but on tracks), environment candy options (BT, etc.).

One area where we have not had much discussion is unbundling the avionics. I think unbundling is a market-making idea. When I talk to pilots who are footing the full bill for their maintenance and have been flying behind a G1000 or other integrated package for a decade, every one says they would prefer to have a less integrated system that can be easily adapted to new innovations. The G1000 bundles technologies and features that have significantly different rates of innovation. The fact that we see a few hundred gripes on DAN about about the ADS-B problem is a case in point. Yes, the turf space between Diamond and Garmin is a factor in that issue but it would not have become an issue with a more open and adaptive system.

This takes me back to Antoine's original question. Is this DA41 idea doable? I think it is.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:
ihfanjv wrote:
One area where we have not had much discussion is unbundling the avionics. I think unbundling is a market-making idea. When I talk to pilots who are footing the full bill for their maintenance and have been flying behind a G1000 or other integrated package for a decade, every one says they would prefer to have a less integrated system that can be easily adapted to new innovations. The G1000 bundles technologies and features that have significantly different rates of innovation. The fact that we see a few hundred gripes on DAN about about the ADS-B problem is a case in point. Yes, the turf space between Diamond and Garmin is a factor in that issue but it would not have become an issue with a more open and adaptive system.

This takes me back to Antoine's original question. Is this DA41 idea doable? I think it is.
I think that looking forward since we are soon to be post-ADS-B and there is no foreseeable major shift like ADS-B in the next 20 years, avionics is the one thing that does not need a change on a going-forward basis. The updated G1000 system looks great, and the GFC700/G1000 combination is truly unbelievable. Of course, the experimental market has Garmin GFC700/G1000-light type avionics at a fraction of the cost, but that is another discussion!

The WAAS and ADS-B upgrade path (or dead end) could not have been handled more poorly than it was by both Garmin and Diamond (and other G1000-implementing manufacturers). But, it seems that even pre-WAAS and pre-ADS-B these were seen as future problems with a solution TBD (and the TBD ended up being bad). I don't seem similar issues on the near or far horizon (unless the unsecure/unencrypted ADS-B system fails completely, but then it will probably take another 20 years for the next solution to roll out).
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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by rwtucker »

ihfanjv wrote:I think that looking forward since we are soon to be post-ADS-B and there is no foreseeable major shift like ADS-B in the next 20 years, avionics is the one thing that does not need a change on a going-forward basis . . .
It may or may not be the case that the FAA and its sister organizations implement another significant innovation in the next 20 years. I would not bet against it. The rate of innovation and diffusion in technology is greater than any other general sector. This makes it difficult to see clearly around the corner, much less 20 years into the future. This aside, most of the innovation we will see every year (if every previous year remains predictive) goes to functionality, precision, usability, augmenting human sensory capabilities, eliminating human errors, etc. In this regard, the tightly integrated structure of the G1000 is already obsolete. Among the drawing board and early phase innovations in GA avionics are HUD, 3-D, ESV & augmented reality, radar and laser low altitude altimetery, and assisted and pilotless RTA landing systems. In my view, we can expect to see the pace of innovation increase, not stop. Massively integrated systems are dinosaurs against such innovation unless they are designed, sold, and supported under a different culture and business model. Regulatorily speaking, I would not be surprised to see much more digital encoding of transmissions, including much that we now trust to the fragile link between ATC speaking correctly and pilots hearing, processing, writing down, and executing correctly. I also expect to see digital communications improving airport taxiway traffic. It is easy to see how a single digital stream from the tower would program our on-board display screen and aural taxi instructions. I'm sure others can add substantially to this list. Twenty years is a long time in the world of 2017 electronics and avionics.
User avatar
ihfanjv
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:00 pm
First Name: None
Aircraft Type: DA40
Airports:
Been thanked: 7 times

Re: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by ihfanjv »

rwtucker wrote:
ihfanjv wrote:This aside, most of the innovation we will see every year (if every previous year remains predictive) goes to functionality, precision, usability, augmenting human sensory capabilities, eliminating human errors, etc. In this regard, the tightly integrated structure of the G1000 is already obsolete. Among the drawing board and early phase innovations in GA avionics are HUD, 3-D, ESV & augmented reality, radar and laser low altitude altimetery, and assisted and pilotless RTA landing systems.
I see your point but don't really agree. I think everything technology-wise (aviation and other) is going to vertically integrated winner-take-all platforms and to the point of most integration, not least integration.

I too would like to see more faster, but I think Garmin has done an incredible job with the G1000 and GFC700 flight envelope protection, synthetic vision, and overall reliability. Garmin's products are very reliable. Compared to the competition - to the extent it barely exists - Garmin's products are incredibly reliable.

But anyway, Garmin does not have any actual [solvent and going concern] competitors in the light GA certified avionics space, so it's really a moot point to even discuss other than in what-if over beers talk.

HUD would be nice, but if you have 10 inch Syn-Vis in front of you I don't think HUD adds much value unless dogfighting MIGs & Chengdu J-20s or doing zero-zero CAT III approaches. If you are a GA pilot and you want to do zero-zero CAT III approaches in a single engine piston you have rocks in your head.

Yes, If I'm doing zero-zero CAT III approaches in a 787 or A350 I would really want a HUD.
Post Reply