This year’s Plane & Pilot Plane of the Year is the Diamond DA50, the big single from the Austrian plane maker that has been more than a decade in development, which makes its certification by EASA last year even more meaningful, seeing that it was so hard fought. It’s one of the most unusual and, in some ways, compelling piston singles to emerge in decades. 

If the year 2020 was a hard one for general aviation, and it was, for manufacturers, 2021 was even tougher. Plane builders were hardly immune to the kind of global pressures we’ve heard so much about, including scarce materials, supply chain disruptions, worker shortages and reduced FAA availability, all of which have conspired to make it hard to build existing designs, let alone develop and certify new ones.  

But there were a couple of real gems, one that we’ve known about for more than a decade, and one we were just introduced to. Both enter the arena as real players in markets dominated for years by planes from other makers. We expect both to make inroads.

Plane of the Year: Diamond DA50 RG

It’s often said, but it’s not often true, that this plane is different than any plane that’s come before it. This is true for the DA50. To understand what it is, imagine if Cirrus were to build a diesel piston engine-powered plane based on the Cirrus Jet and all that implies.

The DA50 has some built-in weaknesses that many would have presumed would have made it questionably interesting to potential buyers. Such is apparently not the case. The airplane is, based on our observation, the single most intriguing design on planeandpilotmag.com for the past couple of years. 

Like so many forward-thinking designs, the DA50 was for years a great airframe in search of the right engine. It had to be powerful enough, at least 300 hp, stingy with the fuel burn, easy on pilots in terms of noise and engine management, and capable of flying on fuel you can get anywhere in the world. Of course, that’s a diesel, but that correct diesel didn’t appear on the scene until the emergence of Continental’s CD-300, six-cylinder 300-max hp/270 hp continuous turbodiesel, which combines good power with a quieter noise profile than competing piston sixes while tacking on single-lever power. It’s a compelling package.

The power demands are very real, as the DA50 RG, despite its carbon-fiber frame and wings, is a substantial airplane, with an empty weight of 3,175 pounds and a max takeoff weight of 4,407 pounds. It’s a big and roomy airplane. There’s seating for five, and not seating for four/five but actually five. The seating layout is the same as the DA62 diesel twin, save the two smaller seats in the back, which the DA50 RG lacks, though the space is there and is great for bags, a better use of the space, in our view. Headroom, shoulder room and window area are all unsurpassed. The cabin environment is spectacular. 

The rough spots: It’s not as fast as many would like it to be, with a max speed at 16,000 feet—it is not pressurized—at max continuous of 180 knots. Its max range, at a power setting we presume was a good deal less than max continuous power, is 750 nm. That isn’t a lot of range compared to the Cirrus SR22, which one would assume is its primary competitor, though it is enough, apparently, for many pilots, who have expressed interest in or put their money down for this airplane that isn’t even FAA certified yet. And remember: All that travel will be done in a great space. The culprit isn’t a thirsty engine—Diamond says the CD-300 consumes just 9 gph at 270 hp, about half of Continental’s 315 hp TSIO-550 gas piston engine, which powers the Cirrus SR22—but rather a lack of fuel capacity. It holds just 50 gallons of Jet A, and finding space to put more is problematic, as there are no wing nacelle fuel tanks available for this single-engine model. 

It’s also not an easy airplane to hangar. With a wingspan of around 44 feet and a tail height of nearly 10 feet, few tee hangars would be a fit. 

How successful will the DA50 be, sales wise? Time will tell. Diamond expects certification for it later this year or early next year. We’ll fly it first chance we get, too. 

Read “Will The Diamond DA50 Redefine Personal Flying” to learn more about the plane.

Plane of The Year 2: The Sling High Wing

Our other honoree for a Plane & Pilot Plane of the Year award is Sling Aircraft’s new High Wing, which should start showing up on U.S. shores soon. The High Wing takes all of the goodness of Sling’s four-seat long-wing model, the Sling 4, and translates it into a high-wing form factor, with the remarkable 141 hp Rotax 915-iS supplying the motive force. With a comfortable four-place cabin, Garmin G3X Touch flatscreen avionics, including a capable integrated autoflight system with envelope protection built in, sharp and easy flying manners, and downward visibility to beat any low winger, the Sling High Wing is a powerful competitor to the most popular four-seat amateur-built plane on the block, the much-lauded (and rightfully so) Van’s RV-10. But you can put big tires on this one if you want, and we’re guaranteeing you right now that that will happen. 

Garmin Smart Glide

With the unveiling of its new Smart Glide utility, Garmin has created yet another capability that would have seemed like science fiction 20 years ago but that today can seamlessly and in the background always be ready to help you glide to a safe landing if your plane’s engine were to quit. It is, granted, a capability you hope you’ll never have to rely upon, but if you do, it could be a lifesaver. A Smart Glide description could fit in a fortune cookie: “Lost engine power? Smart Glide shows you where to go.” But the more you look into what that calculation really involves, the more complicated and intriguing it becomes. 

Smart Glide works in concert with a compatible Garmin display and navigator. The utility, which is all software and is very low or no cost in addition to the hardware it teams with, does this: You lose engine power, you activate Smart Glide (either by a three-second push of the Direct To button or the dedicated guarded panel button, if there is one), and Smart Glide puts a ring of where your glide range is, based on the plane you’re flying, obviously—the setup is done by the installer. It nominates the best airport for you to go for, offers alternate choices, gives you frequencies, and shows you your inflight situation in a colorful and easy-to-interpret manner. You do the flying. 

With Smart Glide, Garmin has once again advanced aviation safety in a way that requires little of pilots in an emergency situation while helping them make the quick and smart call and getting the most distance out of their airplane’s glide range. 

Read “4 Questions About Garmin Smart Glide You Hadn’t Thought About” to learn more about the technology.

SkyDisplay HUD

There is nothing simple or easy about creating a head-up display, but the folks at SkyDisplay have pulled off something really big in bringing to market a low-cost, high-performance display that essentially does what even the most advanced HUDs do, blend the airplane’s flight instruments (and then some) with the pilot’s view of the outside world so that the focus can be on what matters, the outside environment. 

A HUD enhances the view of the outside world by projecting an image on a transparent window sitting right in front of the pilot’s eyes. It is most useful as a landing aid, though it can be used throughout the flight. Without a pilot taking their eyes off of the runway, the HUD shows a wealth of information, like runway location and flight path and velocity vector, all features we’ve come to know and love on flat-panel flight displays. But the HUD places all of that information right in front of the pilot’s eyes and not on a screen below the pilot’s sightline to the outside world, where the stuff you don’t want to run into lies. The value in allowing pilots to focus all of their attention on the outside world makes for more precise approaches, always valuable but especially when flying low-weather precision approaches. 

A true HUD is conformal, and the SmartDisplay is. What that means is, the view the head-up display shows you using its additional enhanced vision technology matches what’s actually out there in the real world. If it displays the runway end, well, that runway end had better be exactly where the HUD says it is. The pilot has to do nothing but fly. The scan is right in front of their eyes. The data on the glass is focused at infinity, so it seems to just float upon the glass, so the pilot doesn’t have to focus and then refocus over and over to see the outside world and then the HUD data and back again. Instead, the data is just there, in focus as the pilot peers out at the world. 

SkyDisplay’s HUD is a huge advance in light aircraft safety, and, at its price of around $30,000 without installation, it is a tool that serious transportation flyers can put in their serious transportation plane and fly safer and better. 

Read “FAA Approves First Small-Plane HUD. How It Happened And What It Means.” to learn more about the safety system.

The post 2021 Plane Of The Year & Innovation Awards appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Diamond Aircraft announced recently that it would build an electric version of its four-seat single-engine, the DA40. The electrified version is called the eDA40. There are questions galore about this project, some of which have to do with its very viability. 

Here are the details. The eDA40 is, as you can tell from the name, based on the DA40, an all-composite personal/training aircraft that’s been around for a couple of decades now. (How did that happen?) The DA40 is not only a popular model—the company has produced more than 2,200 of them. It’s also roomy, with excellent visibility, Skylane-like (or slightly better) speed and advanced avionics. 

One other critical feature is its high-aspect ratio wing (long and short chord, like a sailplane). High-aspect ratio wings are very efficient, which is what you want in an electric airplane, because with the energy storage capacity of modern lithium-based batteries still marginally good enough for an electric plane (some would say that’s being charitable), you need every bit of efficiency you can muster. 

Although it’s not showing all its cards, Diamond seems to be suggesting the main purpose of the eDA40 would be as a trainer. It’s a natural mission, perhaps the only one, as it allows the aircraft to fly close to home and return back home, where battery charging stations would be—such infrastructure is still rare in Europe and virtually non-existent in the  United States. 

Other observers have noted that one such electric trainer, the Pipistrel Velis Electro, is already in business, with an estimated 200 of them at flight schools already. The Velis Electro, which was derived from a small Pipistrel trainer, is a small, light two-seater with very sailplane-like wings. Indeed, it seems ideally suited to play the role of electric trainer. 

The DA40 seems to have shortcomings. Diamond says it plans to put the batteries in a belly pod, which makes one wonder—why? The problem with putting them in the wing, where fuel is normally kept, is that you need to access the batteries on a regular basis, and that would be a problem, as taking apart a composite wing even once is a non-starter. Putting the batteries in the rear seating and baggage compartment would, presumably, create a serious weight and balance issue, so the pod makes sense in both of those regards. But it will add drag and some weight, both of which are enemies of efficient flight. 

As far as endurance, Diamond is hoping for 90 minutes, which is not much, though it would probably suffice for many training flights, especially if they’re mostly flown at reduced power, which they typically are. That 90-minute figure, however, is still a future goal, Diamond suggests. If that’s the case, that’s a problem. Having much less endurance than 90 minutes would create a serious concern on every flight.

Why did Diamond choose the DA40 and not the smaller two-seat DA20? In fact, I did a double-take when I read Diamond’s release about the new plane. Why would it elect to haul around the extra weight of a four-seat airframe when it already has a proven two-seater in its lineup? I don’t know the answer. 

