Used, Glass, integrated, single, modern, 4 seats, oxygen, side yoke, range+speed, tks, NA, chute, piston. avgas, certified + GOOD LOOKING (instead of ugly)
easy for me!
I did find, back in 2002, that Diamond would not install an RMI in a DA40, or actually just about anything extra whatsoever into the panel (so they lost the sale to Socata, on that alone, never mind anything else) but I didn’t know this remains an issue in later DA42s.
It’s OK if you can get the plane already equipped with everything you want. Maybe it’s not an issue with a G1000, which can have remotely mounted boxes.
250kg is a sufficient payload. I don’t think any modern 4-seater improves on it significantly. The TB20GT is 265kg. If you need a lot more you need to go to a 6-seater and nobody has made any of those for many years so it would be an old one. The Seneca is still made – what is the full fuel payload on that?
The GNS430 is fine for European IFR. I know people love the latest boxes but in the 11 years of flying behind the KLN94 I have never come across a single situation where it was in any way inadequate or a bottleneck in the cockpit workload during a flight. The GNS430 is a very similar user interface.
The only thing I would really like is an airway route entry, as per the GTNs or the GNS480, but if I could get voice route entry and it worked only on a GNS box ([which currently is the situation](http://www.euroga.org/forums/maintenance-avionics/1388-voice-entry-of-flight-plans)) because Garmin blocked it on their later boxes, I would go for a GNS-anything over absolutely any other GPS.
> The Seneca is still made – what is the full fuel payload on that?
Just about three stamps and a violin… Seriously though, a Seneca is not a load hauler if you plan on flying any distance. IIRC the 1 and 2 would haul 2 guys and some bags with full tanks, or 3 people if they’re not too heavy. If you really need to haul stuff get a Cherokee Six or other variant of a fixed gear PA32. Better still, find a Jodel 140…
> Officer, we’ve discussed the Diamond ad already. (If I were Cirrus I’d ask them if they trust their
> design so much that they need a second engine)
> “Some engines are so reliable you better install a second one” ;-)
I think I missed that discussion, never mind then. I was just surprised of the tone in the ad coming from Diamond, it looks like they are becoming very arrogant. Maybe that the Swiss aircraft manufacturer has influenced them in that…
>looks like they are becoming very arrogant
Sometimes one needs to give exhibitors at say Friedrichshafen a bit of credit for the huge numbers of time wasters they get, but I have always been astonished at Diamond’s arrogance at these exhibitions. I have found it virtually impossible to get anywhere near a DA42 cockpit, let alone talk to a sales rep.
However I found the same with Cirrus UK in 2002, and the salesman’s sheer arrogance directly cost them a SR20 sale. They were my #1 choice at the time. At this year’s show their sales rep was totally clue-less about the aircraft (SR22).
I wonder how many other customers these firms lose as a result of that behaviour. Presumably they remain more than happy with the sales they do get, but then I wonder why they spend so much money exhibiting. Except for totally first time fresh-post-PPL buyers, most customers will know what a DA42/SR22 looks like and they will know how to download the data sheet. And, if it meets their tech requirements, how to pick up the phone and call the local dealer so they can see one.
I am with Hodja on this; no sense trying to start a battle which is the ‘best’ plane. All very subjective, and a lot of variables.
Add the fact that it has been proven that us boys and girls are not rational beings who make rational decisions. Very often, especially when it comes to emotionally loaded buys like toys (also think cars) we just want something intuitively and then, because we are supposed to be rational, we start to ‘systematically’ list the pluses and minuses. Some pluses and minuses are being filtered out of course, either consciously or subconsciously. .. And then the weighing factor process for each plus and minus: a joke..
A BMW guy is not going to buy that new mercedes, even if that new mercedes has better performance.
So maybe we should try and stick to the topic and provide (as objective as possible) info on the DA42.
Emotions are essential for rational decisions … in case you didn’t know that already :-)
Hodja,
>It’s all just personal opinions, really.
Well, personally I think the more you hear from people who fly them and obviously love them (mostly) will allow you to make an educated guess about what these planes can do and whether they suit you.
>People have very individual taste, mission & budgets. There’s no such thing as the “best” airplane or “value”, or the “right” decision.
True.
>Fortunately most people end up with the aircraft they like & suits them best.
Well, many of us end up with what their budget allows. In my case, yes, I do love my plane for what it is and what it delivers to me: The most I could make out of my own budget.
I took 2 years before I ended up buying this plane. Primarily, with my budget I fully expected to fly a PA28-140 or maybe a 180. But somehow none of those I watched ever made “click” to me, as a former IR/MEP flying Senecas I knew I would not be happy with a 100 kt non complex. When the Mooney came along at a price I could afford and giving me a decent speed for comparatively very few money, I bought it immediately. Not because it was my dream plane, but the best I can afford.
