1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: 1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Post by Rich » Fri May 17, 2019 6:53 pm

FWIW, I paid $225K for my plane. Since then I've added/replaced stuff to the tune of about $30K. More than half of this amount was spent in acquiring equipment that essentially cost the same as that which it replaced and the installation thereof. If I were ordering a new one today, it'd basically be with the modern equivalent of what I got then plus the extended baggage. It should not be a trick to keep the price below $500K. In my ignorance it would seem like $300K should do it. The new stuff I would expect would be something like:

- Dual GTN units instead of the GNS (+GMA35? a panel space issue if not?)
- Some sort of electronic HSI and AI that do not require backup instruments. Lots of choices here and they are all lighter than the electro-mechanical/iron-gyro KCS 55A
- Newer autopilot (GFC500?)
- 1090ES ADS-B of some sort, naturally.
- One of the JPI systems in lieu of the obsolete VM1000.
- NOT one of the Hartzell AL props. Either MT or the Hartzell Composite would be my choice.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: 1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Post by Rich » Fri May 17, 2019 7:06 pm

Tim, I think they started out with wider envelopes. The plane gets heavier, you up the max weight, maybe stiffening a part or two. In addition to the narrow envelope, Diamond's mistake is twofold: The bunch of added weight in the rear of the plane, and the additionally restricted envelope when providing the 50-gallon tank. Diamond did up the MTOW/MLW once along the way to compensate for the added stuff but didn't do a thing to widen or move the envelope. (Though it was a nice little boost to mine and shaved a few pounds to boot :) )

Cirrus, in particular, put a whole new wing on both models along the way. Incidentally, for some older C-172s I believe there's a 3rd-party STC to increase the gross weight by simply limiting flap extension to 30 degrees from the original 40 degrees. 30 degrees is what the limit came to be from the factory after production was resumed in the 1990's and behold the gross weight was a couple of hundred pounds higher.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: 1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Post by Rich » Thu May 23, 2019 5:18 pm

Steve wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 3:38 pm
Rich wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 2:31 pm
Notably the replacement of the KCS 55A with a G5 suite might move the empty CG back by about .1 inch. It depends on the single factor of whether the KG 102A is beneath the rear passenger seat, as stated in the AMM or is located in the front instrument panel as implied by the POH.
It is definitely under the rear seat (right side). I had to pull it out to have it overhauled last year. :scream:
Yep, sort of confirmed by poking through the instrument compartment and not finding the unit. So the POH location is incorrect. It's good and bad news. Good: CG will move forward only a few hundredths of an inch (I calculate .04 in.) net. Bad: rear seat removal (at least partially) to replace the KG 102A.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Antoine
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N121AG
Airport: LSGG

Posts: 1967
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Has thanked: 71 times
Been thanked: 161 times

Re: 1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Post by Antoine » Fri May 24, 2019 5:11 pm

TimS wrote:
Fri May 17, 2019 6:51 pm
This whole discussion brings to mind a question. I have looked at the CG, W&B for multiple new Cessna models, and multiple generations of Cirrus.
They have all slowly gotten heavier; with more creature comforts. However, they have really done a great job of maintaining the UL and the ability to use the full CG envelope.
So here is the question: how much effort/cost has it taken the companies to do this? Or has it been just "luck" with the initial design?
Tim
Cirrus certainly put a lot of effort into increasing the useful load. But that need not be in the case of the DA40. I think DAI were under two different kinds of pressure: 1. financial - 2. making room for the DA40NG

As I said in a previous post, switching the tailplane to carbon fiber would have fixed most if not all of the "tail heavy" issue. I do not believe that this would have cost DAI a lot of effort as they are the type certificate holder and can easily make changes to the structure. Different story for a third party STC.
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 1839
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 44 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: 1,000-lb useful load? +BRS?

Post by Rich » Fri May 24, 2019 8:00 pm

I took a look at three different loading envelope versions over the years of the SR20. The envelope at the high-weight end hasn't really changed, but the low end did get extended, so the aft limit looks kind of like the DA40, being 148 in. at all weights. now, where once it was less at lower wights. But all one needed to do was be more judicious where one put any additional weight.

As far as curing the DA40 problem with a lighter tail, how much lighter can the tail be made, Antoine? I don't see this as the panacea all by itself, especially for the 50-gallon planes.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
Post Reply