I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Open for questions of visitors of DAN. Posts of our guests are on moderation queue.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
waynemcc999
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Wayne
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N211WP
Airport: KSBA

Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 3:38 pm
Has thanked: 390 times
Been thanked: 33 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by waynemcc999 » Fri Jun 08, 2018 6:41 pm

I agree with Rob... with weight properly distributed my 2008 XLS (40.922, with ElectroAir) carries 680 pounds passenger/luggage load with 3+ hours plus reserves of fuel. Performance at 10,000' Density Altitude, Lean-of-Peak is 137 KTAS on 7.9 gph. Graphs of actual performance: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing
Wayne McClelland
PPL/IR, 2008 Diamond Star DA40-XLS Supercharged 40.922, KSBA
Photo logs of PilotsNPaws | Flying Doctors | Angel Flight | Cuba | Colombia
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Dave
Aircraft: DA62
Registration: N62DV
Airport: KJYO

Posts: 1704
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
Has thanked: 82 times
Been thanked: 477 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by CFIDave » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:17 pm

Antoine wrote:When buying an XLS, don't forget to ask for TAS. It became optional from model year 2008 whereas it was standard equipment in the XL. This is a life saver - ask me how I know!
A few years ago I would have agreed with you about TAS (all Diamonds I've owned have had it.)

But here in the US the Avidyne TAS600 is rapidly becoming almost worthless. With the looming FAA deadline for equipping with ADS-B approaching (only 1.5 years to go), just about every G1000 DA40 owner in the US will be replacing their GTX33 transponder with a GTX345R that includes ADS-B In weather and traffic.

With a lot of real-world experience comparing the G1000's traffic display from ADS-B In with its display of TAS targets, I'd say that it's simply "no contest:" Compared with TAS, ADS-B traffic display from a GTX345R is far more accurate, with longer range, and with traffic "vectors" that show the movement of target aircraft.

Because of this, we no longer recommend that US purchasers of new Diamonds equipped with the GTX345R ADS-B In spend the extra money (now about $15K on a DA40, $19K for a DA42-VI or DA62) for TAS.

(Outside the US where there's no ADS-B equipage mandate or ground stations to translate transponder-only targets, TAS is still very useful.)
N62DV DA62 62.056
N42DA DA42-VI 42.N117 (sold)
N811ET DA40 XLS 40.874 (sold)
KJYO Leesburg, Virginia
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 257 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Rich » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:23 pm

You can see where the original question comes from. The values a number of us have submitted to the wiki page show the empty weights rising as the years have gone by. A whopping difference of 142 lbs. between the lightest and heaviest over 10 model years as more and more stuff got added to the original airframe.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
User avatar
Steven M
1 Diamond Member
1 Diamond Member
FIRST NAME: Steven
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N565DS
Airport: KBLI

Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:24 pm

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Steven M » Wed Jun 13, 2018 1:40 pm

I have a 2006 DA40-180. There is an easy modification to the elevator which gives me a useful load of 905 Lbs. I can usually fly 4 in the plane, but in most cases I have 25 gal's or less fuel. I typically burn 7-8 gals/hr in cruise flying at 45% power and getting 123 kts. TAS. My best fuel burn was flying down from Alaska to Washington State. At 9500' I was burning 6.9 gal/hr in cruise. I left Ketchican with 50 gals and landed in Bellingham, WA with 18 gals still on board. I love this plane!
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 257 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Rich » Wed Jun 13, 2018 2:54 pm

The modification to bump the Max TakeOff Weight by 111 lbs. (to 2646 LB.) is indeed, a pretty modest cost (< 1 AMU)
BUT
It requires that you first have the main landing gear that allows a Max Landing Weight of 2535 lbs. Somewhere along the line the "right" gear became standard before the elevator tweak did. But for earlier planes (like mine) the main gear needed to be changed. Altogether the two OSBs cost me around 6 AMU, including the installation labor, reweighing, etc. Well worth it for me.

The newer planes have come to be delivered with that higher MTOW. But they also come with higher empty weights (to which we ourselves add) which more than erases that increase to the allowed max weights.

