I’m sorry. I really wanted to like this plane, but like many others have mentioned here, after you take all of the sensationalism, this plane does not do anything outstanding for its price point: not pressurized, not a 6 seater, not a twin, no parachute, and it’s max speed is 185kts. Really? It seems Diamond wants us to pay an extra $800k for an easy start and burn $80.00 less on fuel per hour. Do the math. Why would anyone by this airplane instead of an SR-22T, a Panthers, a Lancair or even the DA-62 is beyond me.
Go price out pressurized planes. There alot more than this bird . Thr price for a da 50 is comparable to the sr22t the real world cruise speeds are also similar but the da 50 will burn less fuel . The da 50 has much nicer gear too .
Love the wide cabin. Simply marvellous! But the 3 seat rear bench looks cramped. More suitable for 2 adults and 1 skinny/small kid. Also, on the minus point, the 44 foot span will not fit inside a typical 40 foot hangar. Overall I like it's sleek super sexy looks. A C172 or 182 would look like a dowdy old granny compared to this.
Pros: cabin space, rear door. Jet-A, solid built quality Cons: slow for a retractable, no parachute nor Garmin safe home feature. Only 50 gallons of fuel so range 3 hours plus reserve. Continental Fadec engine still unproven. Unless one needs the space or reliant on Jet-A, a cirrus is superior. This comes from somebody whi flies a DA-62. If you can, buy a DA-62
I would’ve better liked it if they stayed with the original Da 50 design, the cost would’ve been a lot less and it would have had an engine that doesn’t go to the trash can after reaching it’s hour limit. Ok it would’ve been an AVGAS burning engine but still one with FADEC. Now you have a plane that costs so much it doesn’t make any sense to buy it no matter how much fuel it burns. I wonder if they’re actually selling well?
It has a fuel injected engine, not a carburetor. But perhaps they could swap it from an IO-540 to a TEO-540. Although that fadec would raise the cost significantly.
@@abel4776 you know a UL power probably wouldn’t suffice, for one it’s not certified. And regardless their biggest engine is 200hp, while the fuel injected IO-540 the panthera uses now has 260hp. I know the panthera is only experimental as of now, but the plan is to have it certified soon, and therefore you need a certified engine. I actually like this IO-540 it’s a solid reliable engine and will easily make it to tbo and beyond. But I realize fuel economy could be better and some are fond of the simplicity fadec brings to the pilot, I believe their best bet would be to offer a fadec engine version as an option, so people would have a say in it. Best option in that area would be a fadec version of the 540 engine and it already exists, (used by a Tecnam P-2012), they only require lycoming to produce a modified version of it, suitable to the panthera. It would be doable and not crazy expensive to have it certified.
Well, I stopped listening to the Panthera story when full electric versions where promised. That's obviously impossible without a miracle in battery gravimetric energy density (assuming you want to fly more than 30 minutes at comparable speeds) or finally redirecting investments towards fuel cells and H2. Comparing an existing product to a ghost 👻 ? I would like the Panthera with a BRS, Jet A engine and 6 digit price better than the 50 as it is, but you can't always get what you want.
@@BlueSideUp I agree, a hybrid engine concept might be doable though, but it would have to be different from what they are trying to forge it into right now. A hybrid engine would be great if you were able to make your taxi, take-off and landing on an electric engine, switch over to regular for the actual flight. It would greatly reduce noise. As for the kind of fuel, I am pro AVGAS, those engines are lighter and more powerful compared to diesel. Now let’s imagine we are able to get the avgas required for those engines by using synthetic fuel made from CO2 captured from the air and hydrogen, combine them into hydrocarbons. It’s not impossible, Porsche already did it and used the fuel in their race cars. Of course it would be more expensive, nothing is easier than pumping up oil. But know that you can make fuel out of just air, water and electricity. I believe this is the future we should be reaching for, and all the knowledge needed to make that into a reality is already here. And the best part: it’s completely carbon neutral since you release just as much CO2 back into the atmosphere by burning the fuel as you have taken out during its production.
@@kristus20 Hydrocarbon based fuels are possible, "biofuels" already used in commercial. However I don't think they make much sense. You might not add CO2 from fossil sources to the atmosphere. But you still add it to the atmosphere and it would be better to keep it bound somewhere else. Even if I don't think climate change can be avoided, every effort will fail and money would be spent better in dealing with the consequences (it's a warm period without ice caps, significantly higher biomass production "just" shifted, good it's not an Ice Age, that would actually reduce the numer of people the planet can sustain), in the current environmentalist environment it will be rather required to remove CO2 from the Atmosphere and leave it out. So burning it again right away makes limited sense. H2 is the way to go for Aviation, if it's supposed to get carbon emission free. And just imagine, at the energy density of H2, you need to carry maybe 20kg for 7 hours endurance. It's not even a factor in W&B anymore. And in addition, a much more reliable and durable, cheaper to maintain electrical engine. And all of that possible today, no technology required we don't have. It's just a matter of will, and of turning away from the battery electric dead end hype.
