DA50 vs The World

[groundsick]

For anyone that has ordered or is flying a DA50, I'm wondering why you selected the aircraft? What were the elements of the plane or the company that factored most in your decision?

1. I wanted to buy a DA62 but my wife wanted a single
2. My experience with the DA40NG has been great
3. Jet-A (availability, quality of the fuel) - safety
3. Not Avgas - I think that avgas engines are going to be a problem in the SAF transition - safety
4. Long wings - aero behavior/stalls etc - safety
5. FIKI - safety
6. Size of the cabin
7. FADEC!!!! - safety
8. No parachute - safety
9. center stick with pushrods - safety
10. No mixture - safety

For me the things I dont like are
1. The tanks need to be 10 gallons larger
2. 44' wings suck (as well as they are good)
3. Useful load needs to be 50-100 higher... but it is OK
4. A new engine and a new airframe is gonna be a PITA
5. Diamond ownership structure

I am wondering about the endurance. Why do they have that massive wing and only 49 gallons?

Am I incorrect about the following: All their range info is quoted at 16000ft. In the US, we rarely fly at that altitude. It seems actual fuel burn is going to be about 12-14 gallons per hour at 8,000-10,000ft. And no one pays that kind of money and flies slow to sip fuel. Maybe I am missing something.

[groundsick]

8. No parachute - safety

Why? This airplane would be much more appealing with a parachute option.

This is a super complicated topic. It is very debated on both sides. I have no data. Which means I don't have a valid opinion.

But given that this is the internet and people blab:

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute is largely a marketing thing that gives people the illusion of safety and helps you convince a skeptical spouse. I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute fuels bad ADM as a makes people think that it is safe to do x,y,z because a parachute will save them. I THINK (but dont know) that many/some of the situations you might pull the parachute in a Cirrus you would actually be better off flying your way out of.

The data was clear that the Cirrus was less safe.... but that gap has been closed? somewhat closed? by Cirrus aggressively training people to use the CAPS.

The bottom line is that I am an engineer and I believe in data. So everything I said was without data.

To me an airplane that doesnt want to kill you (the DA40NG for sure!) is better than an airplane that wants to kill you but has a parachute.

First of all, thank you for saying you want the data. That's refreshing in this age...By any measure, Cirrus has the best safety record in GA. Sometimes it's accident rate is half. The increase in safety is not all or even mostly chute related. The Garmin avionics and the investments Cirrus made in standardized training are mainly to be credited.

Cirrus found a few years ago that a large number of their accidents involved people that had never received standardized training. That's why they invented the Cirrus Embark program. If you buy a USED Cirrus you get FREE TRAINING. They claim to have lost a lot of money on the program, but are happy to do it.

[groundsick]

I THINK (but dont know) that the parachute fuels bad ADM as a makes people think that it is safe to do x,y,z because a parachute will save them.

There are enough cases of Cirri pilots pulling CAPS in low-level maneuvering and dying to support that hypotheses. A false sense of security.

The parachute certainly made me feel safer while flying at night, over inhospitable terrain and with fog over the state of Georgia for hundreds of miles in every direction as it so often is when we are flying north from Florida.

Another false sense of security. Have you not seen "Deliverance"?

It's unfortunate that almost all data points come from Cirrus incidents. Stall-spins and CFITs are virtually all fatal - no help there. It seems lately most successful deployments are SR22 engine problems. Last year in the US: 8 Cirrus fatal accidents. One an apparent suicide. 1 fatal Diamond accident. FWIW, both makes had 13 non-fatal accidents. 2 of the Cirrus fatals mentioned low-level CAPS deployment, another had chute separation - maybe a high-speed deployment. One of the non-fatals had a cruise altitude CAPS deployment. This may or may not have been required to save the occupants. But i'm sure BRS/Cirrus will claim it as a "save".

FWIW, you can't compare the number of accidents between makes. You must compare the number of accidents per X number of flight hours. Industry standard is to use every 100,000 flight hours. The reason is that there are 10,000 Cirrus planes vs. a much lower number of DA40s.

