Lots of good points.

Diamond seems like one of the few manufacturers that's innovating at the moment, so I'll give them that. They've obviously managed to have enough funding to be able to bring to market new designs, even if those designs aren't perfect. I want to support them for doing that.

This is version 1. They don't seem to be that far off, so in a few years with some modifications - like perhaps tip tanks, a more time-proven engine, some volume in sales - this could be a better airplane.

I don't think there's anything wrong with iterating from a flawed first version to a much better second version, and I hope they'll do that!

Never knew they were planning pressurization. I'd love to read more on that

Define comeback... if they bring it back how many will they sell over 2-3 years?

A million here, a million there, pretty soon you're talking real money. There is so much wrong with the airplane market that it is difficult to know where to start.

This airplane, out the door, is going to knock the socks off of a million dollars. Let me ask a convoluted question that most will simply not correctly interpret. How many people in this country can afford a million dollar airplane and can't afford a two million dollar airplane? Where we are in today's "new" market is that a fully equipped single engine piston with turbo charging, FIKI, A/C and glass avionics is pushing a million dollars.

Look at the alternatives sitting there begging. Used TP's and even jets. For a quarter mil you can buy a Turbo normalized 36 Bonanza that will give you 95% of mission capability that you get with the Diamond or Cirrus.

All this while pilot numbers are decreasing and a training regimen of a year to get a new pilot up to speed to handle even a fraction of today's challenges of using the system.

It is a tiny sliver of a small market. Cirrus carved out the biggest piece. I'd rather bet my money on a new line of efficient whale oil lamps. But aviation has always been the fertile valley of unrealistic expectations.

Jg

John, I agree that the prices for these new airplanes are frustratingly high. The market seems to be caught in a number of bad feedback cycles.

Both Cirrus and Columbia benefited from a NASA program. Without that program, those two companies probably wouldn't exist. Maybe one of the few ways out is another government program like that. The "affordable simple but capable small airplane" program

I do think it's problematic that there really aren't many (any?) new planes that are offered without hundreds of thousands in unnecessary extras. Fancy avionics are fun. But why can't we buy a bare bones new 182 with simple IFR avionics for $250k? The avionics and all the other strictly-speaking unnecessary items add up to hundreds of thousands on that plane. I think the market (and we, to some extent) have gotten lost over nice-to-haves that don't significantly increase the capability of the airframe. When I flew up front in a B1900 a few years ago, which didn't even have a GPS, I can't remember thinking that I'd trade the raw capabilities of that plane for a G1000 172.

This is sort of happening in the car market now. It used to be that built-in features like GPS were really valuable. But now, we have smartphones, which have better GPSs that most built-in systems.

Define comeback... if they bring it back how many will they sell over 2-3 years?

Look at the useful load, then subtract the weight of a parachute and associated airframe mods. Then add in some cost. Then ask customers to sit in the back. I bet they’d sell none.

Airplanes cost a multiple of what they did in the 70s after adjusting for inflation because they aren’t making any. Used airplane market is far too healthy. If the FAA said all airplanes more than 30 years old cannot fly, and did some sort of (better run and much modified) cash for clunkers, maybe that would change, but it would never work politically.

An aluminum airframe lasts just about forever if taken care of. How can a new manufacturer compete? A 421C is a great airplane but no one will make a new version because you can get one that is totally redone and similar to new for $600k, and there is no way a new one could touch that price.

It sure is nice to see new singles being developed, so I applaud Diamond for that. Diamond does seem to do very well in the trainer market but when trying to go toe-to-toe against others in the high performance, cross country SE piston marketspace, I believe it's a huge strategic mistake to not incorporate a BRS. Forget about any safety data as it's a massive factor in the sales / marketing of this segment. Just for that reason alone, my wife would have nothing to do with the DA50RG.

I do believe Diamond executed some aspects very well here: diesel powerplant, nice roomy cabin, nice roomy baggage compartment, good range. On my cons list would be: looks (the Pipistrel Panthera makes the Diamond look like an ugly step-child), 10" G1000 displays (with a clean sheet a/c, they should've found room for the 12" screens), no BRS, lack of higher performance (the Pipestrel Panthera wins here as well).

If an SR22T, Panthera and DA50RG were equally priced and all came with turbo, a/c, FIKI and 1,100 lb UL equipped, I believe I would choose the Panthera today. The big disadvantage of the Panthera over the Diamond and especially the Cirrus is the lack of a service network and it will take a LONG time for them to develop the type of service network that Diamond and Cirrus have been developing now for decades.

Still, I applaud them for the effort and wish them all the best. More players in the market and more new a/c entering the fleet helps all of us.

How are Diamond sales in Europe? With 100LL scarce and expensive, it seems like a diesel twin was made for that market.

New video from Diamond.

[youtube]https://youtu.be/tVn6_AphLN8[/youtube]

Look at the useful load, then subtract the weight of a parachute and associated airframe mods. Then add in some cost. Then ask customers to sit in the back. I bet they’d sell none.

1/3 the cost is product liability to start.


GB

I bet Mooney doesn't sell 10 airplanes over the next 2 years. Sad, but I just don't see it.

Unless perhaps they do something truly different. If the Panthera really is only $500k, that would be pretty different. It's really hard to compete only with incremental improvements.

Perhaps Mooney could do a simple 180 knots 4 seater for $500k with good but not crazy avionics. It might be an issue with initial capital costs, though, not sure where they'll get the money.