So the DA50 is a four seater, with two people in the back you only have a few inches between them, 10 inches at the most, maybe three kids will fit in back
The only thing Diamond pushes is the low cost of fuel, when owners bring it into the shop for maintenance, they are surprised it’s not a $2K annual including squawks…..closer to $5K-$7K depending on findings
as i watch i might add, is it due to the amount of technological components in the cockpit? i’m a lowly cfi in a 172 lol but genuinely curious why mechanics give diamond aircraft heat
@@jesster777 Both, but more just simply cheap in terms of quality, you still pay high costs for the parts many times. Literally was just talking with my boss today about this, one of our customer has a brand new DA62, already getting a whole new engine. At least it’s warrantied for him.
@@jesster777 no, as with all new aircraft all the systems are “generally” the same with their own flavor. Think the Perspective avionics in Cirrus….basically G1000/NXI. To me, every system in Diamonds from a mechanics point of view (even the interior stuff like seats) was an afterthought. Many tasks are a pain to complete.
Still, you can get a brand new pressurized 6 seater piper M350 for the same price. It has more power and flies faster. All right it burns twice the amount of fuel, but it’s worth it and to be honest, if you can afford the plane, you can easily afford the fuel.
@@MickeLang M350 is not a turboprop, yes the pressurization costs more to maintain. But that wasn’t really the point. It’s just you can get so many planes with equal or even better performance for far less money. And a private individual is not ever going to earn that back by saving a little on fuel costs. Also that CD-300 engine that’s in a DA50 might be fuel efficient but costs a lot more to replace, and has to be replaced after TBO. It can not get an overhaul. So there’s another thing to factor in. And if that’s not bad enough, not many A&P’s are familiar with this design, it doesn’t have the support a piper, cessna, beech etc. Enjoys and the engine again just makes that worse.
Diamond DA42 is the safest GA airplane out there. It has the lowest rate of accidents and fatalities. All diamond aircraft are made with that same philosophy in mind.
They’ve been around for a century now, it’s not “the marketing department” it’s statistics. A comment like that is just out of place and harmful for the aviation community. If you get in a car you’re taking a lot more risk compared to when you’re in ANY current aircraft.
@@kristus20 Mate, am a pilot myself. I said what I said because of my experience and the aviation community is way bigger than armchair simulator pilots.
@@snowblazed3442 Avaition community is bigger? On which world? Not our planet. The private pilot registry peaked in 1980, and has been declining every year since. Sometimes it plateaus, but rarely if ever goes upwards. When I do my annual cross country trip across 5 states and 6.5 hours in the left seat, I rarely if ever have to deal with another aircraft on my journey. And yes, it's in a piston airplane. Look up a Cessna 182. Has quite the safety record.
@@snowblazed3442 congrats, I’m a pilot too you know. And hey, I realized you might be somewhat right depending on what part of the world you live in, Africa doesn’t have a very sound safe record, but then, neither do African airlines flying jets. I fly with planes maintained up to standards set by EASA, and I can assure you, I trust those aircraft with my live. Don’t put blame on perfectly fine engines, how safe that plane is depends on the pilot flying it and it’s maintenance record. You can make anything unsafe.
@@kristus20 By your name, you sound like one of those salty white south Africans who got chased away by the real Africans. Btw... am an Aussie mate. My single point was that I wouldn't trust taking my family in a single piston, it was obviously my subjective opinion based on my flying experience so no need to be too riled up about it. It's just a youtube comment, not your life.
![[SFM] Risky Recital](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzNkY1_Nk3o/mqdefault.jpg)
Bought one. Waiting on the FAA and just can't wait till it gets here.
congratulations!! where are you gonna be flying it out of?
how long till it gets here, how much was it, and what was the process like buying one??
I’m sorry. I really wanted to like this plane, but like many others have mentioned here, after you take all of the sensationalism, this plane does not do anything outstanding for its price point: not pressurized, not a 6 seater, not a twin, no parachute, and it’s max speed is 185kts. Really?
It seems Diamond wants us to pay an extra $800k for an easy start and burn $80.00 less on fuel per hour. Do the math.
Why would anyone by this airplane instead of an SR-22T, a Panthers, a Lancair or even the DA-62 is beyond me.
Exactly what I was thinking. An SR22T DA62 or DA42 are all better GA options in this price bracket.
Pressurization is not needed they have supplemental oxygen and most 6 seater single engine cannot take 6 adults with full fuel
Go price out pressurized planes. There alot more than this bird . Thr price for a da 50 is comparable to the sr22t the real world cruise speeds are also similar but the da 50 will burn less fuel . The da 50 has much nicer gear too .
