I own and operate both Cessnas and a DA40, and have thousands on hours in both combined. This video was fantastic. Diamond is incomparably superior though !
Has there been any concern brought up about egress from a flip-over accident in the diamond? I know it would certainly be exceedingly rare, but would stink to be trapped in the airplane after a crash with the possibility of fire all around you and no way to get the doors open. Hopefully the windows would also pop out in the accident.
@@Spastuscat the back door disconnects at the hinge after pulling the emergency exit lever. And there is also an emergency glass breaking “hammer” underneath the passenger seat for use on the canopy glass.
It is difficult digesting that a cessna 172 or Diamond DA40 are over half million dollars. I believe it has become obvious that GA has become completely out of reach for the common middle-class hard working person. It is simply ridiculous the cost of aircraft -- even an old junker.
Unfortunately aviation will always remain a niche industry with thoroughly limited market participants compared to other markets, and unfortunately the cost is increasing significantly every year. The "entry fee" into this market is already restrictive and dare I say "exclusive". Flight training is expensive and not available to everyone due to cost, medical deferments, etc. Many people do not have $20,000-$30,000 of disposable income to get their Private Pilot's license either. So simply by this initial requirement does a limited number of people exist that are pilots. To that end, According to the FAA only 840,000 people have active airmen certificates as of 2023. 300k of which are student pilots. Ignoring the student population as they are likely using rentals, lets assume that no student pilot is buying a brand new airplane, that would leave only 500k people in the US out of 300 million that are even qualified to potentially buy a brand new Cessna or Diamond. And yet, in 2023 only 180 Cessna 172's were sold. 750,000 Ford F150's were sold that same year, for comparison.
especially on the used aircraft market there are several planes which are relatively affordable. The stringent safety regulations and often low hours on GA planes make the age quite differently than cars and a 50-year old Cherokee is often a perfectly pleasant plane. In addition in Europe ULs are slowly replacing recreational GAs That said: if I were in a position to buy a new plane I certainly wouldn't buy something as old-fashioned as a C172.
The price of aircraft (or any goods & services really) is defined by what the market will bear. In a commodity driven industry there is not one person or company that sets the price. The price is set by you and me and the rest of our aviation friends. Not everyone can afford (nor should they) an airplane. It is not intended to be for use by the "middle class" because the "middle class" does not have the resources. I tell my students that the reason there are Chevys and Cadillacs. Not everyone can afford a Cadillac, nor should they. I suggestion is for the "middle class" to get more high demand education (STEM) and earn more money. Then that person can transition to the "Upper Middle class" where they can afford an airplane or Cadillac.
@@athensdawgsuga3815As someone with rotorcraft and fix wing ratings the big draw back is if you fly on vacation you are stuck paying a daily minimum when the aircraft is parked.
@@Just_Viktor PPL end goal or CPL end goal ? DA40NG is a terrible move for cpl. There's no mixture or prop control which is easier to fly but most employers won't touch a low time pilot without the experience with mixture and prop control as most airplanes still used today have those features
What about the maitanence cost and availability for the composite airframe? I heard it's a pain in the ass to repair, even minor cracks are a huge deal for your wallet... Is that true?
The safety of the Diamond is a HUGE factor in these two models. I have a few hundred hours in a 172, but in my opinion, the DA40 far surpasses it. Great video!
@@JetsiahPOV You're right - - you'd have no issue getting out of the C172 because you'd be dead from the aircraft crumpling like a spam can. Take a look at the safety records of both aircraft. The DA40 may not last 50+ years like a C172 due to it being a plastic plane, but while it's flying it'll keep you very safe. The front seats are part of the structure of the aircraft.
@@grayrabbit2211 Well it all depends on how you strike the surface, my friend flew a Cessna 206 into the rocky shore of Hudson Bay at cruise speed, the airplane was destroyed and it burnt leaving only ashes in the shape of a aircraft, he was able to exit as it started burning when they rescued him he was ok
For what it’s worth, composite can last a very long time if cared for properly (and often even when it’s not). Tons and tons of fiberglass boats from the 70s still around.
Having flown both and given instruction in both, I'm partial to the DA40... however the 172 is still a great aircraft and you can't go wrong with either.
I started my flight training in the 172’s back in the ‘80’s. When I came back to flight training in ‘08 I found the DA-40’s and fell in love. The feel of flying the aircraft felt more natural. It was very easy to pick up. The school I finished my training in offered both the 172 and DA-40, but there was a price difference. And it was well worth it. My dream now is to find shared ownership in one. Heck, win the lottery and get the DA-62❤.
I fly both... DA40 when the weather is nice (ie: below 82F), C172 for everything else. The DA40 definitely is a dream to fly, whereas it feels like I'm wrestling the C172. BUT, I'm in Florida. The heat, humidity, and rain are brutal here. Being able to taxi/fly with the windows open and having a solid roof rather than plexiglass/perspex bubble over your head, especially when it's August, 95F with 50% humidity and you're putting along at 1500' underneath a Bravo shelf, is priceless. Likewise, entering and exiting a high-wing in rain is far more pleasant than popping open the canopy in a DA40 in rain. High wing ain't sexy, but it's extremely practical. If I ever had the money, I think I'd go for a DA50RG w/aircon. That would fix 90% of my gripes with the DA40. At the same time, the leading edges of the DA40's wings get chewed up pretty bad when flying in rain. We just had to have ours repaired. Likewise, anyone can field-repair panels on a C172. Not so much for the plastic planes.
I work on the Cessnas daily, but no experience with the DAs. Do they not offer erosion strips for leading edges? Our school's Barons have erosion material on the radome. It's taken quite a beating over the years, but the dome is still in good shape.
@@eclectichoosier5474I’m a student learning the DA40 in Tennessee. Our planes don’t suffer any leading edge damage, even the “old” 20 year ones. Only thing I ever see is some speed tape around some areas, but that’s the buffer on the wing for fuel tank maintenance.
Having flown many hours in C 172 and C 182 I now fly Diamond and the Italian Techam2008 aricraft. Their flight behavior and fuel consumption show that they really are planes of a new aera. If the Europeans would not have developed these modern energy efficient planes, private flying might have almost disappeared by now because of fuel prices, at least in Europe.
Tecnam is a great design. I would like to see a Diamond with high wings. The new Sling with high wings is a winner. Sling informs me a TDI is too heavy for their airframe.
@@JohnPruitt-su8fe At least here in Germany we pay around 2,8€/litre for AVGAS100LL and around 2€/litre for JET A1. And the jet fuel engins consumes even less per hour. My flying club has even a 172 diesel conversion, which is basically the same engine the DA40 has (google "Thielert engine"), only with a little bit less power. But therefore it is also rated for regular Diesel fuel. That being said, I'm a huge fan of Diesel powered air planes and I would love to fly the DA40. The only disadvantages I can see in the DA40 is how you wet everything when you hop in while it's raining and how it heats up in summer. But that's an issue with mostly all low wing designs.
I've known several salesmen in my life but you, by far, are a leader in the aviation field. You have focused my attention onto a "new" product similar in use but with so many updated features. Yes, the Cessna is an industry standard however it is time for others to shine such as the Diamond. It is an exceptional machine with a ton of desirable features! Stunning comparison and notably the Diamond is a star.
The DA40 is a superior plane that’s for sure, but the Cessna 172 has some advantages for itself. It is easier and cheaper to repare plus you easily find spare part all around the wold. It is also way cheaper to buy in second hand. it is a more robust aircraft and can be used to land almost everywhere on any field It has a shorter wingspan, making it less efficient but giving it less ground clearance, I’ve seen video of 172 landing on narrow strip inside forest It is also an iconic aircraft, really I love to see them in great shape like the one in this video. The Cessna is still a great modern aircraft but the Diamonds is futureproof
You got it! Diamond has not really figured out the used plane market. Cessna is a way better choice if buying used and this is coming from a HUGE Diamond fan/pilot.
The parts things is why the flight school I was working at decided to not go with the Diamond. When something broke on the Diamond it could take weeks or longer to get replacement parts and at least one plane would be down till the parts came in. As it was explained to me, they had to send the broken art to Diamond and wait for the new one, and they weren’t allowed to stock parts for when they did break
@@omirlino Not true. I work for a flying school that has a fleet of about 60 DA-40's. We have enough parts in our store room to build 5 or so aircraft from scratch! Parts aren't cheap though!
@@samuelkundael3503 Those doors are the one true negative of the DA40. In many parts of the world it's often raining when you get in/out of the plane. In the DA40, the entire inside is soaked if its raining.
John Armstrong, your insightful comparison between the Diamond DA40 NG and the Cessna 172 S is truly illuminating. Your breakdown of their history, design, materials, and features showcases how these two aircraft have evolved to cater to different needs and eras.
