DA41 ? Let's design it!

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

DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by Antoine »

Every time I fly my DA40 (2008 XLS) it puts a big smile on my face and I think "this airplane is amazing".

And then I look at DAI as a company that designs, builds, markets and supports aircraft. The smile vanishes and I get frustrated. The DA40-180 is a de facto orphan and they use the manufacturing capability to build parts for third parties. And Cirrus is eating market share while this happens.

This really reminds me of Porsche's downfall prior to Wendelin Wiedeking's times.
A raw diamond (pun intended) waiting for the proper craftsman.

I hope the new majority owners of the London business will finally unlock the potential that's been available in Canada, waiting for strategic leadership and funding.

I don't know the people, only one product.
I think the DA40-180 (yes specifically this one combination) has the potential to develop into the most successful 4-seater SEP in production. Why? Simply because it is pretty darn close already and the business case is very compelling (this means : modest investment, low risk, fast ROI).

I'd like to start a debate and ask you to contribute.
Here is the question, it would be nice if we remained focused on it, so that DAI get some useful "free" consulting.

Let us define the DA41. The new reference in owner-flow 4 seater SEP.

Imagine that we can re-use whatever we want from the DA40 and DA42 to build a SEP aircraft that is targeted at the first time owner pilot - NOT at flight schools. Price point 5% above the SR22 - that's around 450 to 500 K USD. This means the DA41 would not displace the 40. Think SR20 and SR 22.

My expectations:

1'000 lbs useful load in a typical configuration AND good usable CG range.
Comfy interior for 4 persons (better seats and 2 inches / 5 cm wider than the DA40 at the front seat bottoms, I would be content with just a teardrop hump at this location to minimize frontal area cost)
165 KTAS cruise (real cross-country cruise, say 75% power and 8000 ft) and higher Va and Vmo. Based upon what the XLS does, I'm speccing a 10% speed increase.
4 hours endurance in fast cruise.
De-icing option (non FIKI)
No G1000 - go for a de-bundled avionics suite and make room for a panel attached tablet and for future low cost avionics options. Rework the panel to improve visibility at this occasion.
Powerful ventilation on the ground.
Optional AC

I have not added an airframe parachute but this is debatable. While it is a very effective sales argument, its addition would require a huge investment since it is not "available from the existing DA40 / 42 toolbox".

OK guys (and gals) what d'you say?
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 »

Nice job Antoine. I would add/amend a few features.

- A 1,000 lb. useful load is still anemic and does not move the DA41 into a distinctive niche. My 1979 PA28-201T will cruise close to what we have in mind with a much higher useful (depends on avionics, autopilot, etc.) and a wide CG envelope. Achieving a Dakota's load capacity is probably out of reach, assuming that we retain the DA40's wing design, etc., but I would want to see at least 1,100 lb. useful along with a broader CG envelope.

- Cabin size and seat comfort seem to be a matter of personal taste. The DA40 seats are the most comfortable I have flown in. I think that reclining and sliding seats would be a plus, along with some seat options to accommodate different preferences.

- Add my vote for unbundling the avionics. Flexibility and open structure to accommodate future innovations would be a big plus as would better options for cabin entertainment, including end-user configurations. I think there is a growing market for not getting locked into the manufacturer's idea of how electronics should be configured.

- Negative on BLS, de-icing, and A/C (there goes the useful load) -- options perhaps but that can add to the base price even for those who do not need or purchase the option.

- This would be a perfect time to gain some useful load and a better CG with the strategic use of carbon fiber.

- Full electronic ignition to enhance climb and LOP operations.

- A nice touch would be to build in a few storage niches. I marvel at the space utilization of the DA40 but that marvel turns into frustration when I try to find an unused spot for a personal goodie or two.

- The DA40 is reasonably quiet but not well insulated. I would add a little of the cold air and sound proofing that you see on some higher end aircraft.
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 »

Hi Robert, thanks for your reply!
Of course such an increase in useful is only feasible by moving to full carbon fiber (see Pipistrel Panthera for a weight comparison with a similar airframe).

The storage niches is a good idea. if "teardrop bulges" are added on the side of the fuselage next to the crew seat bottoms that would probably create some opportunity. The luggage compartment can also be made taller because the avionics bay is gone. That would add considerable volume.