Love the wide cabin. Simply marvellous! But the 3 seat rear bench looks cramped. More suitable for 2 adults and 1 skinny/small kid. Also, on the minus point, the 44 foot span will not fit inside a typical 40 foot hangar. Overall I like it's sleek super sexy looks. A C172 or 182 would look like a dowdy old granny compared to this.
Pros: cabin space, rear door. Jet-A, solid built quality Cons: slow for a retractable, no parachute nor Garmin safe home feature. Only 50 gallons of fuel so range 3 hours plus reserve. Continental Fadec engine still unproven. Unless one needs the space or reliant on Jet-A, a cirrus is superior. This comes from somebody whi flies a DA-62. If you can, buy a DA-62
It will be interesting to see how Continental’s modified Mercedes 0M642 Diesel engine works out.
I would’ve better liked it if they stayed with the original Da 50 design, the cost would’ve been a lot less and it would have had an engine that doesn’t go to the trash can after reaching it’s hour limit. Ok it would’ve been an AVGAS burning engine but still one with FADEC. Now you have a plane that costs so much it doesn’t make any sense to buy it no matter how much fuel it burns. I wonder if they’re actually selling well?
I think Pipistrel Panthera will be more successful on the market.
It has a fuel injected engine, not a carburetor. But perhaps they could swap it from an IO-540 to a TEO-540. Although that fadec would raise the cost significantly.
@@abel4776 you know a UL power probably wouldn’t suffice, for one it’s not certified. And regardless their biggest engine is 200hp, while the fuel injected IO-540 the panthera uses now has 260hp. I know the panthera is only experimental as of now, but the plan is to have it certified soon, and therefore you need a certified engine. I actually like this IO-540 it’s a solid reliable engine and will easily make it to tbo and beyond. But I realize fuel economy could be better and some are fond of the simplicity fadec brings to the pilot, I believe their best bet would be to offer a fadec engine version as an option, so people would have a say in it. Best option in that area would be a fadec version of the 540 engine and it already exists, (used by a Tecnam P-2012), they only require lycoming to produce a modified version of it, suitable to the panthera. It would be doable and not crazy expensive to have it certified.
Well, I stopped listening to the Panthera story when full electric versions where promised. That's obviously impossible without a miracle in battery gravimetric energy density (assuming you want to fly more than 30 minutes at comparable speeds) or finally redirecting investments towards fuel cells and H2. Comparing an existing product to a ghost 👻 ? I would like the Panthera with a BRS, Jet A engine and 6 digit price better than the 50 as it is, but you can't always get what you want.
@@BlueSideUp I agree, a hybrid engine concept might be doable though, but it would have to be different from what they are trying to forge it into right now. A hybrid engine would be great if you were able to make your taxi, take-off and landing on an electric engine, switch over to regular for the actual flight. It would greatly reduce noise. As for the kind of fuel, I am pro AVGAS, those engines are lighter and more powerful compared to diesel. Now let’s imagine we are able to get the avgas required for those engines by using synthetic fuel made from CO2 captured from the air and hydrogen, combine them into hydrocarbons. It’s not impossible, Porsche already did it and used the fuel in their race cars. Of course it would be more expensive, nothing is easier than pumping up oil. But know that you can make fuel out of just air, water and electricity. I believe this is the future we should be reaching for, and all the knowledge needed to make that into a reality is already here. And the best part: it’s completely carbon neutral since you release just as much CO2 back into the atmosphere by burning the fuel as you have taken out during its production.
@@kristus20 Hydrocarbon based fuels are possible, "biofuels" already used in commercial. However I don't think they make much sense. You might not add CO2 from fossil sources to the atmosphere. But you still add it to the atmosphere and it would be better to keep it bound somewhere else. Even if I don't think climate change can be avoided, every effort will fail and money would be spent better in dealing with the consequences (it's a warm period without ice caps, significantly higher biomass production "just" shifted, good it's not an Ice Age, that would actually reduce the numer of people the planet can sustain), in the current environmentalist environment it will be rather required to remove CO2 from the Atmosphere and leave it out. So burning it again right away makes limited sense. H2 is the way to go for Aviation, if it's supposed to get carbon emission free.
And just imagine, at the energy density of H2, you need to carry maybe 20kg for 7 hours endurance. It's not even a factor in W&B anymore. And in addition, a much more reliable and durable, cheaper to maintain electrical engine. And all of that possible today, no technology required we don't have. It's just a matter of will, and of turning away from the battery electric dead end hype.
Yes that three seats in the back looks very cramped, I thought it had the same seating arrangement as the da62. I guess I was wrong
So the DA50 is a four seater, with two people in the back you only have a few inches between them, 10 inches at the most, maybe three kids will fit in back
Shameless advertising for a pretty plane that is too expensive and not very capable compared to the competition.