As someone who got my PPL, IR, and CSEL in the DA40 I can say that I fell in love on my very first flight, its a very easy aircraft to fly; the only problem I had transitioning from a 152 was when I would pull WAAAY too much on my flare, the pushrods really do make more precise inputs. Also transitioning into the DA-42 for my CMEL was a breeze and I loved it even more than the 40. I flew at a school that LifeStyle is very familiar with and my have something to do with one of the tail # in this video
Having over 12,000 hours, including 2,000 hours of dual given, I was anticipating a hit job on the DA40. I’m pleasantly surprised that your treatment of the DA40 is spot on. The real selling point is that the DA40 is one of the best flying aircraft I have ever flown. The stick is such an honest straightforward input you literally become unaware of your movements. I sold dozens of DA40s for a dealer and it was always a satisfying day when I could put 3 adults in the plane and demo all the necessary maneuvers for a private license including accelerated stalls effortlessly and safely. Best single engine aircraft in its class by an order of magnitude.
This old man likes using doors instead of canopies to get in and out of planes, especially on bad weather days. Doors may be better too if the plane winds up upside down after a mishap.
Learned to fly in a DA-20. Love the Katana’s low wing and stick. Over time got checked out in a 150 and a 172.The Cessna with it’s big trim wheel and yoke floats along reminding me of a pontoon boat. Both fun to fly. I didn’t realize how much safer the Diamond appears to be. Not too crazy about the possibility of being trapped in the DA if it became inverted in a landing mishap. Didn’t seem like this was as much a comparison as a Diamond Aircraft sales piece.
Im glad that i started my flight training in the diamond, so ill always have a soft spot for diamond aircraft. At the end of the day the DA40 glides better, its safer and its less cluttered making it a little easier for people new to flying to stay with the aircraft. Only downside of the diamond i can think of is the fact that if lightening hits you that airframe will shatter into a billion peices. Great video!
As a private pilot I learned on a Cessna 150 and 172 back in the 1970's. Most of my time was in a 172 and some 182, but i also flew some low wing aircraft like the Grumman Tiger, Piper Cherokee and the Mooney 201. Your Diamond is a marvel of current technology and would be amazing to fly. Good review of features and functions comparing aircraft. Diamond really put a lot of thought into building this aircraft.
One thing about the DA40 concerns me about safety. When I was a student pilot somebody was talking about a Piper Tomahawk for sale and my flight instructors comment was "It's a deathtrap. You can not recover from a spin." I was discussing that with somebody who told me he was one of very few people who ever recovered from a spin in a Tomahawk and it was because his father was a better pilot than he was and told him that on the count of 3 they needed to lean forward hard and fast to change the center of gravity to break the stall and get out of the spin. They were lucky. There is not enough airflow over the surface of the elevator with a T tail to get the nose down to break a stall. Just because a plane is not rated for spins does not mean that they will never enter a spin.
I have done many (deliberate) stalls and spins in a T-tailed aircraft, and never had a problem recovering to normal flight. It's unfair to imply that all T-tail aircraft are unrecoverable from a spin.
The problem with spins in the Tomahawk isn't getting out of them. It's with people who panic and come out of them too abruptly. Pulling up to recover can overstress the aircraft. You have to let the spin develop, then recover smoothly and gently. (Obviously, this is not a good thing on an approach stall/spin.)
@@geoffreytofte4049 I've flown Cirrus. The manual pretty much tells you that as long as you're above four or five hundred feet above the ground, any major problem is grounds for pulling the handle. Not too long ago, a Cirrus lost engine power taking off from an airport very close to my home. They tried to land in a cornfield, but the ground was too soft; the plane flipped, and both occupants died. Edited to add: Judging by the ADS-B data, they were high enough to pull the parachute when the engine started having trouble. It is likely that they were high enough to pull it when they realized that they wouldn't make it back to the airport, and decided to attempt landing in the field. Pilots are human, and humans have a hard time being rational when under pressure. There is a tendency to fix a situation rather than do something that they know will damage the plane (pulling the parachute definitely damages the plane.) We forget that the plane is ultimately disposable. It can be replaced. It is much more important to protect the people inside, who can't be replaced. As to spins -- If you're high enough, you can recover from a spin. Try that first. If it doesn't work, then you pull the handle. If you don't have the altitude, then pulling the handle is the first response.
Owning a 172N with a CD155 retrofit. That’s a great combination- more power and range for less noise! The DA 40 is extremely nice with an efficient airframe. I like instructing and flying more the DA 40 2.0S with the CD155. This configuration of the Mercedes Diesel Engine is much lighter resulting in a even better handling and power characteristics then with the heavy Austro Engine. Nice comparison video😊
I trained on both, both have their advantages and disadvantages, if I was going to own one personally, as much as I love flying the DA-40, I'd still go with the C172 because of the availability of cheap spare parts, and the ease of repairs, mechanical parts are much easier and cheaper to fix than computers If you have to do a forced landing in the middle of nowhere because an engine control computer failed, you're stuck there until you walk close enough to town to get phone signal If something mechanical breaks, for example the magneto (assume both of them broke) You could take them both apart and cannibalize one so you can repair the other to at least get yourself back in the air Non computerized parts are far easier to jury rig back into working order, which could mean the difference between flying back to civilization with a cool story to tell, vs having it etched onto your tombstone
The C-172 is built like a tank and comfortable to fly. The high wing helps with the sun. Both planes have pros and cons. The C-172 is just such a tank that it lasts and lasts and can take so much abuse and is easy to fix.
Hey great video, I am a pilot trainee on DA 40 NG. You have said most of it but some points I would like to add are the advantage that my Cessna friends have than us is that during cruise they get more shade and less sun exposure and better landing performance due it's high wing design, other than that Diamond beats on most things.
I agree. As a glider pilot I used to sneer at the Cessna spam cans and Diamonds were the natural preference. Until I got to fly (right seat) in a T210. Boy, what a platform. Like a house flying through the air.
I’ve flown the 172, DA40, DA42, and the DA62… the big drawback on the DA40 and DA42 is that, if it rains, you can’t get in or out, because opening the canopy exposes everything (avionics and co). The DA62 isn’t as bad, because the doors provide some more protection.
I did my Private on a DA40 and Instrument on a 172. Both are great but the Diamonds pushrods and stick feel so much better in the air. Also worth mentioning that the larger window and overhead wings on the Cessna help you keep cooler on a hot day.
As a student pilot, I started my initial flight training with a C160, which I also did my first solo on. Then, I flew the C172 for my cross country. Agree that the C172 is a great aircraft and very reliable to fly. I marvel the Diamond D840, but beyond my budget. Great educational video.
Great video - I also have both planes, or course I have the and older Diamond DA40 before they made some of the improvements. Still a great plane and very flexible. Had a bird strike in both planes and the experience in the Cessna felt like a non event compared to the canopy of the Diamond cracking and a bird ending up inside . Of course $14k later all was good .
$14,000 is what I paid for my Cessna 150K ten years ago. Still a good plane today with no major maintenance costs except $2,000 to add ADSB out. Hard to believe a new C-172 costs over $500k. DA40 has incredible performance - you are lucky to have one.
John Armstrong you are a king ... that was an amazingly well-done video. Thank you so much. For those who are complaining that this is not a fair and balanced comparison ... you are right. He is the owner / founder of one of the largest Diamond distributors in North America, so what do you expect. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing to answer the question, "which airplane is better" I'll cut to the credits and tell you - it's the Diamond.
Cessna built an improved C172. It was called the Cardinal - C177 (~1968-1975). I owned one for about 15 years. Flush rivet heads on about 30% of the wing (leading edge). Also it didn't have wing struts. It was a bit more efficient than the C172, It was also a bit more expensive to produce than the C172. If I were still flying, I'd get a DA40, period..
I prefer the Cardinal RG, upgraded with a turbocharger, 200 kt cruise, good visibility, range at altitude beats the Diamond, not sensitive to UV as all painted fiberglass wings are, unless a heavy gell coat with Al mini flakes protects the Epoxy resin.
Cessna and Piper keep their original design from the 50's to these days ,however Dimond came throught with modern efficient materials , and a very comfortable seats on recline configuration
@@Paiadakine True. It's ironic because the certification process was designed to improve and assure safety, has lead to a situation that degraded safety due to the high cost ensuring manufactures keep using old designs devoid of over 50 years of gained knowledge and technology about crash worthiness and engine management. It would be like if car design from the 50s with no airbags, no restraints, no crumple zones, no thought to occupant protection at all were still being used today.