Finally, is Diamond doing this because it sees a real need in the training market, and if so, where does it see that need—in noise-sensitive Europe or in the United States and Canada? In other words, is Diamond really rolling out a product and a new business/profit center, or is it doing PR in a particularly effective way? Diamond, as you might know, has a record of taking a long time on its products, and that’s a good thing in a lot of ways. It tends to wait until it’s right (with noteworthy exceptions, namely Thielert’s hugely problematic diesel engine, I admit). The company seems committed to the eDA40, and we’ll see how the program progresses, but in the knowledge that fielding an all-electric plane is the bleeding edge of technology, and there’s no guarantee of success. 

Most pilots are environmentalists, in that they want the world they fly in to be protected, though when it comes to their airplanes, the only propulsion choice most pilots of light planes have is the internal combustion engine, which runs on gasoline or Jet-A fuel. These fuels are excellent reservoirs for energy. In terms of weight for power, refined petroleum fuels are about 50 times as energy-dense as today’s lithium-ion batteries. That is a dramatic delta. In fact, the inefficiency of lithium-ion batteries compared to our most common aviation fuels, 100LL aviation gasoline and Jet-A (diesel), is striking and leads to the question, are we really ready for electric flight yet? And if not, why are manufacturers pushing the boundaries of electric capabilities? 

There are a few good reasons, and cost is number one. While outfitting an airplane with an electric propulsion system is costly, even compared with our current expensive internal combustion engines, the downstream costs are tiny in comparison. A recent Plane & Pilot survey found that a strong majority of aircraft owners or would-be owners would opt for electrical propulsion if it were practical for them, which it is not. The reason they gave was simple: cost. 

Diamond might also just be getting in on the ground floor here, starting up its electric flight operations in order to be ready for what could conceivably be a rush of business when and if battery technology improved to the point where it is practical for general-use light aircraft, which it currently, again, is not. Not even close, in fact. 

The third reason is optics, and bear in mind that companies most likely have multiple motivations to be working on electric programs. It might be fashionable for aviation companies to be seen as green, or at least working to get there, and I’d argue that it’s crucial to our survival. As the drive for the world to cut greenhouse gases continues, the pressure will mount on all segments of aviation, including light general aviation, to make improvements.  

Is the eDA40 a real product? Not yet, and it’s impossible to say when or if it will be. One thing is certain, though. If practical electric planes were to emerge over the next several years, and that’s a big “if,”  there would be great demand for them, a level of demand, I’d argue, that we have never seen before. And that would be driven almost entirely by cost. Ask airplane owners what the number one deterrent to flying more is, and most will tell you that it’s the cost of fuel. Ask flight school operators what the biggest obstacle is to their becoming more profitable, and most will tell you the same thing.  

Even though there’s a drive to reduce carbon emissions, that won’t be the driving force behind the success or failure of electric aircraft. It will be the business owners who determine the success of the eDA40, as well as other electric planes. After all, they will be the ones opening their wallets in the hope of a technology that will free them from the gas pump, from combustion engines and all the big financial negatives related to them. If Diamond is being driven by this understanding of the future of flight training, and it very well might be, more e-power to them.

–

For more on electric flight, click here: Pipistrel Velis Electro: The World’s First Certified Electric Plane

The post Diamond Aircraft To Build Electric DA40 Model appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

In 1979 alone, U.S. manufacturers delivered 2,843 piston twins, the high watermark for the decade, during which American plane makers never delivered fewer than 1,000 piston twins in any given year. 

The reason was not just that these planes offered the security of a second engine, though that was their primary selling point. Other big draws were combinations of a twin’s often-higher speeds, greater hauling capacity and larger cabin. 

One can debate the safety merits of twin-engine light aircraft vis-à-vis single-engine models endlessly, and just such a debate has, indeed, been ongoing in our community for the better part of a century. But for much of the earlier part of that conversation, there were a few assumptions about twins that were later called into question. 

The first is that big one, that twins are safer, an assumption called into question back in the 1970s by a few somewhat informal studies that concluded that twin-engine safety was largely a myth. The reason was hiding in plain sight. With a single-engine airplane, when an engine (the only one) quits, you’re going to land somewhere, somehow. But in a twin, the argument has always gone, you get to keep on flying. Unfortunately, that has not always led to brochure-worthy outcomes. The loss of an engine in a twin is especially dangerous when the engine goes on takeoff or climb out. If not handled quickly and properly, these engine failures usually result in an unsurvivable rolling crash into terrain or airport buildings. 

That’s why so much of the initial and recurrent training we do in twin-engine aircraft is with one engine caged. Twin-engine pilots need to learn how to respond to such emergencies by second nature because the time it takes to think things through when your twin loses an engine at low altitude is usually not fast enough to survive the failure. 

So, the argument goes, given that singles don’t have such a critical failure mode, and given that relatively few fatal accidents are caused by the loss of the single’s one powerplant, one’s odds might just be better in a single than in a twin, at least in that regard. Then again, the counterargument goes, all of the engine failures in twins that result in a safe landing somewhere never make it into the accident statistics, so the lives saved by that second engine are certainly greater than we know or have ever known. 

Many of today’s twin-engine aircraft, however, are safer in design in a number of ways from earlier models. Counter-rotating props eliminate the problem of one of the engines being more dangerous to lose than the other. Some new models feature full digital authority engine control (FADEC) and will automatically feather the prop (align the blades with the airflow for minimum drag on the dead engine). And all new-production twins feature more crashworthy structures than were required in the glory days, so some crashes are more survivable today. 

