NG vs XLS

Any DA40 related topics

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
First Name: Andrew
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N897KC
Airports:
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by AndrewM »

Dave, after flying both, absolutely and completely agree that is a big advantage.
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by Boatguy »

shorton wrote: Mon Jun 22, 2020 12:52 am It would be good to see an objective side by side comparison of the cost of recurring maintenance for both. I mean actual itemized line-by-line numbers.
I can't speak to the maintenance cost of a DA40, but here are my expenses for a 100hr, 300hr (includes 100hr) and annual service (includes 100hr and 200hr service). These are for the required maintenance, not the additional stuff I sometimes request or warranty items that fall outside of regular maintenance. The 100hr is the 100hr inspection, plus an oil change. Labor rate was $125/hr.

100hr service (100hrs): $1,497

Annual (195hrs): $4,525

300hr service (287hrs): $2,370

Attached is what the factory estimates for operating costs.
Attachments
DA40NG Op Costs 1901.pdf
(508.88 KiB) Downloaded 206 times
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by pietromarx »

My numbers tend to be about half of this with a 2012 DA-40-180 (a.k.a. Lycoming).
Last edited by pietromarx on Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
TimS
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:10 am
First Name: Timothy
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N1446C
Airports: 6B6 Stowe MA
Has thanked: 94 times
Been thanked: 97 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by TimS »

pietromarx wrote: Wed Jun 24, 2020 11:38 pm My numbers tend to be a bit less than half of this with a 2012 DA-40-180 (a.k.a. Lycoming).
Curious, what is the delta on fuel costs?
And does that delta in fuel costs make up enough for the difference in MX costs?

Tim
User avatar
pietromarx
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 433
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 2:52 am
First Name: Peter
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: NZZZ
Airports: KWHP
Has thanked: 29 times
Been thanked: 156 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by pietromarx »

No idea. Check avweb, Garmin Pilot, etc. They publish the fuel prices. I just use self-serve, never buy at Teterboro, and try not to look.
User avatar
Boatguy
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1827
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 4:48 am
First Name: Russ
Aircraft Type: DA62
Aircraft Registration: N962M
Airports: KSTS
Has thanked: 1327 times
Been thanked: 1163 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by Boatguy »

I assume the Lycoming's factored in the 50hr servicing?

Referencing the same flight that I quoted above, I burned 6gph on the Hobbs, 6.9gph on the service clock. The Lycoming AFM looks like about 10.5gph, assume 100ll is $4/gal and 150hrs a year.

10.5 - 6.9 = 3.6gph * 4 * 150 = $2,160
User avatar
Chris B
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 843
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:52 am
First Name: Chris
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N171CB
Airports: KRHV
Has thanked: 210 times
Been thanked: 215 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by Chris B »

Obviously circumstances may be different for others, but in our case it is not clear that fuel costs would be lower with an NG.
  • Running LOP saves a lot of gas (though IMO that is not the primary benefit).
    Our 2008 XLS averages about 7.3 gph:
    Image
    Full size: https://i.imgur.com/FE69oA9.png

    The recent spike was breaking-in a new engine and temporarily running with the supercharger.
    Current data points are returning to the long-term trend.
  • Many of our destinations (e.g., Quincy, Bridgeport, Oceano...) don't even carry Jet-A, and when they do the price is sometimes higher than 100LL. Outside the USA the story would be completely different.
  • About half of our hours are Angel Flights & Young Eagles, where Phillips 66 offers a $1/gal rebate for their branded fuel. We usually buy gas at Byron anyway, but with C83's consistently low prices plus the rebate, 100LL is usually cheaper than 91 octane for my car. ;)
Chris
Last edited by Chris B on Thu Jun 25, 2020 12:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Paul
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 2010 2:53 am
First Name: Paul
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: 600MU
Airports: KOGD
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by Paul »

Maybe I'm misguided but I always felt the IO-360 is safer because of it's lower stall speed and where the cg is placed. It's been awhile since I've looked at Diamond accident data so perhaps I'm wrong. This probably makes no difference once you have >350 hours in type, but for new pilots, it might matter. Regardless of which type, it's still probably the safest piston single made.

Also, you can't just look at Jet A prices vs. Avgas published prices. You can get fuel cards for Jet A which can substantially lower the cost. If you post a few airports, I can look up what Jet A would cost. A Signature monopoly FBO is still going to be ridiculously expensive.
User avatar
Steve
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 1953
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 1:23 am
First Name: Steve
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N432SC
Airports: 1T7
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 493 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by Steve »

My experience with the IO-360:

Fuel consumption. I average just less than 8.9 gallons per hour for most flights (start, runup, takeoff and climb, cruise, descent, and landing). I do not run lean-of-peak.

Fuel availability: AVGAS is currently $3.49 at my home field, Jet-A is not available there. Only one owner has a turbine at my field (out of > 80 airplanes), he has to fly about 25 miles away to fuel up.

Maintenance: I would be concerned about the expense and availability of maintenance for the NG diesel. Granted, I do most of my own maintenance under the supervision of my A&P/IA; if I had the NG, we wouldn't be able to do any engine work. My costs are very low, (partially because I do all of the labor). We split my engine and reassembled it a year ago for < $3K. My Annual Inspections (done by the Diamond Checklist) cost about $500 + any needed parts). I don't have any requirement to do inspections other than the Annual (no 100/300 hour). I am currently putting about 70 hours +/- per year on the airplane.

I realize that I may be a unique situation due to my maintenance arrangements, but basically, my finances and basing situation rules out the NG for me. Just one datapoint...

Steve
User avatar
CFIDave
5 Diamonds Member
5 Diamonds Member
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 3:40 pm
First Name: Dave
Aircraft Type: OTHER
Aircraft Registration: N333GX
Airports: KJYO Leesburg VA
Has thanked: 231 times
Been thanked: 1473 times

Re: NG vs XLS

Post by CFIDave »

Even without a JetA fuel card, we've been paying only $2.50/gal for JetA at a nearby airport (KHWY). And the NG only burns 6.5 gal/hour in cruise. At most during the climb or at max continuous power it only burns 8 gal/hour.

To the point above that you can't do your own maintenance on an Austro-engine NG like you can on a Lycoming to save money: that's simply not true. As a non-A&P owner I do the 100 hour servicing on my DA62 (and DA42 before that) Austro engines, including engine oil and filter changes, gearbox oil servicing, fuel filter replacement, air filter replacement, etc. In many ways servicing an NG is easier than a Lycoming IO-360 (I also used to service my Lycoming DA40) because the oil filter is much easier to access on top of the engine, and (lacking an ignition system) there are no spark plugs, wires, or magnetos to service.

But you don't buy an NG over an XLS just to try and save money on fuel or the economics of ownership. It's all about the superior experience of flying it (easier starts hot or cold, quieter with far less vibration, no need to work prop or mixture controls, easier climb into the teens to get above terrain and some of the weather.) Flying the NG is a similar experience to what you get by flying Diamond twins with the same engine. You really need to fly an NG to appreciate this (and I say this having owned a DA40 XLS for 4 years).
Epic Aircraft E1000 GX
Former DA40XLS, DA42-VI, and DA62 owner
ATP, CFI, CFI-I, MEI
Post Reply