Finally the Launch??

Any DA50 related topics.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
chili4way
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Paul
Aircraft: DA40NG
Registration: N718NG
Airport: KADS

Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
Has thanked: 564 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by chili4way »

The gap between sales and delivery may be what you're seeing unless Diamond is disclosing their order book. It seems like there is a lone DA50 making the rounds in Europe.

Perhaps one of the European DAN members can comment on the Europen "mission match" of the DA50 compared to other Diamond diesel and competitor's avgas solutions. The diesel engine and Jet-A fuel are certainly strong differentiators.

No doubt anyone who buys a DA50 in the first couple of years of production needs to have a certain pioneering spirit. There's no getting around that it's a new airframe and engine, even though both have quite reasonable genealogies.
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N1446C
Airport: 6B6 Stowe MA

Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by TimS »

I still do not understand from a market perspective why they did not include a chute.
Oh well.

Tim
User avatar
drmiller
2 Diamonds Member
2 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Drew
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N176DS
Airport: 4V1

Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2012 6:42 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by drmiller »

I do Colorado Mountain flying, and feel no need for a parachute--there is almost always a place to safely land, less damage to plane than parachute, so a good pilot will never need it. You pay a lot up front to buy, pay all the time for the dead weight towed around, pay more on annual inspections and ultimately will have to replace it. For me, a chute is a big net negative. Perhaps having as an option would make sense.
Smart insurers should also not give credit for a chute--it attracts stupid pilots to plane, gives incentive to fly when shouldn't, and guarantees a ruined plane in a problem that likely would result in a safe emergency landing, it not an engine restart. DA40 safety record beats Cirrus not because parachute is unsafe, but because it attracts/encourages stupid piloting.
Drew
User avatar
TimS
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Timothy
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N1446C
Airport: 6B6 Stowe MA

Posts: 452
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by TimS »

drmiller wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:07 pm
I do Colorado Mountain flying, and feel no need for a parachute--there is almost always a place to safely land, less damage to plane than parachute, so a good pilot will never need it. You pay a lot up front to buy, pay all the time for the dead weight towed around, pay more on annual inspections and ultimately will have to replace it. For me, a chute is a big net negative. Perhaps having as an option would make sense.
Smart insurers should also not give credit for a chute--it attracts stupid pilots to plane, gives incentive to fly when shouldn't, and guarantees a ruined plane in a problem that likely would result in a safe emergency landing, it not an engine restart. DA40 safety record beats Cirrus not because parachute is unsafe, but because it attracts/encourages stupid piloting.
Drew
I love logic, however 99% of what you posted is not worth debating. Especially the macho comment about good pilots.
However, you will notice how I stated from a market perspective. And the market has spoken, rather loudly. And ignoring the market tends to be rather short sighted from a company standpoint.

Tim
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Emir
Aircraft: DA42
Registration: SEMAD
Airport: LDZA LDVA

Posts: 709
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
Has thanked: 156 times
Been thanked: 254 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by ememic99 »

TimS wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:50 pm
drmiller wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:07 pm
I do Colorado Mountain flying, and feel no need for a parachute--there is almost always a place to safely land, less damage to plane than parachute, so a good pilot will never need it. You pay a lot up front to buy, pay all the time for the dead weight towed around, pay more on annual inspections and ultimately will have to replace it. For me, a chute is a big net negative. Perhaps having as an option would make sense.
Smart insurers should also not give credit for a chute--it attracts stupid pilots to plane, gives incentive to fly when shouldn't, and guarantees a ruined plane in a problem that likely would result in a safe emergency landing, it not an engine restart. DA40 safety record beats Cirrus not because parachute is unsafe, but because it attracts/encourages stupid piloting.
Drew
I love logic, however 99% of what you posted is not worth debating. Especially the macho comment about good pilots.
However, you will notice how I stated from a market perspective. And the market has spoken, rather loudly. And ignoring the market tends to be rather short sighted from a company standpoint.

Tim
The fact is that it's not only the pilot who buys an aircraft. Persuading the rest of the family to support pilot's decision on buying an aircraft is much easier if you add safety features that go beyond piloting skills. And that's how parachute looks like - for some people it looks safer than the second engine because it solves pilot incapacitation issue as well.
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Andrew
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N897KC

Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by AndrewM »

drmiller wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 12:07 pm
I do Colorado Mountain flying, and feel no need for a parachute--there is almost always a place to safely land, less damage to plane than parachute, so a good pilot will never need it. You pay a lot up front to buy, pay all the time for the dead weight towed around, pay more on annual inspections and ultimately will have to replace it. For me, a chute is a big net negative. Perhaps having as an option would make sense.
Smart insurers should also not give credit for a chute--it attracts stupid pilots to plane, gives incentive to fly when shouldn't, and guarantees a ruined plane in a problem that likely would result in a safe emergency landing, it not an engine restart. DA40 safety record beats Cirrus not because parachute is unsafe, but because it attracts/encourages stupid piloting.
Drew
I disagree with so much of this. Also note the recent Key Lime Metroliner midair with an SR22. The SR22 pilot clearly at fault and most certainly the pilot and passenger would have perished, but for the chute.

I may well be wrong, but I just cannot see the new DA50 taking any meaningful market share from Cirrus for a number of reasons, but most of all because it does not have a chute.
User avatar
chili4way
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Paul
Aircraft: DA40NG
Registration: N718NG
Airport: KADS

Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
Has thanked: 564 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by chili4way »

For buyers concerned primarily about "the chute", there is nothing more to talk about. The conversation stops and ends with CAPS -- at least until you get to the class of plane with Garmin's well-publicized auto-land and all the supporting avionics (e.g. radar altimeter) that it requires. So far all the planes supported have retractable gear. I'm not aware of any CAPS planes with retractable gear.

For buyers interested in Jet-A (i.e. concerned about current & future avgas availability and cost) and FADEC turbocharged diesel operation, efficiency, & performance (easy starts, near-zero risk of mismanaging the engine, flying the airplane vs the airplane and engine), there's more to consider.

Well, at least until Cirrus decides to offer a diesel-powered airplane.
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Andrew
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N897KC

Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by AndrewM »

Vision Jet has CAPS, and retractable gear.
User avatar
chili4way
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Paul
Aircraft: DA40NG
Registration: N718NG
Airport: KADS

Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 10:51 pm
Has thanked: 564 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by chili4way »

AndrewM wrote:
Mon Jun 21, 2021 6:00 pm
Vision Jet has CAPS, and retractable gear.
Thanks! Looks like it also has Garmin Autoland as an option, too. And I suppose it also qualifies as a "Cirrus that burns Jet-A", too!
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Andrew
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N897KC

Posts: 225
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Re: Finally the Launch??

Post by AndrewM »

The Panthera (also retract) comes standard with a chute. Now if that plane also could have FIKI and decent load carrying capability... that would be interesting...

Lot's of people trash the Vision Jet for various reasons, but this again is a case study of "the market has spoken". They have a long order book and lead time. I flew a G2 Vision Jet a while ago and have to say, it was VERY cool, simple and easy to fly. If one had the cash...

And for a GA pilot flying around family and friends, what's not to like about a chute AND Autoland? Put aside that I am simply, hands down the best most awesomest pilot ever, and I never have or never will make even the smallest of mistakes... if you can afford it, I am pretty sure many would happily pay for those features and peace of mind.
Post Reply