@loco: can you give some performance figures for this plane?
I was flying at 75%, typically got 115 knots near ground, 140 knots at FL160. Fuel burn is around 5 GPH.
Not to rain on anyone’s parade… but I’m underwhelmed with the DA40 performance.
To wit : I’ve owned a Cessna Cardinal 177RG for over 20 years now. About 10 years ago, a buddy bought a DA40 w Lyco 180Hp.
We compared performance numbers and found that the early 1970’s designed 177RG beats the 21 Century DA40 in EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT .
The Cardinal cruises faster on the same fuel burn, carries more load further and with a much bigger cabin than the D40.
I did not find a single advantage for the DA40 except for a purely subjective choice of high wing vs low wing, that is if you “prefer” low wing .
However, you could always find a plane from 1945 which does the same MPG (etc) as a current one.
Both burning petrol, and at peak EGT, what can differ much?
But many people like a nice modern plane, for all sorts of reasons including looks.
A 177RG looks pretty cool in my book! Btw it does have the same IO360 200 HP as the Mooney M20J vs 180 HP so would expect it to lift more…
Peter wrote:
Both burning petrol, and at peak EGT, what can differ much?
Aerodynamics. Just ask a Lancair Columbia owner what state-of-the-art aerodynamics can do for speed efficiency 
AnthonyQ wrote:
Btw it does have the same IO360 200 HP as the Mooney M20J vs 180 HP so would expect it to lift more…
The difference is just the higher compression ratio so the angle-valve, hi comp IO-360 is more efficient than the same displacement, straight valve – low comp 180Hp version on the DA40 and Cessna 172S.
Peter wrote:
But many people like a nice modern plane, for all sorts of reasons including looks.
True, if you want a G1000 you need to buy a post 2005 circa plane.
I just can’t get my head around the fact that whilst the DA40 is all composite and a 21 Century design, it has zero aerodynamic advantage.
Michael
I think the DA40 has considerable advantages over the older aircraft but these are mitigated by the need to make the composite structure robust enough to survive in the GA environment.
The composite structure could be made much lighter to meet the structural requirement of flight, the problem with this is that some parts of the aircraft would become very lightly built and likely to be broken by careless handling, this would result in damage happening on an unacceptably regular basis.
The German/ Austrian approach is quite good as they have considerable composite experience with gliders, the Cirrus approach is more conservative and having viewed the Cirrus structure IMO if this aircraft had been built by one of the leading European manufacturers it would have been 100Lb lighter.
Interesting comments about the DA40 versus 177 RG, I had never thought to compare the two. The Cardinal is a lot better looking and huge inside.
I fly around in a Lycoming powered DA40 regularly acting as safety pilot for a friend who needs IFR approaches. It’s a nice planeand really the only issue I’d have with it is front seat room. I’ve now figured out how to get comfortable using a cushion behind my back to recline more in the seat, adding head room. With that, I have just enough head room and just enough knee room.
