banner
banner

28 Mar 2024, 18:02 [ UTC - 5; DST ]


Concorde Battery (banner)



Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Username Protected Message
 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2021, 21:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 10/17/10
Posts: 358
Post Likes: +137
Location: Nashville, TN
Aircraft: Baron 58; V35B
I saw it in person. It is a very comfortable cabin. The guy quoted me 165-180 knots. I’m guessing 180 would be in the teens? Great useful load compared to a Cirrus or G36, but seems like the price is getting close to an M350.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 30 Jul 2021, 22:40 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 04/16/13
Posts: 131
Post Likes: +16
Aircraft: Cirrus SR20 PA32-260
Username Protected wrote:
So I’m not an aeronautical engineer but why do they taper down the fuselage before the tail. Seems it would be so much stronger if they didn’t. But being a guy that has broke the tubes to the tail section, can you folks tell me?


This is a nice factory video which describes the design biased toward safety, double spar protecting an aluminum fuel tank,tail and seat design.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVn6_AphLN8


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 02:29 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 01/30/09
Posts: 3343
Post Likes: +1948
Location: $ilicon Vall€y
Aircraft: Columbia 400
Username Protected wrote:
I saw it in person. It is a very comfortable cabin. The guy quoted me 165-180 knots. I’m guessing 180 would be in the teens? Great useful load compared to a Cirrus or G36, but seems like the price is getting close to an M350.



Yeah, I'm comfortably faster than that. I'm kind of surprised, given the similarity in power and retractable gear, I would have expected more and a higher ceiling too.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 03:08 
Offline

 Profile




Joined: 09/21/18
Posts: 5
In case this hasn't been posted, here is a link to the AFM:

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

IMO performance is really disappointing.


Top

 Post subject: Re: performance matters
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 09:31 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 02/19/18
Posts: 109
Post Likes: +51
Location: NC
Aircraft: G2 SR22
Username Protected wrote:
Help me out, other than the diesel recip powerplant, what is the selling point for this machine?

It's new.


And like the Panthera, it looks like 0-200 sitting on the ramp. Many will find it quite appealing!
Let’s face it- aviation purchases aren’t always “practical”. If they were, most of us would fly 182s.

Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 10:48 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 06/17/16
Posts: 114
Post Likes: +20
Location: San Diego, CA
Aircraft: 1966 Bonanza V35
The operating limitation section of the AFM says

“ The use of personal electronic devices is prohibited. Examples of undesirable items of equipment are:
- Mobile phones
- Remote radio controls
…”

What?!? So phones and gopros technically can’t be used in the DA50RG?


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 10:49 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 11/20/14
Posts: 6451
Post Likes: +4520
Aircraft: V35
Wow, I was surprised it’s 4400lb on 300 hp. Cruise at 8000 is fully 20 kts less than my Bonanza with 300hp… but I’m only dragging 3400lb around.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 11:22 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 08/16/15
Posts: 2868
Post Likes: +3577
Location: Ogden UT
Aircraft: Piper M600
Username Protected wrote:
One thing to note is that JetA is substantially cheaper, half price in most cases, than Avgas.

Those are substantial savings over the course of 2000 hours.



Sorry Penman, not even close in my neck of the woods.[/quote]

As Penman said, very few turbine drivers pay retail for jet fuel. I would probably tanker fuel into rifle. Plus getting out of there light helps with the ODP gradient. If you just go down the street, Centennial in Denver has jet A for 2.94 a gallon, with one of the more popular fuel cards. Of course, due to contract secrecy, I can’t tell you which card ;-). Penman knows ;-)

_________________
Chuck Ivester
Piper M600
Ogden UT


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 11:26 
Online


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 03/28/17
Posts: 6628
Post Likes: +7925
Location: N. California
Aircraft: C-182
Username Protected wrote:
Great to see a modern retractable design. Planes just look better with the gear folded away. I would also love to see a successful diesel in the 300 hp class, it gives the fleet more fuel options.


"Planes just look better with the gear folded away"

Except when they are sitting on a runway. :D


Last edited on 31 Jul 2021, 12:09, edited 1 time in total.

Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 31 Jul 2021, 11:44 
Offline


User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 02/27/08
Posts: 3167
Post Likes: +1251
Location: Galveston, TX
Aircraft: Malibu PA46-310P
Username Protected wrote:
Wow, I was surprised it’s 4400lb on 300 hp. Cruise at 8000 is fully 20 kts less than my Bonanza with 300hp… but I’m only dragging 3400lb around.



Why is it sooooo heavy? My Malibu gross is 4100 pounds, pressurized, much faster and double the range at economy settings. Did they use the Raptor design and assembly manual? I had a DA40 and loved that airplane. Never felt more in control of an airplane. Felt like you could land inside a baseball field if needed.
Kevin


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2021, 10:59 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 724
Post Likes: +380
Location: KSGR Sugar Land
Aircraft: 1980 M20J Missile300
Username Protected wrote:
Wow, I was surprised it’s 4400lb on 300 hp. Cruise at 8000 is fully 20 kts less than my Bonanza with 300hp… but I’m only dragging 3400lb around.



Why is it sooooo heavy? My Malibu gross is 4100 pounds, pressurized, much faster and double the range at economy settings. Did they use the Raptor design and assembly manual? I had a DA40 and loved that airplane. Never felt more in control of an airplane. Felt like you could land inside a baseball field if needed.
Kevin

Excellent point. The prototype DA50 SuperStar with fixed gear and IO-550 shown at 2007 AirVenture had an empty weight of 2,200 lbs. The DA50 RG has grown to an empty weight of 3,175 lbs without options. - gained almost half a ton. Max TO weight for the DA50 is 4,407 lbs. A DA50 without options when empty weighs more that than a new Panthera at MTOW. A DA50 with options when empty weighs about the same as an Ovation at max gross. Compare it to a Bonanza G36 MTOW of 3,650 lbs. And the DA50 is using 300 hp, like an Ovation or Bonanza to try to haul that heft around.

And that 1,232 lbs. useful load at the bloated 4,407 lbs. is before options. Let's face it - someone paying $1.2 million for the base DA50 is going to load up on options. A/C and FIKI will knock UL down considerably. The DA50 wing and fuselage is basically the same as the DA62, just chopped down a couple feet on each. DA62 owners on the Diamond site typically say that the options knock over 200 lbs off their UL. So that means the real world UL is closer to 1,000 lbs. Filling those miniscule tanks to the brim eats up about 350 lbs so that leaves about 750-800 lbs payload.

They highlight the 182 kts cruise and 9 gph.....but I think real world you get one or the other - not both. I think that consumption is about 14 gph wide open throttle at 300 hp achieving 182 kts. Max continuous power is 270 hp. At 9 gph hp drops and speed drops accordingly to the 150 kts range - maybe 160 - i want to see tests with the real world performance. Remember you only get 51.5 gallons to fly with so if you are going distance you will be going economy slow cruise.

Quite frankly the DA-50 is probably underpowered. And to lift this bloat they have fitted massive 44 ft. wings which means you have to rent a really big T-hangar if you can find one.. Where I am based annual T-hangar cost for a DA-50 will be $2,200 more than a Mooney or Bonanza and $1,600 more than a Cirrus SR22. If you fly less than 100 hours per year that will eat up a good portion of the fuel cost savings from the diesel Diamond. But at $1.3 - 1.4 million no one will be buying it for fuel cost savings anyway.

So if you are going distance you basically get Mooney M20J or Cirrus SR20 performance with 5 seats, A/C and FIKI for $1.3 - 1.4 million. But you can only fill 3 of those seats plus luggage. And no chute like a Cirrus or new Panthera. There are so many better options to spend $1.3-1.4 million on a plane that it is mind numbing. But I am sure someone will buy one. Like the guy that bought the new M600 when he got his Private Pilot license and then crash landed at Williston Fl the first time he flew cross country without an instructor. I don't think Cirrus has anything to worry about here. This also highlights how GA continues to lose interest in delivering affordability or value for performance.

Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2021, 11:33 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 01/05/11
Posts: 314
Post Likes: +226
Aircraft: 1969 Aerostar 600,
If you want the real performance, or, I guess I should say published performance, just read the poh. It’s on the Diamond web site. http://support.diamond-air.at/fileadmin ... mplete.pdf
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see 182 kts. anywhere in the performance tables. I do see 172 kts. at isa with a better than 14 gph fuel flow. That being said, if I plan on full tanks, ifr reserve and 15 gph fuel flow at 170 kts., that gives me an approximate range of about 400 miles. Is that right? At 9-10 gph you're screaming along at about the same speeds and fuel flow of a DA40, maybe less. Lotta drag in those wings for the power provided.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2021, 13:58 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 08/08/12
Posts: 724
Post Likes: +380
Location: KSGR Sugar Land
Aircraft: 1980 M20J Missile300
Username Protected wrote:
If you want the real performance, or, I guess I should say published performance, just read the poh. It’s on the Diamond web site. http://support.diamond-air.at/fileadmin ... mplete.pdf
Unless I’m missing something, I don’t see 182 kts. anywhere in the performance tables. I do see 172 kts. at isa with a better than 14 gph fuel flow. That being said, if I plan on full tanks, ifr reserve and 15 gph fuel flow at 170 kts., that gives me an approximate range of about 400 miles. Is that right? At 9-10 gph you're screaming along at about the same speeds and fuel flow of a DA40, maybe less. Lotta drag in those wings for the power provided.

There is a lot of hype in the marketing. The POH shows that usable fuel is only 49 gallons… It’s almost scary. Especially when you consider that if you get in a situation where you have to flog it. For instance full loaded at 10,000 ft you will be burning almost 16 gph gallons per hour at max continuous cruise (90%). The POH does not show takeoff or full power fuel flow but it appears to be between 17 and 18 gph. The wings have tremendous drag because the hotter it is the faster it can actually go for a given power setting. If you set power at 75% at 10,000 ft the chart shows fuel consumption of about 12.4 gph. The resulting speed is in the mid to low 160’s at max weight on a warm day. If I fly my Mooney missile with an IO-550 at 10,000 feet fully loaded (3200 pounds) reduce RPM and lean it back to about 12.5 gph I am flying much faster than that. I suspect it’s the same with any Bonanza.

Granted you can burn Jet-A. Other than that, this makes any version of Bonanza 36 look like a superior bargain. The aviation press should take a close look at this POH and give the plane a more balanced review.


Please login or Register for a free account via the link in the red bar above to download files.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 01 Aug 2021, 14:10 
Offline


 Profile




Joined: 12/24/17
Posts: 1023
Post Likes: +949
Aircraft: A36
Username Protected wrote:
This also highlights how GA continues to lose interest in delivering affordability or value for performance.

This, for me, is the takeaway from this. All the new planes are loaded up with options, fancy avionics, and fancy seats. Building and selling a flying machine that is affordable and fast even if it is a bit basic seems to come second.

That's a big mistake in my opinion. I'd love to buy a 180+ kt airplane with 6 seats and good range for $300k. Other than those factors, it can be really basic. 6 pack panel or whatever is the cheapest to get IFR certification, cloth seats, it can even be ugly. I don't want an integrated flight deck, I don't need a G1000, and I don't need XM radio. We used to be able to get those kind of planes.


Top

 Post subject: Re: DA 50 RG
PostPosted: 06 Aug 2021, 14:30 
Offline



User avatar
 Profile




Joined: 04/26/13
Posts: 19766
Post Likes: +19431
Location: Columbus , IN (KBAK)
Aircraft: 1968 Baron D55
Username Protected wrote:
All the new planes are loaded up with options, fancy avionics, and fancy seats. Building and selling a flying machine that is affordable and fast even if it is a bit basic seems to come second.

That's a big mistake in my opinion. I'd love to buy a 180+ kt airplane with 6 seats and good range for $300k. Other than those factors, it can be really basic. 6 pack panel or whatever is the cheapest to get IFR certification, cloth seats, it can even be ugly. I don't want an integrated flight deck, I don't need a G1000, and I don't need XM radio. We used to be able to get those kind of planes.

I wonder if some of this isn't akin to the "restaurant price" syndrome. My son recently asked me why pancakes at a Chicago restaurant cost so much, and why they gave us so many when we couldn't eat them all. I said that we weren't paying for the ingredients in the pancakes, or the number of them on the plate. Rather we were paying for the rent on the restaurant in a very expensive city, the electricity, payroll, etc. The pancakes were a tiny fraction of that cost. They gave us so many because the incremental cost to them was tiny vs their overhead, and it made us feel like we were getting something for our money.