I fly them both and prefer the DA40, but when it comes to short grass strips, I take the Cessna. Also when I go photoshooting, I take the Cessna, and open the window 🙂
Have you tried the Beech sundowner with its forgiving trailing link landing gear and similated gear retracting lever, best for commercial certificate training.
Man, the initial part is so fantastic... The father flew a B-17 and the uncle flew a P-51... wow... And congrats for the video, specially about differences between aircrafts and not just personal preference.
I came into this video ready to nay say and poo poo the DA40 but my sense of integrity forces me to fess up. This was probably one of the best comparison videos I've ever seen and I'm left wanting one of these DA40 aircraft in a bad way! I love the 172s that I trained in but if given an opportunity I think I'd grab a DA40 in a heartbeat! I loved the fact that it has a Jet A burning power plant. Cessna had some aborted attempts at creating one of these but never could get the engine right but diamond seems to have knocked it out of the park! The amount of storage space behind the two front seats is pretty impressive as well along with the fact that with the open upward type of doors you've got a huge hole to put cargo in through. The only place the 172 appears to excel is in providing a sun shade over the folks in the cockpit on a hot day with its high wing. At the end of the day I guess it's going to depend on what your mission is. If you're doing pipeline surveys and photo runs then a high wing is probably going to make more sense. For practically everything else though the DA-40 will carry the day.
Back in 2017 I did my EASA CPL on the DA40 and DA42. Wonderful aircraft both of them. If you compare them with a Cessna or Piper, the Diamond feels like a Rolls Royce.
I have only been able to afford one formal flight lesson, but have been blessed to be at the controls of a few of my friends airplanes. The Katana was by far my favorite, and when I get to the place to be able to afford to take more lessons, the Katana would be my aircraft of choice!
Well thought out and detailed presentation. If only I could afford one. I would have mentioned the slight difference in high wing / low wing float on landing.
I flew C 152 and C 172 , before very interesting video with so much information , after watching this video I would love to try that DA 40 for sure , Tks for sharing
Nice job! As with many other commenters, I have quite a bit of time in both. For stick and rudder, you cannot beat the feel of the DA40. The C172 feels like a truck by comparison. The one saving grace of the 172 is that it makes for a solid instrument training platform...it's boring and predictable, precisely what you need when you're learning instrument flying! I haven't had a chance to fly IFR in a DA40, but I'm now flying a Lancair 360 which is conceptually similar to the DA40, just faster and more responsive. Based on that experience, I would hazard a guess that the C172 edges out for IFR training (I'm trying to be kind!)
Very thorough description of both aircraft, excellent job. However, it should be pointed out that the rudder was grabbed at the do-not-handle icon graphic (@ 12:07).
@@Thealmostfitpilot Drop an apple; it's ok, blame it on Newton. But drop a Rolex and you're gonna blame yourself for the time of your life, if this makes any sense. 😍😍
Yeah, but.... The NG is the high end version, their standard version burns AV Gas. Bubble canopies are cool looking, and they also make great solar cookers. An AC is almost a requirement in them. A leak on a 172's door is not the same as a leak in the overhead canopy. To repeat the age old high vs low wing argument, high wings are harder to clean, fuel, etc. but give better visibility for 99.999% of the flight. Low wing planes require stepping on "slippery when wet" wings when getting in / out. The 172 does not have a fuel pump. I've lost a fuel pump in a car. The 172 does not have coolant/antifreeze to check, or a radiator to leak. Air cooled engines are crude in comparison, but very reliable. I can appreciate the 1 magneto / 1 computer ignition system. I don't like the "plane stops flying if the computer quits", like in my car. The 172 will cruise about 120 KIAS, the NG specs show a little better. In the end, we shall see which fares better.
Nice video. You're fan of the Diamond. That's for sure. Haha.. Cessna. Indeed, the high cockpit. Front view and climb view is not fine on the Cessna's.
This is really neat comparison between the Cessna and the Diamond. I think the Diamond is my next plane to get used to. These guys also have a comparison video between the Diamond and the Cirrus SR-22. I’ll be watching that, too. All I can say about the Diamond is Wow!
I started my pilot training in da40 , spent a bit over 100 hours in it and finish the last few dozen of hours in c172. Gotta say learning 172 is kinda painfully, made me feel like driving an old farm tractor. The heavy control stick and 20th century style throttle handle took a lot of getting use to.
This is a fantastic video! Well edited and very informative -- just tell the editor to put a more vibrant color pass on it, please. As a production company owner, this drives me nuts :)
My bit questions are. 1. Ingress takes a bit of non standard gyration in the DA40NG. Pax has to get up on the wing, swing around and work their way in, kind of like a sports care. The C172 is pretty standard slide in and access the back the way you do on a two door car. I believe it depends on how you bend and twist. Getting our require arm lift and strength and leg lift from an awkward position on the DA40NG. I can see some liking one or the other but not both. 2. The C172 has a natural sun shade and how is the DA40NG? I never had a problem with visibility in flying C150/2 and 172. Before you turned you had a good look and you equally have a good look coming wings level again. The visibility in the DA40NG is fabulous no question. I don't know that I would call the C172 as a disadvantage as much as the DA40NG a whole new approach (assuming the glass does not cook your head).
The “g” factor of the Cessna 172 cabin is not mentioned but is in fact greater than that of the DA40. Much mention of the DA40 doors is made - how do you get out if the aircraft goes over on its back? Normal access and egress needs a climb onto the wing. The interior is invariably damp during winter due to the egress during rain pouring straight onto the seats. So when it’s raining there’s a mad rush to get in before you’re sitting in a puddle and then you have to be a contortionist to plug in your headset. If anything is placed on the dashboard it is vulnerable to slipping right off onto the ground and smashing. I’ve seen a few I Pads destroyed in this way. All in all the ergonomics of the DA40 are far inferior to the Cessna 172. Then there’s the aileron drag from those control surfaces leveraging so far out on those long wings requiring the co-ordination of a glider pilot rather than that of the airline pilot that most trainees are working towards becoming. Again not mentioned - the Cessna 172 can also be equipped with a diesel.
Enjoyed some IFR training in the Diamond. The FADEC engine control is a game changer. But getting in and out of the DA-40 was uncomfortable. Plus my passenger would find the center stick an inconvenience Rode as a back seat passenger in the DA-42. Now that was decent. Maybe a Tecnam which combines the ease of access of a high wing with the modern engine technology would be an option.
@@aelisenko I’ve heard it is. I wonder how simple it is for someone renting the aircraft though. As an owner to be able to leave it out would be great, though there is the consideration of leaving the passenger without an emergency backup.
15:34 Loved seeing the truck pull up with the UN1863 markings for "FUEL, AVIATION, TURBINE ENGINE". High quality video production getting the details right!
Buying a C172 maybe have sense only in The USA. Here in Europe they are desappearing everywere since long time in favour of the DA40 or others more modern ones.
Best I ever saw showing the capabilities and capacity of the DA-40. I have flown the 172, and fuel inspection in cold Minnesota spring weather in no fun. And Howard Hughes demanded flush rivets in his planes about 100 years ago and these draggy rivets still show up on new aluminum aircraft. Worst of all, if an airplane had an 0-320 engine (carburated) and I wanted to use the IO-320 (injected) to replace it, FAA rules do not allow that switch and there is no STC (supplemental Type Certificate) to allow the more modern, virtually identical engine. Some people fly small aircraft across an ocean. Good luck finding 100LL outside of North America. So the DA-40 using universal Jet-A is a better idea.
The 172 is easier and cheaper maintenance and repair. Used ones are less expensive for those getting into flying. Flying is expensive. More than it use to be. This keeps the average income folks out.
Absolutely fantastic video. I first saw a DA-42 in Pooler, GA ant the Savannah Int airport and fell in love with the diamond aircraft. I would love to fly one, it's my favorite GA aircraft.
Lifestyle is a Diamond dealer, but I thought John's treatment of the Cessna was fair and complimentary. There are serious differences, and the Diamond has Cessna beat on every technology score. Do the math on the fuel - the DA40 gets better MPG than an economy SUV (30+ miles per gallon at cruise). The Cessna clocks in at 11 - less than a crew cab diesel pickup. The one thing I really don't like about the Diamond is the center stick. Just uncomfortable for a longer flight - you cannot even cross your legs. I noticed John conveniently skipped over the control stick. Diamond started with glider designers - I read their first aircraft was a "powered glider" model. Add to that the fact Europeans just don't have as far to fly. My two homes in the USA are the same distance as London is from Belarus. And I haven't even left the east coast (or traveled most of it's length). Also, it's slow. Again - Europe is smaller than North America. Those sensibilities show in this design. I like the DA40 for a small family plane for short trips. I wouldn't do a real cross country in one often. That's why I have A+ on Southwest. Am I shopping? Yes. The DA40 is one of our top 3 planes. If it weren't for that center stick, It'd be #1.
