Diamond Katana... What do you think?

[Jafar]

Hi everyone,

I am working toward my ppl in this airplane. A1's and C1's. In doing a search of the forums there isn't a whole lot of discussion going on regarding this aircraft. A few negative comments here and there, but nothing really to substantiate it.

The hard core guys at the airport talk all kinds of crap about them, "Plastic this, composite that, wouldn't get me in one, yada, yada yada..." "Real planes are made of metal..." "Give me a good ole 172." Kind of like guys telling you Fords are the only cars worth a danm despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Anyway I'd like to see what some peoples experiances with this airframe are. So far, I love it, but I am very inexperianced. The Air Force just bought 35 of these to begin pilot training at the academy, so I figure there must be some merit to them. Of course I'm a little biased since I hope to fly for the Air Force. (entering AFROTC.)

So lets here your opinions on the DA 20...

 

[Peter Gibbons]

The real DA20 is the FALCON 20 (one of the only good things to ever come out of France)...thats what I put in my log book anyway...don't know how the heck Diamond pulled that one over on everyone. ATC recognizes us by FA20 but the one you put in your log book is DA20.

As far as the Katana...I've got about 25 hours in one...forgot what model....but it was in about 1999 so it was one of the earlier ones i guess...much more ergonomic than a 172 and the visibility is better. I instructed in Pipers and Cessnas so I am a little biased. Don't be afraid of change though. I wouldn't be over confident in any plane but especially in one that in my opinion hasn't been proven to withstand 25 years of hard landings. Very fun to fly though. Also gets you used to using a constant speed prop...comes in handy when you go for that check-out in the more complex planes...one less thing to learn. Hope this helps!
STILL a Cessna man though.

 

[crash-proof]

How about those Rotax 912s? As I understand, these are popular with homebuilders , but this is a crowd used to flying 2-strokes, where you take off and never know where you'll land.

I've heard about too many engine seizures with these 912s, particularly here in florida. Maybe people aren't used to runnin these engines as they should? I think they run at 7000 RPM.

 

[WrightAvia]

I like the Katana. It was one plane that my employer had that I couldn't get employee discount on and I still rented it anyway at 60 bucks an hour over 35 bucks an hour for a ratty looking 152.

I even ferried some Katana's to and from the factory in London, Ontario. It was a long day but fun.

I like them...but the only ones I flew were Rotax powered.

 

[midlifeflyer]

The A model with the Rotax is a bit underpowered, but the C-1 is a terrific airplane. The controls are tighter than a Cessna's bungees and the airframe's definite dislike of coming down form the air means that pilots have to =plan= descents in the pattern. None of that, "it-doesn't-matter-how-poorly-I-fly-the-pattern-I'll-stick-out-those-barn-doors-and drop-like-a-rock" pattern flying! Add the 120 knot cruise speed on 5-6 GPH, and you've got a great, fun flying machine.

There is one drawback. Even with the recent gross weight increase, it's not going to be that good for overnight trips. The luggage space is really minimal.

Don't listen to the "must be metal" fools. They're the same one who won't trust those new-fangled all-electric cockpits for IFR even though the mechanical vacuum pump is probably the single most unreliable instrument ever put in an airplane.

 

[WrightAvia]

Actually, we're back to RIVETS again.

Plastic planes are great...no corrosion and you don't have to carry 10,000 fasteners around with you when you go flying.

 

[cessna_driver2]

I have about 25-40 hours in the A1 models. They were a blast to fly. The only problem I encountered was with the brakes. On hot summer days seemed like the brakes would fail.

With a 14:1 glide ratio they did love to fly. Spins were a blast. I haven't found any C models yet. I hear they are a lot better than the A's.

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

[I've heard about too many engine seizures with these 912s, particularly here in florida. Maybe people aren't used to runnin these engines as they should? I think they run at 7000 RPM.
QUOTE]


YOU THINK??? I was flying a Katana from Sunrise Aviation out of Ormond Beach back in 99. Fun airplane to fly around in but all be **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED**ed, downwind to runway 8 had the Rotax sieze on me. No biggie, glided into the runway no problem but that **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** thing quit when I brought power back about 1 inch above the idle stops.

And any plane you have to "CHOKE" to start gets me a bit nervous. Other than that it was fun to fly. Im sure the newer ones with the IO360's are pretty realiable.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

I instructed in Cessna and Pipers and I also have over 200 hours in the Katana (about half in A1s and half in C1s). I loved that airplane and always looked forward to a lesson with a student in a Katana. The C1 is a better airplane but even the A1 is good. Even the A1s 80 horsepower engine climbs better and flies faster than a 160 horespower C-172 or PA28-161. The C1 has a fixed pitch propller and 125 horsepower which gives it even greater performance and is simpler for engine starts and not having to deal with the constant speed prop of the A1. The visibility in a Katana blows away a Cessna or Piper as does the handling with the fun control stick instead of a yoke. A VFR GPS and DME comes standard which is also great. It's a great trainer airplane but not certified for IMC though I think Diamand's 4 place version of the Katana may be (not sure though). The only other downside is that generally they are more expensive to rent than a Cessna or Piper.