[Rich]

It wasn’t my intention to get into the interminable arguments about Cirrus safety or lack thereof. What should be obvious is that of the eight fatal accidents attempts to use the chute to save the day were beyond the capabilities of the technology. That feeling of comfort is not without qualification. Just when they needed it most it failed them.

Likewise the second engine. Fine and dandy once you’ve reached a safe altitude cruising along. But a failure on takeoff and you could be trying to haul 5,000 lb safely away from the earth with no more horsepower (I would argue less at low altitudes) than my DA40 at half the weight.

It’s all about “feeling comfortable”. One of the delusions we entertain as we muddle through life.

[ememic99]

By any measure, Cirrus has the best safety record in GA. Sometimes it's accident rate is half. The increase in safety is not all or even mostly chute related. The Garmin avionics and the investments Cirrus made in standardized training are mainly to be credited.

The only problem with statements like this is that they are not supported by numbers. It’s more likely in domain of wishful thinking. And by poster’s contribution to forum (zero), I’d say it was just a spam.

[CFIDave]

I am wondering about the endurance. Why do they have that massive wing and only 49 gallons?

The DA50 shares the same outer wings and fuel tanks as the DA40, DA42, and DA62. Each wing contains up to 25 gal (19 gal in the DA40NG) aluminum fuel tanks located between twin carbon fiber wing spars. These protected aluminum fuel tanks (as opposed to a wet wing where fuel occupies voids inside the wing) are why Diamonds almost never catch fire in accidents. But it means that these aircraft are all limited to 50 gallons fuel capacity in their wings -- there's only so much room between the wing spars.

For the Diamond twins, additional aux fuel is carried inside their engine nacelles: 2 x 13 gal in the DA42 (for a total capacity of 76 gal), and 2 x 18 gal in the DA62 (for a total capacity of 86 gal).

Since the single-engine DA50 has no engines out on the wings, it has no engine nacelles -- and thus has no space for nacelle aux fuel tanks like Diamond twins. Unless Diamond can find space for aux tanks somewhere else (e.g., inside inboard wing stubs?) or uses a wet wing, the DA50 is limited to only 50 gal fuel capacity. (For comparison, our Epic E1000 with a carbon fiber wing that's about the same size as a DA50 wing holds 264 gallons of JetA -- but that's because it's a wet wing without the safety of Diamond's protected fuel tanks.)

[mfdutra]

One possibility for a DA50 is to have a center tank in the baggage compartment, which is quite big with 5 seats. I have no idea if weight and balance would work, but that's the only space where that would be possible.

[groundsick]

By any measure, Cirrus has the best safety record in GA. Sometimes it's accident rate is half. The increase in safety is not all or even mostly chute related. The Garmin avionics and the investments Cirrus made in standardized training are mainly to be credited.

The only problem with statements like this is that they are not supported by numbers. It’s more likely in domain of wishful thinking. And by poster’s contribution to forum (zero), I’d say it was just a spam.

The NTSB numbers are there my friend. I'd send them to you, but since I'd just be spamming you, I'll let you look them up yourself.

[ememic99]

By any measure, Cirrus has the best safety record in GA. Sometimes it's accident rate is half. The increase in safety is not all or even mostly chute related. The Garmin avionics and the investments Cirrus made in standardized training are mainly to be credited.

The only problem with statements like this is that they are not supported by numbers. It’s more likely in domain of wishful thinking. And by poster’s contribution to forum (zero), I’d say it was just a spam.

The NTSB numbers are there my friend. I'd send them to you, but since I'd just be spamming you, I'll let you look them up yourself.

As long as your contribution to this forum equals zero, I'll consider the above post another spam because it's just that. Stay safe in whatever aircraft you fly, I'll somehow manage without your help.

[Chris]

Cirrus's stats (normalized to flight hours) have improved a lot in the past decade, but back in 2012 they were trending a fair bit worse than the GA average and much worse than Diamond at the time. This old thread has some of the numbers and are very close to Cirrus's own numbers reported in their "Company Overview" at the time.

A lot has changed since then with Cirrus focusing on safety and training improvements and Diamond selling a lot more complex/ twin aircraft since then.

Back to the original topic (and hopefully less snark), I agree the DA50 would be a much more attractive option with an additional 15 gallons of fuel capacity.