Good point on the speeds, Hodja. I mentioned ‘up to 25 knots faster’ but indeed that is only at Max Cont. Power (92%), and at oxygen altitudes. Again, for details, look at the AFM data available on the web.
For people that are interested in looking at either new or used aircraft there are equipment issues to consider:
1. Almost all initial aircraft buyers have selected TKS anti-ice and long range tanks. The tanks were a no-brainer: low cost and almost no weight penalty, 2.5 hrs extra endurance. TKS is favoured too, I know of very little ones without them, but for people living in climates like the mediterranean, and just doing VFR fun flying and touring, it is not needed. Apart from the initial cost (50 k€ or so) it eats up payload, shifts the CoG forward and takes away some luggage space, and even if not used needs to be activated regularly, and there will be some extra maintenance. No effect on airspeed. Both these options are not retrofittable.
2. 1.7 litre models and earlier 2.0 models come with the Bendix-King A/P. Thereafter: the Garmic GFC 700 that is much nicer: integration with the G1000, yaw damper, flight director, and all together smoother. It can be retrofitted but very expensive, around 50k€..
3. If not already fitted on the aircraft, the following options are retrofittable at reasonable cost: ADF/DME, traffic, stormscope, tall canopy.
4. The aerodynamic improvements on the -VI, like nacelles, props, flush screws, smoother TKS-panel to wing boundary, seals, fairings are not offered by Diamond as retrofits AFAIK.
5. The evolutions of the G1000 are retrofittable AFAIK: think of SVT (synth vision), WAAS, coupled vertical nav (involves a new MFD), but I think you need the Garmin autopilot for most of them.
6. I am not sure if (some of) the options introduced on the -VI, see my previous post, are retrofittable. Aircon is not.
Another interesting development is the possible introduction of the Thielert, sorry Technify, 2.0 “S” on the DA42. I believe Continental is not chasing this STC themselves, but there is an individual in the UK that seems to be far along in this process. This increases the power of the engine from 135 HP to 155 HP. The Austro is 168 HP, but the expectations are that the performance of the ‘TDI-S’ would still be similar of maybe even a bit better than the NG owing to its lower mass, more rearward CoG and sleeker nacelles.. My guess is that speed will be roughly the same, but runway performance better.
Aart,
first of all, thank you VERY much for this interesting posts, also to the others who have contributed. That is what i’d like to see more of here.
Have a look at Diamond’s Austrian website, all AFM’s of all types available, and the performance data is very accurate.
oh, interesting. I did look but could not find any of them. Can you indicate a link? I am very interested in that. I do keep a pdf library of AFM’s of as many diverse types I can get my hands on and these have been on my agenda for a long time.
Thanks!!
As there are more AFM’s to choose from, go to www.diamond-air.at/home and select language
Go to ‘sales &services’, ‘after sales support’, ‘technical publications’, and from there select the aircraft type/ version.
Most of the relevant info seems to be in this thread already. Just wanted to add that the NG VI available power stays at 90% or better until you get above F160 or thereabout. 85% up to ceiling at F180. Climb performance is impressive, starting out at 1500 fpm, still at 1200 up to 120-130, and close to 1000 all the way up (maybe 800 for the last 1500ft). Confirm that cruise at F180 is 180 TAS at 75%, ff being 6.6 gph per side. That means all of Europe is within one fueling stop, if you have the bladder for it (AUX tanks).
Also, if I could venture a post on the ME/SE debate. I understand the (old) adage about the second engine flying you to the site of the accident. I just don’t think that it’s as relevant considering the DA42. For one, FADEC removes a few steps from the usual tricky handling in case of failure on TO. It really is only five steps: 1) full power 2) gear up 3) identify 4) power down failed engine 5) master off failed engine. At that point, you climb at 85kias, well above Vmca, trim the rudder. The DA42 normally takes off with no flaps. The props are self-feathering when the engine master is off. There are some non-critical clean-up steps like turning of the alternator and fuel, but just to fly the plane, it is incredibly straight forward. For the other, we are not talking about 350hp on each wing ready to whip you around given the slightest chance. You can fly with an unfeathered prop; not climb so much, but you can keep control. You only have 165hp to fight. So, the well publicized, and in other contexts (Aerostar, Baron, etc.) probably very healthy trepidation about twins is not as much of an issue with the DA42.
So given that, the DA42 twin is really a very effective way to mitigate the not-so-unlikely risk of piston motor stoppage at cruise (over frozen arctic waters, or over the Alps, or in IMC). A BRS parachute will set you down gently in the water or mountains only to fully experience freezing to death. Now that I am flying a DA42, I just would not fly in any of those circumstances without it. A single is a VMC machine to be flown over “landable” terrain. The DA42 is an IMC machine. I’ve flown a lot of IFR in my DA40, but given the service ceiling (160), no icing system, and the single engine, I was much more circumspect about routing and weather than I now am in the DA42.
Theoretically, a single PT6 could trump the DA42 from a risk perspective, and a twin PT6 would be the ultimate, but given my budget, that is all theoretical.
I would say, though, that while easier to handle on one engine than torque rolling a Baron or KA, the DA42 is still a full blown multi engine aircraft & you do require genuine multi proficiency to ensure safe handling during the worst possible moment. I do sim & practical ME refresher every 6 months, and the first try in the sim is usually a fairly humbling experience.
I can confirm the nice performance – last week straight & level on max power (= 84%, ~14.5 gph) at FL180, I topped out at 198 ktas in the DA42-VI.
(…bugs on the wind shield or that damn ADF antenna probably robbed me off the last 2 kts!)
Max speed generally varies around 193-198 ktas. However, I usually throttle back a bit & settle into cruise ~185-190 ktas.
Max power climb rate at Vy between FL170 & FL180 was a nice 900 fpm.
> Max speed generally varies around 193-198 ktas. However, I usually throttle back a bit & settle into cruise ~185-190 ktas.
Do you remember IAS for these TAS speeds?
BTW Here is the article summarizing differences between different versions of DA42 – I don’t know if somebody has already posted it.
The cherry picked IAS topped out at 145 kts, FL180, OAT: -1 C, but generally varied between 141-145.
Talking to several other DA42-VI owners, real life performance generally puts the AFM figures between spot-on, or slightly on the conservative side.
Anyway, a few knots here & there has absolutely tiny impact on the bigger picture. And who knows how much is due to instrument calibration & local atmospheric conditions…