I was flying a da40 last week and going to flight school cook out today to learn more about the da40. I can’t compare between the 2 but if I had to pick I know which one 🛩️🤷♂️
wow, great comparison! i didn't know anything about diamonds and modern GA aircaft so this was really quite enlightening! what an amazing piece of engineering this is.
My son trained in a Diamond… had his first crash in one too. They don’t handle flight schools very well so they rotate them out much quicker than the aluminum Cessnas. The d40 is a beautiful aircraft, uncomfortable seats and if your over 6 ft you won’t fit.
Great video, very little to criticise apart from some engineering data. Kevlar (aramid), isn’t carbon fibre. Composites includes carbon fibre, glass fibre and aramid - plus a few more materials you cannot see. Both are great planes but the DA40 gets my vote.
As an instructor my concern with the Diamond with students would be not being able to teach stall / spin recovery. I had a C150 Aerobat and I beat stall spin recovery into the brains of my students. There is no better way to teach angle of attack than doing loops and split S recoveries! If all you are ever going to fly is the Diamond then go first it!
The C172 is just no match for the Diamond. C172 is a solid plane, dependable but when you see the nextgen its just wow. The interior of the Cessna screams 1970s even in the brand new ones. Theres only so much you can do. Why doesn't Cessna design a similar composite plane to counter DA40? Excellent video very well produced. Just found your channel thanks to seeing both these planes in a new game I got - Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. Subbed!
I guess ut depends on What the school has for you to learn in and cessna is still selling plenty of 172's. I looked at the DA-40 but way too expensive and some of them had delamination issues. I wound up with a Cardinal RG. Amazing visibility up or down, passengers can easily get in the back seats with pilots up front and I do about 140 knots at under 10GPH, the cockpit is wider that a 182 or even a 210 (no bumping shoulders at all!), rear passengers have ENORMOUS legroom and I have a huge CG range. Ok, the Diamond has a small speed advantage with fixed gear but I saved about 350,000 for a plane with new engine, prop and Avionics. Make no mistake, half a century certainly has its advantages but, I really love my Cardinal!
Don't throw the high wing cessna's under the bus. Their flight envelope and runway capabilities make them a very useful and sought after airplane. The DA is good for fair weather and long smooth runways. Anything other than that and they connot compete with the 172. Don't get me wrong, I love how fast and economical the DA aircraft are but... Take a look at resale value of the same year and flight hrs, the 172 wins hands down all day long. Why? Parts availability, ease of maintenance, Available STD's and engine choices (not the STD's you were worried about in college although you'd have a better go of that in a 172 too ;), useful to a larger segment of pilots, the list is longer than the DA wingspan! Flight schools are about their only market due to the strict control of it's flight environment and low cost per hr.
The U.S. Air Force stopped using the DA-40 and switched to the Cirrus SR-20. Apparently it wasn’t as good as they thought it was. Something about climb performance and structural maintenance. Of course Diamond wasn’t happy about it. However the Cessna 172 T41 is still being used by their flying team along with their T51 Cessna 150s . I might fly the DA-40 in the future, who knows I might like it. But I know the Cessna 172 and the 150/152s really well and am comfortable flying them. The DA-40 hasn’t been around long enough to know how they will fare after years of flying and abuse from student pilots. As old as the 172 is we know that a new 172 will be flying 70 to 80 years from now. Because 170s and the first 172s are still flying today. That tell me I know it’s a great plane to have. It’s reliable. And rugged. If I’m traveling I’m thinking luggage not bicycles, so that luggage compartment in the 172 is just fine. I’m sure I could probably get a bicycle in the back of a 172 if I don’t carry any passengers back there, which is what you did with the DA-40. Safety wise the DA-40 has a good record so far. But with only around a little over 2,200 built as of Dec 2020. I’m sure there may be quite a bit more now but compared to Cessna’s 172 most produced airplanes around at over 44,000 and still in production. Makes it probably the greatest aircraft in history by sheer numbers.
Our Cessna 150J (N51305), after the different modifications could take off as low as 12knots. Our father was flying one day, was cleared to land. Then a few Apache helicopters got cleared to land. The helicopters were below the airplane. So my dad got in between and flew along with them. When they landed vertically, so did he and then he taxied off to the hanger. The military helicopter pilots went looking for our airplane. They even asked the control tower guy, where this vtol aircraft went. Even NASA DRYDEN at Edwards Air Force Base worked with our airplane.
Learned in pipers. Had to do some cross country in a 172 between my PPL and IFR. Never liked that blinded in turn thing. Yeah, a little better down views in a high wing but I will keep my low wings
Only problem with the DA40 is the way the canopy opens. In a rain storm the interior is gonna get pretty wet, I must be old fashion because I'd still take the 172 any day. As we know, getting parts, service and repairs is never a problem. I've flown Cessnas all over the world and never had a problem finding someone to work on them. But the Diamond's engine with all the computers? Nope, not for me.
Okay, okay its pretty obvious you sell, own or are pushing the Diamond. I get it sir. but, I own a 172N and love it for all it is, not what it isn't. Yes there are many new more expensive aircraft that are modern, go faster and offer new technology that make them great GA aircraft. If I could afford and or was looking for a new airplane, I would for sure look into a Diamond. Glade to see the new tech and how it is making GA flying even better!
I own and operate both Cessnas and a DA40, and have thousands on hours in both combined. This video was fantastic. Diamond is incomparably superior though !
Agree 100%...
The doors speak for themselves, one opens like a ferrari and the other a honda. I want the one with cool doors 😅
Has there been any concern brought up about egress from a flip-over accident in the diamond? I know it would certainly be exceedingly rare, but would stink to be trapped in the airplane after a crash with the possibility of fire all around you and no way to get the doors open. Hopefully the windows would also pop out in the accident.
@@Spastuscat the back door disconnects at the hinge after pulling the emergency exit lever. And there is also an emergency glass breaking “hammer” underneath the passenger seat for use on the canopy glass.
@@fkntourist Thanks! I figured there had to be something like that, but I've never seen it mentioned.
It is difficult digesting that a cessna 172 or Diamond DA40 are over half million dollars. I believe it has become obvious that GA has become completely out of reach for the common middle-class hard working person. It is simply ridiculous the cost of aircraft -- even an old junker.
Unfortunately aviation will always remain a niche industry with thoroughly limited market participants compared to other markets, and unfortunately the cost is increasing significantly every year.
The "entry fee" into this market is already restrictive and dare I say "exclusive". Flight training is expensive and not available to everyone due to cost, medical deferments, etc. Many people do not have $20,000-$30,000 of disposable income to get their Private Pilot's license either. So simply by this initial requirement does a limited number of people exist that are pilots.
To that end, According to the FAA only 840,000 people have active airmen certificates as of 2023. 300k of which are student pilots. Ignoring the student population as they are likely using rentals, lets assume that no student pilot is buying a brand new airplane, that would leave only 500k people in the US out of 300 million that are even qualified to potentially buy a brand new Cessna or Diamond. And yet, in 2023 only 180 Cessna 172's were sold. 750,000 Ford F150's were sold that same year, for comparison.
especially on the used aircraft market there are several planes which are relatively affordable. The stringent safety regulations and often low hours on GA planes make the age quite differently than cars and a 50-year old Cherokee is often a perfectly pleasant plane.
In addition in Europe ULs are slowly replacing recreational GAs
That said: if I were in a position to buy a new plane I certainly wouldn't buy something as old-fashioned as a C172.
Thats why you rent
The price of aircraft (or any goods & services really) is defined by what the market will bear. In a commodity driven industry there is not one person or company that sets the price. The price is set by you and me and the rest of our aviation friends.
Not everyone can afford (nor should they) an airplane. It is not intended to be for use by the "middle class" because the "middle class" does not have the resources. I tell my students that the reason there are Chevys and Cadillacs. Not everyone can afford a Cadillac, nor should they. I suggestion is for the "middle class" to get more high demand education (STEM) and earn more money. Then that person can transition to the "Upper Middle class" where they can afford an airplane or Cadillac.
@@athensdawgsuga3815As someone with rotorcraft and fix wing ratings the big draw back is if you fly on vacation you are stuck paying a daily minimum when the aircraft is parked.
I learned to fly in a C172 and now I have a DA40NG.
Both are excellent trainers, but a DA40NG is superior, as it is a plane of a new age.
Congrats on your airplane! Couldn't agree more. It's always fun to watch Skyhawk pilots make the transition.
Can you explain me, which one is better to get PPL?
@@Just_Viktor PPL end goal or CPL end goal ?