There are, as you are doubtless aware, fewer than 10 twin-engine models in current production, some of those built in very small numbers. Piper did not sell any of its once-popular Seneca models last year, and Beech sold 15 Barons. Worldwide, twins accounted for fewer than 100 sales, and that has been the case for nearly 20 years now. 

Twins still have their fans. Buyers of Beech Baron G58s and Diamond Aircraft DA-62s are shelling out well over a million for one of these gems, and they do so not only because they believe in the additional redundancy, performance and utility these planes offer, but also at least in part because multi-engine aircraft ownership still carries with it a level of status on an altogether different plane. 

—Isabel Goyer

The Top 10 Planes Of All Time: WARNING: This List Goes To 11.

10 Cheapest Planes In The Sky

10 (More) Cheapest Planes In The Sky

The post Our 2021 Roundup Of Light Twin Aircraft appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

It’s hard to blame Diamond for the on-again, off-again march of the DA50. The company originally launched the design late in 2006, back when the market was pretty hot. This was around the same time that Diamond announced another big program, the one for its D-Jet single-engine jet, which, like first jet programs for every company bold enough to tackle one, soon seemed like a newly adopted pet elephant. It must have been a great idea at some point, but before long, it began to take all of one’s attention and resources. Don’t believe me? Ask Piper Aircraft or Cirrus Aircraft, both of which struggled to bring single-engine jets to market, with only Cirrus getting to the finish line. The D-Jet, as you probably know, was abandoned when the market downturn of late 2008 hit, at a time when the last thing that any airplane company needed was a single-engine jet program with no certainty of anything down the road but huge expenses.

Sorry for that diversion into the world of single-engine jets, but that’s precisely the problem: Once you start talking about a jet, it’s all anyone can think about.

With that abject lesson over, it’s back to piston-powered airplanes, namely, the DA50. Diamond launched the DA50 around the same time as the D-Jet. The new single was originally going to be nicknamed the Super Star, in a continuation of the “Star” naming convention that Diamond seemed to like. It was also dubbed “the Magnum” (or maybe just “Magnum?”) for a time. Neither nickname took, but that was the least of its issues.

The bigger problem, and we can’t definitively say that it’s over, has been the search for an engine that’s a perfect match for the DA50. Diamond seemed to consider every possibility, even, at least in passing, the most sensible one, the Continental IO- or TSIO-550 turbocharged six-cylinder opposed engine that’s in thousands of Cirrus SR22s, which, make no mistake, are Diamond’s competition here.

The Austrian firm seemed committed to diesel, though, and even considered the 180-hp Austro diesel; even that seems far too small for a five- to seven-seat single. Austro is another excursion. A Diamond sister company, Austro was forged back in the late aughts when Thielert, which made the auto tech conversion engines for the original DA42 TwinStar (a name, again, no longer used), imploded under the dual weight of financial improprieties that brought the company down along with debilitating service issues with its engine. Among other problems, the engine had a prop gear unit that needed pricey and time-consuming overhauls at ridiculously short intervals.

All of this engine palavering happened as the company was restructuring as business ebbed with the great recession—which kind of seemed like a picnic in the park without bears compared to the grizzly-filled outing we’re now experiencing. Regardless, at the time, even the easier lift of a new piston program proved too much for the company to take on, and Diamond decided to focus on its core single and light twin business, the latter of which was doing well. Twin business was so strong, in fact, that Diamond introduced the DA62, which looks suspiciously like the DA50, which, it turns out, is because the company created it by modifying the already well done, in terms of quality of design and cook time, DA50 airframe, though the project essentially left the single-engine model in the lurch once again.

Then, 10 years after the plane’s launch, the economy was back to business, and Diamond decided to create a DA50 version (the ultimate version, perhaps?) powered by a 450-hp Ivchenko-Progress Motor Sich AI-450-S turboprop. Yeah, we’d never heard of it, either. Diamond even flew a prototype of the Turbine Star (a presumed nickname, for a time at least).

Head scratching ensued. An unpressurized turboprop, and they exist in specialty roles—think Cessna Caravan—would be restricted to lower flight levels where even a smaller turboprop is strikingly inefficient. Pressurizing the DA50 would have been a big step, even though the company has the experience with the D-Jet program, which, of course was pressurized. But pressurizing a small plane is a huge undertaking. It’s one that has been truly successfully undertaken only twice, not counting the Cirrus Jet (which I don’t) by Cessna with the P210, of which almost a thousand found their way into customers’ hangars, and the Piper M350 nee Mirage nee Malibu, which has enjoyed comparable success and continues selling to this day.

So back to the DA50, whose would-be manufacturer, Diamond Aircraft, found itself under the new ownership of Chinese firm Wanfeng Aviation International in 2017. The new owners, as new owners are wont to do, decided to take a new look at existing programs, and the DA50, a dozen years into its peripatetic existence, looked still like six or seven intriguing concepts searching for an identity.

At the 2019 Aero Friedrichshafen trade show in Germany, Diamond launched that identity (well, kind of) by announcing that the DA50 would be available in three different, closely related configurations, though the one that got everyone’s attention, and that is the subject of this story, is the retractable-gear, 300-hp, diesel-powered version, which seems to me the right combination of features to make the plane as much of a game-changer as the company’s award-winning DA42, which redefined the economics of twin-engine training.

Shortly thereafter, Diamond Aircraft made the first flight of its DA50 with a gear retraction. The flight, which took place at the company’s headquarters in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, was about the fifth first flight of the DA50, but this one got people’s attention.

A New Diamond DA50

The DA50 is a carbon fiber five-seat, low-wing retractable gear single that one might think would compete pretty closely with the Cirrus SR22, but maybe not.

Here’s how it differs, design-wise, anyway. The DA50 has, claims Diamond, quite credibly, in fact, a larger cabin than any comparable single. A five-seat lower-gross-weight version and a higher-max-weight seven-seat model are in the works. The seating setup is similar to that of the DA62, which, again, is based on the DA50 fuselage. And while it’s not a typical third-row look or feel, it’s a surprisingly comfortable and light-filled rear seating section. And the gear retraction development was a piece of cake, as it had already been done for the DA62.

Very importantly, the DA50 runs on Jet-A, which is all kinds of good. The diesel will give the DA50 a typical long-range fuel flow of less than 10 gph while offering cruise speeds of 200 knots on a slightly higher, still very modest fuel flow. While Diamond hasn’t released much data on the plane yet, it’s not hard to guess that even if you were looking at 12 to 13 gph in order to get that 200-knot speed, you’d still be burning about a third less fuel than a turbocharged Continental TSIO-550 engine that powers the market-dominant Cirrus SR22. So with a comparable amount of tankage, you’d be looking at a range of around 1,500 nm, which admittedly turns even 200-knot legs into long sits, but many see it as usable range. Just ask early owners of the originally engined Piper Malibu, who can’t stop talking about their plane’s range.

The engine in the DA50 is a Continental CD-300 V-6 diesel that spins the prop through a gear reduction mechanism to get 2,300 max rpm. The engine, initially developed by Thierlert, has been optimized by Continental and promises several benefits no competing engine can.

For one, it’s quiet. We flew the precursor to the CD-300 in a Cessna 182 under development several years ago and were impressed by how quiet it was, both inside and, presumably, outside, too. And with a max rpm of 2,300, the prop noise is very low, which will lead to lower takeoff noise, something important everywhere but especially in Europe. There’s also the fuel efficiency, and while diesel aero engines won’t woo hard-core environmentalists any time soon, they do have two real environmental advantages.

Because it’s more efficient than comparable power gas piston engines, the CD-300 uses less fuel. Its economy per mile will likely be better, perhaps a good deal better, than many big sport Utes, in fact. On top of that, the fact that Jet-A, say what you will about it, is not 100LL means its contribution of lead to the environment is zero. The engine will run on bio fuels, some of which are already being developed, though the crash in oil prices associated with the twin catastrophes to oil markets of the Russian-Saudi feud and the coup de grace and virtual standstill in transportation that COVID-19 had brought us, will surely give some of those companies pause, perhaps permanently so. It’s hard to compete against buck-a-gallon gas. We pray those prices find their way to our FBO ramps one day.

The DA50 wouldn’t be the first production plane with a diesel engine. Diamond has built thousands more of them, including its DA42 and DA62 twins, as well as its DA40NG. The DA50 would be the first diesel high-performance single, and that’s a big first. Four years ago, when we first flew the DA62, we called it a formidable competitor to the SR22, and while the Cirrus single’s numbers have continued to impress, the DA62 has shown just how powerful an argument that economy makes for high-performance planes. 

As much as we love the company’s designs, we readily admit they’re a little quirky. The DA40 Diamond Star features a three-door design, all big gull-wing doors, and the greenhouse level of natural light is both a revelation and a challenge when the sun is high.

The handling of even the company’s twins is also very much in the company’s tradition—it got its start in the early ’80s as a high-performance sailplane manufacturer, and the long-span, narrow chord wing design has stuck around. Personally, I love the feel of it, and, with a similar configuration to the DA62, the DA50 will very probably fly in a similar way, which is to say, light, nicely harmonized, responsive and fun.

So, there you have it. The DA50 will be a fast, fuel-efficient, capable personal transportation plane, which alone makes it a market presence. Add in the large cabin, advanced avionics (a three-screen Garmin panel, says Diamond), worldwide fuel availability and great ramp appeal, and it’s no wonder people are excited about the DA50. We are.

Diamond had hoped to announce further news on the DA50 at Aero Friedrichshafen 2020, which was canceled in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and it had hoped to earn certification for the plane by the summer of 2020, which would have dovetailed nicely with EAA AirVenture Oshkosh 2020, which has also been canceled.

So the long-suffering, oft-delayed, frequently renamed, and regularly re-engined DA50 continues its trek to market. What that journey will look like and how long it will take, if indeed it happens at all this time around, is hard to say. But if and when it does, we think the DA50 will have a lot to offer to pilots, including features and benefits available precisely nowhere else. 

Correction: The text of this article has been corrected to show the correct lineage of the Continental CD-300 engine. It was originally developed by Thierlert and not SMA, as the original article stated. We apologize for the error. 

