Well, back-country type flying has hit the big time. Here's a recent GA News article about Diamond's new DA-40 "Tundra" back-country airplane, with a turbocharged "jet fuel powered piston engine" (I guess that means diesel?).

http://generalaviationnews.com/2015/12/ ... 27ea-17986

I like the DA40, but IIRC its a fixed pitch prop, which lowers its desirability in my estimation. Especially for a backcountry airplane, I want to make max RPM/HP on takeoff and in climb. Then, for a slippery airframe like that, I'd want to drop the RPM's and get the speed out of it that the airframe can deliver.

I think he trailing link front suspension would do well in rougher areas but that still looks like a small nosewheel to me.

I'm not (yet) an advocated of the diesels. Many still have short TBO's and are aweful expensive to buy with unproven long term service records. Here in the states Avgas, which may be going away someday, is still readily available and many of us can burn Mogas if need be so the Jet A option does littlefor me.

I like the DA40, but IIRC its a fixed pitch prop, which lowers its desirability in my estimation.

On the website it says it uses a controllable pitch prop.

Anyone know if this is based on an existing auto engine or is it there own design? Good to see something new in any case.


Jeff

I missed that. Must be a newer generatipon than when I last read about the DA40.

Diamond uses a Mercedes 4 cylinder car engine in their DA42 so I suspect this is the same motor.

noodles wrote:

I like the DA40, but IIRC its a fixed pitch prop, which lowers its desirability in my estimation.

On the website it says it uses a controllable pitch prop.

Anyone know if this is based on an existing auto engine or is it there own design? Good to see something new in any case.


Jeff

It says it has an Austro AE300 (E-4 series). I thought it looked cool so I dug around on the Austro website. It says the AE300 has 170 hp and turbo charging which keeps max t/o power up to near 10,000 ft, but it's 414 lbs. It looks like it has a 150 hp maximum cruise power limit, too. It also said the controllable prop was automatically, electronically controlled and the pilot had a single power lever to manipulate.

http://www.diamond-air.at/content/products/DA40_Tundra_Star/DA40_Tundra_Star_Factsheet_201503.pdf

Very cool. A somewhat backcountry capable airplane that does 124 knots on 5.2 gph (or 140 on 8 gph), a max range of nearly 900nm, and sticks for controls. I'd be very interested if it wasn't for the incredible cost of new airplanes. It looks like a really good all-rounder.

BCPilotguy wrote:airplane that does 124 knots on 5.2 gph (or 140 on 8 gph)

Those are pretty good numbers!

HAH! Totally disagree. This DA40 tundra is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

I share an airport with a fleet of Diamond Star DA40 trainers. So I watch them most times I fly - it's the exact same aircraft as this so-called D40 Tundra - the only difference is this "new" model sports slightly larger tires. I can't see any other changes.

I would never consider owning a DA40 for a backcountry aircraft - unless 1500' improved grass airstrips are your idea of backcountry. The idea of regularly landing a DA40 on the "tundra" or anywhere properly off airport is ludicrous in my opinion.

Reasons why it looks like a bad idea:
1. They have a long take-off roll with just a light load aboard, even on the seal. This is a 4 seater, fill it up and they are positively underpowered (or perhaps "efficiently powered").Take-off ground roll, about 1200' (!!!) max performance at sea level. That's not even considering 50' obstacle clearance.
2. They have zero nosewheel steering, a recipe for getting out and pushing on rough surfaces. At worst it could could easily lead to a crash during landing rollout on a rough surface, once rudder authority runs out.
3. Stall speed is about 60 knots (!!!)... so approach speeds in the region of 70kts.
4. They have very little prop clearance.
5. They are built for efficiency, rather that durability.

Save your money and buy an old C172 and put tires on it. A much more realistic 4-place off-airport machine.
Tundra... They must be joking!

Edits to fix my awful spelling and grammar

Battson wrote:HAH! Totally disagree. This DA40 tundra is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

I share an airport with a fleet of Diamond Star DA40 trainers. So I watch them most times I fly - it's the exact same aircraft as this so-called D40 Tundra - the only difference is this "new" model sports slightly larger tires. I can't see any other changes.

I would never consider owning a DA40 for a backcountry aircraft - unless 1500' improved grass airstrips are your idea of backcountry. The idea of regularly landing a DA40 on the "tundra" or anywhere properly off airport is ludicrous in my opinion.

Reasons why it looks like a bad idea:
1. They have a long take-off roll with just a light load aboard, even on the seal. This is a 4 seater, fill it up and they are positively underpowered (or perhaps "efficiently powered").Take-off ground roll, about 1200' (!!!) max performance at sea level. That's not even considering 50' obstacle clearance.
2. They have zero nosewheel steering, a recipe for getting out and pushing on rough surfaces. At worst it could could easily lead to a crash during landing rollout on a rough surface, once rudder authority runs out.
3. Stall speed is about 60 knots (!!!)... so approach speeds in the region of 70kts.
4. They have very little prop clearance.
5. They are built for efficiency, rather that durability.

Save your money and buy an old C172 and put tires on it. A much more realistic 4-place off-airport machine.
Tundra... They must be joking!

Edits to fix my awful spelling and grammar

+1...looks like nothing but a marketing gimmick to me...not even remotely close to a true backcountry bird.

GPH is pretty meaningless if you're paying the sticker price, insurance, and luxury tax on a new airplane, and that's about all this thing has going for it, near as I can tell.

Also there is a propeller gear box inspection that has to be done at the factory around 800 hrs. Most just swap the box because of the month turn time. Very expensive.