Your videos just sound like a high schooler wrote marketing copy for diamond.
The only thing Diamond pushes is the low cost of fuel, when owners bring it into the shop for maintenance, they are surprised it’s not a $2K annual including squawks…..closer to $5K-$7K depending on findings
can you elaborate? are they poorly built or use cheap parts?
as i watch i might add, is it due to the amount of technological components in the cockpit? i’m a lowly cfi in a 172 lol but genuinely curious why mechanics give diamond aircraft heat
@@jesster777 Both, but more just simply cheap in terms of quality, you still pay high costs for the parts many times.
Literally was just talking with my boss today about this, one of our customer has a brand new DA62, already getting a whole new engine. At least it’s warrantied for him.
@@jesster777 no, as with all new aircraft all the systems are “generally” the same with their own flavor. Think the Perspective avionics in Cirrus….basically G1000/NXI.
To me, every system in Diamonds from a mechanics point of view (even the interior stuff like seats) was an afterthought. Many tasks are a pain to complete.
Largest single in the world for GA aircraft is the USA. They produce an airplane which won’t fit in a standard T-hanger!!
The jet fuel burning turbo diesel engines are ultra fuel efficient and powerful. 😎
Pipper M350 is lest price, faster and more distan!
Always funny to use the argument of fuel saving on something that costs over a million dollar to purchase.
I don't have to worry about weight and balance huh?
got me hooked
Two big problems:
Total Cost oder TCO
Anti Sanctions guarantees.
Really best of the best !
Biggest issue for me was safety.
The price is too high for what you get. Add a bit more money and get a used 6 seater pressurized turbine.
Still, you can get a brand new pressurized 6 seater piper M350 for the same price. It has more power and flies faster. All right it burns twice the amount of fuel, but it’s worth it and to be honest, if you can afford the plane, you can easily afford the fuel.
@@kristus20 don´t only think about fuel, maintenance costs for a pressurised plane and a turboprop are way higher.
@@MickeLang M350 is not a turboprop, yes the pressurization costs more to maintain. But that wasn’t really the point. It’s just you can get so many planes with equal or even better performance for far less money. And a private individual is not ever going to earn that back by saving a little on fuel costs. Also that CD-300 engine that’s in a DA50 might be fuel efficient but costs a lot more to replace, and has to be replaced after TBO. It can not get an overhaul. So there’s another thing to factor in. And if that’s not bad enough, not many A&P’s are familiar with this design, it doesn’t have the support a piper, cessna, beech etc. Enjoys and the engine again just makes that worse.
Not the safest. Bullshit. Does it have a parachute like the Cirrus? WTF dude.
Diamond DA42 is the safest GA airplane out there. It has the lowest rate of accidents and fatalities.
All diamond aircraft are made with that same philosophy in mind.
21,000 ceiling 🤣 1,000,000 + base. 👎 👎
Great airplane, horrible ad
Wayyyy too expensive… moving on…
Thumbs down. I wonder when someone will post an honest review of this plane’s poor capability to cost ratio.
It’s just plain ugly.
Am not taking my family in a piston, despite what the marketing department says.
They’ve been around for a century now, it’s not “the marketing department” it’s statistics. A comment like that is just out of place and harmful for the aviation community. If you get in a car you’re taking a lot more risk compared to when you’re in ANY current aircraft.
@@kristus20 Mate, am a pilot myself. I said what I said because of my experience and the aviation community is way bigger than armchair simulator pilots.
@@snowblazed3442 Avaition community is bigger? On which world? Not our planet. The private pilot registry peaked in 1980, and has been declining every year since. Sometimes it plateaus, but rarely if ever goes upwards. When I do my annual cross country trip across 5 states and 6.5 hours in the left seat, I rarely if ever have to deal with another aircraft on my journey. And yes, it's in a piston airplane. Look up a Cessna 182. Has quite the safety record.
@@snowblazed3442 congrats, I’m a pilot too you know. And hey, I realized you might be somewhat right depending on what part of the world you live in, Africa doesn’t have a very sound safe record, but then, neither do African airlines flying jets. I fly with planes maintained up to standards set by EASA, and I can assure you, I trust those aircraft with my live. Don’t put blame on perfectly fine engines, how safe that plane is depends on the pilot flying it and it’s maintenance record. You can make anything unsafe.
@@kristus20 By your name, you sound like one of those salty white south Africans who got chased away by the real Africans. Btw... am an Aussie mate. My single point was that I wouldn't trust taking my family in a single piston, it was obviously my subjective opinion based on my flying experience so no need to be too riled up about it. It's just a youtube comment, not your life.
All that technology and no BRS parachute. 🙄
Da50 glides less feet per min. than a sr22 does when the chute is deployed.