What was the Ontario company doing, apart from D-Jet work? Was it a US marketing franchise of some sort?
Assembly of DA20's, 40's, 42's (including the Lyco version) and customer support for these planes in North America. From the information that is in the press and that is sent to NA customers the problem is the D-Jet, that has been put on hold. Apparently the money from this Middle Eastern financier for Diamond Canada, who would become a shareholder, never came through. Diamond claims that all this does not affect the piston programs. FMI, have a look at the DAN forum.
I was told Friday evening, by a person who is still employed at Diamond London, that there have been layoffs in recent days, which have greatly affected their workforce. They will continue to support the Diamond aircraft in service, and will build propeller aircraft to order. As a previous supplier of services to Diamond, I was sent a letter which more or less said the same thing.
I understand that the DA42 is very appealing for a flight school or a business that put several hundred hours a year on it, but for a single owner or a small group of owners I would rather go in a different direction.
Many of the older light light twins have better performance than the DA42 (especially on one engine), can carry more and can be had for a fraction of the DA42 price tag. Still after refurbishing and upgrading avionics they will represent a much lower "investment".
They are also very well tested and tried out and will give you few surprices. Upgrades and STCs are available on many of these. I admit that you won't get the g1000, and the low fuel flow, but you can upgrade to G500/600 or aspen avionics and get a decent glass cockpit.
The most economic speed for me is 160KTAS at 17GPH. It can take my family of four, luggage and our 40 kg golden retriever the 750NM stretch from our home to our summer house, and if I want, can do it in one stretch.
I apreciate that the 42 repesents a newer technology, is stunningly beautiful to look at, has several improvements over the older airframes, but when I look at the numbers and published maintenance costs, IMHO you could be just as well of buying some of the older airframes.
Many of the older light light twins have better performance than the DA42 (especially on one engine), can carry more and can be had for a fraction of the DA42 price tag. Still after refurbishing and upgrading avionics they will represent a much lower "investment".
That is only true if/as long as there is AVGAS available.
The 2nd engine of a light piston twin basically only carries itself and compensates for the bad aerodynamics of having the other engine not in front of the fuselage but on the wing. It usually neither gives much speed nor payload. My single can perform the same mission as yours at 11GPH, same speed. The statistics don't show any safety advantages of a light piston twin flown privately by the owner pilot.
Achimha:
The statistics that excist mostly comes from USA where they do not have the same requirements as to keeping you rating (proficiency test on type). Also when digging deeper into them you will see that it is a very narrow time frame where twins are considered less safe =, just after take off especially with surrounding rising terrain..
Further, piston twins flown by commercial pilots have a substantially better safety record than Singles. This to me indicates that with the proper training twins are safer.
The area in which you operate clearly influences the safety advantage. In my area of the world, with deserted areas, hostile terrein, viloent mountains, ice cold water where you at winter time freeze to death within minutes, not hours, I could argue that not only is a twin safer, it is substantially safer than a single. .
EDIT: Looking through my logbook, I see that the last 2 years I have crossed the open ocean between Norway - Denmark 88NM, Sweden - Poland 120NM, Sweden - Lithuania 160NM, a total of 8 times. It would be hard to argue that on these flights I am not safer in a twin.
If you read the Collins book on accident records, it is actually less clear. I agree twins SHOULD be safer, although singles are actually still very safe. Practice does not show that really to be the case.
The big thing, which will always be debated for ever, is that sometimes it is just nice to have a modern good looking plane / car / house / whatever.
The financial case for buying new almost never makes sense.
Another reason for buying new is that you should get a predictable "maintenance situation". Apart from teething problems on avionics, this is what I got on the new TB20 in 2002. To date, it's cost me almost nothing in unscheduled maintenance (crankshaft excepted 
). This worked out well because I knew zilch about maintenance back then and had I bought an old dog, reliant heavily on maintenance, I would have been screwed. Especially given what I now know about some of the companies who I would have relied on totally.
The above should apply to any "conventional" plane bought new. I am told by engineers that the build quality of a new PA28 (which goes for about the same money as a top-spec mint-condition 2002 TB20GT) is poor, but it's probably OK.
Of course very few of the conventional planes are still in production...
Unfortunately the above doesn't apply to a DA42, which on my admittedly superficial look seems to come with a whole new set of problems...
Had Thielert not p*ssed on the Diamond bonfire, and had I not heard horror stories from the 2 or 3 DA42 private owners I know personally about Diamond's handling of customers, I would prob99 now be flying a DA42.
The avtur case is really powerful for Europe.
But then one could say the same for this
If you read the Collins book on accident records, it is actually less clear. I agree twins SHOULD be safer, although singles are actually still very safe. Practice does not show that really to be the case.
Richard Collins was the guy who electrocuted the myth about twins being safer and I have nothing but the highest respect for his experience and knowledge. However, most (if not all) he writes is based upon flying in USA.
I love how GA is over there but one thing I don't like is that you don't have to prove your skills on type as you do in Europe. I think it makes a different. From having hanged out on brand-specific US GA forums a few years I've also got the impression that it is considered invidious that you can be away for twin flying a long time, then jump into a twin and go.
That is not possible in Europe and I think it makes a difference.
The big thing, which will always be debated for ever, is that sometimes it is just nice to have a modern good looking plane / car / house / whatever.
Agreed, but for the money of a DA42, I simply don't think you get equally added values as far as speed, payload and comfort is concerned. For that kind of money I would much rather buy a C210 SIlver Eagle, Mirage or a Jetprop DLX.
I love how GA is over there but one thing I don't like is that you don't have to prove your skills on type as you do in Europe. I think it makes a different. From having hanged out on brand-specific US GA forums a few years I've also got the impression that it is considered invidious that you can be away for twin flying a long time, then jump into a twin and go.
I looked up "invidious"
Not sure I understand you. Do you mean American ME pilots are more type-current?
I think the main reason why singles are not more dangerous is because catastrophic engine failures (on certified engines) are very rare, so other factors (e.g. flying a twin with too much air in the tanks) take over and sway the stats.
If engines were like they were in the days of Lindberg (MTBF in tens of hours) twins would be much safer.
Of course there are other reasons e.g. enroute ME engine shutdowns are not normally reported.
Further, piston twins flown by commercial pilots have a substantially better safety record than Singles. This to me indicates that with the proper training twins are safer.
I don't see how I could ever come to that level of training to have a safety advantage with a twin. I don't fly enough and I hate flying for the sake of training. If I take out my plane, I go somewhere with a clear idea why and what to do there. That was very easy back when I was VFR only, flying my plane was like riding my bicycle -- not so difficult. Now with IFR it's more difficult and there are some aspects that require constant training but still orders of magnitudes simpler with my complex single than in a twin.
A low time private pilot in a small piston single (which barely flies on one engine) is a dangerous combination.
