Talk:Diamond DA40

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Aviation / Aircraft (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Note icon
This article has been selected for use on the Aviation Portal.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the aircraft project.

The proper name of the aircraft is the "Diamond Star DA40" or "DA40 Diamond Star" so I moved the page here.ChadScott 05:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Rebranding reversion[edit]

I think the recent reverter misunderstands "rebranding". Sure, if we were talking about cattle ranching, from where the term doubtless arises, he would be correct. But products are "rebranded" all the time. It's what marketing people say when the same product undergoes some minor or cosmetic changes and they discontinue the old name in favour of a new one. They do not go out and find all the old instances of the product and stamp them with the new name. This is precisely what has happened with the DA40-180. You cannot find it on the company's web site anymore. It's now called the DA40-XPXL. It's been rebranded. And they've made a few small changes. Paul Beardsell 07:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then I was misled. If "rebranding" is marketer's jargon, then perhaps avoiding the term would keep others from getting misled as well. The way it was before I reverted it seemed to indicate in my opinion that the marketing department started calling the DA40-180 an XL and that suddenly made it fly faster, in spite of that being obviously impossible. The DA40-180 still exists whether or not Diamond sells or makes them, and they still only go 140-some knots... Reswobslc 08:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I think you're more on your own on misunderstanding "rebranding" that you may realise. The article is now wrong where it says "The version of the DA40 currently in production is known as the DA40 XL" as there is the FP version which is not an XPXL. I'll fix it and, in deference to you, will not re-introduce the "rebranding" word. Also, please refer to the Austrian web site - there is an English button to press - for what Diamon themselves call these aircraft and ow they present them and list them. Paul Beardsell 10:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Reswobslc 18:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't mean to appear personally critical. Paul Beardsell 20:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, not a problem. I just noticed myself reverted, and had no idea someone reverted us both by mistake, and spoke too soon. Reswobslc 21:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct Name[edit]

The full proper name of this aircraft is actually the Diamond Aircraft DA40 Diamond Star.
Diamond Aircraft is the manufactuer, commonly shortened to Diamond.
DA40 is the model number.
Diamond Star is the model name (like Skyhawk is to the Cessna 172).

With most aircraft articles, the titles contain the shortest version of the manufactuer's name, and then the model number (if applicable). So the real title of this aircraft should be Diamond DA40, like the other aircraft made by this company.

The following titles could then redirect to the newly titled article:

  • Diamond Star
  • Diamond Star DA40
  • Diamond DA40 Diamond Star
  • DA40 Diamond Star

In order to complete this rearrangement, the article titled Diamond DA40 needs to be deleted, then this article needs to be moved to it's place. Then redirects can be updated. If anyone opposes this, please comment here. --Pilotboi 16:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. This is more like a Beechcraft Duchess than a Cessna 172. So, if anything, the article should be titled "Diamond Star," but that seems less identifying (to me) than "Diamond Star DA40." I hear it referred to as the "DA40" or the "Diamond Star" or the "Diamond Star DA40." I guess you just have to pick your poison between them. It's definitely not a "Diamond DA40" since it's actually called a "Diamond Star" much like a Beechcraft Duchess is a "Duchess" and not a "BE76." -- ChadScott 00:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
But you are incorrect in saying that "Diamond Star" is like "Beechcraft Duchess". When you say "Diamond Star" you are simply saying the name of the aircraft. The word Diamond is not refering to the company. They simply chose to use the company's name in the model name as well. The model names are as follows:
  • DA20 Eclipse
  • DA40 Diamond Star
  • DA42 Twin Star
  • DA50 Super Star
See: Diamond Aircraft
For each of these, the aircraft manuf name can be amended to the beginning to get the complete name. But a more practical way of refering to aircraft is by manuf and model number only, hence why I suggest Diamond DA40
(And in your Beechcraft example, again, Beechcraft is the manufactuer, Duchess is the model name, and BE76 is the model number, although not commonly used, it is there)
The Duchess model is formally named the "76 Duchess." It's simply not called that, though... it's called a "Duchess." This is really only an argument about semantics and we just have differing opinions. The article should be titled, according to precedent, with the most commonly used name for the subject. Thus "Cessna 172" versus "Cessna 172 Skyhawk." I chose "Diamond Star DA40" to try to fit that precedent. If anything we should simply remove the model number now since we have the DA40XL and DA40FP. It's very verbose to call it the "Diamond Aircraft DA40 Diamond Star," and it just simply isn't called that in normal conversation. *shrug* Maybe someone else will chime in and offer a differing viewpoint. -- ChadScott 18:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Those are valid points. I think "Diamond Star" is a better choice then "Diamond Star DA40", especially, as you noted, because of the other variations of the model number. If you know of anyone that may have input on this subject, invite them to comment. --Pilotboi | talk 19:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What to call Wikipedia aircraft type pages and what to call aircraft types is an interesting issue. I always refer to the official certification documents for the official nomenclature. In this case the certifying authority is Transport Canada and the aircraft type certificate says that the aircraft is officially known as a Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH DA 40. There are sub-models designated as the DA 40 D and DA 40 F and that is it. Yes the designation has a space between "DA" and "40" and also between the "40" and sub-model letter if applicable. The Diamond website shows the aircraft as the "DA 40 Diamond Star", so presumably that is a marketing name and not the official designation. Ahunt 21:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Diamond aircraft terminology[edit]