The post Will The Diamond DA50 Redefine Personal Flying? appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

The post Diamond DA50 Retract Flies! appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

For reasons that are both easy to understand and completely counterintuitive, the four-seat, piston-powered airplane has, for decades, dominated the GA marketplace. And it continues to do so, even though the number of pilots who buy these planes as a transportation tool has slowed dramatically, mostly in lock step with the slowing of the overall GA piston market. The tens of thousands of personal planes sold every year in the ’60s and ’70s, the true heyday of flying in the United States, has turned into fewer than a thousand planes in a good year, and the two dozen or more available models have shrunk to just a handful.

That four-seaters should be the prototypical GA ride makes sense to pilots—but to few others. Considering that most flights go out with one or two occupants (including the pilot), it seems a two-seat alternative would make sense. I’ve thought so for years, but the market was never developed for such a runabout. This is surprising because two-seat planes, like the Van’s RV series, dominate the kitbuilt market and have for decades. Not so in the Part 23 world.

Last year, GA manufacturers worldwide turned out 1,139 piston-powered planes. In the US, manufacturers of piston planes delivered 829, including 771 singles. Of those singles, 380 of them were Cirrus SR22s or SR20s, and 160 of them were Cessna Skylanes, Skyhawks or TTx (a single delivery).

For its part, Piper Aircraft delivered 114 four-seaters in 2018. So those three manufacturers—Cessna, Cirrus and Piper—accounted for all but 87 of the piston singles sold. Sales of six-seat (or larger) piston planes need to be factored in, as well. Piper sold 20 M350s (formerly the Mirage) and Beech handed over 15 G36s.

Internationally, it doesn’t get any more crowded. The top seller among other companies was the Diamond DA40, with an impressive (but still modest by historic standards) 45 deliveries. The bottom line is that recent sales of four-seat models are scant, and those sales are dominated by a few companies.

Moreover, the profile of the customers putting cash on the cowling for four-seat planes has shifted tremendously, as well. In the ’60s and ’70s, though it’s hard to come up with firm numbers, most four-seat piston planes were marketed and sold to private owners. That still happens in some instances, especially in the case of Cirrus Aircraft, which targets affluent pilots looking for high-tech personal transportation. The two other major players, the Textron Aviation Cessna Skyhawk and the Piper Aircraft Archer, are overwhelmingly sold to flight schools.

Are you an aviation enthusiast or pilot? Sign up for our newsletter, full of tips, reviews and more!

There have been a couple of departures from our last roundup of four-seat planes. Textron Aviation pulled the plug on the critically acclaimed but slow-selling TTx (formerly the Columbia, among other names), and it ended production of its problematic diesel-powered 172 JT-A. Piper announced this spring that it was no longer producing its four-seat retractable landing gear Arrow model, though the company acknowledged that it could and likely would restart production if a substantial fleet order materialized.

Another major change in the marketplace is the drying up of the piston-single retractable gear market. Beech sold 15 Bonanzas, and Mooney sold seven each of its Ovation Ultra and Acclaim Ultra, and that was about it. There are a couple of emerging retractable-gear models. The Pipistrel Panthera has been inching toward certification for a few years now—is this the year it gets it done? —and Diamond’s exciting DA50 retractable-gear single is looking as though it might get the company’s attention after sitting on the back burner for the past several years. Both planes are included at the end of this roundup as being on the horizon, thought if you’ve been in aviation very long, you know that the horizon is usually much farther away than it looks.

The other big wild card in this whole four-seat equation is the Part 23 rewrite—I guess we’ll have to come up with another term that now it’s been rewritten. These liberalized certification standards have been adopted but not put into practice much. As such, the new FAA standards will allow manufacturers to wrangle approval for their light planes by using industry consensus standards, much the same way as it’s done in the LSA world but with more FAA oversight. Will these changes result in more Part 23 four-seaters (or any other type, for that matter)? We’re just not sure. But in the LSA segment, this certification approach has resulted in an impressive number of new designs.

Lastly, there remain two big stumbling blocks for the return of the four-seat market to anything resembling its former glory. First, and most obvious to the consumer, is that these new planes are expensive, not just in dollar numbers, but even when adjusted for inflation and other factors. Second, the manufacturers aren’t getting rich on these planes, either. Everything they use to build these planes, including the labor, is more expensive, too.

One ray of hope is, ironically, the aging of the piston fleet. With the introduction by Garmin and a few others of game-changing avionics retrofit options for owners of older planes, which is a lot of us, there’s suddenly new life for these planes. That doesn’t mean they’re getting any younger though, just that they’re more useful to us for a while longer. But the truth is, the supply of decent used planes is shrinking, and they cost a lot to maintain.  There’s nothing we can do about either of those things.

There’s also the subject of electric power. The dream of having small planes that run on battery power is great, but it’s not happening anytime soon. Four-seat planes are about twice as heavy as two-seaters, and battery power doesn’t make much sense on two-seaters, yet. Until there are major breakthroughs in battery storage capacity and/or weight, electric flight will remain more science experiment than practical solution.