1100 vs 1000 useful load makes sense because it would allow 2 couples and luggage to travel with full fuel.
We will need full fuel more frequently if the engine is more powerful (IO-390).
1100 will probably require a MTOW increase - technically easy since the NG already has an even larger MTOW increase, but it comes at a price in terms of other specs.

I think A/C and de-icing will be customer specific preferences. Not all customers will want them but many will want either one. Since we're after the SR22's lunch they are literally indispensable in my view.

The more I think about it the more I like it: It would compare to an SR22 on many aspects but would be less expensive to buy and operate, have better visibility and be the "pilot's choice"
User avatar
blsewardjr
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 11:19 pm
First Name: Bernie
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N377DS
Airports: KCHO
Has thanked: 118 times
Been thanked: 146 times

Re: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by blsewardjr »

A DA41 could probably reasonably be created right now from the DA40 now using "bits" from all the Diamond products with some additions already existing or likely to exist soon to produce an aircraft that slots between the SR20 and SR22 and offers competitive advantages over both.

-Increased speed - 1) Add the IO-390 and get a third party to add a turbo option via STC as Cirrus did with the early SR22 turbos. (Stick with Lycoming 4 cylinder for reliability and lower maintenance costs of 4 versus 6 cylinders); 2) Get LoPresti to do a serious cowl/airframe cleanup.

-Increased useful load- 1) Increase the DA41 MTOW to that of the DA40 NG MTOW, which is 2822 lb (1280 kg). (The additional 30-35 hp of the IO-390 should be able to maintain current climb rates at that weight, especially since unlike the IO-360, the IO-390 is certified to produce at least its rated hp.) With current DA40s, that would mean a useful of around 1000 lbs. 2) Additional weight savings could come from the airframe/electronics. Cirrus has been able to reduce the basic weight of its airframe over the years so it should be doable.

-Increased comfort- 1) Adopt the DA42 reclining pilot seats to the DA40; 2) Making Rosen sun shades standard is a start but in addition find a way to tint the forward canopy and/or add more non-glass area to the top; 3) Remove passenger side control stick -- DA42 has STC for this; 4) Add the DA42 MPP double "bubble canopy" and raise the seats to making sitting less "knees in the face"; 5) Cure the ventilation "howl" with something besides taping over the lower inlet -- possibly add a fan ala the Cirrus; 6) Electric A/C running off a second alternator -- lighter, can run during TO/landing; 7) More hand-holds to assist passengers in and out of the aircraft; 8 ) Reclining rear seats by adding a couple of new pin holds -- can still require full upright for TO/landing ala airlines; 9 Move headset jacks to sides -- less wiring in center of cockpit and may leave room for a glove compartment in the center console, especially if make the Hobbs meter optional.

-Increased ease/utility of operation- 1) FADEC to make operating the IO-390 as simple as the Austros without the weight -- Lycoming already has a system for the IO-540; 2) Using the Part 23 re-write, offer other avionics options; 3) Second landing/taxi light on right wing; 4) De-ice option -- Money 201J with Lycoming IO-360 has STC for non-FIKI TKS de-ice so it can be done with four cylinder a/c; 5) Re-visit winglets to see if can either increase lift or reduce width of wing -- DA40 NG has them.

Just some thoughts on how the DA40 could be improved based on my operating one. Bernie
Bernie Seward, IR, AGI
2003 DA40 N377DS
KCHO Charlottesville, VA
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 »

Antoine:

You've just described the original DA50 from 2007: intended to be the move-up aircraft for DA40 buyers as the Diamond "SuperStar" or unpressurized "Magnum" model. (For those not acquainted with that aircraft, it was even displayed at Oshkosh). Diamond suspended development when both engine manufacturers (Continental and Rotax) ceased development of their respective FADEC-controlled 6-cylinder avgas engines that were to power the DA50.

Since that time, Diamond found a way to re-purpose most of the wider DA50 fuselage, wings and tail by turning it into a diesel twin (the prototype DA52 that's now been renamed and successfully produced as the DA62). They also have a turboprop single under development (the DA50-JP7) that reuses the DA50 single's airframe.