I recently ran into an anomaly among the older planes - a 2002 just seven serial numbers later and originally produced a month after mine. It somehow came out 33 lbs. heavier.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Antoine
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N121AG
Airport: LSGG

Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Antoine » Wed Jun 13, 2018 3:47 pm

After "downgrading" from a fully integrated G1000 to my new panel which has a G500, GTN750, integrated iPad ADSB in/out, etc... I fully support several people's idea expressed above that - if you are in the market for a DA40 - it is very viable and even smart to start with an (inexpensive and lightweight) older DA40, upgrade it to your liking and enjoy the extra useful load. Just make sure to spare a couple thousand for a cosmetic refurb (some shops literally do wonders) and possibly a new interior and you'll have all of the joy of a new plane.

How good is a panel that is built from bits and pieces?
Well how about Synthetic Vision for free on your iPad, IFR charts and many whistles and bells for a couple hundred $ a year, Flight plans entered and edited graphically on the iPad... weather data streaming to your iPad until after take-off. I am convinced that iPads are the avionics breakthrough for small SEPs.

Today I would probably go with a Garmin G5 (or two), GTN750, GTX345 transponder, iPad and push as much as possible of the whistles and bells on the iPad.

I used to be a big fan of the GFC700 - meanwhile I believe that a KAP140 is good enough on a SEP (heck I am now married to a STEC55X, so even the 140 looks sexy)!

One thing you want to be careful about. Don't patch your panel. Redesign it from scratch within certification limits. and make room for an iPad within your reach and angle of vision. THIS is the future...
User avatar
Diamond_Dan
3 Diamonds Member
3 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Dan
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N456AS
Airport: KLWM

Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:20 pm
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Diamond_Dan » Wed Jun 13, 2018 7:12 pm

Rich wrote: It requires that you first have the main landing gear that allows a Max Landing Weight of 2535 lbs.
We have a 2004 model without the MTOW mod. Is there an easy way to tell if we need the gear update?
User avatar
Rich
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Rich
Aircraft: DA40
Registration: N40XE
Airport: S39

Posts: 2028
Joined: Mon Aug 30, 2010 12:40 pm
Has thanked: 56 times
Been thanked: 257 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Rich » Wed Jun 13, 2018 8:18 pm

Diamond_Dan wrote:
Rich wrote: It requires that you first have the main landing gear that allows a Max Landing Weight of 2535 lbs.
We have a 2004 model without the MTOW mod. Is there an easy way to tell if we need the gear update?
I'm not totally sure about an easy way, but reading the tea leaves of the OSBs I suspect you already have the necessary gear. What tea leaves you may ask? Well the applicable serial numbers for the 18 mm gear ENDS at 40.349. That whispers to me that the thinner gear was standard after that. There might be something in your A/C logs or actual AFM section 1.1. There MIGHT also be something in your W&B section of this AFM about it. If you have access to a decent set of calipers, check that the thickness of the main gear is 18mm (the original was 19mm).

The other permissible gear is the "taller" gear, which is applicable to planes with the smaller main landing gear wheels.
2002 DA40: MT, PF, 530W/430W, KAP140, ext. baggage, 1090 ES out, 2646 MTOW, 40gal.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
FIRST NAME: Antoine
Aircraft: OTHER
Registration: N121AG
Airport: LSGG

Posts: 2001
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 189 times

Re: I'd love a DA40, but is there one with enough useful load?

Post by Antoine » Wed Jun 13, 2018 9:35 pm

CFIDave wrote:
Because of this, we no longer recommend that US purchasers of new Diamonds equipped with the GTX345R ADS-B In spend the extra money (now about $15K on a DA40, $19K for a DA42-VI or DA62) for TAS.
I am with you Dave. Your experience in the US makes ADS-B a no brainer, and very good news from a cost perspective.
My Extra has both TAS and ADS-B in/out and the display is merged, so I don't know how good ADS-B has become in Europe - all I can say is I am very glad to have traffic avoidance on board.
I think it is a must have in any plane. Relying on the infamous Mk1 eyeballs is deluding oneself.
There is no way a human can even come close to what ADS-B or TAS will do...
I am positive TAS saved my life (and a couple more) on this ATC error in the Ajaccio control zone.
It's been 7 years now and just mentionning the story still sends shivers through my spine.
The other pilot did not even know we were about to collide, he only became aware of my presence AFTER I reported the evasive maneuver... What more can one say to prove the point...
Post Reply