If I had a budget to buy what suits me really, I would have ended up with either a Twin Commanche or a Seneca or quite possibly a DA42. 1000 + NM range, twin, IFR certified and what I knew. Or if I was to end up with a single, Mooney Ovation, TB20 or PA24 would have stood at realistic forefront, today there are even SR22 which are in the price range.
Or, if I had access to free Avgas, I’d buy my favorite of all times, an Antonov 2 :)
However, I can’t afford any of those, but I can afford my 48 year old Mooney. So this is what I fly and very probably it is the last plane I’ll ever buy.
BUT: Threads like this one, the mass of information which Peter provides on the TB20, owner sites of Mooney e.t.c. are a very good source of information. That is why I think the comparisons make a lot of sense, as long as they are not one sided.
I have had the good fortune to fly all three DA42 types. Here are some facts. Hope my emotions have not caused me to distort some facts.. Disclaimer: I own a DA42 TDI, the one with the Thielert/Continental/Technify or whatever engines.
The NG version (essentially a TDI with more powerful Austro engines) weighs more than the TDI because the Austro’s are made of cast-iron and the Thielerts of aluminium. The useful load is about the same, because Diamond has increased the MTOW of the NG by beefing up the landing gear. (By the way, this makes the conversion of Thielert engines to Austro’s expensive. About 165k€.) Because of the Centre of Gravity of the aircraft moving forward (heavier engines), you need to put some mass in the back when flying with only two people up front.
Starting up. The NG’s start up a lot smoother compared to the cranky way of the Thielerts. Same with closing down. The Austro’s take longer to warm up (mass of cast-iron), the run up is automatic as with the TDI but involves some cycles of revving up which, depending on the field, may cause some stone damage.
During take-off (and landing) fuel pumps are to be switched on. None on the TDI.
The NG feels heavier in flight. It accelerates quicker during the ground roll, but the roll (as well and the landing roll) is still a bit longer because the rotation speed, and landing speed, is higher.
Sound perception is a subjective matter. I did not really sense any difference. Darned quiet both anyway! Maybe a slight plus for the NG because at idle, on the ground, the Austro’s RPM is less.
Cruise speed: NG: about 10 knots more at the same % power settings. Have a look at Diamond’s Austrian website, all AFM’s of all types available, and the performance data is very accurate.
Fuel consumption: very similar. Despite all the marketing talk, the specific fuel comsumption of both planes is similar. Even if the Austro’s are a little better (not sure), probably the more forward CoG of the airframe negates it. Anyway, fuel costs is the last thing to worry about on any DA42.
Looks: The only difference is the engine nacelles. The NG’s are markedly bigger. Some will like that muscular look, others may prefer the sleeker lines of the TDI.
Maintenance cost. The Austro’s should be cheaper. No gearbox/clutch issues for example. And a TBO at 1500 hrs instead of a Thielert TBR at 1500 hrs. The cost thing is a moving target though. Both companies are doing their best to reduce life cycle costs. Austro is determined to take its TBO to 2000 hrs or more. Thielert is in the process of going to 1800 hrs, and maybe to TBO too instead of TBR? The clutch replacement is now at 600 hrs instead of 300 hrs and the rumor goes that the same thing will happen soon for the gear box. My feeling now is that both engines are credible. The Thielerts have racked up a lot of hours and the SB’s are dropping off. And the Austro’s have had the advantage of being designed by people who have seen the problems on the first Thielerts..
Enter the DA42 VI..
Essentially an NG with a better useable load and faster. Speeds up to 25 knots more compared to the TDI, so some 15 knots more than the NG. Weight savings and a better (and nicer looking!) prop has also improved the ground roll for take off quite a bit, now even less than the TDI. It really accelerates on the ground. Specific fuel consumption and thus range should be better than the NG, but all types excel in that category anyway. Nice options available: Wx radar, weather upload, airco, softer upholstery (if you like that), but of course these options eat quite significantly into the useful load. Looks: engine nacelles are sleeker than the NG, still bigger than the TDI.
Hodja, did I forget something important?
I think Aart’s summary pretty much covers it.
> the run up is automatic as with the TDI but involves some cycles of revving up
Interestingly, there’s a few subtle operational differences between the Austros on the -VI & NG. The ECU run-up brings power up to 50% on the -VI; I seem to recall the NG was around 40%. They also increased the RPM limits and altitude performance a bit. The engine cooling design is radically different on the -VI Austro, so they probably tweaked the ECU parameters accordingly.
Generally the -VI pulls ahead at high altitudes and/or power settings. At low power settings & altitudes there’s much less difference between the different DA42’s.
Diamond claims a major reduction in airframe maintenance hours on the -VI vs the NG. Not quite sure how that works out in practice.
I do get the impression that DA42 sees a lot of incremental production changes across the serial numbers, even within the same type. The 2.0 Tdi/NG/-VI are vastly different from the early 1.7 Tdi models.