I give them credit for trying something new...but I don't generally trust the marketing!

If they truly think that's "backcountry"...they must think a straight tailed 182 with tires is an SQ2.

Battson wrote:HAH! Totally disagree. This DA40 tundra is a marketing ploy, nothing more.

I share an airport with a fleet of Diamond Star DA40 trainers. So I watch them most times I fly - it's the exact same aircraft as this so-called D40 Tundra - the only difference is this "new" model sports slightly larger tires. I can't see any other changes.

I would never consider owning a DA40 for a backcountry aircraft - unless 1500' improved grass airstrips are your idea of backcountry. The idea of regularly landing a DA40 on the "tundra" or anywhere properly off airport is ludicrous in my opinion.

Reasons why it looks like a bad idea:
1. They have a long take-off roll with just a light load aboard, even on the seal. This is a 4 seater, fill it up and they are positively underpowered (or perhaps "efficiently powered").Take-off ground roll, about 1200' (!!!) max performance at sea level. That's not even considering 50' obstacle clearance.
2. They have zero nosewheel steering, a recipe for getting out and pushing on rough surfaces. At worst it could could easily lead to a crash during landing rollout on a rough surface, once rudder authority runs out.
3. Stall speed is about 60 knots (!!!)... so approach speeds in the region of 70kts.
4. They have very little prop clearance.
5. They are built for efficiency, rather that durability.

Save your money and buy an old C172 and put tires on it. A much more realistic 4-place off-airport machine.
Tundra... They must be joking!

Edits to fix my awful spelling and grammar

Yup, and to add to these comments, I'd point out that not only do they have a high stall speed, they FLOAT like a feather......big, high lift wing. Just what you want when trying to land short.

Gotta love marketing, dreamed up somewhere in a very large city.

MTV

49 knot stall, same as a 182. 8:50x6 mains, 6:00x6 nose which seems to be the common standard for improved tire upgrades on nosewheel aircraft. Everything floats if you don't nail the numbers. Everything takes longer to take off heavy.

Low-wing has always spooked me for backcountry flying, but this aircraft is aimed at the vast majority that consider a non-paved strip "backcountry". Tundra is just a marketing name, you wouldn't land a 182 in the tundra either.

Big plus is the range and diesel fuel. High value anywhere except in the US where we have plentiful avgas and strips every 30 miles. So no, I wouldn't expect anyone on this forum to be interested. No motivation for efficiency yet, either in cars or airplanes. But it's coming.

Karmutzen wrote:49 knot stall, same as a 182.

Sounds like you've been reading Wikipedia....? the Diamond Aircraft book value is 58 or 59 knots from memory. Check their website maybe?
I bet it stalls more like 50kts when it's empty, book values are usually at max all up weight (as they should be).

Karmutzen wrote:Tundra is just a marketing name, you wouldn't land a 182 in the tundra either.

Jumping to the defence of the venerable 182, I bet they get do landed on rough off airport stuff all the time! This is "close enough" for a 20 second Google search:

mtv wrote: ....Gotta love marketing, dreamed up somewhere in a very large city. MTV

I agree, I think some Diamond marketers watched the STOL demonstration at Oshkosh (or more likely, watched the people watching it) and said to themselves " I gotta get me some of that!".

Battson wrote:

Karmutzen wrote:49 knot stall, same as a 182.

Sounds like you've been reading Wikipedia....? the Diamond Aircraft book value is 58 or 59 knots from memory. Check their website maybe?
I bet it stalls more like 50kts when it's empty, book values are usually at max all up weight (as they should be).

The DA40-XLT stalls with full falps at 49 KIAS http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft ... /specs.php


Whether the Tundra is a backcountry no-pavement plane, can a PA-28/32 or 182/206 land and take-off
there? Just look at where Grassstrippilot take's his 205, and i bet that BCPilotguy as taken his 28
places it "shouldn't go".

Is the Tundra a off airport gravel bar STOL plane? no.

Myself if want a low-wing backcountry plane i'll get a PA-28-235, cost less, can run auto-fuel and
a useful load more than 800 lb's.

That's my $0.02

ExperimentalAviator wrote:The DA40-XLT stalls with full falps at 49 KIAS http://www.diamondaircraft.com/aircraft ... /specs.php

In the interests of completeness... (ICCL)

They have a little asterisk* and some fine print against all those numbers More sales/marketing numbers. Like I say, that's probably the stall speed totally empty.

I just checked the statistics released for the DA40 Tundra... which also says clearly that at max gross weight, it's stalling at 58 knots calibrated airspeed. So unless I am going bananas, that is probably the book value I am recalling. I watch these things land and T/O dozens of times every weekend, they are not in the same league as a C182, ceteris paribus.

But regardless of whatever speed the stall at, it's not a backcountry plane in my books. It's an efficient cruising machine, and good at what it does. My original point was simply, anyone convinced by that marketing is probably getting exactly the aircraft they need.

Battson wrote:I just checked the statistics released for the DA40 Tundra... which also says clearly that at max gross weight, it's stalling at 58 knots calibrated airspeed.

That sure is crappy...

It's kinda like the Found Aircraft Bush hawk's stall speed, but at lest the Found can haul a load.

The DA-40 is a really sleek, comfortable-looking craft. We have an EAA member around here that owns one and it looks like a fine traveling machine. The tail looks like it would be easy to hook my tractor forks on after I nose it into the creek at the end of my 1,600' not-so-smooth-and-level grass runway. This would be on arrival or departure, either would yield the same result imo.

I agree.... Doesn't look very "backcountry". It does look like one of the ugliest planes I've ever seen though.