One of Diamond's strengths is the common wing used on all DA40s, DA42s, DA62s (and the DA50); the airfoil is what gives these aircraft such nice docile handling characteristics and contributes to Diamond's exemplary safety record. The other advantage of this wing is the 3 aluminum fuel tanks protected between twin carbon fiber wing spars, greatly reducing the potential for fire; these tanks are also located near the aircraft CG so fuel burn doesn't affect W&B very much.

But this shared wing design also limits the fuel capacity to no more than 25 gallons/wing, which may be insufficient for a bigger, thirstier engine. Diamond twins easily get around this by including 13-18 gallon aux fuel tanks in each engine nacelle, but a single would need somewhere else to carry additional fuel (It'll be interesting to see how Diamond addresses this with the DA50-JP7 turboprop single.) I'm guessing the original avgas DA50 may have needed FADEC engines to ensure economical lean-of-peak operation from only 50 gallon fuel tanks. Tip tanks, anyone?

So my suggestion is to revive a piston-powered DA50 with either a 250 hp+ turbodiesel (e.g., the one Cirrus is currently testing) or FADEC-controlled 4 or 6-cylinder avgas engine (Lycoming iE2?) -- neither of which are yet certified. In either case Diamond already has your proposed "DA41" airframe fully developed, but they still need to wait for the right engine.
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: DA41 ? Let's design it!

Post by Colin »

I had a $5,000 deposit down on the DA50. When they split it into two different models I was allowed to get my deposit back, which I did. I would have *loved* a FADEC, low-pressurized single. The right stick was removable, too.
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)
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 »

Dave thanks for your post. Yes the DA50 was an interesting idea but no it is not what I described. I just realized there is a typo in my original post. The price point of 450K would obviously be 5% above the SR20, not SR22... sorry.

If we used the Cirrus line-up as a scale then the DA50 would sit "above" the SR22 whereas the DA41 is aimed between the 20 and 22 as Bernie said.

btw, thank you Bernie for your ideas - we have similar views.

So back to "repositioning":

The DA41 is "just" an optimized DA40, based upon the assumptions that the DA40-180 is pretty close to perfection.
I believe a DA41 priced around 450K would sell 100+ units per year and literally kill the SR20 while snatching quite a few buyers from the SR22.
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 »

OK, but $450K is already the price of today's Lycoming DA40 XLT as typically loaded with options (a comparable diesel DA40NG sells for about $30K more).

For that price I think what you're really asking for are some evolutionary upgrades/enhancements to the DA40 without major changes. Small mods to the air vents, nose wheel fairing, putting in the Garmin G1000 NXi, higher useful load for the Lycoming version, etc. If the recertification costs aren't too bad, maybe even install the DA62's more-powerful AE330 (E4P) Austro engine in the NG model DA40. Those are evolutionary improvements but would hardly create a distinctly new "DA41" model.

Doing much beyond that (e.g., a carbon fiber airframe) is going to raise the cost of production and hence price. A bigger avgas engine runs into the issue I described earlier of where to place larger fuel tanks -- without abandoning the wing that today is common across most Diamond models. I'm not sure you can do much more to the DA40 to appeal to Cirrus customers without going to a more spacious cockpit, which is why Diamond already created the DA50 prototype with its larger fuselage.
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
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: For that price I think what you're really asking for are some evolutionary upgrades/enhancements to the DA40 without major changes. Doing much beyond that (e.g., a carbon fiber airframe) is going to raise the cost of production and hence price.
Yes exactly Dave, evolutionary is the word, and no, cost need not rise significantly.
This is how I would present it to DAI:

> Give me a $ 5 million design/certification/retooling budget.
> Assume a conservative 30 additional units sold for the next 5 years at a price (net factory) of 350 K - that's an additional 10 M USD or so of revenue per year, 50 M over 5 years.
> Assume a gross margin of 35% - 3.5 Million per year.
Do I need to push this further?
And this model is with less than half the additional business I think this plane will bring.

Now let us look at the actual cost of goods increase of doing what was discussed here.