DA40NG is a terrible move for cpl. There's no mixture or prop control which is easier to fly but most employers won't touch a low time pilot without the experience with mixture and prop control as most airplanes still used today have those features
Most employers won't hire a pilot without jet or turbojet time. 🤠
What about the maitanence cost and availability for the composite airframe? I heard it's a pain in the ass to repair, even minor cracks are a huge deal for your wallet... Is that true?
The safety of the Diamond is a HUGE factor in these two models. I have a few hundred hours in a 172, but in my opinion, the DA40 far surpasses it. Great video!
Until you flip the planes during a emergency landing, good luck getting out of a DA40. C172 would be no issue getting out in a upset emergency.
@@JetsiahPOV You're right - - you'd have no issue getting out of the C172 because you'd be dead from the aircraft crumpling like a spam can. Take a look at the safety records of both aircraft. The DA40 may not last 50+ years like a C172 due to it being a plastic plane, but while it's flying it'll keep you very safe. The front seats are part of the structure of the aircraft.
@@grayrabbit2211 Well it all depends on how you strike the surface, my friend flew a Cessna 206 into the rocky shore of Hudson Bay at cruise speed, the airplane was destroyed and it burnt leaving only ashes in the shape of a aircraft, he was able to exit as it started burning when they rescued him he was ok
The cessna would give you a fuel shower, if you land a little too hard.
For what it’s worth, composite can last a very long time if cared for properly (and often even when it’s not). Tons and tons of fiberglass boats from the 70s still around.
Having flown both and given instruction in both, I'm partial to the DA40... however the 172 is still a great aircraft and you can't go wrong with either.
I started my flight training in the 172’s back in the ‘80’s. When I came back to flight training in ‘08 I found the DA-40’s and fell in love. The feel of flying the aircraft felt more natural. It was very easy to pick up. The school I finished my training in offered both the 172 and DA-40, but there was a price difference. And it was well worth it. My dream now is to find shared ownership in one. Heck, win the lottery and get the DA-62❤.
I fly both... DA40 when the weather is nice (ie: below 82F), C172 for everything else. The DA40 definitely is a dream to fly, whereas it feels like I'm wrestling the C172. BUT, I'm in Florida. The heat, humidity, and rain are brutal here. Being able to taxi/fly with the windows open and having a solid roof rather than plexiglass/perspex bubble over your head, especially when it's August, 95F with 50% humidity and you're putting along at 1500' underneath a Bravo shelf, is priceless. Likewise, entering and exiting a high-wing in rain is far more pleasant than popping open the canopy in a DA40 in rain. High wing ain't sexy, but it's extremely practical.
If I ever had the money, I think I'd go for a DA50RG w/aircon. That would fix 90% of my gripes with the DA40.
At the same time, the leading edges of the DA40's wings get chewed up pretty bad when flying in rain. We just had to have ours repaired. Likewise, anyone can field-repair panels on a C172. Not so much for the plastic planes.
Agree. I fly in Southern CA where it is hot. I will stick with the 172. That plane may not be sexy but it's a tank and it's more comfortable.
I work on the Cessnas daily, but no experience with the DAs. Do they not offer erosion strips for leading edges?
Our school's Barons have erosion material on the radome. It's taken quite a beating over the years, but the dome is still in good shape.
@@eclectichoosier5474I’m a student learning the DA40 in Tennessee. Our planes don’t suffer any leading edge damage, even the “old” 20 year ones. Only thing I ever see is some speed tape around some areas, but that’s the buffer on the wing for fuel tank maintenance.
Having flown many hours in C 172 and C 182 I now fly Diamond and the Italian Techam2008 aricraft. Their flight behavior and fuel consumption show that they really are planes of a new aera. If the Europeans would not have developed these modern energy efficient planes, private flying might have almost disappeared by now because of fuel prices, at least in Europe.
Tecnam is a great design. I would like to see a Diamond with high wings. The new Sling with high wings is a winner. Sling informs me a TDI is too heavy for their airframe.
How do your avfuel costs compare w/100ll?
How do your av fuel costs compare w/100 LL
The tecnam p2006t is beautiful
@@JohnPruitt-su8fe At least here in Germany we pay around 2,8€/litre for AVGAS100LL and around 2€/litre for JET A1. And the jet fuel engins consumes even less per hour. My flying club has even a 172 diesel conversion, which is basically the same engine the DA40 has (google "Thielert engine"), only with a little bit less power. But therefore it is also rated for regular Diesel fuel. That being said, I'm a huge fan of Diesel powered air planes and I would love to fly the DA40. The only disadvantages I can see in the DA40 is how you wet everything when you hop in while it's raining and how it heats up in summer. But that's an issue with mostly all low wing designs.
I've known several salesmen in my life but you, by far, are a leader in the aviation field. You have focused my attention onto a "new" product similar in use but with so many updated features. Yes, the Cessna is an industry standard however it is time for others to shine such as the Diamond. It is an exceptional machine with a ton of desirable features! Stunning comparison and notably the Diamond is a star.
The DA40 is a superior plane that’s for sure, but the Cessna 172 has some advantages for itself.
It is easier and cheaper to repare plus you easily find spare part all around the wold.
It is also way cheaper to buy in second hand.
it is a more robust aircraft and can be used to land almost everywhere on any field
It has a shorter wingspan, making it less efficient but giving it less ground clearance, I’ve seen video of 172 landing on narrow strip inside forest
It is also an iconic aircraft, really I love to see them in great shape like the one in this video.
The Cessna is still a great modern aircraft but the Diamonds is futureproof
You got it! Diamond has not really figured out the used plane market. Cessna is a way better choice if buying used and this is coming from a HUGE Diamond fan/pilot.
You wrote a whole list, all that sold me to the DA40 was the cool opening doors. I'm just a simple creature 😅
The parts things is why the flight school I was working at decided to not go with the Diamond. When something broke on the Diamond it could take weeks or longer to get replacement parts and at least one plane would be down till the parts came in. As it was explained to me, they had to send the broken art to Diamond and wait for the new one, and they weren’t allowed to stock parts for when they did break
@@omirlino Not true. I work for a flying school that has a fleet of about 60 DA-40's. We have enough parts in our store room to build 5 or so aircraft from scratch!
Parts aren't cheap though!
@@samuelkundael3503 Those doors are the one true negative of the DA40. In many parts of the world it's often raining when you get in/out of the plane. In the DA40, the entire inside is soaked if its raining.
I really loved this video. Showing the upside of the DA40 without badmouthing the competitor. Really well done.
I love everything about Diamonds... and definitely want to own one!
John Armstrong, your insightful comparison between the Diamond DA40 NG and the Cessna 172 S is truly illuminating. Your breakdown of their history, design, materials, and features showcases how these two aircraft have evolved to cater to different needs and eras.
I trained in 172’s and now my club just acquired a DA40. I’m looking forward to flying in it.
As someone who got my PPL, IR, and CSEL in the DA40 I can say that I fell in love on my very first flight, its a very easy aircraft to fly; the only problem I had transitioning from a 152 was when I would pull WAAAY too much on my flare, the pushrods really do make more precise inputs. Also transitioning into the DA-42 for my CMEL was a breeze and I loved it even more than the 40. I flew at a school that LifeStyle is very familiar with and my have something to do with one of the tail # in this video
I can’t wait to start flying on the DA42!!
Having over 12,000 hours, including 2,000 hours of dual given, I was anticipating a hit job on the DA40.
I’m pleasantly surprised that your treatment of the DA40 is spot on.
The real selling point is that the DA40 is one of the best flying aircraft I have ever flown.
The stick is such an honest straightforward input you literally become unaware of your movements.
I sold dozens of DA40s for a dealer and it was always a satisfying day when I could put 3 adults in the plane and demo all the necessary maneuvers for a private license including accelerated stalls effortlessly and safely.
Best single engine aircraft in its class by an order of magnitude.
This is awesome feedback! Thanks for your comment :)
Master. Has. 28000 hours on te concired. Or more mist super sonic concored hours
This old man likes using doors instead of canopies to get in and out of planes, especially on bad weather days. Doors may be better too if the plane winds up upside down after a mishap.
Damn good point, thank you!
That’s why the passenger area has an emergency pull handle that allows a side exit. Still, it’s only on one side provided you can’t break the window.
Learned to fly in a DA-20. Love the Katana’s low wing and stick. Over time got checked out in a 150 and a 172.The Cessna with it’s big trim wheel and yoke floats along reminding me of a pontoon boat. Both fun to fly. I didn’t realize how much safer the Diamond appears to be. Not too crazy about the possibility of being trapped in the DA if it became inverted in a landing mishap. Didn’t seem like this was as much a comparison as a Diamond Aircraft sales piece.
Did you finish all your training at kanata aviation high river, alberta?
