I have never seen so many aerodynamic tweaks and gadgets as there are on the back of a DA42. Little strips on the training edges, dorsal and ventral additions, things on the ends of the tailplane, etc. And the variable elevator stop! What’s that all about? Clearly they are all there for a reason, probably a certification reason, but it’s a bit inelegant. It all adds to the rather unusual looks.
BUT, I have to say I liked flying it very much indeed. I only have a few hours on it, and admit I wished it were more stable when I did my IR training, and definitely wished the same on the test, but as a handling experience in the circuit it’s great, and it’s straightforward on one engine. The G1000 is very capable, and I understand the GFC700 is excellent, unlike the KAP installation in the one I flew.
The reason it doesn’t take the SR22 market is because MEPs require more training and more licensing effort than SEPs, the point made earlier
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no sense debating it I suppose!
But it looks like many of you seem to find the DA42 ugly or at least awkward, so Hodja, Emir and me will need to take into account that we just seem to have a different, probably bad, taste and bite the dust 
For the sake a variety, Peter, may I suggest that in the header of of EuroGA be changed? I mean, it is so dull, all these beautiful planes. Could you replace the twinky with an ugly twinstar? If you are OK, I’ll try to find a pic that shows her in best light so she just will be bearable to look at. It will be difficult, but I’ll find one 
Now, who’s going to bring this thread back on track?
Since we don’t appear to have any Twin Com pilots posting (much) on EuroGA, a DA42 in the banner seems a good idea
Regards the original topic, I am still waiting for a costing supporting the €500k+ selling price
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so no sense debating it I suppose!
+1
Finally a word of wisdom.
That means that there is no objective quality in design. As somebody who was always interested in industrial design I refuse to see design as a “matter of taste”. Taste is only valid as an argument if the quality of the design is on the same level.
(But I do not claim that the DA42 has a “bad design”. I just wrote that I don’t like it)
Diamond is basically the “diesel aircraft”, even though they do exist in Avgas incarnations too (the DA40 does). So if someone wants a diesel plane, the choice is not exactly very big. Either you go Diamond or you need a converted Cessna 182 or so. So basically, Diamond has the same kind of quasi monopoly in the diesel market as Cirrus has in the new high performance travel market. And there, it is easy to see why Cirrus is ahead of the game. The DA40 is a lovely plane, yet it lacks performance. 125 kts does simply not cut the mustard with anyone looking for a traveller, 150-170 kt is the minimum people wish to see on the spec sheet. Diamond claims the DA40NG can do up to 150 kts in flat out mode at 14000 ft, but that is what the competition does in normal cruise. Range with LR tanks is in the ballgame of around 900 NM however and at the pump, those 900 NM are achieved with roughly 20 lph and 125 kt TAS. So 144 liters of Jet A1 will actually get you there but it takes 7 hours to do it. On a normal 500 NM leg, the DA40 will need 4 hours to get there and burn a mere 80 liters of Jet A1.
In comparison, a SR22 running at 170 kt will cover the same 500 NM in 3 hours and burn 160 liters of Avgas. A TB20 will do it in 3:30 and also burn about 150-160 liters. A M20J will do 500 NM in 3:06 and burn about 115 liters, my old M20C does them in 3:35 and burn the same as the J. And an Acclaim can do 500NM in 2:18 and with 130 liters of Avgas.
So while the DA 40 will cost less at the pump, it will take between 30 minutes and up to 2 full hours more to get anywhere.
Once that changes, that is there are other OEM Diesel airplanes, Diamond might loose some of this advantage. The M10 Series might actually be quite interesting to some folk, as it is pretty much a 2-3 seat traveller with 150-170 kt TAS, 1000 NM range and a diesel. I could well imagine that it might be very attractive to some folk who have been looking at the current giving of 700-800k machines and had to decline. I’d guess 90% plus of most travel machines hardly ever have more than 2 people on board, quite a few can’t even if they wanted to due to payload restrictions if they want full fuel.
And if we speculate on that 500 NM trip again: The M10 J would do it in about 3 hours and 10 minutes and burn, at similar fuel flows as the DA40, around 60 Liters of Jet A1. With the slightly better fuel flow rate of the Thielert 155 hp engine, maybe even less.
The DA42 is a totally different piece of cake, but if you calculate the basics, it gets interesting.
A DA42NG will fly at around 170 kts according to Diamond and do that at only 51 lph. That means, it can cover the 500 NM trip in the same 3 hours than the SR22 will, but uses 153 liters of Jet A1 instead, a bit less than the Cirrus would use in Avgas. But heck, it’s a twin, Jet A1 is anyway cheaper than Avgas (well, outside the UK at least) and it is available a lot more.
So the question really arises. If you can get a DA42 NG for the same price or less than an SR22, it may well be worth a thought.
Actually DA42-VI does over 190 kts and I guess it’s in the same price range as Cirrus – €700k.
One can only dream
Diamond:
Robinson:
Cirrus:
So how much would a new TB20 be under these assumptions? Easily 500-600 k.
If I remember well from what was explained in the French article quoted in my first post, the guy behind this project said:
Happy Easter
I have just come across an email I got in 2003 from another TB20 owner:
