If it brings say 15% reduction in operating costs then I am sure they would sell.
OK, let me put the argument differently: If the business is so capital-rich that they would spend the money, why don’t they all go out and buy used diesel DA40s?
Isn’t the weight increase just the same as with automobiles? More soundproofing, better paint and corrosion proofing, additional gadgets and in this case also a slightly heavier engine? The newer 172s all use the IO360 with an rpm limit for 160hp or the full 180hp without it iirc.
Check the weight of a 1980s VW Golf versus todays…
OK, let me put the argument differently: If the business is so capital-rich that they would spend the money, why don’t they all go out and buy used diesel DA40s?
Perhaps because they don’t want to fly a DA40?
I am sure the DA40 can’t be smashed into the tarmac quite as hard as a C152 can be (before bits start to fall off) 
but plenty of them seem to be used in PPL training.
The DA40 can take a beating, I’ve sat through hundreds of “interesting arrivals”, but I think the carbon structure is just not as forgiving to ham-fisted pilots as the normal tin can. Once you’ve bent and smashed the landing gear hard enough, the carbon will start to break whereas the tin can aluminium just bends and buckles. Over time it will not last as long.
We had some structural damage to one of the FTO’s DA40 after a few thousand hours and PPL students…
I do like the handling of the DA40 though, a great improvement over the C172 in my view.
The sailplane like wing is the reason the DA40 can climb from the surface with a 135 HP diesel, and even better with an O-360, whereas a heavy late model 172 with the same diesel engine would be a dog. That long DA40 wing takes up a lot of room in a hangar, so I’d imagine you’d need a fair bit of hangar space for a training fleet.
In relation to weight gain from any source, a lot of people seem to forget that aircraft have to be supported on thin air.
Thanks for your comments.
Today I started a new “9 to 5” (read: 8 to 7) job and I won’t be able to post any longer during the day… :-(
Compare it to the C172M with the 150hp O-320 (until 1977). This was the last model that was lightweight
Not quite; N s and Ps weigh essentially the same and the Ps have the 1089kg MTOW.
and still had the Mogas-certified engine.
…just like the Ps.
My average fuel consumption (including takeoff) was always exactly 28l/h.
Yes, but I guess you didn’t do 109 knots indicated on that.
Are the G1000 planes heavier?
As Martin confirmed, yes they are. All the boxes (visible and invisible combined) of a G1000 are heavier than standard instruments. The reverse tale was made up by the avionics gang to sell more of the black boxes (a bit like the diesel folks saying that flying would become cheaper…).
I don’t think you could slide a cigarette paper between the C152/172 & DA40 in terms of structural integrity and fitness to absorb the punishment that students give the aircraft.
Both aircraft have their difficult aspects when it comes to repair but the light aircraft industry with a few notable exceptions has failed to grasp GRP techniques and have written off GRP aircraft that in the right hands could have been repaired in 6 to 8 weeks.
Just speaking from my own experience with a DA40 that had “bits falling off” as Peter put it.
I’ve also seen Pipers with shock absorbers poking through the wing.
Time will tell how well they hold up to 10000 hrs of flight training.
There’s a PA28 160hp used for training for many years at a nearby FTO which is past 10000 hours (I think it’s close to 15k IIRC).
Is there a “hard” time limit when the aircraft must be grounded?