Some of the four-seaters that remain in production, however, are impressive examples of how new technology can successfully breathe life into great, old designs. Cessna’s high-wingers spring to mind. Others, like the Cirrus piston singles, are new airplanes, relatively speaking at least, and show that innovation can actually create new markets.

Click the button below to see our lineup of production Part 23 four-seat singles. Enjoy.

Cirrus SR22 G6/SR22T

Okay, the Cirrus SR22 isn’t really a four-seater—it’s a four-/five-seater, but we’ll allow it since the plane’s general configuration is identical to other recent Cirrus models, but with extra room inside to add a third, smaller backseat passenger. It’s a good thing we’re counting them, too, as the SR22 is the most-produced light plane in the world. It’s not the fastest piston single in the skies—that distinction belongs to the Mooney Acclaim Ultra, but the SR22 is the most technologically advanced model available, with its built-in whole-airplane recovery parachute system, optional known ice protection, excellent exterior lighting and much more. It’s also the bestselling single in the world once again, despite a steep price of around $900,000 with all the bells and whistles. The latest model, the SR22 G6, has the Garmin G1000 NXi avionics suite, which was rare when Cirrus launched its G6, but is now in just about every new model. NXi is great, but Cirrus takes it several steps further with its Perspective keyboard controller which, with practice, cuts down on pilot workload and eases operation. The SR22 is available in a normally aspirated or turbocharged version, though most buyers go with the turbo. That would be our call, too, as the blower allows the plane to achieve its best true airspeeds when you head up to the mid-teens, where we spend most of our time when we’re flying the plane.

Niche: Premium fixed-gear transportation plane.
Bragging Points: The chute, great styling, outstanding visibility and excellent cross-country performance, high style and excellent visibility.
Tradeoffs: Premium price point, control feel that leaves something to be desired, less-than-best-in-class speed.
Base Price: $539,900; $639,900
Price Typically Equipped: $950,000
Competitors: Mooney Acclaim Ultra, Mooney Ovation Ultra
Fun Fact: Cirrus offers trade-up programs for pilots looking to up their game in an SR22 and later transition to the SF50 Vision Jet.

Specs SR22; SR22T
Main Construction: Composite
Engine/HP: Continental IO-550-N/310 hp; Continental TSIO-550-K/315 hp
Propeller: Hartzell, 3-blade, composite, constant speed, 78 diameter; Hartzell, 3-blade, composite, constant speed, 78″ diameter
Avionics: Cirrus Perspective+ By Garmin (Garmin G1000 NXi)
Top Cruise Speed: 183 kts; 213 kts
Stall, Landing Configuration: 60 kts; 60 kts
Max Range: 1,118 nm; 1,021 nm
Max Takeoff Weight: 3,600 lbs.; 3,600 lbs.
Payload (full fuel): 798 lbs.; 716 lbs.
Useful Load: 1,330 lbs.; 1,248 lbs.
Takeoff/Landing Distance: 1,082 ft./1,178 ft. (groundroll); 1,517 ft./1,178 ft. (groundroll)

Mooney Acclaim Ultra

Mooney is back in business, and its latest models offer huge improvements in comfort and utility, while taking nothing off the eye-popping speed numbers. The Mooney Acclaim Ultra is different than previous Mooneys because it has two doors—one on each side. Construction is very similar to previous sheet-metal Mooneys, with the exception of the forward fuselage section being composite, which allowed the company to add a door and make both doors substantially larger than previous portals. As a bonus, the windows are also lower for better overall visibility. How fast is the Acclaim Ultra? As they say in Beantown, it’s wicked fast, to the tune of 240-plus knots fast. To get that speed, Mooney pairs its slick aerodynamics to a 310 hp turbocharged Continental TSIO-550. The Acclaim Ultra is now standard with the Garmin G1000 NXi, so owners can get all the latest avionics goodness. In all, the Acclaim Ultra is a four-seat single that’s faster than any other plane in its segment, has FIKI ice protection as an option and is more comfortable than ever.

Niche: Premium retractable-gear personal transportation plane.
Bragging Points: Best speed in the world, greatly improved interior, comfortable seats, tremendous range.
Tradeoffs: It’s smaller inside than an SR22 or TTx, and the gear adds complexity, weight and, down the road, maintenance.
Base Price: $769,000
Competitors: Cessna TTx, Cirrus SR22
Fun Fact: The Acclaim Ultra can trace its roots back to the original Al Mooney-designed M20 of 1955, with a wood wing. It’s come a long way since then, but it’s still built in Kerrville, Texas.

Specs
Main Construction: Composite
Engine/HP: Continental TSIO-550-G/280 hp
Propeller: Hartzell, 3-blade, metal, constant speed, 76″ diameter
Avionics: G1000 NXi
Top Cruise Speed: 242 kts
Stall, Landing Configuration: 56 kts
Max Range: 1,100nm (45-min. reserve, standard tanks)
Max Takeoff Weight: 3,368 lbs.
Payload (full fuel): 384 lbs.
Useful Load: 1,000 lbs.
Takeoff/Landing Distance: 2,100 ft./2,650 ft. (50 ft. obstacle)