Evolutionary implies that the present design is perfectible:

Aerodynamics.
Can we agree that at least 7, maybe 10 knots can be extracted from aerodynamic improvements (including landing gear)? Optimizing aerodynamics has zero impact on the bill of materials. Inspiration for a proper aerodynamic design for the gear is available from Cirrus and Cessna.

Airframe weight
Pipistrel have made a much lighter airframe that meets structural certification requirements.
The design of the carbon fiber fuselage for the DA41 is easily derived from that of the DA42.
The BOM cost of moving to all carbon fiber is a few thousand dollars per airframe (less thank 5K I would guess). The improved resin processes are readily available from the DA62.
The molds will need to be modified for the increased width (and a better integration of the enlarged canopy bubble) but today this is not a big cost item.
The redesign of the landing gear is not a major project - the composite blade technology is public domain (copy cirrus) and the shortcomings of the present gear well documented. Beringer wheels and brakes will add maybe 1 K to the cost. FWIW I have made some calculations that show a 50 lb weight saving potential on the landing gear alone.

Avionics and interior
The simplified avionics will cut cost by probably 15-20K AND weight.
Honing the interior as suggested by various posters above is a zero cost in terms of BOM.

Engine
CFIDave wrote: A bigger avgas engine runs into the issue I described earlier of where to place larger fuel tanks .
Why? The IO390 is a perfect match, it will add 5 to 7 knots. (total 12 to 17 additional knots, that's 162 to 167 KTAS cruise speed). In the first post I set an endurance number derived from the existing 50 USG capacity.
The DA41 will do 165 KTAS on 12 GPH all day at 75% power and therefore a stunning 150 KTAS on 9 GPH.
At max cruise, zero fuel range will be 660 NM and at 65% it goes up to 825 NM.

Summing up the cost impact of the suggested changes I see the cheaper avionics paying for everything else and the TKS/ AC options providing additional gross margin. Therefore staying at 450K (plus TKS) while DOUBLING sales is very feasible in my opinion and would make sense from the CFO's perspective.

450K is a great place to be: it is a realistic number for selling roughly 100 units per year profitably.
Colin how much was the price of the DA50 if I may ask?

The DA41 is a matter of LEADERSHIP. Somebody has to have a dream, obtain $ 5 million and pull the whole team behind them. Diamond London can be setting the bar for everyone else, including Pipistrel.

The 180 HP AE330 variant is a great idea. With a redesign of the nose, it would make the diesel DA41 incredibly fast - at least 170 KTAS - and capable above 10'000 ft, a perfect IFR platform. I still remember how the DA62 was climbing on ONE engine passing FL100 - most impressive.
The combination of smoothness, low fuel burn and performance would make it attractive to some , especially in places were AVGAS is expensive.

So as a summary the Diamond product range would finally have a "keep'em in the family" concept:

Trainers: DA20, DA40, DA42
Rental aircraft : DA40 and DA42
Owner flow cruiser: DA41, DA42-VI, DA50 JP7
Commercial single: DA50 JP7
Commercial twin: DA62

The typical private customer would learn on a 20 or 40, buy a DA41 and upgrade to a JP7 or a DA42 over time.
And if the factory did something clever with buyback of DA4 airframes and rebuilding them for school use, they could make a killing.

Makes sense?

One more feature for the list. Preparation for a non-certifed O2 system: a tidy arrangement of 02 ducting and an 02 controller but without the obligation of carrying an installed 02 bottle all the time. Another high margin item that could prove very valuable to customers.
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 »

"Imagine that we can re-use whatever we want from the DA40 and DA42 to build a SEP aircraft that is targeted at the first time owner pilot - NOT at flight schools. Price point 5% above the SR22 - that's around 450 to 500 K USD. This means the DA41 would not displace the 40. Think SR20 and SR 22."

Ummmm...The average price of a 2017 Cirrus SR22 optioned as they leave the factory is well over $800,000.

And they sell about 200 per year.

Cirrus went from a mass-producer to a manufacturer of premium aircraft for a niche of customers who appear to be price-insensitive.

I think the aircraft you are describing is the Pipestrel Panthera, which might be vaporware at this point, but on the drawing board looked like where Diamond should have gone with a non-trainer DA40.
Post Reply