I don't know what the incremental cost of a G1000 is these days compared to a vacuum driven six pack, but my guess is that of the $1.3 MM price tag, it's not significant. IOW, if you got the sixpack you'd probably still pay over $1.2MM and be flying around with an antique panel and feel like you spent a ton and got a last-century airplane. Slashing the cost of building a low volume, hand crafted, labor intensive machine that comes with enormous liability exposure is the hard part. Lamborghinis don't cost a half-million dollars because of the parts that go into them. You can tell because you can buy a new Corvette for about ten per cent of that price. Yes, the Lambo is more machine, but it's not ten times more machine.

The larger value issue is the useful load and performance. Since the dawn of the 20th century aircraft manufacturers have been trading off features for weight and performance. They almost always end up giving up useful load and/or performance for features, likely due to the above mentioned feelings of value that come with those features. Is a pilot more likely to buy a four seat plane with A/C today or give up the A/C for a hundred pounds of payload? FIKI? Nothing is free.

That said, there's no way on this planet that I'd spend over a million dollars on a single engine piston powered airplane. To me that's just ridiculous, but I also realize that what I fly is technologically a lot closer to a steam locomotive than a modern car.

_________________
My last name rhymes with 'geese'.


Top

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic  [ 67 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  

Terms of Service | Forum FAQ | Contact Us

BeechTalk, LLC is the quintessential Beechcraft Owners & Pilots Group providing a forum for the discussion of technical, practical, and entertaining issues relating to all Beech aircraft. These include the Bonanza (both V-tail and straight-tail models), Baron, Debonair, Duke, Twin Bonanza, King Air, Sierra, Skipper, Sport, Sundowner, Musketeer, Travel Air, Starship, Queen Air, BeechJet, and Premier lines of airplanes, turboprops, and turbojets.

BeechTalk, LLC is not affiliated or endorsed by the Beechcraft Corporation, its subsidiaries, or affiliates. Beechcraft™, King Air™, and Travel Air™ are the registered trademarks of the Beechcraft Corporation.

Copyright© BeechTalk, LLC 2007-2024

.midwest2.jpg.
.tat-85x100.png.
.bpt-85x50-2019-07-27.jpg.
.gallagher_85x50.jpg.
.headsetsetc_Small_85x50.jpg.
.daytona.jpg.
.jetacq-85x50.jpg.
.airmart-85x150.png.
.lucysaviation-85x50.png.
.avfab-85x50-2018-12-04.png.
.avionwealth-85x50.png.
.Foreflight_85x50_color.png.
.aircraftferry-85x50.jpg.
.chairmanaviation-85x50.jpg.
.centex-85x50.jpg.
.MountainAirframe.jpg.
.kadex-85x50.jpg.
.aeroled-85x50-2022-12-06.jpg.
.blackwell-85x50.png.
.tempest.jpg.
.sierratrax-85x50.png.
.Wentworth_85x100.JPG.
.Wingman 85x50.png.
.camguard.jpg.
.aircraftassociates-85x50.png.
.cav-85x50.jpg.
.AAI.jpg.
.boomerang-85x50-2023-12-17.png.
.ssv-85x50-2023-12-17.jpg.
.wilco-85x100.png.
.CiESVer2.jpg.
.concorde.jpg.
.pure-medical-85x150.png.
.bullardaviation-85x50-2.jpg.
.planelogix-85x100-2015-04-15.jpg.
.saint-85x50.jpg.
.ei-85x150.jpg.
.wat-85x50.jpg.
.geebee-85x50.jpg.
.dbm.jpg.
.kingairacademy-85x100.png.
.Genesys_85x50.jpg.
.shortnnumbers-85x100.png.
.kingairnation-85x50.png.
.temple-85x100-2015-02-23.jpg.
.ABS-85x100.jpg.
.blackhawk-85x100-2019-09-25.jpg.
.SCA.jpg.
.stanmusikame-85x50.jpg.
.aviationdesigndouble.jpg.
.Rocky-Mountain-Turbine-85x100.jpg.
.traceaviation-85x150.png.
.jandsaviation-85x50.jpg.
.Marsh.jpg.
.pdi-85x50.jpg.
.one-mile-up-85x100.png.
.Latitude.jpg.