@@jayanth777 Baltimore, Md
Im glad that i started my flight training in the diamond, so ill always have a soft spot for diamond aircraft. At the end of the day the DA40 glides better, its safer and its less cluttered making it a little easier for people new to flying to stay with the aircraft. Only downside of the diamond i can think of is the fact that if lightening hits you that airframe will shatter into a billion peices. Great video!
As a private pilot I learned on a Cessna 150 and 172 back in the 1970's. Most of my time was in a 172 and some 182, but i also flew some low wing aircraft like the Grumman Tiger, Piper Cherokee and the Mooney 201. Your Diamond is a marvel of current technology and would be amazing to fly. Good review of features and functions comparing aircraft. Diamond really put a lot of thought into building this aircraft.
One thing about the DA40 concerns me about safety. When I was a student pilot somebody was talking about a Piper Tomahawk for sale and my flight instructors comment was "It's a deathtrap. You can not recover from a spin." I was discussing that with somebody who told me he was one of very few people who ever recovered from a spin in a Tomahawk and it was because his father was a better pilot than he was and told him that on the count of 3 they needed to lean forward hard and fast to change the center of gravity to break the stall and get out of the spin. They were lucky. There is not enough airflow over the surface of the elevator with a T tail to get the nose down to break a stall. Just because a plane is not rated for spins does not mean that they will never enter a spin.
I have done many (deliberate) stalls and spins in a T-tailed aircraft, and never had a problem recovering to normal flight. It's unfair to imply that all T-tail aircraft are unrecoverable from a spin.
The problem with spins in the Tomahawk isn't getting out of them. It's with people who panic and come out of them too abruptly. Pulling up to recover can overstress the aircraft. You have to let the spin develop, then recover smoothly and gently. (Obviously, this is not a good thing on an approach stall/spin.)
I believe cirrus POH says if you enter a spin , pull the oh $h!t handle aka the parachute
@@geoffreytofte4049 I've flown Cirrus. The manual pretty much tells you that as long as you're above four or five hundred feet above the ground, any major problem is grounds for pulling the handle.
Not too long ago, a Cirrus lost engine power taking off from an airport very close to my home. They tried to land in a cornfield, but the ground was too soft; the plane flipped, and both occupants died.
Edited to add: Judging by the ADS-B data, they were high enough to pull the parachute when the engine started having trouble. It is likely that they were high enough to pull it when they realized that they wouldn't make it back to the airport, and decided to attempt landing in the field.
Pilots are human, and humans have a hard time being rational when under pressure. There is a tendency to fix a situation rather than do something that they know will damage the plane (pulling the parachute definitely damages the plane.) We forget that the plane is ultimately disposable. It can be replaced. It is much more important to protect the people inside, who can't be replaced.
As to spins -- If you're high enough, you can recover from a spin. Try that first. If it doesn't work, then you pull the handle. If you don't have the altitude, then pulling the handle is the first response.
@@eclectichoosier5474 lol @ first par.
One of the best reviews ever seen. Literally. From airplanes, cars, pc, you name it. This should be a manual for everyone. Thank you.
After flying a Diamond DA40, I’ve become a huge fan of the aircraft.
Owning a 172N with a CD155 retrofit. That’s a great combination- more power and range for less noise! The DA 40 is extremely nice with an efficient airframe. I like instructing and flying more the DA 40 2.0S with the CD155. This configuration of the Mercedes Diesel Engine is much lighter resulting in a even better handling and power characteristics then with the heavy Austro Engine. Nice comparison video😊
I trained on both, both have their advantages and disadvantages, if I was going to own one personally, as much as I love flying the DA-40, I'd still go with the C172 because of the availability of cheap spare parts, and the ease of repairs, mechanical parts are much easier and cheaper to fix than computers
If you have to do a forced landing in the middle of nowhere because an engine control computer failed, you're stuck there until you walk close enough to town to get phone signal
If something mechanical breaks, for example the magneto (assume both of them broke)
You could take them both apart and cannibalize one so you can repair the other to at least get yourself back in the air
Non computerized parts are far easier to jury rig back into working order, which could mean the difference between flying back to civilization with a cool story to tell, vs having it etched onto your tombstone
The C-172 is built like a tank and comfortable to fly. The high wing helps with the sun. Both planes have pros and cons. The C-172 is just such a tank that it lasts and lasts and can take so much abuse and is easy to fix.
Hey great video, I am a pilot trainee on DA 40 NG. You have said most of it but some points I would like to add are the advantage that my Cessna friends have than us is that during cruise they get more shade and less sun exposure and better landing performance due it's high wing design, other than that Diamond beats on most things.
Yes, the 172 gets shade and is really comfortable. Love it for that. I am flying a Piper which fly nice but not as comfortable and its hot.
You can install a parachute on the Cessna and not the diamond. For this reason alone the Cessna is better
I have flown both but appreciate the Cessna more.
C172 = roomier, two doors easy in and out, two windows that open, and SHADE.
I agree. As a glider pilot I used to sneer at the Cessna spam cans and Diamonds were the natural preference.
Until I got to fly (right seat) in a T210. Boy, what a platform. Like a house flying through the air.
I’ve flown the 172, DA40, DA42, and the DA62… the big drawback on the DA40 and DA42 is that, if it rains, you can’t get in or out, because opening the canopy exposes everything (avionics and co). The DA62 isn’t as bad, because the doors provide some more protection.
Both fantastic planes, I wouldn’t mind owning either one… great video
I did my Private on a DA40 and Instrument on a 172. Both are great but the Diamonds pushrods and stick feel so much better in the air. Also worth mentioning that the larger window and overhead wings on the Cessna help you keep cooler on a hot day.
I have a lot of hours logged in the 172 but I really would love to get checked out in the Diamond. GREAT comparison video.
What a cool video! 👍 nice detailed explanation on every detail.
We're glad you enjoyed! Thanks for watching!
As a student pilot, I started my initial flight training with a C160, which I also did my first solo on. Then, I flew the C172 for my cross country. Agree that the C172 is a great aircraft and very reliable to fly. I marvel the Diamond D840, but beyond my budget. Great educational video.
Holy shit you started with C-160 Transall?
you mean C-150
I guess you mean c-150 or C-172: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessna_160
300-500k for a used DA40 vs 60-90k for a used 172.
Interesting. Is this at similar hours used as well?
So a DA40 is better and thus holds its value better? SHOCKER
Great video - I also have both planes, or course I have the and older Diamond DA40 before they made some of the improvements. Still a great plane and very flexible. Had a bird strike in both planes and the experience in the Cessna felt like a non event compared to the canopy of the Diamond cracking and a bird ending up inside . Of course $14k later all was good .
$14,000 is what I paid for my Cessna 150K ten years ago. Still a good plane today with no major maintenance costs except $2,000 to add ADSB out. Hard to believe a new C-172 costs over $500k. DA40 has incredible performance - you are lucky to have one.
If I was buying a plane I would buy from this guy! Well done and interesting.
Thanks for watching, that's the goal!
John Armstrong you are a king ... that was an amazingly well-done video. Thank you so much.
For those who are complaining that this is not a fair and balanced comparison ... you are right. He is the owner / founder of one of the largest Diamond distributors in North America, so what do you expect. If you don't have time to watch the whole thing to answer the question, "which airplane is better" I'll cut to the credits and tell you - it's the Diamond.
Cessna built an improved C172. It was called the Cardinal - C177 (~1968-1975). I owned one for about 15 years. Flush rivet heads on about 30% of the wing (leading edge). Also it didn't have wing struts. It was a bit more efficient than the C172, It was also a bit more expensive to produce than the C172. If I were still flying, I'd get a DA40, period..
I prefer the Cardinal RG, upgraded with a turbocharger, 200 kt cruise, good visibility, range at altitude beats the Diamond, not sensitive to UV as all painted fiberglass wings are, unless a heavy gell coat with Al mini flakes protects the Epoxy resin.
put vortex generators on the upper wing in the aileron region, kit from Spruce and specialties is cheap.
I never saw anybody promotes Diamond as good as you!!!
Cessna and Piper keep their original design from the 50's to these days ,however Dimond came throught with modern efficient materials , and a very comfortable seats on recline configuration
And you can buy a new PA-28 with an engine based on the same design as the Diamonds (the DX and DLX variants).
Cost to certify a plane is so high in the USA that the old airframes keep going.
@@Paiadakine True. It's ironic because the certification process was designed to improve and assure safety, has lead to a situation that degraded safety due to the high cost ensuring manufactures keep using old designs devoid of over 50 years of gained knowledge and technology about crash worthiness and engine management. It would be like if car design from the 50s with no airbags, no restraints, no crumple zones, no thought to occupant protection at all were still being used today.
