The Jet A diesel DA40 NG against the Cessna 172 Skyhawk, modern efficiency and range against the best-known four-seat trainer.
The DA40 is the better travelling aeroplane on fuel use, range and cabin visibility, provided a nearby shop actually supports the Austro engine and Jet A is convenient where you fly. The 172 is the safer ownership decision when the aeroplane will train, rent or change hands often, because instructors, parts, mechanics and buyers already understand it. Its shorter-field advantage also matters more than cruise on a local mission. A school with high utilisation can earn the Diamond's efficiency; a private owner flying modest hours may never recover the operational friction. Local support should decide this before the spreadsheet does.
The table below uses the same versioned PlaneFit dataset as the Finder. Prices and operating costs are planning estimates, not quotations.
Choose the DA40 NG when regular cross-country use makes Jet A availability and fuel efficiency valuable, and only after confirming that an Austro-qualified maintenance path is practical from the home base. Its visibility and modern systems make sense when the aircraft is more than a circuit trainer.
Choose the 172S when dispatch depends on broad instructor, rental, parts and maintenance familiarity. It is the more defensible fleet or first-owner choice when local support, predictable training continuity and a straightforward resale market matter more than extracting extra touring performance.
Neither is suitable when the routine mission requires four adults, meaningful baggage and long reserves at the same time. That load case should move the search to a higher-payload single instead of forcing either four-seat label to do work its weight-and-balance sheet may not permit.
Published performance describes reference conditions and specific configurations. PlaneFit does not know the empty weight, installed options, engine condition or local labour and parts lead times of the aircraft being considered; verify those before treating the operating comparison as a purchase case.
The published ranges answer different questions. Diamond's 934 nm DA40 NG figure includes the climb but no reserve; Cessna's 640 nm Skyhawk figure is a long-range cruise ferry mission with a 45-minute VFR reserve. Neither is a four-occupant range promise, so subtracting the two figures does not tell you how far a full cabin can fly.
| Standard-aircraft weight check | DA40 NG | Skyhawk |
|---|---|---|
| Published useful load | 407 kg | 398 kg |
| Payload with full fuel | 289 kg (407 kg minus 118 kg fuel) | 254 kg, published by Cessna |
| Four occupants at 80 kg each, before bags | 320 kg: 31 kg above full-fuel payload | 320 kg: 66 kg above full-fuel payload |
Both aircraft need less than full fuel for this illustrative load, even before baggage. That is a weight check, not a fuel plan or a verdict on usable range. The actual aeroplane's empty weight, options and approved limits can differ from the standard figures; use its current weight-and-balance record and flight manual to calculate the trip and required reserves.
| Decision factor | Diamond DA40 NGView aircraft profile | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SPView aircraft profile |
|---|---|---|
| Typical market year | 2026 | 2019 |
| Estimated purchase | €601k | €497k |
| Annual cash cost at 80 h | €36k | €32k |
| Five-year cash outlay | €781k | €655k |
| Cruise speed | 145 kt | 124 kt |
| Advertised range | 934 nm | 640 nm |
| Seats | 4 | 4 |
| Realistic payload | 349 kg | 301 kg |
| Runway need | 590 m | 497 m |
| Landing gear | Fixed tricycle | Fixed tricycle |
| Ratings and endorsements | None beyond the certificate | None beyond the certificate |
| Data confidence | Normalized for direct comparison | Normalized for direct comparison |
| Main trade-off | Exceptional fuel efficiency and modern avionics, but rear-seat loading and diesel-engine support require careful mission and maintenance planning. | Exceptionally easy to support and resell, but four adults with bags and meaningful fuel are usually unrealistic. |
A factual first pass. Mission, condition and configuration can outweigh a brochure advantage.
They do not cross. The Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP is the cheaper of the two at every utilisation from zero to 300 hours a year, on purchase and running cost together, so there is no break-even point to find. That is worth knowing plainly: on cost alone this is not a trade-off, and the case for the other aircraft has to be made on mission, cabin, speed or access rather than on eventual savings.
| Five-year cash, including purchase | Diamond DA40 NG | Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| 40 h / year | $811k (€751k) | $671k (€621k) | $140k (€130k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
| 100 h / year | $860k (€796k) | $726k (€672k) | $134k (€124k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
| 200 h / year | $941k (€871k) | $818k (€757k) | $123k (€114k) to Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP |
The gap narrows as utilisation rises, which is the part a headline price comparison hides. Every figure uses the same planning model as the rest of the site: indicative market prices, a fixed annual base and a direct hourly cost, before financing, depreciation and tax.
PlaneFit's fixed screening factor produces 626 nm for the Diamond DA40 NG and 429 nm for the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP with 4 people selected. These are generic one-way distance screens, not calculated fuel reserves or verified reach. Published ranges use different power, altitude, payload and reserve assumptions; compare their source conditions before treating either estimate as a mission decision. A return flight without refuelling needs a separate total-distance and fuel calculation. See the range map and worked example for the screening formula and its limits.
Against the 28,815 airports in the PlaneFit database that publish a runway length, the Diamond DA40 NG has enough runway at 25,104 of them and the Cessna 172S Skyhawk SP at 26,749, comparing each aircraft’s take-off requirement of 1,936 ft and 1,631 ft against the longest runway on the field.
This is a planning comparison, not a statement that any particular operation is legal or advisable. It ignores surface, slope, elevation, temperature, obstacles and how heavily the aircraft is loaded, all of which extend the requirement. It also compares take-off distance only: landing distance is frequently the binding constraint and PlaneFit does not hold approved landing distances, so a field in these counts is not necessarily a field you can get back out of, or into.
Nothing separates them here. Neither carries an endorsement or rating requirement of its own beyond a pilot certificate for the category and class.