A 4100 lb Malibu and a 4340 lb Mirage/M350 both cruise at over 200 KTAS with about 260 cruise HP. Around 16 gph lean of peak. Maybe the laws of physics have degraded?

One factor may be that Eurocontrol, I think, levies route/navigation charges that are directly proportional to the MTOW of the airplane.

That would encourage you to make it lighter. The DA50 is around 1200 lbs heavier than popular 4 place aircraft from 60 years ago! With the advances in materials and manufacturing, that’s horrible.

That would encourage you to make it lighter. The DA50 is around 1200 lbs heavier than popular 4 place aircraft from 60 years ago! With the advances in materials and manufacturing, that’s horrible.

You pay if the flight plan is IFR and MTOW > 2T
DA50 Max. take off mass 1,999 kg 4,407 lbs

Another video pirep on the DA50:

[youtube]https://youtu.be/qN2yDdmpDOM[/youtube]

Yeah, it doesn't really make a lot of sense to me.

My MTOW is 3600lbs, and I have 1100lbs of useful load, 98 gallons of usable fuel and a best cruise of 238kts at 25000. With fixed gear.

I really like that plane. Certainly dollar for dollar there are some planes that offer moré performance. The Cirrus beats most of its metrics for a little less money, and the M350 beats most of it metrics for a little more money. But looks like a very comfortable honest cross country plane for someone that wants to burn kerosene.

Their latest twin is amazing. But that latest single is miscalculated... You set out to make a cross country machine and you provide 49 gallons... Hum... Missed it...
At that price, you can get a lot better....

Maybe there will be an option for larger tanks and a GW increase? Or they're counting on a diesel engine that will make it work out.

I dunno, I have to admit, I'm mystified and Diamond is usually good.

On my plane, like all the early certified composites, was subject to FAA 'engineering' who demand all kinds of extra weight added on, just like the fate of the Beech Starship.

I'd hope that a new design wouldn't get the same treatment, but maybe the euro authorities had to 'pee on the fire hydrant' too during certification.

The thing burns 9GPH. Which gives it about the same endurance as a 74 gallon bonanza.

And it won't fit in the Bonanza's hangar. The wing span is too great. Not sure if they considered this, but in the US, this plane is FIVE FEET too wide for a standard tee hangar. The wing span is six feet greater than the Cirrus SR22 that would be the target market. How did this get overlooked? Sure, in Europe most GA planes reside in WWII era community hangars, but in the US, which is the largest market in the world by far, these planes will live in tee hangars. And there are very. very few tee hangars that are 46 feet wide or greater.

Huge downside.

They didn’t miss the fact on the wingspan. You have a wing that flies a 2 ton aircraft on 9 gph up to 20,000 feet msl, can cruise up to 180 KTAS, and stalls at 58 knots. Hard to get all that with a normal wing.

Agreed, but a great wing that will not fit into someone's existing hangar is a deal breaker for most.
And that's before they learn about the ongoing costs of the diesel that will eat up all the fuel savings, and more. I really like the DA40, I think they did reasonably well with the DA62, I think they underpowered the DA40NG diesel but otherwise it's fine. I want them to succeed, but they seem to have missed every mark with the DA50.

But let's dive deeper. The 9 GPH is 45 percent power (max range setting), at FL180, and that speed is only 135 KTAS. Equal fuel burn and speed to their DA40, but at three times the price. And you won't need oxygen in the DA40, where those numbers occur at 6000 feet.

To get the 181 KTAS, you have to operate at 90 percent at FL160. Where you burn the same amount of fuel as an SR22T Cirrus, about 16 GPH. Diamond is very crafty with their numbers on the web. You need to get ahold of the POH to see how it will really do. But even there, you don't get all the numbers. Max cruise is at max continuous power, 272 HP, but the charts only go to 75 percent (12.9 GPH.) at FL140 to FL160, then tops out at 60 percent at FL200.
Using 90 percent at lower altitudes consumes 15.3 GPH. In any event, you can only cruise at that max speed for 2.3 hours with reserves. Which is HALF the time available, at a faster speed, in an SR22T.

So you've got to fly very slowly up high on oxygen to get the 9 GPH and max range, or tolerate short range if you want to go fast. It takes 32 minutes to get to FL200, 7.5 gallons over 55 miles. You burn a quarter of your non-reserve fuel to get there, to do 136 KTAS on the 9 GPH. Meanwhile, the SR22T got to FL200 12 minutes ago (10.5 gallons over 86 miles) and will be cruising 40 knots faster on 14 GPH, with over four hours of range at that speed. BTW, this setting is 65 percent power. I suppose you could drop to 55 or 45 percent to get down to 11 GPH, and you'd still be faster than the DA50.

The empty weight of the DA50 is nearly 100 pounds greater than my Aztec. Which does 172 KTAS at 10,000 feet on 23 GPH, while hauling 500 pounds more, in a cabin that's 30 percent larger. My power loading is 9.6 pounds per HP, while the DA50 is 14.69. A turbo cirrus is 11.4. So the DA50 power loading is the same as a Piper Cherokee 140, or a 160 HP Cessna 172.

Because the DA50 is so heavy, it accelerates slowly, just like it's little brother the DA40NG. But with more seats, and folding wheels. I wasn't impressed...and it's certainly not worth $1.3 million.

Time will tell. We'll watch the sales. I bet it will be a disappointment for Diamond in the US. And I think they have one of the best small singles, in their Lycoming powered DA40. I just can't see the DA50 taking away many Cirrus sales, and that is the only market this plane competes in.

Here's the AFM:

http://support.diamond-air.at/fileadmin ... sue012.pdf

I don't know who would fly this thing at 9gph. Buy a $1.2m 4+1 seater and go 135-140 ktas?