Mooney Ovation Ultra

When Mooney got back into business several years ago now, Job One was to reinvigorate the lineup. In 2017, Mooney got FAA approval for its Acclaim Ultra, the turbocharged version of its slick airframe. The normally aspirated model, the Ovation Ultra, came next. The company got the thumbs up for that model last year. Like the Acclaim Ultra, the Ovation Ultra gets a fiberglass shell on the forward fuselage in place of the former sheet-metal outer shell. As on the Acclaim, this gave Mooney the ability to reimagine the forward shell, adding a pilot’s side door, enlarging and lowering the windows, all without adding additional weight. Like the Acclaim Ultra, the Ovation Ultra features the Garmin G1000 NXi avionics suite. Known icing protection is available, as is air conditioning. The big differentiator between Ovation and Acclaim is the powerplant. The Acclaim, designed to fly high, relies on better true airspeeds up there without losing horsepower for its best-in-class speed. The Ovation, on the other hand, accomplishes this with more power—310 hp compared to 280 hp for the Acclaim Ultra. It works great, too. The Ovation Ultra is the fastest normally aspirated production piston single, achieving just a couple of ticks short of 200 knots true. The model also boasts tremendous range, greater than 1,400 nm, and terrific climbing ability.

Niche: High-performance retractable-gear transportation plane
Bragging Points: Fastest non-turbo plane in its class. Top-notch avionics. 
Tradeoffs: Not as roomy as its fixed-gear competition. Does its best work at lower altitudes.
Base Price: $689,000
Competitors: Cirrus SR22, Mooney Acclaim Ultra
Fun Fact: Mooney delivered seven Ovation Ultras in 2018, the same number as for the Acclaim Ultra.

Specs
Main Construction: Metal with forward-fuselage composite skin
Engine/HP: Continental IO-550-G/310 hp
Propeller: Hartzell, 3-blade, metal, constant speed, 76″ diameter
Avionics: Garmin G1000 NXi
Top Cruise Speed: 197 kts
Stall, Landing Configuration: 59 kts
Max Range: 900 nm (45-minute reserve, standard tanks)
Max Takeoff Weight: 3,368 lbs.
Payload (full fuel): 514 lbs.
Useful Load: 1,130 lbs.
Takeoff/Landing Distance: 1,600 ft./2,500 ft. (50 ft. obstacle)

The post Four-Seat Piston Singles Round-Up appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Seats: 2

Main Construction: Composite

Engine/Hp: Continental IO-240-B32B/125 hp

Propeller: Sensenich, 2-blade, fixed pitch, 69″ diameter

Avionics:Garmin G500

Top Cruise Speed: 130 kts (75% power)

Stall, Landing Configuration: 45 kts

Maximum Range: 544 nm

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 1,764 lbs.

Payload: 440 lbs. (full fuel)

Useful Load: 584 lbs.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (50-ft. Obstacle): 1,640/1,360 ft.

Check out the DA20 and other fantastic single-engine airplanes in our latest Piston Singles Buyer’s Guide.

The post 2017 Diamond DA20 appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Seats: 4

Main Construction: Composite

Engine/Hp: Lycoming IO-360-M1A/180 hp

Propeller: MT (MTV-12), 3-blade, constant speed, 80″ diameter

Avionics:Garmin G1000

Top Cruise Speed: 137 kts

Stall, Landing Configuration: 60 kts

Maximum Range: 830 nm

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 2,646 lbs.

Payload: 660 lbs. (full fuel)

Useful Load: 900 lbs.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (MTOW – No Obstacle): 1,000/1,000 ft.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (MTOW – 50-ft. Obstacle): 1,450/2,100 ft.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (2,161 lbs. – No Obstacle): 550/750 ft.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (2,161 lbs. – 50-ft. Obstacle): 1,000/1,700 ft.

Check out the DA40 and other fantastic single-engine airplanes in our latest Piston Singles Buyer’s Guide.

The post 2017 Diamond DA40 appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Seats: 7

Main Construction: Carbon composite

Engine/Hp: Austro AE330/180 hp each

Propellers: MT (MTV-6) 3-blade, constant speed, 75″ diameter

Avionics: Garmin G1000

Top Cruise Speed: 192 kts (87% power)

Stall, Landing Configuration: 64 kts

Maximum Range: 1,345 nm (50% power)

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 5,071 lbs.

Payload: 1,004 lbs. (full fuel)

Useful Load: 1,609 lbs.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (MTOW – 50-ft. Obstacle): 1,575/1,447 ft.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (4,400 lbs. – 50-ft. Obstacle):1,263/1,257 ft.

The post 2017 Diamond DA62 appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.

Seats: 4

Main Construction: Carbon composite

Engine/Hp:Austro AE300/170 hp each

Propellers: MT (MTV-6) 3-blade, constant speed, 75″ diameter

Avionics: Garmin G1000

Top Cruise Speed: 190 kts (92% power)

Stall, Landing Configuration: 61 kts

Maximum Range: 1,273 nm

Maximum Takeoff Weight: 4,407 lbs.

Payload: 762 lbs. (full fuel)

Useful Load: 1,298 lbs.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (MTOW – 50-ft. Obstacle): 1,391/1,220 ft.

Takeoff/Landing Distance (3,748 lbs. – 50-ft. Obstacle): 1,148/1,099 ft.

The post 2017 Diamond DA42 appeared first on Plane & Pilot Magazine.