Flying Magazine Review of DA40 NG

[Steve]

I don't have to use the right brake on takeoff, and my AC has the small rudder. My runway is 3000' x 40'. I do use the brake (right or left) to turn onto the runway from the taxiway, but come off it before advancing the throttle for takeoff.

I apply the throttle briskly, but smoothly, and rotate at 59 Kts. Lots of right rudder until airspeed comes off the peg, but no brake.

Steve

[Rich]

I don't have to use the right brake on takeoff, and my AC has the small rudder. My runway is 3000' x 40'. I do use the brake (right or left) to turn onto the runway from the taxiway, but come off it before advancing the throttle for takeoff.

I apply the throttle briskly, but smoothly, and rotate at 59 Kts. Lots of right rudder until airspeed comes off the peg, but no brake.

Steve

This does not work for me. While still an effect at my common Density Altitude of 4-5K ft., the problem is most acute at low Density Altitude and really became pronounced when the Powerflow was added. What I have to do to avoid using brake and get a nice straight takeoff is advance partial throttle with full right rudder and then kind of coordinate advancing to full throttle with reducing right rudder as airspeed builds up. "Briskly" is a no-go. And at my typical takeoff weight (<2300 lb.) 59 knots is a bit too fast with the wheels on the ground.

[Steve]

Rich: My typical DA in the summer months is about 2.5K feet. My aircraft also gets light slower than 59 Kts, but I want the margin above stall (plus, I fly the book speeds as precisely as I can).

Steve

[Boatguy]

Per the OP, the AFMs tell the story and at MTOW the NG's stalling speeds are 8, 10 and 13kts higher for LDG, TO and clean respectively when compared with the XLT. That's the reality of the plane.

Although I just ordered an NG and I'm slightly biased, I thought the Flying magazine article was a puff piece. The reporting was sloppy with the facts, stall speeds, weight and cost with the AC, etc. I lost some respect for Flying for the sloppy reporting.

That said, the virtues of the NG for me were:

- turbo produces much better climb/cruise performance, particularly important where I live in the western states; it produces maximum sustained power, 92%, at maximum certified altitude of 16,000'.

- FADEC offloads pilot workload. No leaning, no prop controls, no cooling worries; no cold start / hot start issues. It starts like the Mercedes diesel car I used to own, because that's what it is. The pilot can focus on ANC, not engine management.

- It's very smooth and considerably quieter than the IO-360. That's probably just an aesthetic thing since we're all wearing noise cancelling headsets anyway. But I like the smoothness of the engine.

The Austro 300 burns less fuel because the engine is 1/3 the displacement of the IO-360 (120ci vs 360ci). It's turbo charged so the engine performs better at altitude. It's 1948 vs. 2005. I think we would all be disappointed if engine engineers couldn't improve performance in 60yrs.

But to the OP's point, the NG has a higher stall speed, more speed over the numbers and more energy to dissipate. That's the tradeoff for better performance. No getting around it.

[pietromarx]

I just flew from LA to Minnesota and on to Mattituck, NY ... and then back. The DA-40-180 demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses on this trip, one that I've done several times in the past. I'm not sure whether the NG would be better; rather, it would have had different issues for me.

For me the -180 had the following plusses / minuses:

+ The -180 was able to deal with small fields (21N is short and surrounded by trees) with a relatively quick takeoff roll.

+ Everyone knows how to fix a Lycoming, no matter how remote the place. I've been stuck in the past and having the ability to choose any airport rates more highly than choosing just "big" airports.

- I wish the plane would do better at higher altitudes. This summer is hot, the mountains are high, and the plane is anemic. I have two times when controllers halted my climb either because they got bored watching me on the scope or someone else had to go over the top.

- The range is just shy of what I could have used. Another 100 NM would have saved me a refueling stop going west.

The NG would have forced me to choose different airports, but would have let me fly a little further and higher.

The noise and vibration issues are real. One gets tired of wearing brain clamps with the noise and vibration seeping in. I don't know that the turbodiesel would really solve this as most of the noise is from the propeller and I keep the composite Hartzell's speed down to 2450 in cruise to match the needs of the Powerflow exhaust.

[Antoine]

How high did you get Peter and how heavy? I used to find performance excellent up to 10 K or so. Climb at 90 knots TRUE (not indicated) and lean for best power.

[Antoine]

But to the OP's point, the NG has a higher stall speed, more speed over the numbers and more energy to dissipate. That's the tradeoff for better performance. No getting around it.

All valid observations. I just don't see why the NG needs to have such degraded performance with such a huge wingspan. My diagnostics:
Minimalistic design of the flap system, overweight engine, bad w&b. In short: compromised engineering.

Wouldn't a CDI-155 fix 2 out of 3 issues?

[Keith M]

the NG has a higher stall speed, more speed over the numbers and more energy to dissipate. That's the tradeoff for better performance. No getting around it.

True, but if Diamond had offered the 50kg lighter CD-155 as an option in the same airframe, would you have opted for that?

[Colin]

When I flew my DA40 I had the prop at 2,150 for the long cruise. That made a huge difference in noise. Yes, I sometimes was climbing at 200fpm, but I don't really care about boring the controllers.

pietromarx's was one of the first blogs I read about the G1000 DA40. Obviously, you should add an entry about your last crossing. Ilya wrote up his, including some maintenance events. Sort of true about the Lycoming, sort of not.

[carym]

Even flying into a larger airport doesn't guarantee maintenance help. Flying out of SMO (Los Angeles) on the way back to Minnesota I had worsening problems with my right engine surging over the southern Rockies where I could barely stay at the MEA. I had to stop in Phoenix at IWA, but they couldn't work on the plane. I then had to ferry the plane to SDL (also in Phoenix) to a Diamond shop, but they couldn't figure out what was wrong either and after spending a couple of days in Phoenix we continued on to MN. It required a lot of back and forth with the Continental rep (thank you John) and Germany to eventually determine it was a problem with a discrepancy between the two air sensors that are located in the FADEC module. These are not replaceable so I had to replace the FADEC on the right engine (at a cost of about $2K, used). There is a lot to be said for having an engine that everyone can work on. Even mechanics that are "certified" to work on Austro or the CD engines have problems with the systems in these engines.