I fly them both and prefer the DA40, but when it comes to short grass strips, I take the Cessna. Also when I go photoshooting, I take the Cessna, and open the window 🙂
Have you tried the Beech sundowner with its forgiving trailing link landing gear and similated gear retracting lever, best for commercial certificate training.
Mastrr chef hse bith as well lone trip Concorde Mach 1.0 to Mach 2.0
I trained in the Skyhawks and didn’t know much about the DA40 NG .thanks for giving me this virtual,to say ,upgrade .👌🏾
Man, the initial part is so fantastic... The father flew a B-17 and the uncle flew a P-51... wow... And congrats for the video, specially about differences between aircrafts and not just personal preference.
I came into this video ready to nay say and poo poo the DA40 but my sense of integrity forces me to fess up. This was probably one of the best comparison videos I've ever seen and I'm left wanting one of these DA40 aircraft in a bad way! I love the 172s that I trained in but if given an opportunity I think I'd grab a DA40 in a heartbeat! I loved the fact that it has a Jet A burning power plant. Cessna had some aborted attempts at creating one of these but never could get the engine right but diamond seems to have knocked it out of the park! The amount of storage space behind the two front seats is pretty impressive as well along with the fact that with the open upward type of doors you've got a huge hole to put cargo in through. The only place the 172 appears to excel is in providing a sun shade over the folks in the cockpit on a hot day with its high wing.
At the end of the day I guess it's going to depend on what your mission is. If you're doing pipeline surveys and photo runs then a high wing is probably going to make more sense. For practically everything else though the DA-40 will carry the day.
Thanks so much for your insight! If you ever want to talk more about the DA40, send us a message on our website and let us know where you came from :)
Back in 2017 I did my EASA CPL on the DA40 and DA42. Wonderful aircraft both of them. If you compare them with a Cessna or Piper, the Diamond feels like a Rolls Royce.
I enjoyed flying DA40NG! 😍 Superb aircraft to fly on
Excellent video. Very informative. Thank you. As a person who is shopping for their first airplane, this video was really helpful.
Awesome, that's our goal! Let us know if we can help you in the aircraft acquisition process.
I have only been able to afford one formal flight lesson, but have been blessed to be at the controls of a few of my friends airplanes. The Katana was by far my favorite, and when I get to the place to be able to afford to take more lessons, the Katana would be my aircraft of choice!
Well thought out and detailed presentation. If only I could afford one.
I would have mentioned the slight difference in high wing / low wing float on landing.
I flew C 152 and C 172 , before very interesting video with so much information , after watching this video I would love to try that
DA 40 for sure , Tks for sharing
Nice job! As with many other commenters, I have quite a bit of time in both. For stick and rudder, you cannot beat the feel of the DA40. The C172 feels like a truck by comparison. The one saving grace of the 172 is that it makes for a solid instrument training platform...it's boring and predictable, precisely what you need when you're learning instrument flying! I haven't had a chance to fly IFR in a DA40, but I'm now flying a Lancair 360 which is conceptually similar to the DA40, just faster and more responsive. Based on that experience, I would hazard a guess that the C172 edges out for IFR training (I'm trying to be kind!)
Very thorough description of both aircraft, excellent job.
However, it should be pointed out that the rudder was grabbed at the do-not-handle icon graphic (@ 12:07).
This was a great comparison of old Rolex to new modern apple/Samsung watch of today’s technology. Great video.
Please don't compare apples with Rolexes :)
@@nicknicholson1268 you’re right. Apple has an unfair advantage to an over priced time teller. 😘😘
@@Thealmostfitpilot Drop an apple; it's ok, blame it on Newton. But drop a Rolex and you're gonna blame yourself for the time of your life, if this makes any sense. 😍😍
@@nicknicholson1268 *yawn*. Apple > Rolex. Time to get with todays ability and stop over paying for a time teller.
Yeah, but.... The NG is the high end version, their standard version burns AV Gas. Bubble canopies are cool looking, and they also make great solar cookers. An AC is almost a requirement in them. A leak on a 172's door is not the same as a leak in the overhead canopy. To repeat the age old high vs low wing argument, high wings are harder to clean, fuel, etc. but give better visibility for 99.999% of the flight. Low wing planes require stepping on "slippery when wet" wings when getting in / out. The 172 does not have a fuel pump. I've lost a fuel pump in a car. The 172 does not have coolant/antifreeze to check, or a radiator to leak. Air cooled engines are crude in comparison, but very reliable. I can appreciate the 1 magneto / 1 computer ignition system. I don't like the "plane stops flying if the computer quits", like in my car. The 172 will cruise about 120 KIAS, the NG specs show a little better. In the end, we shall see which fares better.
Nice video. You're fan of the Diamond. That's for sure. Haha.. Cessna. Indeed, the high cockpit. Front view and climb view is not fine on the Cessna's.
This is really neat comparison between the Cessna and the Diamond. I think the Diamond is my next plane to get used to. These guys also have a comparison video between the Diamond and the Cirrus SR-22. I’ll be watching that, too. All I can say about the Diamond is Wow!
excellent review...hit all the major differences...given the choice, most pilots prefer the diamond...great aircraft.
I started my pilot training in da40 , spent a bit over 100 hours in it and finish the last few dozen of hours in c172. Gotta say learning 172 is kinda painfully, made me feel like driving an old farm tractor. The heavy control stick and 20th century style throttle handle took a lot of getting use to.
Farm tractor 🤣
This is a fantastic video! Well edited and very informative -- just tell the editor to put a more vibrant color pass on it, please. As a production company owner, this drives me nuts :)
I like how you compared jumping into the 172 seat not mentioning if it's raining how you skip into the diamond and whipe your pants after😂😂😂😂😂
Wow! If Diamond didnt sponsored that vid I totally love all the honest informations. So much useful data. Thanx for taking ur time to do this vid.
My bit questions are.
1. Ingress takes a bit of non standard gyration in the DA40NG. Pax has to get up on the wing, swing around and work their way in, kind of like a sports care. The C172 is pretty standard slide in and access the back the way you do on a two door car. I believe it depends on how you bend and twist. Getting our require arm lift and strength and leg lift from an awkward position on the DA40NG. I can see some liking one or the other but not both.
2. The C172 has a natural sun shade and how is the DA40NG? I never had a problem with visibility in flying C150/2 and 172. Before you turned you had a good look and you equally have a good look coming wings level again. The visibility in the DA40NG is fabulous no question. I don't know that I would call the C172 as a disadvantage as much as the DA40NG a whole new approach (assuming the glass does not cook your head).
The “g” factor of the Cessna 172 cabin is not mentioned but is in fact greater than that of the DA40. Much mention of the DA40 doors is made - how do you get out if the aircraft goes over on its back? Normal access and egress needs a climb onto the wing. The interior is invariably damp during winter due to the egress during rain pouring straight onto the seats.
So when it’s raining there’s a mad rush to get in before you’re sitting in a puddle and then you have to be a contortionist to plug in your headset.
If anything is placed on the dashboard it is vulnerable to slipping right off onto the ground and smashing. I’ve seen a few I Pads destroyed in this way.
All in all the ergonomics of the DA40 are far inferior to the Cessna 172.
Then there’s the aileron drag from those control surfaces leveraging so far out on those long wings requiring the co-ordination of a glider pilot rather than that of the airline pilot that most trainees are working towards becoming.
Again not mentioned - the Cessna 172 can also be equipped with a diesel.
I'm taking lessons now in a 172 and I love it, but I've got to say that I am seriously considering a Diamond after I'm licensed
Enjoyed some IFR training in the Diamond. The FADEC engine control is a game changer.
But getting in and out of the DA-40 was uncomfortable. Plus my passenger would find the center stick an inconvenience
Rode as a back seat passenger in the DA-42. Now that was decent.
Maybe a Tecnam which combines the ease of access of a high wing with the modern engine technology would be an option.
passenger center stick is removable
Yeah but you have to look at the Tecnam
@@aelisenko I’ve heard it is. I wonder how simple it is for someone renting the aircraft though. As an owner to be able to leave it out would be great, though there is the consideration of leaving the passenger without an emergency backup.
Cessna offered the Continental 4-cyl diesel as an option for their Skyhawks. I don't know, if they still do.
For civil airplane, the good or the bad of its maintainability will directly affects its whole life costs and affects its competition in the market
Hey lifestyle aviation, I learnt about diamond aircraft from you through this channel. Just wanted to say thanks for changing my life.
This made our day! Thanks for being here, blue skies and tailwinds! 🎉
@@LifeStyleAviation Thank you, and to you as well!! 💯
15:34 Loved seeing the truck pull up with the UN1863 markings for "FUEL, AVIATION, TURBINE ENGINE". High quality video production getting the details right!
