200lb Useful Load Increase?

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
AndrewM
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Andrew
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N897KC

Posts: 74
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 12 times

200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by AndrewM » Sat Jun 01, 2019 1:11 pm

Fact or fiction...? I guess we will find out during Oshkosh.

Apparently all NEW DA40 Lycomings are going to be supplied with a 200lb useful load enhancement vs current, and there will be an STC available to retrofit / do something to older DA40's to provide the same enhancement.

If true... this is significant and kudos to the management and leadership of Diamond.
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Dave
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: N62DV
Airport: KJYO

Posts: 1667
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
Has thanked: 77 times
Been thanked: 442 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by CFIDave » Sat Jun 01, 2019 4:03 pm

My understanding of the reason why DA40NGs can have a higher useful load is because Diamond changed the internal structure of the wing stubs (actually part of the fuselage) to accommodate more weight. If they apply this same strengthening to Lycoming DA40s, it would "standardize" production and permit a higher useful load for all new DA40s.

But it's unclear to me how (or if) this change to the internal structure of the wing stubs could easily be retrofitted to existing Lycoming DA40s.
N62DV DA62 62.056
N42DA DA42-VI 42.N117 (sold)
N811ET DA40 XLS 40.874 (sold)
KJYO Leesburg, Virginia
User avatar
krellis
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Keith
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N859DF
Airport: GA04

Posts: 235
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 10:42 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 26 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by krellis » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:07 pm

Interesting.

During my conversation years ago with Christian Dries at the Katana Kafe in Austria, I had asked about a useful load increase (and changing to an IO-390, as Cirrus did with the SR-20).

Aside from his contention that the Avgas market was dead to him, he indicated that even with an IO-390, the DA40 would not have adequate performance to support the increased gross weight. I certainly didn't agree with him at the time (and still don't), but glad to see Diamond is at least making an attempt to improve their best airplane (Lycoming powered DA40).
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 1991
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 246 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by Rich » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:31 pm

I can only say I'll believe it when I see it. I've analyzed this in quite a bit of detail recently (even though my ancient bird has no real problem with this factor). I'm assuming this will largely be accomplished by increasing MTWO/MLW (that's how the entire industry operates). Three things need to happen to make this added useful load, well, useful:

- Structural beef up somewhere. At least where Dave has said, but possibly elsewhere.
- Empty CG needs to be moved forward somehow. Antoine has suggested building a lighter horizontal stabilizer. This would help, but I believe probably not enough by itself.
- CG envelope needs expansion. Especially for the 50-gallon option.

In particular, retrofit seems impractical. Reworking new airframes seems feasible.

For grins I fiddled with my basic loading (1705 lb, CG 95.5 in., 102 in. aft limit), assumed I could load 50 gallons in it. Long before getting to (the presumed target of) 2850 lb, I would run out of aft CG unless I make sure I have 400+ lb. in the font seats. And I wouldn't want any further forward empty CG than I have now. Those 400 lbs of load in the front seats can't fly alone as it is.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N1446C
Airport: 6B6 Stowe MA

Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by TimS » Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:41 pm

I would think a 200lb MTOW increase without additional power or significant drag reductions would hurt the take off performance enough to make it problematical in many areas during summer. From what I recall 1000fpm in ISA conditions at sea level?
I often see a density altitude of 3-4K in the my local airports which are only 3-5 hundred MSL. Adding 4000 ft of altitude will really reduce the climb margin.

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

Posts: 1991
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 246 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by Rich » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:26 am

TimS wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:41 pm
I would think a 200lb MTOW increase without additional power or significant drag reductions would hurt the take off performance enough to make it problematical in many areas during summer. From what I recall 1000fpm in ISA conditions at sea level?
I often see a density altitude of 3-4K in the my local airports which are only 3-5 hundred MSL. Adding 4000 ft of altitude will really reduce the climb margin.

Tim
Arbitrarily increasing MTOW (and using it) no doubt compromises takeoff/climb performance, absent a power increase. This is true for every normally-aspirated airplane you're talking about. And even turbocharged aircraft have their limitations in this regard. Even with the existing DA40 limits this is true. It's always been prudent at higher DA's to think about whether you really need to top off the tanks when you've got a lot of cabin load. Or whether you really need all those people and stuff. In numerous types of aircraft I've done many, many takeoffs at DA's of 8,000 ft. and above (including my Cherokee 140 that had a POH that indicated this was impossible) and this is second nature. My current home airport is at ~3250 ft. and often has DA's of 6,000 ft. in the summer. FWIW, I have no desire to further increase my MTOW, as I'd have a hard time even using it. 940 lb UL is sufficient for me. But for the folks with the newer, heavier, CG challenged ones, it would be very helpful to have some more capacity for situations where performance would be acceptable. Right now they don't have that option (legally, anyway).
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N1446C
Airport: 6B6 Stowe MA

Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 42 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by TimS » Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:55 am

Rich,

I agree. Just pointing out in the current market; increasing the MTOW without other changes will mean the plane will not have sufficient performance. Both from a practical standpoint in large portions of the country; and also from a market comparison to other aircraft.

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

Posts: 1991
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 246 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by Rich » Sun Jun 02, 2019 1:01 am

TimS wrote:
Sun Jun 02, 2019 12:55 am
Rich,

I agree. Just pointing out in the current market; increasing the MTOW without other changes will mean the plane will not have sufficient performance. Both from a practical standpoint in large portions of the country; and also from a market comparison to other aircraft.

Tim
Note we've assumed no powerplant changes. Lots of unknowns here.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Peter
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: NZZZ
Airport: KWHP

Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by pietromarx » Sun Jun 02, 2019 2:29 am

Rich wrote:
Sat Jun 01, 2019 11:31 pm
I can only say I'll believe it when I see it. I've analyzed this in quite a bit of detail recently (even though my ancient bird has no real problem with this factor). I'm assuming this will largely be accomplished by increasing MTWO/MLW (that's how the entire industry operates). Three things need to happen to make this added useful load, well, useful:

- Structural beef up somewhere. At least where Dave has said, but possibly elsewhere.
- Empty CG needs to be moved forward somehow. Antoine has suggested building a lighter horizontal stabilizer. This would help, but I believe probably not enough by itself.
- CG envelope needs expansion. Especially for the 50-gallon option.
Actually, I have a 2012 DA-40 with the extended range and the various options and a MTWO / MLW increase would work great. The CG envelope is just fine for my (and most) DA-40s (though I admit that replacing some weights in the front with a supercharger would be a nice exchange of useless weight with useful weight).

A 200# increase would be greatly appreciated.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Antoine
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N121AG
Airport: LSGG

Posts: 1999
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: 200lb Useful Load Increase?

Post by Antoine » Sun Jun 02, 2019 9:20 am

Andrew this sounds like great news. I hope they do!
Rich: I did some calculations back then on the carbon tailplane. It is fairly easy to replicate:
- take a standard W&B sheet, add a station which is the middle of the tailplane and load it with minus 5 or 10 lbs - the result is quite impressive IIRC - keep in mind there is a HUGE moment arm.
- While you are at it, you may want to use the aft CG limit from the 40 USG version, not the 50 USG restriction.
I CANNOT imagine that DAI re-certify the aircraft WITHOUT fixing this "50 Gal aft CG" mistake.
As Jeff Owen once wrote, a check valve between the outboard auxiliary tanks and the main tank would do the trick...
When the outboard tanks are empty, the aircraft's CG envelope is back to normal. and when you are fully loaded with passengers, you probably don't have more than 40 USG on board...
Post Reply