Not bad.. No autopilot though. Not an issue for PPL training, but for fire patrol? Also, if you want to rent out the plane for longer X/C an autopilot is a plus of course. Having said that, the DA40 is very stable, and (well trimmed and in stable air) flies itself..
Oh, and if low maintenance cost is important, no A/P is one less thing to service/repair 
I have flown the DA40 just once, but was surprised about the w&b of the bird. With 200kg humans in first row we’d have needed to kepp over 45 kg ballast in the baggage compartment – is that a most probably a mistake in the calculations (We used Skydemon of the owner and he might have used incorrect data), prone to just that plane or normal for the DA40?
I thought it was a nice handling aircraft, astonishing torque during takeoff, but nice to fly. It’s a big motorglider after all.
NorFlyer wrote:
The majority of use is PPL- training and pattern work together with fire patrol (longer XC) service. Two on board for 90% of the time (but 4 seats req.). Looking for something around eur 100k-150k. Do you see the DA40 TDi as a good option for us?
I can only speak of the NG, but it would fit nicely the bill.
Great plane to fly, my only complaints are:
- lack of deice (and picks up ice really quickly (although I always got out early so never experienced severe icing – but still got a clearly blocked stall warner (you can see it from the pilot’s seat)
- small range even with full fuel (max flights I did were 3h45 – it would be too short to do London → Lyon (skiing comfortably)
- you can take 4 up, but the 2 others need to be fairly small (4 adults of which 2 50-55 kg girls), and little / no luggage
- it consumes very little fuel, which also means it carries little: You can’t remedy easily to the WB problem by removing fuel: You’ll end up with a tiny tiny range. I ended up refusing taking part on a trip from London to Croatia because of that.
On the other hand
- It flies nicely, turbo means it will climb very steadily. I imagine that is nice for the Fire monitoring (since you can cover a large area).
- very good safety record
- glides well (You could do the Lugano ILS engine out) but landing flaps make it fall like a brick
For teaching, it is more important (and harder) to control a precise speed than with a PA28 or C172 (at least I find so).
Low go around wilth full flaps is much trickier than with a PA28 / C172: the plane will not climb at all if you go around on the flare and put the nose up. You have to really put the nose down. (I would pracice a few with the students, maybe ordering go-around very late (but not sure it’s good practice in instructing, in case I then wouldn’t))
Also, the one I rent (NG) has had the tail skid scratched a few times. I imagine due to either too aggressive flares or botched go arounds (see above)
NorFlyer wrote:
Thank you for your input @aart. Will bring it forward to the board. This one has come up as a suggestion.
PetitCessnaVoyageur is based at Aix-les-Milles. Maybe you can convince him to take a peek at the plane for you.
Noe wrote:
Also, the one I rent (NG) has had the tail skid scratched a few times. I imagine due to either too aggressive flares or botched go arounds (see above)
The tail skids on all DA40s I have seen are all scratched. I kind of doubt it comes from a tail strike, because you would need a very high nose up attitude very low, and that would potentially damage the structure.
The tail skid scratches on our DA-40 comes from the same as TB-9’s and some other types used for training: tailstrikes when practicing flaps-up landings. We’ve had it on one of our PA-28s as well. But the skid on the DA-40 is replaceable. (The school here training on TB-9s has put short steel wires on the bottom of the tail; that way the instructor can hear when a tailstrike is imminent, from the singing sound of the wire touching the runway).
mh wrote:
With 200kg humans in first row we’d have needed to kepp over 45 kg ballast in the baggage compartment
I just checked ours. With full fuel and 200 kgs in the front seat we need 8 kg in the bagage compartemnet, or 5 kg in the ski extension compartment, to stay within the envelope, but that’s about what’s in there anyway (tow bar, oil, manuals, cleaners etc.) So not much of an issue, as you usually have 10 kg of bags in the rear seat also, flying two-up.
May be the one you flew had the long range tanks. More fuel brings the CoG forward.
Thanks @huv, i don’t know about the tank size, but it might be a factor. Anyway, I was a bit cramped with my 1,96 meters. I’d personally chose a DR400 over a DA40, but that’s purely a matter of taste. Apart from the “interesting” cog-range and the somewhat heavy airframe it seems to be a nice aircraft.
Noe wrote:
small range even with full fuel (max flights I did were 3h45 – it would be too short to do London → Lyon (skiing comfortably)
Which version are we talking about? LR Tanks or Standard Tanks?
I went into the figures Diamond provides in their POH and came up with this roughly:
With standard tanks, the endurance and range is really not a lot. Calculated at 7000 ft, including climb and 45’ reserve at cruise fuel flow
80% @130kt 5.75 GPH results in 3.9 hrs and 500 NM
70% @122kt 4.75 GPH results in 4.9 hrs and 590 NM
60% @115kt 4.0 GPH results in 5.9 hrs and 680 NM
These are figures which still are better than the average C172 but with half the fuel…
LR tanks add 10 USG to the calculation.
80% @130kt 5.75 GPH results in 5.8 hrs and 750 NM
70% @122kt 4.75 GPH results in 7.2 hrs and 880 NM
60% @115kt 4.0 GPH results in 8.7 hrs and 1000 NM
These figures are not that shabby particularly if you look at the trip fuel for this.
WnB: The airplane according to the POH Sample is 735 kgs. Not sure if a plane at this weight exists…
Full fuel weighs 76 kgs /Std or 106 kgs / LR.
MTOW is 1150 kg.
I find on planecheck that the average G1000 equipped plane has an empty weight of around 830 kg, so 95 kg more than POH.
Leaves full fuel payloads of between 214 kgs (LR) and 244 kg (Std).
This is not that far off most 4 seaters… which in fact are 2 seaters with two children seats. The Standard version can seat 4 people of 61 kgs average, the LR version of 53 kgs average including baggage.
With todays population, I’d call that a two seater with baggage, given that the average adult today with baggage will be in the 110-120 kg range.