Spiraldive 14:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)Saw the discussion regarding the terminology for use with the Diamond aircraft. Maybe just out of interest I fly and instruct on these aircraft and when identifying ourselves to air traffic control use the terminology "Diamond DA40"

Thank you Spiraldive. This is supports my suggestion to change the name of this article. Does anyone else have any more comments on the subject? If no one else disagess, I think we should go ahead and change it to "Diamond DA40", and have all other terms redirect to it. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 03:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I support the change to "Diamond DA40". Go for it. :) -- ChadScott 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Diamond has not made it easy to sort this one out. However, one form of convention is actual ATC and pilot usage. Having purchased my DA40-XLS from the Candadian factory and having flown in both Canadian and U.S. airspace, ATC, I and other pilots of this craft identify as "Diamond Star N _ _ _ _ _." ATC always repeats back "Diamond Star" until it falls back to the "November" abbreviation. Having said that, there is still an inconsistency. Among the aircraft I fly are Cherokees including the large Dakotas and the small 180's. Seldom does one hear a pilot or ATC designation "Dakota N _ _ _ _ _". They are all "Cherokees." For now, I'm sticking with "Diamond Star" because I have not heard exceptions from pilots and ATC and that is the way the factory identifed the aircraft on the initial flights I took there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Headquarters location?[edit]

Since my revert got reverted, I'm posting here... There's a statement of where Diamond Aircraft's headquarters are located in this article, which I feel is inappropriate and irrelevant for the following reasons:

  • Diamond Aircraft has many offices world-wide, so the office in Austria is of little importance with regard to the DA40 (most are made in Canada), and
  • Diamond Aircraft's wiki page contains the location of the headquarters in the first paragraph

Does anyone else have thoughts on this? I don't want to get into a reverting war, so I'm trying to reach consensus here.

-- ChadScott 00:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree - the corporate headquarters location is not relevant to this article - it belongs only in the Diamond Aircraft article. I could accept a mention of where this particular model is manufactured (London ON) as being of value, but that is about it. Ahunt 01:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Its an Austrian company, so its logic that the headquarter is located there. Just like fe Swarovski or Glock.-- (talk) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


I suggest that what is written at Nomenclature is WP:Synthesis. The a/c is not referred to by Diamond as the Diamond DA40 Diamond Star. See also the section Correct Name, above. I think the Nomenclature section should be removed. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an interesting problem, compounded by the fact that the company has two websites, the main one and its North American one. The North American one consistently avoids using any name with the aircraft calling, it for instance, the "DA40 XLS" or "DA40 CS". Even the North American press releases, like this most recent one refers to it as the "Diamond Aircraft DA40".
The company HQ (Wiener Neustadt based) website however tells a different story. The main page on the aircraft calls it the "DA40 Diamond Star" and refers to the company as "Diamond Aircraft Industries". This would mean that the full name of the aircraft would properly be the "Diamond Aircraft Industries DA40 Diamond Star".
The original type certificate is the Transport Canada one. These often do not include marketing names, but where they do, they can be considered "official" names. I checked it to see what it says. It reports the company name as "Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH" and the aircraft as "DIAMOND DA 40, DA 40 D & DA 40 F". No marketing name is mentioned. I take that as indicating that the name is "unofficial" and therefore the company website information would be the last word.
I think from the HQ website that there is a good indication that the company has named the aircraft the "Diamond Aircraft Industries DA40 Diamond Star", however I am not sure that there needs to be a "nomenclature" section in the article, stating this. Surely it should just go in the lead para as the name of the aircraft? - Ahunt (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
The aircraft is not referred to by Diamond Aircraft Industries at any of its web sites as the "Diamond DA40 Diamond Star" and so the assertion in the Nomenclature section was incorrect, is of no point, and has been removed. I think the article is named in a manner consistent with other WP aircraft articles e.g. Cessna 172 article immediately mentioning "Cessna 172 Skyhawk". Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think that is at least consistant with the other aircraft articles. If the name was controversial then we would need a ref to that effect. - Ahunt (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

DA-40 wireframe[edit]


I extracred the wireframe of the DA-40 from the official flight manual, and I'd like to add it to this page. but I can't seem to upload it via the wikipedia upload wizard, maybe because I haven't done 10 edits yet in wikipedia, thus my account is not 'confirmed'?

If anyone wants to upload the wireframe, I'd be happy to send it to them.

or if someone knows how I could do it myself, I'd be happy to.

Akos — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akos.maroy (talkcontribs) 15:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

That would be a copyright image, which can only be used under a claim of "fair use" under US copyright law. Given that the article has many freely licensed illustrations and that a wireframe illustration wouldn't add much, I doubt that would qualify under "fair use". - Ahunt (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)