 

[U-I pilot]

on the diamond: was the wood prop for weight or efficiency or what? I was really surprised to see this in my "close encounter"

 

[katanabob]

I like katanas. The DA20 spins like a top; if the only airplane you've ever spun is a cessna, you're in for a surprise.
Be advised that with a crosswind in excess of 15 kts or so, landing wing low will cause wingtip damage.

 

[Jafar]

Thanks for the input everyone. It sounds like this airplane is more popular than I thought. I'm having a good time with it. I will proabably do a few flights in a 172 just for the sake of comparison and experiance, but my final checkride will most likely be done in a C-1.

I haven't spun it yet, but regular power on stalls are pleasent.

on the diamond: was the wood prop for weight or efficiency or what? I was really surprised to see this in my "close encounter"

The wood prop on the C-1 was replaced by the Hoffman composite wood/glass. It has a little more mass to it. There are still plenty of Katanas out there with the all wood Sensenich prop, though. From what I was told, the newer prop is less likely to cause engine failures than the all wood.

 

[Dot_AK]

So far, transferring from the 172 to the Eclipse [DA20-C1], a few things really stick out.

This airplane - you can slow down or you can go down, but you can't do both. In the Cessnas, no matter how high the approach was, I just had to drop flaps and cut power - in the Eclipse, I try that and I'm garunteed a go-around. really have to plan descents.

Another new thing with this airplane - never had to worry about too MUCH altitude on a simulated engine-out. But this plane really glides.

Crosswind taxiing, takeoff and landing - a breeze in this airplane. Once I get up to a 8-knot crosswind on a 172, I've got problems, but I easily correct on the Eclipse. It starts to get really challenging around 12 knots - but that 4 knot diffeerence makes for a lot more days I can solo.

The throttles in the two I fly - most of the travel doesn't seem to do much, but in the last 1/4 of the way, if I twitch, I have 200 more HP than I needed - or 200 less. When doing steep turns, the throttle occasionally slides a little on its own, so if I start with 2200 rpm, I finish the turn with 2000. It's just something to watch.

The visibility is a lot better, the fuel burn is about 5 gph, the rent's cheaper, and it's really teaching me not to overcorrect. I love it.

 

[TXCAP4228]

I dunno. Any airplane that has a published maximum outside air temperature limitation is a little scarry.

Its a published limitaion.... I flew it once to get checked out but never flew one again.

 

[WrightAvia]

Alot of planes have Maximum OAT limiting temperatures... the BAC146 and the Caravan do also.

I'm sure if the limitation temperature of the KATANA has been reached, you wouldn't want to fly in any un-airconditioned plane, anyway.

 

[Jafar]

According to the NTSB page there have been 112 fatal accidents in 172's in the past 5 years, versus 1 fatality in a Katana during the same time period. Now certainly there are far more 172's in the air than Katanas, but is there 112 times as many? Perhaps, I really don't know. But the Katana's safety record seems pretty good. Only 13 crashes in the past 6 years with only 1 fatality.

 

[SkyWestCRJPilot]

The temperature limitation is because of the composite airframe. Too hot and it's too flimsy like gumby. About coming down in the Katana, I used to love to do forward slips to come down. Full aileron and full opposite rudder and down she goes and lots of fun.

 

[katanabob]

All of the katanas I flew actually had a sticker stuck to the structure just between the seats (you pulled up a flap in the area between the two seatback cushions to get to it) that would change colors when the airframe was too hot to fly. (changed from green to black or something, if I remember correctly) I can only remember one summer day where this was a factor, and leaving the airplane in the shade for a halfhour cooled it down enough to go fly.

Obviously the people who are leery of composite structure haven't seen the top of a Cessna 152 or 172 wing when you're pulling about three G's. It's enough to make that last yank and bank your last. (think: aluminum can)

Also pointed out is the importance of *planning* your approach. It'll make you a better pilot in anything..

 

[TEXAN AVIATOR]

I love the Katana for just going up to do maneuvers or what not; but for cross-countries the 172 is far more comfortable. I did my PPL and most of my IFR training in a Katana Eclipse. We're in the mountains so flying into actual IMC is basically impossible in the winters due to ice, and in the summer most of the clouds will kick your ass all over the sky anyway. They both have their pros and cons;
Katana- More like a little sports car, not extremely powerful but for instance after flying for a month in the 172 I jumped back in the katana and **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** it climbed like a bat out of hell compared to the C172. Burns about 6-GPH
C172- is typically a better long XC AC with autopilot two Obs. It’s much more comfortable as well. Plus in turbulence the 172 is not as prone to get whipped as bad. Burns about 10-GPH.

They are both great aircraft, each has it's own advantages though.

 

[WrightAvia]

The Katana isn't the only plane with a temperature limitation in it's operation limitations.