Buying a C172 maybe have sense only in The USA. Here in Europe they are desappearing everywere since long time in favour of the DA40 or others more modern ones.
I don’t like these flying fossils Cessna172 - the terrible instabil seats…. in Europe they have a bad image. They are like driving a VW Buggy.
Best I ever saw showing the capabilities and capacity of the DA-40. I have flown the 172, and fuel inspection in cold Minnesota spring weather in no fun. And Howard Hughes demanded flush rivets in his planes about 100 years ago and these draggy rivets still show up on new aluminum aircraft. Worst of all, if an airplane had an 0-320 engine (carburated) and I wanted to use the IO-320 (injected) to replace it, FAA rules do not allow that switch and there is no STC (supplemental Type Certificate) to allow the more modern, virtually identical engine.
Some people fly small aircraft across an ocean. Good luck finding 100LL outside of North America. So the DA-40 using universal Jet-A is a better idea.
The 172 is easier and cheaper maintenance and repair. Used ones are less expensive for those getting into flying. Flying is expensive. More than it use to be. This keeps the average income folks out.
Absolutely fantastic video. I first saw a DA-42 in Pooler, GA ant the Savannah Int airport and fell in love with the diamond aircraft. I would love to fly one, it's my favorite GA aircraft.
We love it too! Thanks for sharing!
Great review!!!
Shut up and take my money! Great breakdown of the difference between these two aircraft.
We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them.
Lifestyle is a Diamond dealer, but I thought John's treatment of the Cessna was fair and complimentary. There are serious differences, and the Diamond has Cessna beat on every technology score. Do the math on the fuel - the DA40 gets better MPG than an economy SUV (30+ miles per gallon at cruise). The Cessna clocks in at 11 - less than a crew cab diesel pickup.
The one thing I really don't like about the Diamond is the center stick. Just uncomfortable for a longer flight - you cannot even cross your legs. I noticed John conveniently skipped over the control stick. Diamond started with glider designers - I read their first aircraft was a "powered glider" model. Add to that the fact Europeans just don't have as far to fly. My two homes in the USA are the same distance as London is from Belarus. And I haven't even left the east coast (or traveled most of it's length). Also, it's slow. Again - Europe is smaller than North America. Those sensibilities show in this design.
I like the DA40 for a small family plane for short trips. I wouldn't do a real cross country in one often. That's why I have A+ on Southwest. Am I shopping? Yes. The DA40 is one of our top 3 planes. If it weren't for that center stick, It'd be #1.
I really enjoy this vid..! excelent comparison :)
While you argue over them, i will take either.. THank you very much.
great, Thank you very much for very very clear information to decide which one i should have now a day 🙂
Glad it was helpful!
I was flying a da40 last week and going to flight school cook out today to learn more about the da40. I can’t compare between the 2 but if I had to pick I know which one 🛩️🤷♂️
wow, great comparison! i didn't know anything about diamonds and modern GA aircaft so this was really quite enlightening! what an amazing piece of engineering this is.
My son trained in a Diamond… had his first crash in one too. They don’t handle flight schools very well so they rotate them out much quicker than the aluminum Cessnas. The d40 is a beautiful aircraft, uncomfortable seats and if your over 6 ft you won’t fit.
What an enjoyable presentation. Thankyou for this - keep 'em coming!
Thanks for the video. I don’t know anything about modern GA aircraft. Cool stuff.
A big point to me is the overhead wing gives shade not needing contraptions to block sun and less heat from the sun.
Great video, very little to criticise apart from some engineering data. Kevlar (aramid), isn’t carbon fibre. Composites includes carbon fibre, glass fibre and aramid - plus a few more materials you cannot see. Both are great planes but the DA40 gets my vote.
As an instructor my concern with the Diamond with students would be not being able to teach stall / spin recovery. I had a C150 Aerobat and I beat stall spin recovery into the brains of my students. There is no better way to teach angle of attack than doing loops and split S recoveries! If all you are ever going to fly is the Diamond then go first it!
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
I know DA40 is superior, but I just prefer a two-handed yoke rather than a stick.
The C172 is just no match for the Diamond. C172 is a solid plane, dependable but when you see the nextgen its just wow. The interior of the Cessna screams 1970s even in the brand new ones. Theres only so much you can do. Why doesn't Cessna design a similar composite plane to counter DA40? Excellent video very well produced. Just found your channel thanks to seeing both these planes in a new game I got - Microsoft Flight Simulator 2020. Subbed!
Great video, never really knew much about the DA40!
I guess ut depends on What the school has for you to learn in and cessna is still selling plenty of 172's. I looked at the DA-40 but way too expensive and some of them had delamination issues. I wound up with a Cardinal RG. Amazing visibility up or down, passengers can easily get in the back seats with pilots up front and I do about 140 knots at under 10GPH, the cockpit is wider that a 182 or even a 210 (no bumping shoulders at all!), rear passengers have ENORMOUS legroom and I have a huge CG range. Ok, the Diamond has a small speed advantage with fixed gear but I saved about 350,000 for a plane with new engine, prop and Avionics. Make no mistake, half a century certainly has its advantages but, I really love my Cardinal!
How much has your Cardinal appreciated since Covid?
@@PC-vq5ud , I got it a year ago and was offered 30k more before it even was in the FAA database!
Don't throw the high wing cessna's under the bus. Their flight envelope and runway capabilities make them a very useful and sought after airplane. The DA is good for fair weather and long smooth runways. Anything other than that and they connot compete with the 172. Don't get me wrong, I love how fast and economical the DA aircraft are but... Take a look at resale value of the same year and flight hrs, the 172 wins hands down all day long. Why? Parts availability, ease of maintenance, Available STD's and engine choices (not the STD's you were worried about in college although you'd have a better go of that in a 172 too ;), useful to a larger segment of pilots, the list is longer than the DA wingspan!
Flight schools are about their only market due to the strict control of it's flight environment and low cost per hr.
The view out the front of the DA40 is amazing. Check out some of the flight videos.
The U.S. Air Force stopped using the DA-40 and switched to the Cirrus SR-20. Apparently it wasn’t as good as they thought it was. Something about climb performance and structural maintenance. Of course Diamond wasn’t happy about it. However the Cessna 172 T41 is still being used by their flying team along with their T51 Cessna 150s .
I might fly the DA-40 in the future, who knows I might like it. But I know the Cessna 172 and the 150/152s really well and am comfortable flying them. The DA-40 hasn’t been around long enough to know how they will fare after years of flying and abuse from student pilots. As old as the 172 is we know that a new 172 will be flying 70 to 80 years from now. Because 170s and the first 172s are still flying today. That tell me I know it’s a great plane to have. It’s reliable. And rugged. If I’m traveling I’m thinking luggage not bicycles, so that luggage compartment in the 172 is just fine. I’m sure I could probably get a bicycle in the back of a 172 if I don’t carry any passengers back there, which is what you did with the DA-40.
Safety wise the DA-40 has a good record so far. But with only around a little over 2,200 built as of Dec 2020. I’m sure there may be quite a bit more now but compared to Cessna’s 172 most produced airplanes around at over 44,000 and still in production. Makes it probably the greatest aircraft in history by sheer numbers.
Master chief fly. F16. Mach 2
Our Cessna 150J (N51305), after the different modifications could take off as low as 12knots.
Our father was flying one day, was cleared to land. Then a few Apache helicopters got cleared to land.
The helicopters were below the airplane. So my dad got in between and flew along with them. When they landed vertically, so did he and then he taxied off to the hanger.
The military helicopter pilots went looking for our airplane. They even asked the control tower guy, where this vtol aircraft went.
Even NASA DRYDEN at Edwards Air Force Base worked with our airplane.
Learned in pipers. Had to do some cross country in a 172 between my PPL and IFR. Never liked that blinded in turn thing. Yeah, a little better down views in a high wing but I will keep my low wings
Only problem with the DA40 is the way the canopy opens. In a rain storm the interior is gonna get pretty wet, I must be old fashion because I'd still take the 172 any day. As we know, getting parts, service and repairs is never a problem. I've flown Cessnas all over the world and never had a problem finding someone to work on them. But the Diamond's engine with all the computers? Nope, not for me.
Okay, okay its pretty obvious you sell, own or are pushing the Diamond. I get it sir. but, I own a 172N and love it for all it is, not what it isn't. Yes there are many new more expensive aircraft that are modern, go faster and offer new technology that make them great GA aircraft. If I could afford and or was looking for a new airplane, I would for sure look into a Diamond. Glade to see the new tech and how it is making GA flying even better!
Excellent material. I love flying Cardinals but this video left me plenty of curiosity.