diamondaviators.net

Ha! Finally! Thanks Keith. Just to confirm: 129/142 KIAS (not KTAS) at 3000 ft?
If yes:
129 KIAS at 3000 ft is approximately 137 KTAS. Extrapolates to

147 KTAS at 9'000 ft on 6.2 GPH of Jetfuel. That's simply out of this world!

Tell us more about climb rate and higher altitude performance please.

Do you have the improved prop blades on it? I met a (then Thielert) test pilot once who was raving about the new prop in his prototype CDI-155-powered aircraft.

nrenno wrote:Frequently sales people focus on intangibles because one of their goals is to maximize their profit, not the value to the buyer.

I'm not sure if you're directing this inaccurate statement at salespeople who sell Diamonds, because there's no incentive to sell a new Austro NG vs. new Lycoming XLT model -- the Canadian factory can produce either in the same approximate timeframe, and there's not much of a price differential. And as you might imagine, the vast majority of Diamond aircraft sold in North America these days are used Lycoming models -- since there are few, if any, used NGs for sale, and used DA40s are often a better value for customers.

CFIDave wrote:My understanding is that multiple Russian DA40 NG crashes were caused by students flying in the pattern who accidentally shut off the engine (via "Engine Master" switch)

Losing the engine should not result in a stall/spin in a trainer aircraft with an instructor on board.
A trainer aircraft should be idiot proof just like the DA40-180 (or a C172), no excuses.
I am still wondering how they got the plane certified with this obvious, outrageous and deadly design flaw in the panel... I men it takes 1/10th of a brain to say "mmh I need to move this thing away from here"...
The families of the 4 (?) dead fellows will certainly be delighted to know that "problem fixed".

I apologize for being sarcastic, I just hate this DA40-NG. I have been hoping and begging for years that Diamond improve the DA40 and the only thing they came up with was this flying Quasimodo.

Antoine wrote: I just hate this DA40-NG.

I think we noticed...

Tim

the engines don’t quit - I’m not sure if that will be the case with the Austro

I'm pretty sure there's some data for this. The IO-360 is one in-flight engine failure every 10,000 hours. The Centurion engine has been one in-flight engine failure every 100,000 hours. (Extrapolate for Austro data, but be *really* careful when you extrapolate, that way lies madness.)

I figure since I have two of the Centurion engines I will expect a failure of both at once every 1x10^10. Antoine can check my math there. Unless I get bad fuel, which is possible.

Gentlemen, I love this forum. This thread is exactly how it should be, different opinions, different sights, but everybody with respect and decency.
Hey, we all here are saying the same, Diamond planes are, or where our favourite’s aircraft, which make us proud. Tommy, I believe you have the best Aerostar which fits your desire, Antoine your "Extra Beast" is your love, Dave, the NG is not a dog, its a modern plane, a Diamond.
I remember my 37 year airline time, we had 2 most beloved aircrafts during my time with Swissair, the Convair 990 Coronado and later the DC10/MD11, they were very special, our love affair, I loved the never ending discussion with the Boeing and later the Airbus fellows, with respect and decency.
But the DA40-180 is the best

Dave,
My statement was based on my perception of the motivation and potential bias of the various groups, not on anyone in particular.

Colin wrote:

the engines don’t quit - I’m not sure if that will be the case with the Austro

I’m pretty sure there's some data for this. The IO-360 is one in-flight engine failure every 10,000 hours. The Centurion engine has been one in-flight engine failure every 100,000 hours. (Extrapolate for Austro data, but be *really* careful when you extrapolate, that way lies madness.)

Colin, It would be great to see the data on this. I’ve been looking and have not found much. If the Centurion rate is accurate, it must not include the 1.7 version.

Antoine wrote:Tell us more about climb rate and higher altitude performance please.

Do you have the improved prop blades on it?

I hesitate to quote climb rate, because my flights with the new engine have been with only myself onboard, however:

With a full tank of fuel and OAT 5C, I got 1,100 FPM at 95 KIAS and 95% power between 1000 and 3000 ft. With the 135hp engine at full power and 80 KIAS, I was lucky to get 800 fpm. All figures are with the original prop and speed in KIAS.

The freezing level has prevented me from exploring the performance at higher altitudes.

shorton wrote:If the Centurion rate is accurate, it must not include the 1.7 version.

True, but my 1.7 engine was the most reliable component during the first two years of ownership from new, and never gave me any trouble in the 12 years I had it. (I did suffer an EFATO, but that was due to a maintenance error which short circuited the ECUs.)

Thomas wrote:Gentlemen, I love this forum. This thread is exactly how it should be, different opinions, different sights, but everybody with respect and decency.
Hey, we all here are saying the same, Diamond planes are, or where our favourite’s aircraft, which make us proud. Tommy, I believe you have the best Aerostar which fits your desire, Antoine your "Extra Beast" is your love, Dave, the NG is not a dog, its a modern plane, a Diamond.
I remember my 37 year airline time, we had 2 most beloved aircrafts during my time with Swissair, the Convair 990 Coronado and later the DC10/MD11, they were very special, our love affair, I loved the never ending discussion with the Boeing and later the Airbus fellows, with respect and decency.
But the DA40-180 is the best

I loved my DA40 XLS. Best all around airplane I ever had. I have a lot of fond memories in that airplane.
Mission change, changes things. Believe it or not, the flying characteristics of the DA40 and the Aerostar are almost identical. Just a little quicker in the Aerostar. Like the DA40, the Aerostar is all torque tube and push rod assembly including the rudder. Finger tip control just like the DA40. They both land the same. Takeoff is a little different. I love em both.