The DR400 also weighs a lot less. Don’t have the numbers here but it’s significant. The DR400 is constructed with metal tubes and fabric. At least 150kg less empty weight.
Where are the metal tubes in the DR400?
Capitaine wrote:
On a C182 G1000 the cowl flaps made ~3 knots difference between open and closed.
In the 210 it makes a little more difference, around 5kts or so, but then again it’s a faster airplane.
I just bumped into this. Always wondered why propeller manufacturers tolerate the horrible electrical de-icing boots on the blades.
If this can save even 5% fuel by improving prop efficiency, it may well be a genius idea…
https://www.ldi.aero/userfiles/file/propeller_test_flight_comparison.pdf local copy
Quote Where are the metal tubes in the DR400?
In the seat frames and an additional one connected to the tow hook ?
Ha yeah you’re right🙂
Ah yes I made that up, it’s a complete wooden construction with fabric skin. I thought it’s a tubular frame construction.
HK-36R wrote:
In the seat frames and an additional one connected to the tow hook ?
And, speaking of important structure, the engine mount, right?
Flyingfish wrote:
I just bumped into this. Always wondered why propeller manufacturers tolerate the horrible electrical de-icing boots on the blades.
If this can save even 5% fuel by improving prop efficiency, it may well be a genius idea…https://www.ldi.aero/userfiles/file/propeller_test_flight_comparison.pdf local copy
I did not know about this, but very promising. Also interesting is the data shown on propeller performance loss with different configurations.
I don’t know how much and what shape ice they used for this dataset, but with such performance loss with boots, similar to loss with ice, what would you want a boot for? Just take the ice and enjoy the same performance, but only in icing….something does not add up.
I am still looking for the metal tubes in the DR400 fuselage 
